I believe that you and "Jizzmo" believe that. ;)
Correlation does not equal or imply causation.
I believe that you and "Jizzmo" believe that. ;)
Correlation does not equal or imply causation.
hardset nipples wrote:
I believe that you and "Jizzmo" believe that. ;)
Correlation does not equal or imply causation.
You're right, I absolutely do believe it. And your second observation here is a bullet-proof statement; far more solid in this case than the Schul/Mills argument you tried before. Yes, to some real degree the introduction of metric clearly was a matter of historical "correlation"--it happened at the same time that numerous other forces (such as the expansion of professional sports, TV-friendly sports, the decline of amateurism, etc.) were in play. No question about it. It was only one of several factors, but it most certainly was a factor. The larger question for me is: How could we imagine that the shift to metric did NOT contribute to the decline in US interest in the sport?
Or it was a non-factor. Where's the proof that it was a factor, as you claim?
The proof is in the pudding. What a dumb question.
What's also interesting to ask is "What would bring attention to running again?" Maybe, just maybe, it's getting the level of mass participation in races (marathons in particular) that we've seen the last couple years. I've seen a lot of posts, too many posts, bemoaning the slowness and non-seriousness of today's marathoner. However, the marathon boom has really raised running's profile and running is increasingly becoming The Health Sport. So the best solution seems simple: make running the number one sport in the country.
The boycott had a TREMENDOUS impact on U.S t&f. That 1980’s team would have had medal contender in every event except the hammer and the racewalk. Yes, all of the distance events as well; Scott, Virgin, Chapa and Boston Bill were among the best in the world and Mary Decker could have medaled in 2 events.
Track was riding high after the '76 Olympics; Evelyn Ashford, Mary Decker, Frank Shorter, Bruce Jenner and Edwin Moses were as well known as any NBA or NFL athlete. Steve Scott, Alberto Salazar, Craig Virgin, Bill Rodgers, Renaldo Nehemiah and Greg Foster were names the average American knew as well.
T&f only truly captures the American imagination every 4 years; the boycott took away the idols for the next generation to aspire to. By the time the '84 Olympics came around, our best distance runners were in the twilight of their careers and guys like Sydney Maree, John Gregorek, Brian Diemer and Jim Spivey could not escape the African onslaught.
It is not coincidence that t&f took a noise dive in the late '80s.
I agree 100% with Track Coach.
'84 was a stupid setback, but it was a political decision made by an idiot president. What destroyed T&F is the self-serving federations that replaced the amateur system during of that time. Before athletes received no pay, no compensation, and expenses were not completely covered. After the federations took over, athletes received some pay, and expenses were paid, but the federations made sure they get the royal treatment. That system continues today with USATF and IAAF officials, and their infamous patronage system.
Most of those marathoners aren't even a part of the race or the sport.
I remember writing a history paper on the political use of athletics during the cold war... basically what happened was that it was believed by those who were in power at that time that they could show their international political dominance through their international athletic dominance, and in the meantime keep their own citizens happy with athletics and athletic performances... which is why the USSR, GDR, and other soviet-bloc countries had massive athletics programs....
On the other hand the US also had a massive sports program and yes, was directly competing with the USSR (and GDR etc.) for international dominance...
well abit off the original topic, but that is how the end of the cold war factors into the decline in popularity of track and field. but to be honest those russian women are still pretty dominant, which is perhaps a result of the large state-run athletics programs that are still in existence there.
hardset nipples wrote:
I believe that you and "Jizzmo" believe that. ;)
Correlation does not equal or imply causation.
I don't think someone said "I'm not going to watch T&F because they only run metric distances." But I do think that if you are talking about a way to make an event more appealling to the US market, running a few events at big meets in conventional distance would help.
People know what a mile is, no body understands the 1500. Even T&F people have to do some quick math to appreciate what that means for 1 mile.
This is not the ONLY solution to make track more appealing to the masses. We need dominate, clean athletes, and it would help if we had a bad guy to compete against.
old tymer wrote:
For better or worse, "all" Americans instinctively know what a quarter-mile, a half-mile or a mile is.
jizzmo wrote:
[quote]hardset nipples wrote:
People know what a mile is
You two are out-of-touch. Go look on the message boards at CoolRunning or RunnersWorld and you'll see that one of the most common newbie runner questions is: 'what is the distance for one lap around the track?' It's a quarter mile or really darn close yet they really don't know, and these are runners, who are reportedly smarter than the average person.
hardset nipples wrote:
You two are out-of-touch. Go look on the message boards at CoolRunning or RunnersWorld and you'll see that one of the most common newbie runner questions is: 'what is the distance for one lap around the track?' It's a quarter mile or really darn close yet they really don't know, and these are runners, who are reportedly smarter than the average person.
Oh, come on. For all your fondness for the rules of logic, you're not being all that logical. We need to go to the message boards at CoolRunning and RunnersWorld to get "in touch"???? Please, I think not. You're implying that the average (young) runner is an idiot and using that as proof that the shift to metric had nothing to do with the historical decline in popularity in the US of track and field? This, sir, is merely a correlation, not a causation (sorry, had to do it). Seriously, what in the world does that that have to do with anything?
The "simple" answer: for a complex of reasons, US track and field has declined in popularity from its peak in about the early 1960s. (If you doubt these dates, do some serious research on the numbers of invitational meets in the US, both indoors and out, beginning in the early 1950s on up to the present, as well as the attendance figures for these meets.) At first that decline was relatively slow, but it picked up speed in the 1970s, thanks in some measure to the alienating effect on the general US population of the shift to metric distances. Factors of at least comparable importance (that is, they may actually be of greater overall importance) include the rise and expansion of professional team sports and the growing dominance of TV (stressing sports that can be packaged best for TV viewing), etc., etc.
