Thanks, should have clarified: I was referring to the Llano comment.
Thanks, should have clarified: I was referring to the Llano comment.
Over the years I've picked up tape of several old major marathons. I watch them while on the treadmill in the mornings. Coverage of the '85 race was actually quite good, Jones and Benoit might as well have been running in a contemporary field they were so strong. Coverage of Chicago around 2000 was also fine. I'm not familiar with the business side of today's broadcasting, but why they could produce suitable if not great coverage 30yrs ago but struggle now is anyone's guess.
I don't know how realistic Rojo's suggestion is to put cellphones on the lead car, but couldn't something like that be easily streamed as audio to the 1,500 or so people that wake up at 5am to follow this stuff? Add a few plugs for NBC and the race sponsors and run links to the same on the message boards/Twitter feeds. Five years ago it seemed like coverage was trending in this direction since live broadcasts are so comically uninterested in the race itself. Yet nothing. I realize the problem is $$$ and the size of the target market but there has to be a better way. Roadless ultras are now live-tweeted more effectively than today's marathon major. Embarrassing.
Sair wrote:
Rojo, I don't know what you were thinking in posting this or whether you realise how bad it sounds, but it reflects badly on both you and Letsrun (given your role in same, and that you're posting in an official capacity).
P.S. (If you have to post these kind of things, perhaps you could do it under an anonymous pseudonym, to avoid the impression that Letsrun endorses such attitudes.)
Are you so offended by any other stories of gay men or women that make news? Did the Michael Sam story, first openly gay NFLer, reflect bad on the NFL or media in general? We always hear about the 'first' gay person to do something of interest; sports, politics, etc..., why take exception at this?
RoJo Hi!
Thank you for the discussion thread on Chicago.
I haven't seen the women's results. Where are you hiding them? I would like to know how Amy ran and the others of course.
In Joy,
patti
got it....just saw the thread! GO AMY!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!
Sorry if i was unclear,i completely support athletes who come out as gay, and think it is both brave and important, as they are role models and inspiration for younger athletes.
I had a problem with Rojo's comment, which came across to me as a snide attack on gay athletes and indicative of a bigoted attitude.
A better link to the leaderboard
http://results.chicagomarathon.com/2014/?lang=EN_CAP&pid=leaderboard
Bleu wrote:
Come on! The guy set hImself up for it! Athletics is not a platform for politics, religion, race and sexual orientation.
Exactly! He set himself up for being the butt of a (very lame) gay joke by announcing/admitting that he's gay. Hell, it's clear that he doesn't even really care about running; he just trained hard enough to race fast enough to qualify for the elite Chicago field so that he would mince and prance around with his wrists limp for a couple hours and belittle heteros and make Jesus weep.
Honestly, if I knew I would wake up tomorrow as stupid as you are and was powerless to prevent it, I'd swallow cyanide immediately.
Who is Gabe Proctor? Big day at 2:13. Jake Riley nearly got under to 2:12. Curtis as the top American ran a strong race at 2:11 low. Race of the day though was Hastings just nudged out at 5th in the women's overall; 2:27.
Sair wrote:
Sorry if i was unclear,i completely support athletes who come out as gay, and think it is both brave and important, as they are role models and inspiration for younger athletes.
I had a problem with Rojo's comment, which came across to me as a snide attack on gay athletes and indicative of a bigoted attitude.
How did it come across as a snide attack? If an athlete says it, it is courageous, if anyone else says it, it is a bigoted attack.
gotchya.
runnerdave wrote:
I really like Tony Reavis as a commentator. He knows of what he speaks and has a great blog for those interested. Tony - are you reading this? If so, I hope you are able to go back and watch the entire race coverage because it was REALLY BAD. Tony's been writing recently about the difference between marathons run as competition vs. the scripted world-record time trials. But in the end, this race coverage was void of both. They succeeded in missing everything - except the finishes, which we might as well see on some video posted later. I got up at 5:30 on the West Coast and now wish I had slept in. Tony - can you do something about any of this? Sure, the mass media couldn't care less about us serious fans, but do they actually have to cause us pain and torture????
Of the many low points in the coverage was the one, bizarre segment with the dried up incredibly sanctimonious political reporter Carol Marin really aggravated me.
First, what was she doing there?Especially in the lead car? What kind of insight could she possibly provide. Then, she comments for 30 seconds about the Elvis impersonators she seen? WTF?
