David Torrence Responds To John Bingham: The blaming of the elites has to stop

Good to read. Bingham's comment really bothered me.

In my career as the proverbial 18:00 5k runner, I've been to lots and lots of small races where 18 or 19 minutes will get you into the top 10 or 15. I have only on a few occasions heard a "fast guy" say something derogatory about a "slow guy," mostly schmucky high school kids. I have seen lots of top finishers--and done so myself--stand around cheering the middle and back of the pack, and cheered stragglers on cool downs. I have also heard a surprisingly large number of "slow people" make cynical or snarky remarks about people with the audacity to break 20:00.

While Torrence is both a model and an outlier, he's not the kind of elite that creates a disconnect with the general public--it's clearly the d-level Ethiopians and Kenyans at a medium-sized city's marathon, who do no outreach at all.

That said, there's such a bad attitude among (parts of) the running masses about even someone at my level that there's more to the problem than just "elites are alienating the public."

Big props to Torrence. Great guy, great runner.

I actually often some out in defense of the masses, or whatever you want to call them. But Bingham makes two of the dumbest comments I've seen a so-called running columnist make.

He thinks it takes courage to "start" a marathon? No. No it doesn't. One of my neighbors got me to sponsor her charity effort, then I noticed that as the race approached she was actually gaining weight. I never saw her go out and train. She is in her 30s, and she finished in 6:40. There's no "courage" involved there.

And Bingham's suggestion that "elites care nothing about the masses and give nothing back is so verifiably untrue based on evidence that you and I and surely Bingham himself have seen that it amounts to a lie, an intentional one.

You have to agree with Mr Torrence the work covering track meets on US tv is the worst. For an example of how poor a broadcast could be just go back and look at the US TV coverage of the 2012 Olympic marathon with Craig Masback as the "expert". What might be the lowest point in TV sports broadcast history.

US TV companies who want to broadcast track or road races should watch how the Tour De France is covered. Those two guys Phil Liggit and Paul Sherwin take an event that goes on for many more hours than a marathon will and make each and every minute exciting.

The analogy Torrence makes to NASCAR is a good one. If track had the same kind of coverage, focused on personalities not performances (hate to say it, but it sells), and on-screen gizmos like live splits, and little arrows that show where the runners are in the pack, then average people might tune in and try to learn a little about elites. And then they might care whether or not the elite cheer them on at the end of a race. But the question is - who would drive this transition in TV coverage? Not TV broadcasters. They are in the business of selling ads. How do you sell an ad on the promise that viewership *might* increase above its currently pitiful level? I don't know if there is a good answer to this. The largest stakeholder is maybe Nike, but they probably see marginal gains in improving coverage. Maybe flotrack will save the day hehe.

I am glad Torrence chimed in, as at least he has a little road race experience, but when will we start breaking up the conversation a bit. Track and field is NOT road racing and road racing in no way has any affiliation for 99% of its participants to track and field. They are separate sports besides the very few who happen to do both.

Bingham made his entire career off of back-of-packers who are happy to simply finish races, whether that be through walking or slogging, it's still an accomplishment. Pros, which is what they are, have a place at the front of the sport. Bingham has a place at the front of the activity of road running. It's racing v. running.

I often use the NASCAR analogy when thinking how to make T&F, or running in general, more popular. What running does not have is a strong central governing body that is interested in growing the sport. You have NYRR that does a good job in NY and other regional clubs but we USATF to step up and take control. T&F needs much better leadership.

John Bingham is one of the reasons I quit reading RW. I couldn't stand his elite bashing and as$ kissing of those that don't even try to get fast.

Right on about the need for professional cohesive marketing and promotion.

Another challenge is that the top Americans are not the best in the world. It is tough to promote to a wide US audience when Americans are often not contenders for titles in major marathons or WC/Olympic Games. YES, this is improving with Barringer, Rupp, Meb, but there probably needs to be more guys like Symmonds who combine charisma with top performances.