When you say, in essence: "Prove that the shift to metric had any real effect on the matter at hand," My response is: ALL the factors in the "mix" here are either "unprovable" or difficult to prove in any scientific way. What would be required to prove any of them, I suspect, would be a massive process of interviwing fans--and a representative sample of "average" citizens--from each decade from the 1950s onward and carefully asking the right questions. Who in the world cares to waste their time doing this?
By your measure, since nothing can be easily proven, American t&f is still wildly popular. I'd like to live in that happy fantasy world, but my visa has expired.
Yeah, that's where you'll get real world feedback from the masses, good or bad. Many newbies are not that young, hell most long time runners that post there have never set toe on a track and haven't any clue how long one lap of a track is, but again you wouldn't know that because you don't want to find out the reality. It's alright with me. Good luck getting the Olympics (and IAAF) to drop the metric measurements.
CoolRunning and RunnersWorld forums are like T&FN, Trackshark, etc. The posting are mainly from the owners, staff, and personal friends. They artificially yap away to create traffic. It isn't authentic forum traffic.
Interesting perspective.
hardset nipples wrote:
Yeah, that's where you'll get real world feedback from the masses, good or bad. Many newbies are not that young, hell most long time runners that post there have never set toe on a track and haven't any clue how long one lap of a track is, but again you wouldn't know that because you don't want to find out the reality. It's alright with me. Good luck getting the Olympics (and IAAF) to drop the metric measurements.
What gave you the idea that I am advocating dropping metric? I am not. I think I have some clue as to reality. If you're trying to suggest that Americans are equally ignorant of both imperial and metric measure, you can't win that argument. Not until we change all road signs to kph (only) and are perfectly comfortable discussing height and weight in meters and kgs. We'll be at that point in 2 or 3 generations, maybe...
However, your assertions as to the ignorance of runners today (which I can't honestly believe) are beside the point. Today's attitudes did not CAUSE the historical phenomenon we're "discussing" here; they may be, in part, a result of it--but that's another matter.
Well, it seemed the 'logical' conclusion for you beating your drum so soundly on this topic. Maybe you're just one who likes to point out perceived problems but don't care to find a constructive solution? You don't have to believe any assertions about runners today, just as you don't have to look at things that would disprove your own beliefs. The attitudes are simply exemplary of a basic ignorance that would not have been avoided by sticking to imperial units, no one (besides you) has even suggested that they are necessarily a cause or result of anything.
The measurement issue is a factor, but I don't think that it's the biggest one.
Among the factors already mentioned:
-No more Cold War, and thus Americans could give a shit about their international athletic performances. America loses at the the World Baseball Classic and the World Basketball Championships; where's the public outcry? There isn't any because all the baseball and basketball fans in the US know that what really matters is the World Series and the NBA Finals. The fact that, following nationalities, the Dominican Republic stands a good shot of beating the US at a baseball game doesn't matter, because the US is far more powerful militarily and economically and could easily crush the DR if we wanted to. So who cares if the DR beats us? It's not like it was with the USSR where sports were a non-violent outlet for Cold War aggresion and fear.
-To further this point, the most popular sports int he United States are all professional sports, played largely (if not entirely) within the US. I believe this is because the US is, unlike most countries and even other very large countries, a regional country, in that we have a lot of autonomy between the states and the federal government. As such, Americans more easily develope a regional attitude as opposed to a nationalistic one (for ex. NY v. Boston, SF v. LA, West Coast v. East Coast, etc.). If it happens outside our borders, it's inconsequential.
-Americans have a hard time relating to track simply because it requires acoc***ability. Most Americans are fat (a key distinction from 30+ years ago), but even so, a fat American can probably still throw a football to his kid and feel like Joe Montana; a fat American can probably throw a baseball or shoot a basket and feel like whatever star they want to. But if they want to run a mile, as Larry Rawson always recommends them to, they'll a) deal with intense amounts of pain and b) realize how much they suck, and how the 9th grade girl from next door can kick their ass, and the fact is that they don't want to feel bad aabout themselves. And it's not as if they have a radar gun on those baseball tosses, nor are they measuring those football passes. But track (more or less) requires this kind of accountability.
-Because of the increased popularity (and the fact that track was stuck in amateurism for far too long), there is roughly ten times the money in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. than in track. Thsu, the best athletes go to those sports. The ones that track get are the ones who really can't do any of those. How many world class long jumpers are in the NBA, or shot putters in the NFL?
-To add to this, there are so many more things to do these days, than thirty years ago. Track not only competes with more lucrative established sports, but with new ones like skateboarding, rollerblading, BMX biking, and all that X-Games stuff. Because there's money in it and personal glory, it will attract a lot of people. I know a former world class middle distance runner, who has a son that probably has fantastic genes for running, yet all he wants to do is skate. How can you blame him?
Times are not as simple, with respect to sports, as they were when you had three channels to watch. Track is learning (slowly) to adapt, but it's ahrd to inspire young athletes to enter a less lucrative sport, especially when instant gratification is a key value in this culture. Most of the time, they either have to really love it for some odd reason, or they're simply not good at anything else.
We can improve things, but it's going to take some time. as it is, we're really doing better than we have in some time.
el cid wrote:
The measurement issue is a factor, but I don't think that it's the biggest one.
This whole post is quite good. Nipples is lost somewhere in the woods on this whole matter. I am interested in the historical phenomenon of the "rise and decline" of American track and field, and the various & complex reasons for it. I'm entirely a realist on the whole matter: history is what it is (despite our difficulty in figuring out the "why" of it all) and if there are current "solutions" to the problem, I'm all for them.