True or false: Christine Brennan says Americans care more about swimming and gymnastics than track and field

rojo wrote:

I was reading a column in USA Today by Christine Brennan where she says she wants the Russian track and field athletes banned from the Olympics and was struck by this line:

Christine Brennan wrote:

If it does, Russia will not be allowed to field a team in what the Olympic world calls “athletics,” the track and field events that are still regarded as the marquee Olympic discipline by much of the world even though Americans care more for swimming and gymnastics these days.

Is that true? Do Americans pay more attention to swimming and gymnastics than track and field? Can anyone (Wejo i know are good at this) look up the TV ratings for the various events in 2012 and see which sports got the higher ratings?

How could one prove or disprove her statement?

I don't have data, but I would guess the 3 are about equal. Americans who enjoy watching the Olympics will watch major moments in all 3 sports. Outside of the U.S. track & field beats swimming and gymnastics by a long shot.

Here is bunch of the data from 2012:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/08/13/london-olympics-on-nbc-is-most-watched-television-event-in-u-s-history/

What Americans care more about isn't so much gymnastics and swimming as it is soccer, basketball, and of course women's beach volleyball. As with Canada, the only track event US people care about is the men's 100 meters. Nobody gives a damn about distance events, which in my opinion should be kicked out of track and field and the Olympics for (1) the huge amount of doping exposed last year; and (2) the total lack of interest.

This can't be a serious question.

Gymnastics has tonnes of TV coverage and fans, including mostly people who have never been in the sport.

Swimming is much bigger than track/running for fans, too.

Track is on the level of badminton at best.

Show people a picture of Michael Phelps and probably somewhat over 90% would identify it correctly. Show people a picture of Galen Rupp and what percentage would identify it correctly?

Having said that, I realize that probably no other swimmer could be identified by many people either.

KAMWARRIOR wrote:

This can't be a serious question.

Gymnastics has tonnes of TV coverage and fans, including mostly people who have never been in the sport.

Swimming is much bigger than track/running for fans, too.

Track is on the level of badminton at best.

No it is a serious question.

I get gymnastics. I don't accept that swimming is more popular than track without stats. It may be simply because of Michael Phelps. If Usain Bolt was Carl Lewis, then track would be way bigger. So 2020 may be the best way to compare track versus swimming.

If Vashti Cunningham makes the US team, she will be everywhere leading up to the games. The name recognition of her father will help athletics and her marketability for the US TV people. High jump is easy to understand, exciting to watch, and the athletes very photogenic.

ID THIS wrote:

Show people a picture of Michael Phelps and probably somewhat over 90% would identify it correctly. Show people a picture of Galen Rupp and what percentage would identify it correctly?

Having said that, I realize that probably no other swimmer could be identified by many people either.

Whoever the swimming equivalent of Galen Rupp would be (it's certainly not Michael Phelps), close to zero percent would be able to identify him.

The track equivalent of Michael Phelps is Usain Bolt.

For track to be as popular as women's (girl's) gymnastics, Vashti, Candace Hill and Ajee would all have to win gold, and on a repeatable basis. Possible (especially with no Russians) but very unlikely.

Old Ultra Guy wrote:

If Vashti Cunningham makes the US team, she will be everywhere leading up to the games. The name recognition of her father will help athletics and her marketability for the US TV people. High jump is easy to understand, exciting to watch, and the athletes very photogenic.

The Animal Within wrote:

If you are referring to tv ratings... Maybe.

But track & field is the most participated sport at the high school level. Our state meet puts 14,000+ in the stands annually. The only sport that comes close to this is wrestling.

At my school more students come watch home dual meets for track than swimming.

This kids high school represents all of America. End of thread

rojo wrote:

KAMWARRIOR wrote:

This can't be a serious question.

Gymnastics has tonnes of TV coverage and fans, including mostly people who have never been in the sport.

Swimming is much bigger than track/running for fans, too.

Track is on the level of badminton at best.

No it is a serious question.

I get gymnastics. I don't accept that swimming is more popular than track without stats. It may be simply because of Michael Phelps. If Usain Bolt was Carl Lewis, then track would be way bigger. So 2020 may be the best way to compare track versus swimming.

As a former college swimmer, there's several reasons that this may be the case (I don't know the stats). Both swimming and gymnastics start the athletes out much earlier in life than track, for a multitude of reasons. There are large numbers of clubs for each sport all over the country that have age groupers competing as young as 6. This is uncommon in track. Its not uncommon to see age group record holders in swimming holding records from age 6 all the way up through 15-18, then as collegians and beyond. The patents are much more engaged, and at a much earlier age than in track. And that likely helps the ratings,

OOPS parents

I don't know about America, but in the UK I'm sure athletics is far more popular on TV than swimming or gymnastics.

I'm a long time runner and love running more than anything else.

However, now in my 70s I am now swimming more than running, for several reasons. For one, swimming is much easier on my body but that's not the main reason, which is that swimmers are supportive of each other, there is much better camaraderie, and not the negativity that has invested the running world lately.

For this latter reason, I am now going to swimming forums, as this one turns my stomach.

Brennan is a self-important goof who is part of a cadre of "elite" journalists who don't have the ability to process track and field. Among that group it is trendy to dismiss T&F as a dying sport, etc, etc. All they want to write about is scandal.

They are very negative people until the discussion turns to wine and exotic/expensive food at the many restaurants worldwide that they have enjoyed while covering the sports they don't understand.

