In relation to this very provocative read, it would be interesting to know from Reavis his views on race sponsors, team managers and agents and shoe companies and their role, if any, to make inspiring races and to create the "hims" and "hers" runners for future generations.
Does he post here?
the point could be wrote:
Does he post here?
He has stated several times that he reads the boards. He has even quoted posts on his podcasts.
when he says race directors should "control their fields"
that sounds like telling the race directors to water down their fields.
as a fan i like fields loaded to the max. and i think the home grown heroes should become heroes on merit, not because its a weak field.
doug burke wrote:
when he says race directors should "control their fields"
that sounds like telling the race directors to water down their fields.
as a fan i like fields loaded to the max. and i think the home grown heroes should become heroes on merit, not because its a weak field.
I agree with the sentiment but look at NYRR. They "control" nearly all their fields (ie don't allow 30 Kenyans to run) and I haven't heard many complaints. I bet most people don't even realize it's being done. At the same time, they go out and get some of the very best athletes and put on very captivating races. So are you against what they are doing?
If there is a group more successful at promoting professional running in the US someone will have to tell me what it is.
I heard Toni's speech and it was one of the best ever. By "controlling" I think he meant that race directors need to require more of their athletes than just showing up and running fast. He cited the LPGA which requires that players must speak English to obtain a tour card, b/c they realize their "show" goes beyond just hitting a ball in a hole. Race directors could do the same.
I can't tell you how frustrating it was to the journalists, and, just as importantly, how much press coverage and ensuing financial reward it cost him, that Marilson Gomes dos Santos didn't speak English. That's a large reason most of the NYCM coverage was focused on Paula, and why Nike probably pays her 10 times as much.
Another idea Toni suggested was formalizing some "circuits" on the local road race scene, e.g. Peachtree-Boilermaker-Bix-B2B-Falmouth and requiring the athletes to run all of them to get points and prize money at the end of the circuit, kind of like NASCAR Cup. That way there would be some continuity and generate interest, like NASCAR or even the team sports standings races, instead of the "one-and-done" mentality that exists now, where each race operates in a vacuum, independently of the other.
i think that was a VERY good speech. and i see the merit in controlling how many foreigners can get into a race because there are plenty of american runners out there who are good but not quite good enough to get enough money from race winnings to be able to say get a job that demands less for them and put more time towards training. Not saying every race should control who can get in, but if certain races did then americans who are kinda on that bubble might be able to win enough in prize money to support their running careers. thus leading to an expanding elite field for americans, which leads to more people being able to break out and become heroes now that they can actually support their running through racing and they have a chance to give it 100%. And this would in turn raise the public awareness of actual competitive running and not just jogging a road race and getting a medal so you feel like you did something. So this could very well help the sport become more competitive and more popular.
great speech.
Catherine Ndereba of Kenya is eloquent and gracious, and I've seen even midpack runners come up and greet her as "Catherine the Great." Gete Wami of Ethiopia, on the other hand, comes to the U.S., wins hundreds of thousands of dollars, and has absolutely nothing to say, ever. Whose public relations value is greater? There's a reason fans and the media are always happy to see a Hendrick Ramala or Paul Tergat and not, say, a Lidiya Grigoryeva. The WMM directors don't appear to be putting any pressure on profoundly unquotable athletes, and agents, well...they just take the money and run, seeming to ignore the fact that there would be MORE money if they did a little media training.
JimG wrote:
I heard Toni's speech and it was one of the best ever. By "controlling" I think he meant that race directors need to require more of their athletes than just showing up and running fast. He cited the LPGA which requires that players must speak English to obtain a tour card, b/c they realize their "show" goes beyond just hitting a ball in a hole. Race directors could do the same.
I can't tell you how frustrating it was to the journalists, and, just as importantly, how much press coverage and ensuing financial reward it cost him, that Marilson Gomes dos Santos didn't speak English. That's a large reason most of the NYCM coverage was focused on Paula, and why Nike probably pays her 10 times as much.
Another idea Toni suggested was formalizing some "circuits" on the local road race scene, e.g. Peachtree-Boilermaker-Bix-B2B-Falmouth and requiring the athletes to run all of them to get points and prize money at the end of the circuit, kind of like NASCAR Cup. That way there would be some continuity and generate interest, like NASCAR or even the team sports standings races, instead of the "one-and-done" mentality that exists now, where each race operates in a vacuum, independently of the other.
1. The LPGA quickly dropped the English speaking rule.
2. So how do you require a person to run a whole series? Sorry, that just does not make sense. Perhaps the series could allow for runners to run some of the races and the best X places counts overall. Might be interesting and kinda fun, but I am not sure it would generate tons of interest outside the running world.
