This thread was started about an emergency meeting being called by Michael Johnson with the contracted racers of Grand Slam Track today. Matt Lawton of the Times of London then reported on the emergency meeting being called here (story updated to reflect the LA meet has been cancelled)
And Front Office Sports was the first to report The Grand Slam Track LA meet has been cancelled. Story here.
Agreed. Half the posters here hate running and will tear down everything. It is weird that a running site has so many people that absolutely hate running.
I really enjoyed watching GST this year. I was sad to see the format cut to two days and drop the distance group to one event. If the Tour de France can go for several weeks for hours a day with little happening, a track meet can cover 3 days. With streaming you can pretty much watch it whenever you want anyway. It did really feel like they hit their stride at Franklin Field. It is pretty surprising that the final meet was canceled.
Either there was permit/logistics problems or money problems. I’m sure we will eventually find out the actual reason at some point.
Maybe I'm a bit older, but in the 70's and early 80's there were 3 consistently sold out indoor meets (Sunkist, Jack in Box, Times) and regular full houses at the Pepsi meets and UCLA/USC dual meets at Drake. SoCal high school finals would draw 19k at Cerritos. It's been downhill since the 84 Olympics.
I somewhat disagree with saying track isn't unique because "a lot of people bowl every day but none of those people watch pro bowling."
Yes, the people who bowl every day are the same as "runners" who go to run club once a month. But running has a far higher number of people who run consistently, constantly trying to improve on their times (all the way to 4+ hour marathoners) yet don't follow the sport. People who go bowling with their friends on a Friday night aren't going every week trying to improve their score like so many hobby joggers do
Every popular league has been built from the bottom up, not the top down.
Look into the histories and origins of:
Real Madrid New York Yankees Montreal Canadiens Green Bay Packers
or any random team from the very start of a major sports league
Most of these were local clubs with the backing of a benefactor. Then those local clubs competed against one another, formed leagues, then those leagues combined and grew into the behemoths of today.
I'm just not sure that pouring money into huge national meets at the top is the route to go. But I'm also not sure that anyone looking to "save track" is interested in the long-term commitment that history has shown to be the best way to generate a popular sports league.
My favorite thing about GST is that it "forced" 1500 guys to run the 800, and vice versa.
But overall, terrible.
Slow, dark, musty coverage. No field events (which exist for their own sake, but also kill downtime). The "400 but for 400 hurdle runners" type races were confusing and awkward. Plenty of weak commentary. Boring long distance events. The WORST results page I've ever seen, which was fixated too much on "overall winner" as opposed to the races actually taking place. Stretched out too long over multiple days.
Pretty much worse than Diamond League in every way possible.
Watching the 800 guys run the 1500 was amazing. Watching the 1500guys run the 800 was a nothing burger for me after about 2 races.
I agree it was the worse results page in history.
One other thing that drove my buddy who attend in person nuts was he said they bizarrely introduced every runner in every race two times. HE didn't understand why.
I'm still stunned they didn't have a graphic and innovative way to show you the slam winner on tv. Hell have the day 1 winner wear a yellow bib.
Maybe I'm a bit older, but in the 70's and early 80's there were 3 consistently sold out indoor meets (Sunkist, Jack in Box, Times) and regular full houses at the Pepsi meets and UCLA/USC dual meets at Drake. SoCal high school finals would draw 19k at Cerritos. It's been downhill since the 84 Olympics.
Correct. And what did those meets prove? You can't make money without tv money unless you have a very generous title sponsor.
They had nice crows but were only viable when like the local newspaper propped them up as title sponsor.
I took my son to the Harlem Globtrotters. Several thousand showed up. But without tv money, they are keeping expenses down, down down. They aren't paying their athletes 100k a night.
Every popular league has been built from the bottom up, not the top down.
Look into the histories and origins of:
Real Madrid New York Yankees Montreal Canadiens Green Bay Packers
or any random team from the very start of a major sports league
Most of these were local clubs with the backing of a benefactor. Then those local clubs competed against one another, formed leagues, then those leagues combined and grew into the behemoths of today.
