Peter Williams: Golf fits into Games quite nicely, thanks

One of the tenets of journalism is that if you want to get ahead you should never disagree with your editor.

That's because he (and female sports editors are as scarce as a Phoenix match with a conclusive result) makes important decisions about your work. Like if it goes in the paper.

But invoking Voltaire's maxim of not agreeing with what he says although defending his right to say it, I need to rebut some arguments made by Paul Lewis about golf at the Olympic Games.

His main beef about the Royal and Ancient game making it to the dais for 2016 seems to be that the Olympic golf tournament will be neither the pinnacle of the sport, nor include many of the world's best players.

Well guess what? That puts golf in the same category as a host of Olympic endeavours. Of the 302 medal events on the Olympic programme last year, there were upwards of 30 for which the gold medal was not the ultimate achievement.

Let's start with football. It's mostly for under-23 players, so an Olympic title ranks way below a World Cup triumph.

Then there's basketball. At least many of the NBA's best do actually play at the Olympics these days but a gold medal doesn't compare in prestige to an NBA championship ring.

The tennis scenario is well known. But at least tennis was an original Olympic sport in 1896 and on the programme till 1924. It may have been missing for 64 years till it reappeared at Seoul in 1988 but it won't be removed any time soon.

Although New Zealanders delighted in the success of Tom Ashley last year and in numerous sailing medals over the last half century, small boat fleet racing is hardly the ultimate in blue water sport. What's been the high point of Russell Coutts' career - a gold medal or three America's Cups?

And think about cycling. If you struggle to name tennis gold medallists, then what about winners of the road race at the Olympic Games? Winning one of the three Grand Tours in Europe, especially the Tour de France, is far more significant.

Then there's boxing and its 11 titles. It's the only sport in the games where professionals aren't allowed. So as with football and sailing, it's essentially a development event, dominated by juniors.

Get my drift? For many sports and events, the Olympic Games are not the ultimate. Even for those for which a gold medal is the peak, the need to make the games as inclusive as possible means fields are far from the best they could be.

Of the world's 20 fastest 100 metres runners this year, 8 are American and 7 are from Jamaica. But Olympic rules allow only three per country. So if the Olympics were on this year, some of the fastest men on the planet, like Jamaica's Yohan Blake and American Mike Rodgers, both sub 9.95s men, couldn't race Usain Bolt.

It's even worse in the 5000 metres where there are 11 Kenyans and four Ethiopians in the world's fastest 20. Yet while only three from each of those nations go to the games, numerous 13m 40s men from all over get to share the Olympic experience.

On that score, golf's proposed system is among the best. The top 15 players will get a start regardless of where they come from and few Olympic events offer that depth of quality in their fields.

Sorry Paul. I just think that on many levels, golf has every right to be in the Olympic Games. And it's more interesting to watch than shooting.