I don't understand people who think golf is boring, to be honest. To each their own.
If you don’t know anything about club selection, spins, lies and how difficult chipping and putting are, it’s pretty boring. I found golf to be unwatchable until I took it up for a few years.
NASCAR too. I don't follow it at all, but I went to a race once and can totally understand why other people are fans... listening to the mid-race chatter between driver and crew, great camera angles from the cars, etc. NASCAR hurt by all their forced woke nonsense recently, however. And many fans never forgave them for playing along with the Bubba Wallace noose hoax.
It must not be much of sport if people bailed out over politics.
People didn't actually bail over politics. Viewership had already been trending down for several years for the noose incident. Just like most televised sports - except the NFL which manages to do great in spite of all the whiners like HK claiming they don't watch anymore because of Kap.
Golf has massive amateur participation numbers. There are about 25 million amateur golfers in the US alone. And most are upper income earners who spend a lot on greens fees, equipment, lessons, gear, etc. So, golf is flush with cash from tons of sponsors and gets great ratings from a very deep fan base. Golf has embraced bro culture with long bombers like Brooks and Bryson and sports betting. Golf also has excellent youth outreach with PGA junior league, drive, chip and putt competitions, little linksters and tons of non-PGA sponsored youth golf programs. So, golf's fan base is not ageing at all and is actually getting younger.
Complaining about the popularity of baseball in the US is like complaining about the popularity of soccer in Europe. Baseball is the most American sport and everyone plays it. Similar dynamic with baseball and youth. Participation is very high and stuff like the LLWS on TV really drive tons of kids into becoming life long fans.
T&F is moving in the exact opposite direction. Youth programs are non-existent. The running boom was almost completely captured by the participation/charity run industry and yielded no expansion in the fan base. HS and college T&F has done a very good job at developing future pros and distance running has come a long way. But T&F has no participant base like golf and baseball. It has to bring something to the table that appeals to all comers instead of relying on a participant fan base. From WWII through the cold war, nationalism provided the motivation for people to follow T&F. It was the marquee Olympic event back in the day. But the boycotts of the 1980s and the end of the cold war ended that. Then, cable and now internet has brought a pile on of all sorts of new sports into media markets (X-games, pro soccer, poker, E sports and even professional cornhole). Since then, T&F has just been running on fumes.
Horrendous broadcast and announcing is a major issue. You look at the Olympics the sports marquee event and somehow no one checked to make sure Carter was fluent in English before letting her on national TV for multiple days. We know what works just put Ato out there. Yet he routinely gets sidelined for garbage.
Also the coverages treat the athletes as human interest stories rather than athletes. In popular sports the athletes are always athletes first.
When I watch golf, soccer, basketball, baseball and tennis I can appreciate the skills of the pros - "how the hell did they do that?" - watching Tiger, Jordan, Ronaldo and Federer is like watching artists at work.
Running is.... just running. To the vast majority of people there's no 'wow'. No skill, no artistry, and because distance running is in groups, there's no visible difference in speed either. There's just nothing going on until the last minute or two.
It's very impressive but it's not a spectator sport.
When I watch golf, soccer, basketball, baseball and tennis I can appreciate the skills of the pros - "how the hell did they do that?" - watching Tiger, Jordan, Ronaldo and Federer is like watching artists at work.
Running is.... just running. To the vast majority of people there's no 'wow'. No skill, no artistry, and because distance running is in groups, there's no visible difference in speed either. There's just nothing going on until the last minute or two.
It's very impressive but it's not a spectator sport.
Yep. Great performances aren't visually engaging. A 12:30 5k really doesn't look that different from a 17:30 5k. They're both just...running. A die-hard runner knows the difference, but a non-runner, or just a casual runner, doesn't. It all looks the same to them. And if you didn't have a clock to look at, it would look the same to you, too.
Track and field and road racing WERE popular in America. The roadmap is there. What made it so popular in earlier decades?? Relatable stars who win. Hardcore track fans alongside casual fans loved 18 year old Gerry Lindgren beating the Soviet stars in 1964. They loved Billy Mills' upset win in Tokyo. They loved Jim Ryun, Pre, Frank Shorter, Bill Rodgers, Joan Benoit. Even the Dan vs Dave decathlon rivalry went mainstream in 1992. Golf got popular and captured the public imagination starting with Francis Ouimet, then Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and of course at its zenith of popularity with Tiger Woods at his peak 20 years ago. Baseball was far more popular in the 80s and 90s with too many fun, quirky, relatable stars to count. Track completely lacks relatable American stars who win on the global level. Galen Rupp was almost at the top. Had he captured a 10k gold in London, a marathon gold in Rio, and hit a 1:59 time trial in the streets of Portland, he'd have been a gigantic crossover star. Someone like Nick Symmonds had the charisma to be a big star had he won a couple global golds and been the first man under 1:40. Americans haven't had a consistent winner in the middle-long distances in a very long time. The brutal truth is that no one, with the exception of the hardest of the hard core track fans, wants to watch a bunch of random Africans go 1-10 in the New York Marathon, or Boston, or Peachtree, or the Olympic 5000/10,000. Maybe this kid Cade Flatt will bust through, or Colin Sahlman, or Abby Steiner, or Elle Purrier, or Erriyon Knighton will be the American Usain Bolt in 2024. Absent a big breakout star who truly dominates, say an American Jakob Ingebrigtsen, track will remain a niche sport and perhaps wither further.
THIS IS IT!!! Yes!!
And I will add:
1. They wouldn't have to WIN on the global scale if NBC didn't say stupid things like- ... settled for silver ...
Making finals at the global level is an amazing accomplishment.