I'm just not sure that pouring money into huge national meets at the top is the route to go. But I'm also not sure that anyone looking to "save track" is interested in the long-term commitment that history has shown to be the best way to generate a popular sports league.
Real Madrid had the backing of a fascist dictatorship, so not QUITE the same as the others...
I disagree. The DL can present it's product so much better. It has the advantage of having great crowds at most meets so it's a good spectacle. However, there's so much it can improve. The 2 hour broadcast we get in the UK has no analysis at all. It's just event after event. There's space for at least some studio analysis. They could also do more with on screen data, and even just basic things like letting viewers know what the pacing lights are set at. Yes, I know I can go find that, and other data on the website. But viewers shouldn't have to, no other sport expects viewers to do homework while they're watching. Finally, the insistence on pacing each and every distance race is boring. There's a place for paced races, but there's also a place for just racing.
The thing is, the DLs issues are easily fixable. GST has a much more fundamental problem because of it's insistence on trying to make a market for track in the US. Right now, Americans don't want to pay to watch a pro athletics meet and extending the meet over two days and introducing a half-baked doubling concept hasn't changed that. The question they should be asking is what can they learn from Brussels and Zurich? Packed out meets that don't rely on a homegrown star to draw crowds.
GST seemed doomed from the beginning, for the simple reason that Johnson had no long term plan for carrying the league for the many years it would take to be self sustaining. This was nothing more than a cash grab by Johnson. There are lots of examples of failed sports leagues in the US, a real business plan would have baked in at least 5 years of loss if there was intention to keep GST track going. It likely would have taken over a decade before GST was profitable. By most accounts it took MLS over 20 years to become profitable, and that's probably the most successful example of creating a sports league in the US ever.
How is it a cash grab? Who grabbed the cash and where did it come from?
It's funny, while all this GST nonsense was going on, we had an amazing DL meet over in Oslo, with a great crowd, atmosphere and some tremendous performances on both the track and in the field.
Genuine & unprovocative question to American posters: what is the issue with Track & Field in your country that needs fixing & do any of you have any ideas how this can be done? Is it really that doomed? Is it simply lack of 'TV' exposure? Are the meets not attracting top stars? Are the tracks in weird & wonderful, hard-to-get-to locations? Are there just too many other big sports to compete with?
It's funny, while all this GST nonsense was going on, we had an amazing DL meet over in Oslo, with a great crowd, atmosphere and some tremendous performances on both the track and in the field.
Genuine & unprovocative question to American posters: what is the issue with Track & Field in your country that needs fixing & do any of you have any ideas how this can be done? Is it really that doomed? Is it simply lack of 'TV' exposure? Are the meets not attracting top stars? Are the tracks in weird & wonderful, hard-to-get-to locations? Are there just too many other big sports to compete with?
Is it possible that GST looked to capitalise on the DL being "hidden" on FloTrack. This would almost justify their claim that they were "saving track" in the US, simply by putting it back on TV.
Disclaimer: I have no idea how many US households receive "The CW", but it's surely more than have a FloTrack sub.
The more I think about it, the whole thing is like Fyre Festival. Crass, bloated, ill-thought out, and you're just left hoping there's a fun documentary to laugh about it all.
GST failed on its own terms. It said it was going to revolutionise track. It did not. The only innovation of sorts, the doubling, did not work. Not only did it not produce exciting drama, it killed off the league at inception by being a barrier to recruiting many of the best athletes in the world. It was an idea that should have been laughed out of the first production meeting.
It seems silly to say that track cannot work in the US when you think about how many things GST got wrong. Putting on four events could work. Let's say -
- no doubling. Bang, you get some bigger names
- one night only. Bang, you likely get more bums on seats rather than spread across three days
- some field events, let's say one jump and one throw per meet. Bang, some of the biggest stars in both the US and the world are now there, the in-stadium atmosphere and optics are better.
- sensible prize money that incentivises good racing. Pay everyone a base rate to be there and then it's a prize for WINNING and winning only. It's not a championship, there are no silver and bronze medals. $50-100k for the win, $5k appearance fee and if you don't finish in the top 3-4 then you're not invited back for a while.