3. Prize money might be one thing, but his timing on that is pretty bad. People from less developed countries look at $10K and think "My family can live really well on what I send back from that".
doug burke wrote:
when he says race directors should "control their fields"
that sounds like telling the race directors to water down their fields.
as a fan i like fields loaded to the max. and i think the home grown heroes should become heroes on merit, not because its a weak field.
Given the context and tone of his treatise, I'd say that he means to not grow field sizes just because they can, to not try to be all things to all people. As a fan it makes zero difference to me that Chicago has 35,000 entrants (or whatever it is now) rather than 10,000. As a fan I'd rather that race organizers put their chief focus on competition and let in others who want to be along for the ride but not to divert their focus by catering to masses of waddlers.
luv2run wrote:
2. So how do you require a person to run a whole series? Sorry, that just does not make sense.
Look at the entire quote: "requiring the athletes to run all of them to get points and prize money at the end of the circuit." He means that requiring them to run the whole series to qualify for points standings and prize purses at the end of the series is their enticement. Those who want to forgo the entire race series will be gladly supplanted by those who might get less of the per-race prize purse but by consistently placing in the top 10-20 can earn series points and prize money.
American-only prize money.
That's welfare, and Americans hate welfare. At least for individuals, but for businesses it's okay.
USA-only money is one element but not the solution in and of itself. Balanced fields, as Toni says, are a large part of the answer. A select group of race promoters understand that they can garner more media attention by having Americans and anglophones (outside of Kenyans/Ugandans/Tanzanians) that are actually in the race, and more media attention will attract more money.
Doug, I hope that you can understand that. You may not like it, but there's a reason why Webb's base pay has been more than his Kenyan counterparts of similar ability: he garners a significant amount of media interest wherever and whenever he runs. The guy at the Washington Post loves Webb, as does Dick Patrick at USA Today. That makes him more valuble than others.
I love that Toni is passionate about the sport, and he also benefits financially from it being on TV and getting good ratings.
However, thinking that some kid is going to see anyone from Alan Webb to Ryan Hall and get off the couch is just not feasible. Especially when it often comes (obesity) from the parents down...so getting them involved often in charity types of events is actually a way to mobilize the masses. Nevermind that it is more people like Oprah & Karno who are the "heroes" to this crowd.
Running, and to that point racing, is a participatory sport. It puts you outside on the weekends, races, long runs, club functions etc...You don't see people racing to the supermarket to load up on food and have a Boston Marathon party (the general public and not LR Message Boarders)
He talks about the apogee of the sport in the early 80's before the influx of africans into the distance scene in such great numbers along with the decent media coverage. That was before the true boom of cable TV and sports. Regional sports networks were growing, a company called ESPN would put anything and everything on TV that was sport and MTV still showed actual music videos.
It doesn't help that for most part our runners aren't running faster than they were in the early 80's, (i.e. my rambling post on the Abdi Marathon thread about how most of the top 30 all time US marks are from the 80's and before)
Now, football controls the landscape with Golf, MLB, NBA, NHL, Poker etc following in their footsteps..
Running, like cycling and some other sports isn't the most watchable sport on TV, waiting 5 hours for an attack in Le Tour or watching a 10,000 on the track can be worse than watching paint dry. It's no going to get the middle americans anymore because they lack a connection to it. They know what its like to try and hit a fastball, get to the green in 2 or hit a 3pt-er, etc..
The big thing for 2009 for quite a few local and regional events that may have been able to draw some quality fields in the past will be to just have their sponsors pony up the cash to support the event. A lot of mid-tier events could be by the wayside in 2009 and once they go away, rarely do we see them return.
As for the charities supporting the sport, I would think that a group such as a TNT has quite an impact on the bottom line for the endemic companies. Every couple months they send hordes of new runners to stores for shoes, clothing, GPS, Nike + you name it...they are the big consumers
I'd love to see the RD's have a positive impact on helping grow the sport, but people don't go from the couch to racing, its a process, if events aren't accessible and have that closed type of mindset that was scene in the 70's & 80's for the most part where a 22min 5k would put you close to last, the sport will collapse on top of itself...coming from the event business, I don't think its the RD's responsibility to do this, rather they are in business to be profitable and will grow their event by any way possible..communication between events, yes...too many wanna-be big events on the same weekends or close by will cannibalize the fields, even here in CO (see Garden of the Gods/Rocky Mtn Half, etc)
I think you're dramatically overstating things. Reavis isn't saying that running could be on the same level as NBA or even NHL or even pro darts. He's saying that it once certainly was a much greater part of the sporting public's consciousness and that it quite possibly could be again.
Kids once got fired up over Roger Staubach, Reggie Jackson, Dr. J, etc. and today they get fired up over Tom Brady, ManRam, Kobe, etc. Kids once got fired up over Pre, Shorter, Rodgers, AlSal, etc. and today they could still get fired up from seeing Sell, Abdi, and Ritz duking it out with the Africans on their teevee set or better yet in a big race in the city they live near.
"The endemic companies" aren't the sport, they are tangential to it. Nike happened to be around when the running boom took off, but the running boom would have happened just as well even without Nike around.
It's not about going "from the couch to racing" it's about increasing the exposure and presence within the public consciousness. It doesn't need to be the province of freaks (and yes, to most of America, including sports fans, both Karnie and Oprah are freaks) it can gain wider acceptance as a sport so that when the guy down the block or at the water cooler or down the bar says "just got a new marathon PR, 2:43" the couch surfer doesn't just hear "I finished another marathon," there might actually be a point of reference to relate the information, much like batting .280 or shooting 73% or a QB rating of 12 does.
wejo wrote:
NYRR "control" nearly all their fields (ie don't allow 30 Kenyans to run) and I haven't heard many complaints. I bet most people don't even realize it's being done. At the same time, they go out and get some of the very best athletes and put on very captivating races. So are you against what they are doing?
I'm not opposed to what the NYRR have been doing in recent years w/many of their races, however their marathon was weighted heavily w/foreign runners for about 20+ years. I don't know what's served by pointing out just the NYRR are 'controlling' as every race is free to field who they want. And they do. Is it any less 'controlling' if a dozen men from Eldoret finish ahead of the first American, or one or none? Who gets to decide the definition of 'controlling'?
TReavis is a nice man w/great passion for the sport and is solid commentating on camera. However, he's been complaining about this same topic for years- American distance runners and the sport in general don't get enough play in the press. He wrongly singles out charities as part of the 'problem' w/races. He wrongly feels the influx of foreign runners in American races have made the sport irrelevant for typical sports fans. He wrongly feels races should 'control' the # of foreign runners in their field, saying it stifles creation of home country heroes. Toni talks in circles, offering nothing concrete to 'right the ship'.
My friends, the world started coming to our shores to race in the late 80's and they ARE NOT responsible for the relatively low lack of success by their American counterparts since. There were 350 Kenyan men that broke 2:20 for a marathon in 2007. Those are just Kenyan stats and say nothing about how many raced on American shores. 350 is a startling, heavy number of men from one country to run so fast in one year. You want more American heroes? You want more space in the print media? Run faster America. You want a hero- become one.
As we go, if Amerian races start limiting the # of foreign runners, in effect, watering down the field, fine. If the media starts touting this seeming new-found success by American runners, fine. If races think they'd be serving the sport better by banning participation of charities, fine. I ask you though...what qualifies as improvement in the face of such proposals?
Freddaryl Smith wrote:
My friends, the world started coming to our shores to race in the late 80's and they ARE NOT responsible for the relatively low lack of success by their American counterparts since. There were 350 Kenyan men that broke 2:20 for a marathon in 2007. Those are just Kenyan stats and say nothing about how many raced on American shores. 350 is a startling, heavy number of men from one country to run so fast in one year. You want more American heroes? You want more space in the print media? Run faster America. You want a hero- become one.
The environmental factors that would lead to that happening probably will not just magically come together on their own just because everyone on Letsrun is wishing upon the same star in the sky. The answer to "why do so many sub14:30/sub30:00 collegians quit the sport after graduation?" should be the starting point. Hell, why do so many 15:00-16:00/31:00-33:00 collegians quit the sport after graduation? Solve that and a lot of other things will fall into place. It can be attacked from both the end of the athletes as well as the end of structure of the sport itself.
good points and I'm not trying to be overly dramatic - I think my main part was that running was such a general part of the US because we were still a regional and not national country, you didn't have 10 college football games every Sat or 6 every Sun, etc..there was more air time to fill...
-I don't think that many kids ever got fired up over Pre, AlSal, etc, running was still a small sport in regards to traditional ones where I grew up and we had a strong team every year for state, etc...of course they also see the stardom that comes with that along with the fame, I can't help but think of the movie American Flyers when the kid is watching the riders go up the mountain as his dad cajoles him and he says "I want a bowling ball"
-agree on the endemics, but I should have clarified that its the non-endemics who are paying the sponsor dollars, whether it be ING, your local bank, Seagate, etc..those dollars are gone in 2009 whether you are NASCAR or the local 10k, but the specialty side of the sport does reap the benefits from the bottom of the pyramid especially when they join a group like TNT
-
Do you consider the Olympics watered down? They only allow 3 Kenyans in each event. Did the average american that only watches our sport once every 4 years think that Meb's medal was not significant because there was a greater number of sub 2:10 marathoners that were not allowed to participate, than were included?
Your questions aren't material to the discussion. In Toni's world, every race would be the Olympics- 3 per country. However, w/the depth among distance runners from the rest of the globe being what it is, the best of the best Americans would only be able to compete in a handful among the many prize money races held domestically. We would get drowned in our own pool...like we already do.