Maybe other spirts are just more entertaining.
Did you ever think of that!?
Maybe other spirts are just more entertaining.
Did you ever think of that!?
Turkey guy wrote:
umm. no wrote:
The #1 problem with running as a spectator sport is that it is exceptionally boring to watch.
Bingo. Running is boring to watch. And that's okay. Running isn't about spectating...it's about doing.
Go for a run. Train for a race. Then go run that race. Then go train for another one. That's what running is all about, not spectating.
Doing > watching.
definitely-my coach in college used to say running is a participant sport not a spectator sport---when the fans are almost outnumbered by the racers in an average invitational cross meet; only exception was if it was a perfect fall day then you would get some people out...
I can't get past
A) Using "Greg" as if anyone ever referred to Norman by just his first name.
and then I really lost it at
B) leading your baseball player list with Rod Carew and Yaz. Nothing against them, fantastic players, it's just so random! Nowhere near the stature of dozens and dozens of other players, including the others you've mentioned. And then straight to the juicers when your point is about respecting past greats? Strange choices!
As to your larger point... I don't think that's it. I think runners and running fans DO admire and hold up the greats of the past. How many threads have there been comparing current elites to past champions?
I agree with with many of the other posters, and will add that I think doping scandals have really hurt. Track and field was actually pretty big 50 years ago. But as casual fans came to realize that many are cheating and that it's impossible to know who, why would they bother watching?
My posts reflect the feeling and thought at the moment I post them. As such, the lists and names may seem wayward because those are the names in my mind to help display a larger point.
To me, Greg is only Greg Norman. I posted it as such...Greg. To see if your concern held up, I tested "Golfer Greg" in the browser search area. And it immediately displayed Greg Norman first.
But, I digress...back to addressing your point, there is a key difference in running that doesn't necessarily exist in other sports that drives the negativity...
If I am comparing Woods to Mickelson to Norman to Peete to Trevino to Snead to Nicklaus, I can't legitimately say any of them sucked because one was better than the other.
Same with Jordan, Iverson, Parish, McHale, Rambis, Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar, Robinson, Duncan, etc.
Same as Yaz, Carew, Schmidt, Bonds, McGwire, A-Rod, Pujols, etc.
Same as Fouts, Montana, Brady, Marino, Elway, P. Manning, etc.
However,
Some say Pre sucked because he couldn't beat Viren.
Some say Bekele sucks because they view him as overweight now.
Some got on Centro because his time was a few second slower at 1500
The underlying point is that in running, it seems that someone has to "suck" for someone to be better, and runners seem ok with this.
Alan Webb for years was the official American record holder at the mile.
However, as years went by, some people found the need to address why Webb could not be faster than that in those years.
There is a sliding scale of appreciation in running that seems off-putting to the masses.
As a result, it seems that Track and Field is its own unpopularity because it puts itself down.
And yes, I have watched several of Nick's videos as well. He is good for the sport.
The history? People know history that is dumb. You're pretty narrow minded.
The problem is access. "Players" are quiet, alone, training in secrecy, and maybe race once or twice a year.
You get someone like Mo Farah on zwift running and boom you have dozens of people running with him (there are probably only hundreds of runners anyway on zwift). That's just it. Do public appearances, a run club. Visual workouts - youtube like Symmonds for sure. Strava training logs.
Flotrack have come close but they charge too much for their stuff. They have some in the action content on athletes and of course races.
But free racing to watch (and bet on) would do far better. Frequent racing and frequent betting would go a long way. And give people lots of content. Athletes signing shoes, giveaways, public appearances (beyond just the participation events aka marathons).
NN could probably pull it off - they have all the money. Nike too. But its a bit of chicken before the egg - set it up and the advertising dollars will come in which will allow for better stuff.
You can totally go the other way with tech too. Imagine this: Nike having a 5k race and then saying so and so will now be wearing dragonflys in this race - see how much faster they will be. Boom instant success. A few months later, hey we have the 12%. Watch a new WR. Boom.