2. How often does Rupp race? Rarely.
Even our mid distance stars- they were in the public eye racing more often and time wasn't relevant. If Lindgren beat the Soviets, he won, it didn't matter that it was a "slow" race.
3. The announcers called the races. I always reference the Ryan/Liquari Dream Mile in Philadelphia in 1971.
Just watch that race- it wasn't too crowded like so many races now and they called the race.
4. When calling a race call the secondary positions- watch a Formula 1 race- they'll be looking at the "battle for 8th/10th/15th ...".
5. And for CHRIST'S SAKE- show every runner crossing the line with a running clock.
People are watching who are interested in the runner in 7th- it's their relative, former teammate, someone from their hometown, their state, their country.
In the end the average viewer understands how they cannot hit a 98mph fastball or play as well as a tour level golf pro.
Running, especially distance events, look slow to the viewer and they don’t understand how fast or hard it is. they all won ribbons in elementary school.
Worse, today running is nothing but a casual sport. I’d say it’s more participation than sport with the number of 5+ hour marathoners. You can finish a marathon in 16-20 weeks and they equate that with Kipchoge.
And people here used to mock Larry Rawson for saying- go to your local high school track ...
I know someone who did that and gained an appreciation for distance running when he couldn't run 200 meters in 37 seconds and just watched a bunch of guys run that pace and faster for 26.2 miles.
5. And for CHRIST'S SAKE- show every runner crossing the line with a running clock.
People are watching who are interested in the runner in 7th- it's their relative, former teammate, someone from their hometown, their state, their country.
This one in particular. It is a huge annoyance that tv cameras ALWAYS fail to show the top ten finishers. In a 1500m, it takes all of 8 seconds and they can't even do that. Marathons are terrible too. Camera focuses on the African guy hugging his wife, and ignores the epic battle for fourth between two Americans both about to run a PB.
The Olympics and Worlds limit countries to three athletes per event, instead of all the best that year. The eight men on the starting block at an Olympic 100m final are not the 8 fastest in the world.
Good thought that running is just running. I find myself fascinated watching the pole vault, because I can't imagine clearing a 5' bar, let alone something approaching 15 or 20'. Is an athletic feat that impresses me more than a guy running 25 laps quickly.
Each Runner generally only runs One race so it's hard for the viewer to connect with runners because they see them do One race and then they're gone and then there's new runners
It’s the only real coed sport. Imagine if baseball games were 18 innings where men’s and women’s teams alternated innings. Imagine watching the Masters and having to watch women play from the women’s tee every other drive. Same for NFL or NBA.
if the sport was separated into male and female events, it would be 1000x more watchable and popular.
NCAAs should be right up your alley. Men and women on separate days. You’d also love Alabama circa 1950.
It’s the only real coed sport. Imagine if baseball games were 18 innings where men’s and women’s teams alternated innings. Imagine watching the Masters and having to watch women play from the women’s tee every other drive. Same for NFL or NBA.
if the sport was separated into male and female events, it would be 1000x more watchable and popular.
This has to be the dumbest reason I've seen given on the many threads on this topic over the years.
Even Greek art in the days of the ancient Olympics was snarky about distance runners and fat people in favor of muscular physical specimens. There are vases with a leering distance runner and a fat guy on the left with the physical prototype (strong quads, narrow hips, broad shoulders) with a discus on the right. Basically, all your popular men's sports with the exception of older baseball players and linemen have this prototype.
I personally dislike the way the NCAA recently has held championships this way, instead of alternating men's and women's events. It detracts from the fan base and the anticipation of your favorite athletes/events, only half of which will be left.
If that were really an issue, then why are the top Diamond League races hardly watched by anyone and the Olympic finals by far the best rated track broadcasts every quadrennial?
What the Olympics have is the big event--and track is the biggest event of the Games every time--nationalism, and medals. There is a sense of high stakes and whole nations root on their athletes. Pro sports seasons have games that count for the playoffs, and the playoffs count toward the champs. They are team sports for the most part, which builds community support from their area. There are real stakes to almost every competition. When there are no stakes, as in games after the playoffs have been set, teams will rest their best players and fan interest dries up. In track, there are no viable leagues or teams in an ongoing competition. Winning the Diamond League does not drive up long-term interest because the winner is usually the one who competed the most on a high level, while the best often show up only for a couple of the meets. If it was set up as a national team competition over a season with the championships or Olympics at the end, and you had to do it to make the champs, that might help.
Winning the Diamond League does not drive up long-term interest because the winner is usually the one who competed the most on a high level, while the best often show up only for a couple of the meets. If it was set up as a national team competition over a season with the championships or Olympics at the end, and you had to do it to make the champs, that might help.
^ this. I'm a runner and I'll admit that I have no idea what the Diamond league is, what sports are in it, how many meets there are, what countries they're in, how it's won or what it means to win it. I presume they still give out Gold, Silver and Bronze for every event, so this is somehow better than that? Yes I could google it, but frankly I'm not really interested in anything other than country/ continent/ world/ olympic champs as they're all more meaningful to me.
Casual observers often find track to be anti-climatic unless a world record is broken. Otherwise every race to them looks the same. At least races in American ninja warrior someone might get have a crazy 20 ft. Fall and the courses are more interesting than a track.
If it were popular to gamble on, like horses, then viewership may go up.
You consider a watching a ninja fall 20ft to be must see T.V.? It’s fine that you like to watch junk sports but don’t assume everyone else does.
Gamblers don’t help any sports. The more serious one bet on several games and don’t even watch watch them.
No, I prefer watching track. I'm just conveying the message of what most people would prefer to watch over track. Races are so short compared to say a full basketball game, so gamblers would be more interested in watching the 1-2 minutes of the sport they are gambling on (like horse racing or mma)
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.