We're they trying to show viewers what it's like being on shrooms?
grox wrote:
they have been able to show the men quite a lot during the first half, and display useful information about their pace. They stopped doing it just when it mattered. No splits, no time difference between the runners. It was even worse for the women
This is nothing new.
That's how the corporate media has always broadcast distance events.
J.R. wrote:
That's how the corporate media has always broadcast distance events.
And those guys are not the 1%'ers, they are the 0.000001. And they don't compete, they just buy out the rights and then threaten the little players with lawsuits if they try to show their own video clip.
Hey, like obamer said: "You didn't build that".
SO NO MORE EXCLUSIONARY RIGHTS! NO MORE EXCLUSIONARY RIGHTS!
Chicago's the 15th windiest city in the United States. The others are small cities.
The reason many in my generation got interested in running--before starting running--was the New York City marathon telecasts from the early 1980s, when they were on nationally and the cameras--somehow no drones were needed (by the way, the St. Anthony's triathlon this year used a scary-looking drone at the start to photograph the swimmers>not a future I want to be a part of)--managed to stick with the leaders the entire time, while still giving some attention to the field and the crowd and the cityscape. You make the telecast compelling by watching the runners over a long period of time, seeing the pain grow, and following the race very closely so that you come to care about the competition. When you act like the race doesn't matter by continually cutting away, the viewers understand that the race doesn't matter and lose any interest. And believe me, it is not more compelling to watch a weather reporter or crowd interviews. It does have to be said, however, that it would help to have some competitive Americans in there.
Some fine performances from lesser-known Americans today. Llano really went for a fast time, at 2:11 pace until 19, I think, with Curtis. Riley had a fine race.
You are forgetting that back then, the marathon seemed like a crazy long distance and the winners really looked like they were suffering to the end. It was more awe inspiring.
Let's face it, this sport is not as interesting to watch as it used to be. I still watch but I think I have lowered my standards quite a bit.
blowing air wrote:
How did it come across as a snide attack? If an athlete says it, it is courageous, if anyone else says it, it is a bigoted attack.
Are you honestly confused about the difference between coming out as gay and making a joke like rojo's?
Picture this: rojo makes his way to the finish line of the Chicago Marathon to interview Matt Llano after Llano fades badly to a 2:17:43 in his first marathon. rojo says to Llano, either privately or on camera, "Well, at least you set a world gay marathon record! And you know, with all the different divisions they have already, that one has to be coming soon!"
Do you REALLY think rojo would freely say such a thing to Llano? I mean, he posted it publicly, so he would have no trouble expressing it in person -- right?
And if hid did say it, you REALLY think Llano would not get offended, or that if he did, he has no reason to?
If you sincerely answer "yes" to any of these questions, consider putting the barrel a loaded shotgun on your mouth and finding a way to pull the trigger, because you will never contribute positively to a free society.
jjjjjjjjj wrote:
The reason many in my generation got interested in running--before starting running--was the New York City marathon telecasts from the early 1980s, when they were on nationally and the cameras--somehow no drones were needed (by the way, the St. Anthony's triathlon this year used a scary-looking drone at the start to photograph the swimmers>not a future I want to be a part of)--managed to stick with the leaders the entire time, while still giving some attention to the field and the crowd and the cityscape. You make the telecast compelling by watching the runners over a long period of time, seeing the pain grow, and following the race very closely so that you come to care about the competition. When you act like the race doesn't matter by continually cutting away, the viewers understand that the race doesn't matter and lose any interest. And believe me, it is not more compelling to watch a weather reporter or crowd interviews. It does have to be said, however, that it would help to have some competitive Americans in there.
Well said. While it was frustrating to not see Bekele get dropped, the average viewer are those soccer moms in Naperville who are turned in to see how their friends in yoga class are doing in their races.
Mike Adamle, Carol Marin, even Toni Reavis are all in their 60's. I'm not saying they are washed up. But judging from all the clichés they spouted (Joanie was particularly bad with her clichés), I wish some younger blood could have been infused into the mix. The race turned into an afterthought from a production standpoint. I understand the need for cheesy sidebars but not during the second half of the race.
Sign of the Apocalypse? Did they cut away from the men and missed the final break to put up a prepared piece on how the Illinois President of BofA hoped that the race will have 30,000 charity runners in the future?