Hope you're enjoying your Olympic Golf interregnum. The ladies kick into action tonight, so it seems the perfect time to do a deep dive on this though-provoking assessment from Eamon Lynch:
Lynch: There are many criticisms of golf in the Olympics. None of them are medal-worthy.
Hmmm....does it seem like Eamon is calling my name? Amusingly, this showed up in my Twitter feed, which I read as a double-dare:
Though at times I felt personally and deeply attacked by @eamonlynch, it’s hard to disagree with anything said here. 👏🏻 https://t.co/34ZMCW2eDW
— No Laying Up (@NoLayingUp) August 1, 2021
Trust me, it's not that hard at all... Though I'm far more interested in those personal and deep attacks, though I guess that will have to keep for another time.
I should note before the righteous Fisking begins that Eamon has carved out a nice little role for himself as a sort of print Brandel Chamblee, offering highly opinionated hot takes on our game. In general, I find these takes to be uniformly interesting, though not without some obvious misfires. Time to allow Eamon to make his case, but see what you think of his framing device:
Ricky Gervais had a biting comedic commentary that summed up the naysaying and negativity fueling social media. He likened Twitter to a man walking through the town square and seeing aflyer offering guitar lessons. “But I don’t (expletive) want guitar lessons!” the man rages, before dialing the advertised phone number to profanely scream as much at the guitar teacher.
He perfectly captured the essence of social media’s many mediocrities: the narcissistic belief that if it doesn’t matter to them, then it doesn’t matter, period. Hence they respond to tweets or stories with “Who cares?”, demonstrating the degree to which irony escapes the obtuse.
Silly me, I thought Eamon wanted to talk about Olympic golf.... Alas, this will not be the last strawman needlessly sacrificed, but it's a pretty lazy form of debate, the logic of which seems to be:
- There are stupid people on Twitter;
- Criticism of Olympic golf has been made on Twitter, ergo;
- I can dismiss the criticism without engaging the arguments.
A similar sentiment has been in evidence to the halfway point of the Olympic golf competition, though it will likely diminish in the coming days. (Grumblers take predictable shots during men’s events but tone it down lest they be seen as unsupportive of the women’s game.)
Let's see, you're assuming their behavior and then imputing the rationale for behavior which is only assumed. What year of J-school do they teach this?
As it so happens, I am a noted critic of Olympic golf, though fortunately my criticisms appear in the blogospere, not the cesspool of Twitter. I anticipate that my criticisms will be far more muted during the women's competition for two principal reasons. The first relates to the complicated time-space continuum, to wit, that I've already made them and don't need to repeat them. Eamon seems not to understand that, since the men play first (and draw a far larger viewership), it's only logical that critics will make their points then.
But the other point that bears noting is that there are structural factors that make the men's and women's competitions vastly different, with the women's being the far more legitimate and interesting. After three paragraphs of gratuitous attacks on strawmen, you'll be ready for Eamon to engage with the issues of the day. Stay patient, dear Reader, because Eamon has some scores to settle:
There are plenty of fans for whom Olympics golf doesn’t much matter, and in some echo chambers declaring so is as much a groupthink litmus test as dismissing every piece of turf upon which Tom Fazio has set foot. Which isn’t to say their every criticism lacks merit.
Every major institution in golf has falllen in line with the mantra that Olympic Golf is necessary to save our game and that the leading players have an obligation to show up, but Eamon is outraged by the conformity among the critics? Sheesh, that's about as honest as when my leftie friends complain about the right-wing bias of the New York Times.
But I have to give Eamon credit, there's a whole bunch of crazy crammed into this one 'graph:
The most common—and credible—knock on Olympic golf since it was reintroduced in Rio De Janeiro five years ago has been the format: the same bland diet of 72-hole stroke play that fans are force-fed most every other week. There are certainly ways to flavor things, like a mix of stroke play and match play, the introduction of a team component, or mixed-gender teams. Yet even this format criticism is grounded in self-absorption, an assumption that we are the intended audience for Olympic golf. And if we’re bored by 72-hole stroke play, who cares that it might be something new for the uninitiated?
Let's be thankful to Eamon for his dispensation to allow the rubes to actually criticize the format. I for one am relived to have Eamon's permission to offer my thoughts, because it's my duty as a citizen of the People's Republic to only offer pre-approved opinions. In other words, I acknowledge that Oceana has always been at war with East Asia...