It's been my 44+ years experience as spectator, athlete, coach/spectator to transition through a variety of viewpoints about sport in general and specifically t&f, cc & road.
Currently I would have to say that most hs & college meets are run of the mill with some good athletes surrounded by mediocrity with good attitudes for the most part at each level. Most spectators fall into the parents, friends, coaches category. Not many people coming in off the street to check out the "competition". If they are, they most likely participated at some level.
At one time, in my 20's, I too was disappointed about the lack of popularity of the sport compared to others. After all, I had read about and seen pictures of the great dual meets like USC vs UCLA or throw San Jose St in the mix. Bowerman and the Men of Oregon is a good read to get an idea about regular season meets during that era.
However, what I come to realize is that I would actually prefer to be in a smaller stadium filled with track knowledgeable people than a large stadium full of rabid fb fans or a BB game where things are generally more calm just waiting for something to happen. I have my teams and like those few experiences in my own way but not as much as track.
Each sport has their own fan experience and relationship with the athletes. In track, I was always able to get close to the top athletes and they were always very open and personable. After having an Olympic Champion on my team, I knew how "normal" track people are away from the sport. Many personalities but mostly personable. I have met, spoke with, shared ideas with etc...so many world class track athletes and coaches, I know I would never be able to do that with other pro sports.
Whether it's riding a shuttle with Kevin Young, chatting with Calvin Smith, crying with Valerie Briscoe Hooks, sitting next to and talking with Dan O'Brien at a big meet, on and on etc... Conversations about coaching with Pat Henry, John MacDonald, Clyde Hart, among many others revealed so many concepts that were valuable in my experience. I threw some big names out there but there are so many coaches and athletes that have had a lot of success and have helped others. Not just the superstars. There is definitely a lot of respect for each other in the sport. That's not always appealing to Joe Fan in other sports.
The fact is, a warm smile, direct eye contact and a firm hand shake goes a long way in getting a chance to meet people you admire in track that you would otherwise never get to know. Old timers like Jim Ryun, Al Oerter, Willi Banks etc... Love it when people recognize them and are most likely willing to take at least a moment to say thank you for knowing about them.
I have always taken great pleasure in introducing my hs athletes to world class athletes at big meets. Christian Cantwells' hand around my small distance runner's...that kid will never forget it. Introducing kids to athletes like Jim Spivey, Randy Wilson, Carl Lewis, Gwen Torrence, Deena Castor etc...is a way to give them confidence to approach the greats. Track has been a sport where athletes pretty much love it when kids ask questions. I also do a lot of historical moments, video, stories to help kids know about the sport and it's great history and stories. Outside of 30 for 30, I haven't seen much quality documentation of other sports that are being used to educate the kids. Hopefully, those sports grass roots programs can find time to do so.
I can't say my experience is or would be the same with today's "Sports Entertainment" megapaid rock stars that don't let fans get close. Just buy their jersey and give them free advertising. People that do that is about all they seem to have in common as a fan base. Track people seem to have experiences that they love to share and listen to beyond a time/distance/place etc...
I don't go to many meets these days outside of hs state meets, Tyson Indoor, college conference meets, ncaa, Oly Trials etc... Those are the ones truly worth attending and staying for because the depth of quality is so great.
The average pro game is meaningless in terms of championship level quality of play, making it expensive sports entertainment for the fans. Furthermore, so many teams with average records qualify for the right to advance, players are traded to up the quality of a team during playoffs etc....it's about the money.
Again, I'd prefer to be in a stadium with those who don't need that to be entertained.
Gambling and alcohol won't make an average fan care more about the sport just more gambling and alcohol. I don't want to sit next to them and that's not what I would want young people getting started to think that all sports are the same in terms of fan experience.
However, I am willing to bet that if you hang a $1000 bill over the finish line of every lap of a 1500, 5000 or 10000 meter race at the USATF Championships, the lesser qualified athletes may choose to keep up an honest pace and rake in a little green for the trip home.
That's really in-depth insight and makes a lot of sense.