- I would junk the racers and challengers concept altogether. Just bring together good quality fields based on who is in form at the time. You could perhaps offer an incentive to finish high up the field and guarantee an invite to the next meet.
- only include events where we know there is good competition. Sorry Sydney but if you want in, you need to race the 400m against Paulinho. There isn't a 400mh option.
I'm sure there's a lot more, but just doing the above would have perhaps given it a chance, and you go from there.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
It's funny, while all this GST nonsense was going on, we had an amazing DL meet over in Oslo, with a great crowd, atmosphere and some tremendous performances on both the track and in the field.
Genuine & unprovocative question to American posters: what is the issue with Track & Field in your country that needs fixing & do any of you have any ideas how this can be done? Is it really that doomed? Is it simply lack of 'TV' exposure? Are the meets not attracting top stars? Are the tracks in weird & wonderful, hard-to-get-to locations? Are there just too many other big sports to compete with?
Is it possible that GST looked to capitalise on the DL being "hidden" on FloTrack. This would almost justify their claim that they were "saving track" in the US, simply by putting it back on TV.
Disclaimer: I have no idea how many US households receive "The CW", but it's surely more than have a FloTrack sub.
Per Google, the CW is available as a broadcast channel supposedly in 100% of households. Granted people who've cut the cord may not have local channels, but the broadcasts were readily available.
I somewhat disagree with saying track isn't unique because "a lot of people bowl every day but none of those people watch pro bowling."
Yes, the people who bowl every day are the same as "runners" who go to run club once a month. But running has a far higher number of people who run consistently, constantly trying to improve on their times (all the way to 4+ hour marathoners) yet don't follow the sport. People who go bowling with their friends on a Friday night aren't going every week trying to improve their score like so many hobby joggers do
Yes, and with the exception of the occasional Beer Mile, runners don’t consume alcohol while running. 😂
Running is by far the most popular recreational sport. There’s no close second. Yet, pro running is barely a sport.
I somewhat disagree with saying track isn't unique because "a lot of people bowl every day but none of those people watch pro bowling."
Yes, the people who bowl every day are the same as "runners" who go to run club once a month. But running has a far higher number of people who run consistently, constantly trying to improve on their times (all the way to 4+ hour marathoners) yet don't follow the sport. People who go bowling with their friends on a Friday night aren't going every week trying to improve their score like so many hobby joggers do
Yes, and with the exception of the occasional Beer Mile, runners don’t consume alcohol while running. 😂
Running is by far the most popular recreational sport. There’s no close second. Yet, pro running is barely a sport.
And that might be the reason that track is not bigger in America. If you gave me a full uniform and I prepared for months, there's still no way I could ever play in a NFL game or EPL match.
But if you give me six months and a pair of shoes, and I pay the $80, I can run in the same marathon as Dakota Popehn or Eliud Kipchoge.
I am frustrated that they cancelled the New York and LA Grand Prix for Grand Slam, then cancelled Grand Slam too. Those were solid meets that could get good fields, and now they’re gone without any replacement.
Yes, and with the exception of the occasional Beer Mile, runners don’t consume alcohol while running. 😂
Running is by far the most popular recreational sport. There’s no close second. Yet, pro running is barely a sport.
And that might be the reason that track is not bigger in America. If you gave me a full uniform and I prepared for months, there's still no way I could ever play in a NFL game or EPL match.
But if you give me six months and a pair of shoes, and I pay the $80, I can run in the same marathon as Dakota Popehn or Eliud Kipchoge.
It might not be fair but people judge athletes by outward appearances.
An NFL tight end is impressive looking. A 5K pro is not.
- sensible prize money that incentivises good racing. Pay everyone a base rate to be there and then it's a prize for WINNING and winning only. It's not a championship, there are no silver and bronze medals. $50-100k for the win, $5k appearance fee and if you don't finish in the top 3-4 then you're not invited back for a while.
You think you're going to get Noah, Fred, Kishane, and Trayvon to show up for $5k appearance and a $50,000 1st place ?