TV viewing numbers for the Olympics are almost wholly a product of what NBC puts on most frequently and pushes most vigorously. Otherwise, the average American wouldn't watch swimming at all, because it's not on TV. Ever.

No one cares about swimming, a sport that is virtually impossible to watch and which NBC, with all of its technology, hasn't figured out how to show. If not for electronic timing , no one would know who'd gotten the medals. On the "men's" side, it's totally bereft of charismatic figures. Do you recall attempts made to make Ryan Lochte, the single dullest and dimmest athlete on the planet, appear to be interesting?

But white suburban American kids in their teens or early 20s are winning medals, and it doesn't matter if they're actually Australian, they're STILL white suburban kids. That means something to a 12 or 13-year-old who watches it on TV with his mom and dad. There's NBC's viewership.

More actual adults care about track & field, but it's not "fun" for the entire family.

I'm going to just concede that more Americans would rather watch (female) gymnasts than track and field.

As for swimming, I would bet it gets better ratings in huge part because of American dominance, but also because it has more interesting coverage. In track, most events shorter than 800 meters are about 90% fluff and then 10% race time. Longer events are seldom shown in their entirety and tactics take away much of the interest for the average viewer (runners aren't running fast or world records). There is something compelling about the swimming coverage with graphics and the clocks that show where they are relative to world records-- which are frequently set in the Olympics, unlike in track. Also, the nature of swimming allows one great swimmer to appear in multiple events so that people get to know them.

I don't think it has anything to do with what people consider to be the merits of either sport.

You could take a survey. Stand outside the most-major mall in the 7 largest American cities/metropolitan areas. At each mall, ask 100 people, any age 13 and up, to participate in a 3-question survey: (1.) Rank these 3 sports in the order you care about them: track & field, gymnastics, swimming. (2.) State your age. (3.) State your gender.

Not so sure about this. The sports can be seen live as they happen on NBC or an NBC-affiliated channel, and select sports can be seen on the nightly 3-hr. (or is it 4-hr.?) re-cap. Swimming, T&F, and gymnastics all make it to some of the nightly re-caps for a few of their events, and sometimes 2 or 3 of them make it to the same night's re-cap. So if you pulled the ratings for the nightly re-caps, you wouldn't know which event people were watching for.

Nope. Badminton is my 3rd favorite sport to play, and I've been trying to watch it on prime-time (nighty re-cap) for the last 3 Olympics, but that hasn't happened. Track & field, however, always makes it to prime-time.

Almost right.

For Americans to care about an athlete, the athlete has to be one of the following:

~ dominant

~ American

~ good-looking

~ charismatic

~ have a great story

The more that an athlete has, the better. If Americans care or can easily be made to care about an athlete, they will care about the event.

Does anyone really think that the vault in gymnastics is something that Americans are itching to see? Yet it was marketed heavily at the 2012 Olympics...because McKayla Maroney was the best vaulter on the planet, by a huuuge margin. She was dominant. It also helped that she was very cute, but this went un-acknowledged due to her age and wasn't necessary. What was necessary was dominance.

During the 2004 Olympics, I remember a featurette on Hicham El Guerrouj preceeding the prime-time (re-)airing of the men's 1500 race. Note that El G is not American, and is not particularly good-looking. Yet he was dominant in the 1500m distance. It's true that the time-delay allowed NBC to know the outcome of the race before they aired it, so they knew to show footage of the winner, to establish that he was the 'favorite' walking in. However, the featurette included footage that was shot long before the Athens Olympics began. So that means that NBC was considering featuring him before any competition had begun. Why? He had a great story (impoverished upbringing, falter in Atlanta, came up short / boxed in Sydney), he made himself available for interview (charismatic), and he was dominant.

Dominant. This is why people love watching Usain Bolt. He does have charisma, but charisma alone isn't enough to keep interest going for years and years, esp. if the athlete is not American. Dominance is the key.

Mark my words -- Genzebe Dibaba and Mo Farah will each receive more coverage by NBC in prime-time during the 2016 Olympics than Jenny Simpson, Shannon Rowbury, Matt Centrowitz, and Galen Rupp combined.

If the U.S. produced an unassailably dominant T&F athlete, that athlete and his/her event would be splashed across all coverage.

I have always believed that the 1972 Olympics was the beginning of the decline of T&F. I remember first watching the Tokyo games on TV and prior to Munich T&F was always the marquee event of every Olympics. Gymnastics was just a sidebar event.

That changed in 1972 with Olga Korbut. There was this cute little girl doing these risky moves on the high bar and people were just fascinated. She became a huge celebrity and NBC probably realized that the human interest angle was much more interesting to the average person. Gymnastics personalizes the competitor (e.g. young female competitors) much more effectively than track events.

In that Olympics there was also massive coverage of Mark Spitz chasing 7 golds. Of course it did not help that the U.S. sprinters missed their heat and did not run in the finals.

asdfgh wrote:

ID THIS wrote:

Show people a picture of Michael Phelps and probably somewhat over 90% would identify it correctly. Show people a picture of Galen Rupp and what percentage would identify it correctly?

Having said that, I realize that probably no other swimmer could be identified by many people either.

Whoever the swimming equivalent of Galen Rupp would be (it's certainly not Michael Phelps), close to zero percent would be able to identify him.

The track equivalent of Michael Phelps is Usain Bolt.

Galen Rupp = Connor Jaeger

The general public does not know who either is.