Discuss
Discuss
A dominant superstar draws attention to even the most boring of sports.
Tiger Woods = Usain Bolt
Parallels wrote:
A dominant superstar draws attention to even the most boring of sports.
Tiger Woods = Usain Bolt
+1
Sports need people with some flair and personality.
Boring Brooks Koepka = Matt Tegenkamp
golfs popularity is declining, not rising
the number of rounds of golf played last year is down, yet again
golf peaked a few years ago
see
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/death-watch-how-much-longer-can-golf-survive-2017-04-18
or
According to the National Golf Foundation, a high of 30.6 million golfers in 2003 had been reduced to 24.7 million by 2014. The number of golfers between ages 18 and 34 has declined by 30 percent over the past 20 years.
lets not follow golfs lead...IMHO
Participation in golf is declining, but its popularity as a spectator sport is increasing. In addition, more people are identifying with the game on a personal level (which is so odd considering rounds are declining so dramatically).
It really shouldn't be that surprising when you consider the amount of people who identify with an NFL team (yet never play football).
Golf has done a great job of rebranding itself, especially to a younger generation. Consider the ads you have seen during this weekend's PGA.
Golf has young, fit, somewhat-handsome guys with whom viewers can identify. That is much different than the days on old, when golf made you think about country clubs and old white guys. Plus, the clothes they wear can be bought at the mall or a local Golf Galaxy and worn to Top Golf on the weekend.
We need more golf courses, fewer tracks and greenways.
Most track observers have been screaming for years that we just keep shooting ourselves in the foot with each and every broadcast. Cameras everywhere in golf. As soon as one guy shoots they cut to another hole and someone else's shot. Not track we sit and talk for eight minutes while watching the hundred meter dash guys get ready to race. Meanwhile there are 2 to 5 other jumps or throws going on that could be being covered. And stop with the terrible interviews after each and every final event. Move on to another performance. Been moaning painfully for 30+ years about this stuff. Cameras in the stands focusing on mom or dad instead of performances on the field and track. Who can forget the great upclose and personal segments from the olympics in the 80's and 90's. Just amazing that anyone watches with how badly it is done.
That we need one of our top stars to marry a hot European wife while also banging dozens of women on the side. Than the wife finds out and attacks him causing him to crash his SUV.
Sand Dunes wrote:
That we need one of our top stars to marry a hot European wife while also banging dozens of women on the side. Than the wife finds out and attacks him causing him to crash his SUV.
I think the rise in popularity is not Tiger, it is Spieth, Fowler, and the other young guys who seem like normal guys you might want to hang out with on the weekend. Tiger is more of the Michael Jordan type of athlete that can bring a major company like Nike into a sport like golf.
I agree with the coverage angle mentioned above, but it would be hard to do that with track. I don't necessarily think there is always something happening on the track. Being a former track athlete, there is A LOT of down time over the course of two or more loooong days. Maybe if they gave the event a half-day head start, and then had editors organizing footage right after the event.... Regardless, it could be done and it would help.
I just think we'll always have a tough time selling running to the general public. I wish I could put a finger on it, but I can't. It really might come down to people thinking it is boring.
The sportfan saying "I could do that" syndrome
shelby steele wrote:
Most track observers have been screaming for years that we just keep shooting ourselves in the foot with each and every broadcast. Cameras everywhere in golf. As soon as one guy shoots they cut to another hole and someone else's shot. Not track we sit and talk for eight minutes while watching the hundred meter dash guys get ready to race. Meanwhile there are 2 to 5 other jumps or throws going on that could be being covered. And stop with the terrible interviews after each and every final event. Move on to another performance. Been moaning painfully for 30+ years about this stuff. Cameras in the stands focusing on mom or dad instead of performances on the field and track. Who can forget the great upclose and personal segments from the olympics in the 80's and 90's. Just amazing that anyone watches with how badly it is done.
This plus- the stupidity of ignoring everyone but the 1st place finisher of a race: The winner crosses the line and the camera stays on him/her while the other runners cross the line.
Same with road races. They also ignore the race other than the top pack.
It IS possible to keep a meet moving along quickly without the down time in between events.
Given that there are probably as many hobbyjoggers as hobbygolfers in the USA, it is odd that golf endorsements are worth orders of magnitude more than running sponsorships
However. recently I saw a race on the TV and the camera was focused on all the back markers passing the bell while missing all the action up front.
I don't know how many times I've seen the camera looking down the field and missing a winning break at the front. That's like missing a goal in a soccer match.
Apparently, people like to watch athletes who have a history of making bad personal life decisions - a history of sordid affairs with porn stars and domestic abuse is a big plus for ratings! All track needs to do is find an athlete that a porn star would find attractive (or have sufficient funds to attract the attention of a porn star) and have them get into a car accident after threatening a loved one with a large stick made of metal. And presto! Instant ratings for years to come....
Folks get fat.
runn wrote:
the stupidity of ignoring everyone but the 1st place finisher of a race
ignoring? They let the top three do victory laps with national flags even in diamond league meets now. It's cheesy and should stop.
What track needs to learn from is not golf, but successful racing sports like NASCAR and cycling. And it's not the points-race thing that makes them popular, as Diamond League has proven, it's simply that they get exposure because of all their sponsors, of which they have a healthy mix instead of a few overlords that aren't actually trying to make money.
For track to grow, it must:
1) Fire NBC.
2) commentators stop pandering to the noobs. That includes using metric, and only metric. A sport without self respect won't get respect from anyone else.
3) secondary sponsors must be able to break in. Nick Symmonds run gum had a few people at USA's a while back. Athletes should be decked out like race cars.
4) race often, to attract more sponsors. No more single-event championships. That failed strategy means there is no meaningful "season," so people pay attention only two weeks of the year, and athletes race sparingly to save themselves up for the big day.
5) to replace championships and points races, set up a cumulative-time system instead. Compete in 10 sanctioned events, fastest total time wins! That would guarantee that nearly every sanctioned event matters. Less DNS, DNF, training through for appearance fees, or rust-busting, which is all terrible for spectators. It would create an evolving narrative full of long-term strategy.
Hardloper wrote:
Given that there are probably as many hobbyjoggers as hobbygolfers in the USA, it is odd that golf endorsements are worth orders of magnitude more than running sponsorships
It is about demographics. Golf must reach a more affluent audience than running does.
Look at the ads on a golf telecast and it will tell you a lot about the viewership.
I am not sure about golf, but when I was in grad school the sports management students surveyed NASCAR attendees. The closer the person followed NASCAR the more likely that the driver could influence people. For instance, if Dick Trickle had a Tide endorsement but switch to endorsing Cheer, a majority of his fans would have switch brands too. That is advertising power.
Does the shoe that your favorite runner wear influence the running shoe you buy?
I have no idea if that is true for golf. If Tiger switched from Nike to adidas, would any golfer who is a Tiger fan switch?
The average golfer spends far more on the sport than the average runner, which drives the existence of far more large equipment manufacturers willing to sponsor people. Go into a golf store someday and compare it to the average running store. Also there is huge money coming from other non-golf corporations who use tournaments as entertaining venues for customers and want a sponsored pro or two for them to hang out with at a hospitality suite or company event.
It seems every sport somebody mentions here is suffering declining participation. Golf is down, football is down, youth soccer is down, triathlons are down, running races are down. Probably has more to do with the draw of electronic devices than anything else.