The main reason why Distance running lack Audience is the Camera Angle

They should put a random person on the track to run at the same time: Put someone at 6 minutes per mile, 8 min, and 10 min per mile to just run at that pace. These are fairly common paces for the masses that don’t fully understand how fast these professionals can run. Then they’ll see the difference between the “super fast” local hero winning the 5k in 18:30 and what actual fast runners are.

We have thread after thread about how to make a niche sport popular. It's never going to happen. There are even posters on LR that claim distance running is boring to watch. If a camera could be attached to the ball, I'm still not going to watch much golf.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

We have thread after thread about how to make a niche sport popular. It's never going to happen. There are even posters on LR that claim distance running is boring to watch. If a camera could be attached to the ball, I'm still not going to watch much golf.

Perhaps this is true. But one can still improve the product. That 10,000 had so much drama, changes, surges, team tactics, and the like... and all the NBC commentators post-race could muster is "I don't know HOW you can sprint after running 6 miles!"

Different angles will help to show these fools that, to THEM and other non-LetsRun types, these runners are actually sprinting the entire 25 laps.

remember 84? wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

We have thread after thread about how to make a niche sport popular. It's never going to happen. There are even posters on LR that claim distance running is boring to watch. If a camera could be attached to the ball, I'm still not going to watch much golf.

Perhaps this is true. But one can still improve the product. That 10,000 had so much drama, changes, surges, team tactics, and the like... and all the NBC commentators post-race could muster is "I don't know HOW you can sprint after running 6 miles!"

Different angles will help to show these fools that, to THEM and other non-LetsRun types, these runners are actually sprinting the entire 25 laps.

The 10000 is the last event the masses are going to be interested in.

There must be sports you're not interested in. Is a spif camera angle going to make you a fan? MLB has cameras from every possible angle, but many LRers find baseball to be unwatchable.

I'll tie this up with something I stated on a different post. Viewership and interest is tied up to participation to the sport. Participation in the sport is tied up to factors such as relation to the winners ability to believe is possible and ability to support oneself participating in the sport. Telling someone the are leaps and bounds beyond what is needed to win will only alienate viewers and not having a horse in the race( pun intended) will seal the deal.

Excellent point. The close up view shows how fast they’re moving

Sports betting would also make athletics much more popular. More events. Widespread betting.

JKT wrote:

Excellent point. The close up view shows how fast they’re moving

Sports betting would also make athletics much more popular. More events. Widespread betting.

Gambling can be pretty sleazy and I don't see how it would help. People that aren't already fans aren't going to bet on a sport they know nothing about. If a runner ever got busted for throwing a race, it would damage the sport worse then PEDs.

This amazing Sweat Elite video shows show Ferlic and Kessler covering distance with long and powerful strides and also the concentration and pain on their faces. The camera is positioned as if the viewer was running along with them. As compelling as an NFL film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANpsyuwCzNs

But it looks like a commercial or a movie, and it doesn't convey how fast their bodies are actually moving.

We could just have Larry Rawson explain to us how it relates to our local high school track or football field.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

If a camera could be attached to the ball, I'm still not going to watch much golf.

Yeah, but attaching a camera to those smart bombs sure made watching the Gulf War a lot more interesting thirty years ago.

I am not sure one can do it with camera angles. The main reason that it looks so slow (and this is actually something that has puzzled me for ages since I ran track as a boy and know how fast a 60 sec. lap is if one has to run more than one of them) is that world class mid/long distance runners usually cruise with a fairly low cadence and it is hard to see how long their strides are. Basically the same reason why Mu looks "slower" than Goule despite being faster. I'd still rather see better what is going on than get a realistic impression of speed.

Woof Blitzen wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

If a camera could be attached to the ball, I'm still not going to watch much golf.

Yeah, but attaching a camera to those smart bombs sure made watching the Gulf War a lot more interesting thirty years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30vSPFLeoE

Yeah, the new technology has made watching wars reallt fun. With multiple cameras, the Battle of Midway would have been must-see T.V.

Jo72 wrote:

I am not sure one can do it with camera angles. The main reason that it looks so slow (and this is actually something that has puzzled me for ages since I ran track as a boy and know how fast a 60 sec. lap is if one has to run more than one of them) is that world class mid/long distance runners usually cruise with a fairly low cadence and it is hard to see how long their strides are. Basically the same reason why Mu looks "slower" than Goule despite being faster. I'd still rather see better what is going on than get a realistic impression of speed.

Runners and former runners can fill in what's missing from experience but for most people the drama comes from the side stories and final results.