But do you discern the disdain in which Eamon holds us. There's a begrudging admission that different flavors exist, but note what's missing... Any sense that the critics, your humble blogger included, just want Olympic golf to be better than it is.
But it's that last part that seems bat-guano crazy as a matter of logic. First and foremost, I'm intrigued to hear that golfers and golf fans aren't the intended audience of Olympic golf, because who else does Eamon imagine is watching? This is an aspect of the experiment that has long amused me, because the Olympics are quite obviously the moment when a non-golfer is least likely to stumble across golf, for the simple reason that he has a smorgasbord of gymnastics, swimming, track & field and other sports to watch.
As for that very last bit, have you lost your mind, Eamon? You think the way to hook a non-golfer is with 72 holes of stroke play? Let them tune in during the first round and feel the energy? The thrill of victory and all that jazz...
I can't help but wonder whether Eamon (an Ulsterman by birth) has ever watched the NCAA's, where the team match-play format has become one of the best events on the golf calendar. One of the primary reasons that we critics want some form of team match play is for this very reason, that the energy will communicate to new viewers in a way that might actually be helpful, as well as entertaining the core audience.
Eamon does dispense with some of the sillier arguments, though always in a way that fails to address any of the underlying factors that are inconvenient:
Other raps against golf in the Games sound hollow.
Some contend that the worthiness of golf as an Olympic sport is determined not by the stature of its competitors but of those who stay home. Thus, when Dustin Johnson sat out these Games (twice) it was entered as evidence that no one else should bother either. This grasping at strawmen mindset would grade restaurants on the views of people who don’t eat there.
Like his failure to credit any good faith to critics, he's now accusing us of attacking the strawmen.... In the same 'graph in which he accuses us of taking our life cues from DJ. As if...
But, Eamon, there were exactly seven of the top twenty players in the world in Tokyo, an inconvenient fact which you've just swept under the rug. Are you the least bit curious as to why DJ didn't come? How about Brooks? Patrick Cantlay? Sergio? Do you have anything to say about the major golf organizations and their refusal to clear the calendar for the Olympics? Nothing to see here, it's all the fault of that Twitter mob...
Eamon goes on with some better results, though only when he's punching down:
In a similar vein, I’ve heard it said that since professionals lack excitement the field should instead be comprised of amateurs. Would the competition in Tokyo have been improved if top-ranked amateur Keita Nakajima was chasing gold rather than his compatriot, Masters champion Hideki Matsuyama? It’s a risible notion. (Most of those who argue for amateurs would struggle to name a single one in the world’s top 10 who doesn’t play at the University of Texas.)
Amateur advocacy also ignores a pertinent fact: the International Olympic Committee admitted golf on condition that the world’s best compete. There was no caveat about the best who don’t get paid. The amateur ideal is a relic of past Olympiads, not an ambition for future ones.
I think he's undoubtedly correct on the first bit, though am I alone in thinking that he's unintentionally undermined his point by the silly swipe at college golf. The NCAA has made their flagship event what the Olympics can only aspire to, and they've done it with the Keita Nakajimas of the world, yet Eamon rejects that model out of hand.
But that second 'graph is one that a thoughtful guy like Eamon should have choked on, because it goes to the heart of the matter. Let's picture those negotiations between Chief Inspector Dawson and the IOC, when the latter makes the case that it only makes sense for golf to be included in the games if we allow the world's best to compete. At that point, Dawson should have made the point that the limitation on field size, combined with the country-centric qualification model, would not produce the desired world-class field.
For years I've been making the case that the men's Olympic field is no stronger than the Hero World Challenge. Timing is everything, but Tiger's silly season event may have just taken the lead:
Tiger's Hero World Challenge set to return in December in the Bahamas, field increased to 20
Which event do we think will have more top twenty players?
But Eamon has a deep stockpile of strawmen:
Another assertion often trafficked is that if a gold medal isn’t the pinnacle of your sport, then your sport doesn’t belong in the Games. It’s an argument based in false equivalency. Novak Djokovic was willing to jeopardize a potential Grand Slam to compete in arduous conditions in Tokyo in pursuit of only the second ‘Golden Slam’ in tennis history. He didn’t pretend Olympic gold is the equal of the four Slams that define greatness in his sport, rather that it’s an exceptional complement to them, a valuable bonus. Golf is no different.
Wimbledon ended on July 11th and the U.S. Open doesn't start until August 30th. See any difference in the schedules, Eamon? The people telling us that Olympic golf is important are unwilling to make any sacrifices to support the effort, so forgive the players from making their own decisions.
