Jump to content

125th Session - live chat


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You missed the point.

There are plenty of very prestigious international golf tournaments already. They offer the winners big money, not medals. Those tournaments will always be held in higher esteem than the Olympic Games, therefore adding golf to the Olympic program serves no purpose. It's just another big tournament for a bunch of very wealthy players. It's pointless. Plus, the venue is very large and expensive, not to mention environmentally unfriendly due to heavy reliance on pesticides and other chemicals.

I'd much rather see squash.

I think an apt comparison is tennis. Tennis players have the same monetary motivations and the same style of calendar as golfers yet they all stump to the Olympics and play for country. I know that tennis players play for country more often than golfers because of Davis and Fed Cup but it is not like anyone turns down the chance to play in the Ryder or Presidential Cup tournaments either. That said golf's biggest weakness is how congested the top tiers of the sport are with Americans and Brits. To fill out the Olympic tournament right now you have to into the 500's of world ranking and a lot of top end name recognizable players will be left out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so the very obvious has happened. I must say that that alliance Bach apparently had with that sleazy Kuwaiti sheikh has curbed my anticipation of a Bach presidency quite a bit. But I hope nevertheless (or rather, all the more) that it will be a decent and successful presidency for the IOC.

As I said before, I don't see Munich's chances for 2022 harmed - just like Avery Brundage probably wasn't the reason for Detroit's defeats under his reign.

It's interesting, though, that this IOC session made so many conservative decisions: Olympic Games in reliable Tokyo, wrestling kept in the Games programme, and now the most obvious candidate as new president. Not that I'd oppose those decisions, but it's interesting that the IOC seems to give itself a bit of relief from the recent "new frontier" years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were a German city running in this particular session, then yeah, Bach's running would've harmed their chances. But that wasn't the case here. I don't see Detroit's comparison relevant either. Since their campaigns were for Summer Games. While Munich would be a Winter bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were a German city running in this particular session, then yeah, Bach's running would've harmed their chances. But that wasn't the case here. I don't see Detroit's comparison relevant either. Since their campaigns were for Summer Games. While Munich would be a Winter bid.

Why should there be a difference between summer and winter bids in that regard? They are basically Olympic bids following the same voting principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the Summer Olympics are much more prestigious than the Winter Games. Therefore they are much more vigorously sought after for by cities. Not to mention the importance of the topography to the Winter Games, which not many cities around the world have the luxury of having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...