You mentioned Dan O'Brien....do you think if more companies spotlighted battles (i.e. Reebok and Dan vs. Dave), that popularity could increase since the athlete names will become part of household discussion
I'd be interested in your take on this approach.
Yeah, Ok, I see what you're saying now. I think you're right that the comparisons between runners do have a negative edge than in other sports. I'm not sure how big a factor that is in limiting the sport's popularity, but yeah, it doesn't help.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
That's really in-depth insight and makes a lot of sense.
You mentioned Dan O'Brien....do you think if more companies spotlighted battles (i.e. Reebok and Dan vs. Dave), that popularity could increase since the athlete names will become part of household discussion
I'd be interested in your take on this approach.
It was working Great (to Nikes anguish) until Dan took a nh in the pv eliminating him from the Olympics. Then there was the Michael Johnson/Maurice Green 200 m debacle in Sacramento.
Product advertising can pay off big if the athletes can come through. Sometimes they don't and it's counter productive leaving average Joe disappointed/disgruntled and maybe not appreciate the sport as much.
How many fb players got a bell ringer and got back in the game or came back the next week?
Usain Bolt came through and people liked his style. Carl Lewis not so much in 84 but by Atlanta a lot of people were pulling for him to get his 4th gold in the LJ to match Oerter. He is much more approachable today as well.
You people just don't understand, running is a participant sport. I have run large races that included well known great runners, but when I finished my race I was most interested in my performance, the performance of other competitors in my age bracket and my friends. Sure I checked out the times of the winners but that wasn't my real interest.
I'm a 20 year runner and still don't care that much about the top runners. I do take an interest in the Olympics, but that's it.
American top runners will get a bit more of my attention.
Different people like different stuff. This goes for individuals and cultures and regions and countries. T&F is more popular in some places than in the US, and there are some aspects that make it or road running less desirable as a spectator sport, but not sure there are specific problems or solutions.
My favorite sport to watch is the Tour De France, but it hardly registers in the US. Don't think it has a problem though.
American football is by far the biggest deal in the US and it's perfect for TV, but the rest of the world doesn't care. I've been scolded for 40 years because the US doesn't care so much about the world's number 1 sport soccer. Soccer has gotten much more popular in the US over the decades, but I'm not sure it will ever top the NFL even if the cool kids of the world think it's superior.
I spent some time in Ireland and they were going nuts for a lacrosse-like sport called hurling that I had never even heard of.
Could go on about the variable and waxing and waning of different minor and major sports, but it's just different strokes for different folks, Fans of minor sports are always wringing their hands on how to make it more popular, but there's not always an answer. Sometimes a different presentation or different TV package will make a difference. More often, a unique star will arise and bring attention. But sometimes it's just not for everyone.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
You mentioned Dan O'Brien....do you think if more companies spotlighted battles (i.e. Reebok and Dan vs. Dave), that popularity could increase since the athlete names will become part of household discussion
It would also help a shoe company sponsor if both their battlers didn't end their season with stress fractures in their feet.
elephino wrote:
Stoppit Smith wrote:
You mentioned Dan O'Brien....do you think if more companies spotlighted battles (i.e. Reebok and Dan vs. Dave), that popularity could increase since the athlete names will become part of household discussion
It would also help a shoe company sponsor if both their battlers didn't end their season with stress fractures in their feet.
Dan vs Dave is often called a failure because Dan no-heighted and didn't go to the Olympics, but how many other shoe promotions do you remember 30 years later?
Agreed 100% about Wavelight Tech and interesting non-track fans about the sport. It's visual... cool looking... and easy to understand.
I also think it can be used in many different ways than it is now.
Who knows?
Future versions of it could have holograms of other runners from the past (like in some video games where you race against your best time against a semi-transparent "ghost" car) or have multiple lights designated for multiple times... whatever.
running forever wrote:
The problem with running is, that it is incredible boring to watch. Even for runners.
I "watched" the London Marathon last week but that meant that I had the screen running while I was browsing other stuff at the internet.
Running is not a spectator sport.
Usually the London marathon has half a million spectators lining the route. Some of them might disagree with you.