You'd think Eamon might have exhausted the supply of strawmen, but can someone explain to me what this anecdote is meant to convey?
As the final round began in Tokyo, I asked Ty Votaw, vice-president of the International Golf Federation and a leading advocate for golf’s return to the Games, how week one had gone. He mentioned that IOC president Thomas Bach walked with golf industry leaders during the third round on Saturday. Waiting on a tee, England’s Paul Casey wandered over to chat. After Casey played on, Votaw turned to Bach and asked if an athlete had ever chatted with him during their actual competition.
“That has never happened to me in my life,” the Olympic chief replied. Bach won’t be the only one who leaves Tokyo with a positive memory of what happened at Kasumigaseki Country Club.
That's your killer argument? Lest you think that an odd appeal to authority, Eamon isn't finished:
The function of the Olympics is not simply excellence but evangelism. It’s a forum to spread the gospel of golf, and that by definition means it’s not about core fans or countries. Governments often favor Olympic sports when it comes to public funding support, and that alone is reason enough to favor including it.
We can’t yet say whether golf in the Olympics grows the game. Perhaps someday we’ll learn that Rio or Tokyo inspired an unlikely medalist from a less celebrated golfing nation. (We’ve already seen one from Slovakia!)
Psst, Eamon, are you aware that Mr. Sabbatini isn't actually from Slovakia? So, apparently the purpose of Olympic golf is to allow enterprising players to game the qualification system to create the illusion of growth in the game in unlikely locales... Got it.
Eamon's rousing coda unsurprisingly circles back to his guitar riff:
What we do know is that golf in the Olympics does no harm, and there’s no legitimate reason to argue against its inclusion other than sheer contrariness. If you don’t care about it, fair enough. Jog on and let those who do care enjoy it. Don’t be like the dude who doesn’t want guitar lessons.
That's known as doubling down on stupid. But Olympic golf actually weakened the field for the Open Championship, so when you say it does no harm, that's not exactly a complete picture. But again, people are arguing that it should be made more interesting, not for its exclusion.
First and foremost, no one that I know of is arguing against golf's inclusion in the games, but rather are advocating to improve the product so that it will be retained in the games. As constituted, the golf competition is not sustainable because the top men players have little reason to make the sacrifices necessary. Eamon thinks that the way to fix that is to call them names, and I'm sure that will affect DJ and Brooks deeply...
I'll just work in one more take, before sending you on your way. Via Geoff we have a more skeptical take on the Olympic golf experiment, one that Eamon might want to absorb (and from the unlikeliest of sources):
The Olympics in Tokyo already feel as if they are taking place on a series of television soundstages, devoid of fans and atmosphere, inside and out. But no place has felt as disconnected, physically and spiritually, as the men’s golf event, held at an exclusive private club more than an hour’s drive from the city center and contested mostly by spectacularly rich and famous touring pros.
Back in Tokyo on Sunday, near the heart of the pandemic-muted Olympics, medals were awarded to mostly unsung athletes in sports like fencing, swimming, weight lifting, gymnastics and BMX. In one BMX discipline on Friday, a gold medalist from Britain was competing only because she had crowdfunded her training.
As you'll have quickly surmised, this author has his own strawmen to dispense but, as you'll see below, he at least touches on the underlying issue:
The tournament took a zany turn at the end, with a seven-man playoff necessary to determine the sole recipient of the bronze medal. Eventually, C.T. Pan of Taiwan claimed it in a head-to-head battle with Collin Morikawa of the United States.
Golf was reintroduced for the 2016 Rio Games after a 112-year absence. Justin Rose won for the men, Inbee Park for the women, but it was hardly popular and not particularly memorable.
One belated Olympics later, it still feels like a strange fit.
It is an awkward fit, and our governing bodies seem determined to deny that critical fact. They also deny that the field is too weak (at least on the men's side) to be taken seriously as a competition, so we're left with nothing to draw our interest.
I also see a parallel with the FedEx Cup, where the Tour's inability to decide between a season-long competition and a final day shoot-out has resulted in an incoherent and inconsequential competition that only bores us. The cry in the dark from your humble blogger and others is simply a plea to at least make it fun. But that appears to be a bridge too far for Eamon and our game's leadership.
The women kick off tonight, though I don't have the intended preview post in me after my Eamon-inspired rant. I've got early starts the next couple of days, but will pick up the thread at some point later in the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment