Should clocks be banned from athletics, and all the focus be placed on racing?

On the other hand, I think they should use the clock MORE. Use it like a shot clock in the NBA or the play clock in the NFL. This will keep it from dragging out to a sprint at the very end. For example, if the leader of a world class 1 mile race can't maintain a certain pace, say 3:55 pace for the mile, then a siren goes off and everyone is disqualified immediately and must exit the track, no matter how far into the race they were. Nobody should be winning Olympic gold in 3:40.

Remove pacers from the track and the emphasis will shift from time to racing. Eventually, some athletes will figure out that going for the best overall time is their best strategy and we will see times happen.

I do like the minimum time idea, but I dont like the idea of stopping the whole race. Basically, anyone in a 1500 race going through 400 slower than 59.0 (or some other predetermined time) needs to get pulled off the track. the Japanese do this in that marathon the LRC recently profiled.

Let's just give everyone a ribbon for participating.

First, my points about what should be done:

1) Get rid of all pacers. If a professional distance runner wants to hit a certain time and doesn't know how to set himself or herself up to do that, then that's a weakness they have and they need to work on that.

2) No way do you ever get rid of the clock. I remember how impressed I was with Moorcroft's WR in the 5000 that day, and in addition to the fact that he crushed the field, the time was shocking that day. The clock adds a lot.

Now my point about how that or anything else will increase popularity of the sport (especially here in the US).

1) Won't mean a hill of beans. The US could have distance runners that sweep the medals at the Olympics and except for a brief time during and immediately after the Olympics, no one will care. Americans just don't care about skinny fast guys. That will NEVER change.

Flagpole wrote:

...

1) Won't mean a hill of beans. The US could have distance runners that sweep the medals at the Olympics and except for a brief time during and immediately after the Olympics, no one will care. Americans just don't care about skinny fast guys. That will NEVER change.

It is true that no one will care (except briefly) regardless of whether US runners do well or not.

It is not true that this has anything to do with the athletes being "skinny fast guys." The truth is that our sport is intrinsically boring. Sorry, but watching a bunch of guys run around in circles (well, not quite circles) 25 times IS boring. Watching them run on the roads for 2 hours IS boring. Do you think that this would change if these guys were 6'2" and 220 pounds? No, it would still be boring.

I don't say this to offend anyone. I love running and can be completely transfixed by a good marathon race. Still, if you want to compare the entertainment value of this to a basketball game or football game you have to have total runners' blinders on to not see that running simply cannot compete. This is what will never change.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for a track meet to stay on schedule as it is?

Its the same for swimming. Look how HUGE Michael Phelps is every 4 years and ONLY every 4 years. Its only interesting within the setting of the Olympics.

Correction Master wrote:

It is not true that this has anything to do with the athletes being "skinny fast guys." The truth is that our sport is intrinsically boring. Sorry, but watching a bunch of guys run around in circles (well, not quite circles) 25 times IS boring. Watching them run on the roads for 2 hours IS boring. Do you think that this would change if these guys were 6'2" and 220 pounds? No, it would still be boring.

While I agree with this, auto racing is damn boring and still has lots of fans. I've tried to watch it (NASCAR, F1 and Indy) and the only thing that makes it at all interesting is that the announcers are very talented.

A track meet well announced can be interesting as long as there is nothing over 5k. I've said it in other threads, but the free web feed of USATF indoors was really well done, even though they did not have the premier events (those were on ESPN). Dan O'Brien and his coannouncer knew their sh!t and while occasionally bringing in info for complete idiots, made it interesting because they talked about the events to the well informed fan, not the person who has never watched. They knew something about all the athletes and were able to make comments on each athletes performance. Further, they were able switch among the different field events as they came on the feed. This meant there was almost no down time.

I don't think track will ever be more than a minor sport, but you'll never get a steady fan base when every broadcast is tilted towards the lowest knowledge fan.

What you've pointed out are just MORE reasons why Americans won't embrace distance running. The skinny fast guys though is a real thing. Americans like big strong power sports...football, basketball, MMA. Some fast skinny dude? Nah.

No clock? So make it look like a bike sprint event?

Yes! Yes! Oh God Yes! Can we stop measuring distance while we are at it?

No clock? No pacers?

Here is a very exciting race with pacers and an emphasis on the clock:

Cram vs Aouita

I like this race very much.

gits and shiggles wrote:

Nobody should be winning Olympic gold in 3:40.

We would have to erase most of the 1500 olympic winners if that was the case. It wasn't until 1957 that the WR was sub 3:40

Here's a tactical race for you, in sprint cycling - check the vid from 50sec-1min. If track racing became like this, I think there would be even fewer fans.

Because I have an appreciation for track, I don't find it boring. I can see where others would find it boring. I found it boring when I was a youth (before I started running). When I watch the Tour de France, it's not very boring because at least the scenery changes. If we could get cross country running into the Olympics and use technical courses we'd have a much more entertaining show to watch. Seeing those guys hurl themselves through the woods or obstacles at a 4:xx pace is quite exciting and would include great camera angles.

Cross country, yes. Times mean NOTHING in cross country.

Track, yes keep them.

legger wrote:

Here's a tactical race for you, in sprint cycling - check the vid from 50sec-1min. If track racing became like this, I think there would be even fewer fans.

opps, forgot the link:

Watch the first 40 seconds of this movie clip. If others followed these ideas, there would be even fewer movie fans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT7a8Gv9qdA

legger wrote:

Here's a tactical race for you, in sprint cycling - check the vid from 50sec-1min. If track racing became like this, I think there would be even fewer fans.

Track racing would never really be like that though would it?

The advantage in drafting is so much greater in cycling, these sorts of tactical exchanges become part of the game.

I'm a big track cycling fan, and this 'cat and mouse' part of the race is a very fascinating part of the race and the race and be won and lost in this period.