I agree with this. Fast runners are a threat to business. It's not like other sports either, because in running you are in the same race and performing on the same stage as the "elites." The clock is a universal barometer.If people view running as an athletic feat, they will become disheartened at their times. By emphasizing "participation," you elimnate the comparisons and boost their self-esteem regardless of talent or preparation.

joho wrote:

I often use the NASCAR analogy when thinking how to make T&F, or running in general, more popular. What running does not have is a strong central governing body that is interested in growing the sport. You have NYRR that does a good job in NY and other regional clubs but we USATF to step up and take control. T&F needs much better leadership.

John Bingham is one of the reasons I quit reading RW. I couldn't stand his elite bashing and as$ kissing of those that don't even try to get fast.

Agree entirely with this and with Torrance. USATF or some other entity needs to step up and work with TV or other media to keep people engaged and make them fans. A couple of ideas:

1. I think the split screen idea is a good one. Put stats and tidbits to engage viewers. How about wiring some of the competitors and monitor and display things like pulse rate or cadence or instantaneous MPH. Folks can compare runner to runner or even their own stats that they collect on their own Garmins or other devices.

2. Tv tends to stick only with the leaders and once dropped from the lead pack a runner is never featured. Unfortunately many popular runners get dropped early, but fans still want to know how they are holding up. Ritz, Hall, Davila, Goucher, etc. Put some sort of graphic on the side of the screen with blips representing the popular elites to give folks a sense of how they are doing (falling back? Making a run?) even if they have fallen off the pace

His 3:33 1500 is more impressive than his 3:52 mile.2nd on the US list this year.

LetsRun.com wrote:

We received a great email from 3:52 miler David Torrence

1) bingham is a huge tool. i saw this right off even as a freshman in HS when i just started running and still actually enjoyed reading RW.

2) why cant we have back of the packers and participation AND a running boom like in the 70s-80s? i was only born in 1984 so i dont remember what it was like back then - were people just training/racing crazy fast?

3) road racing and track and field are really 3 different sports - sure there is some overlap (some guys run road and track, some guys even do jumps and sprints) but in general they are 3 different sports. we might even make the argument that road racing is actually 2 different sports - participation and competition.

4) track is boring as hell on tv. why do we have to use retired people as commentators? why not put a guy like david torrence in the booth along with that english guy who actually knows and cares about the sport and has a pulse. there is always someone injured/sick/sitting out of a race for whatever reason - put the current guys in the booth. they have in many cases been competing against the guys out there since high school. let them tell stories of beer miles in college or something!

5) on the field reporting should always be done by a blonde with huge cans. every other sport gets this, why not us?

6) are managers/athletes/coaches REQUIRED to talk to the media after/during events? i am a huge cardinals fan but even i liked to watch tony larussa hate f*ck the media in those post game interviews after a loss.

7) there seems to be a LOT of competition for TV audiences these days with UFC, BKB, every sport you can imagine. but if you actually sit there and watch a tv show, they are all pretty horrible. if we cant come up with anything to compete with that, maybe our sport should die once and for all.

I agree with Torrence that elites are not to blame, but I disagree with him that television is. There simply IS no blame here. Americans don't like running. That much is clear. The vast majority who do participate in a marathon do so as a charity thing or a bucket list thing, and once that's over, they don't care about it any more.

The other sports in our country benefit because for the most part they are FUN; they are GAMES. It's fun to play a game is it not? Running is not a game. Running is hard. MOST people hate it. And, unless you are already a fan of distance running, it doesn't really lend itself to being a spectator sport.

Distance running in The United State will NEVER again be popular as a spectator sport. We just have TOO many other things that compete for our sporting entertainment attention compared to the 70s for example. Professional soccer is here. The X Games. MMA. Football (both college and pro) is bigger than ever. NASCAR is HUGE compared to the 70s.

We could start our own network, put ONLY running on it, and even then the popularity of or sport would not come back. It is what it is...a niche sport for sure, and when you consider how many people actually participate in cross country and track in high school, and yet they don't continue to be interested in it beyond high school, it's apparent that our sport is dead...that is DEAD as a spectator sport here in the US.

Teams, sponsors and companies have absolutely no problem paying tons of money to likes of Derek Jeter and Lebron because they give back in return in multiples. Why do elite runners have entitlement mentality regarding sponsorship or appearance fee? If you're worth the money, people will pay you.

good points, flaggy. i wonder why track/cross are so popular in HS and no one really cares after that. i also wonder why we all care so much if we are the only ones watching.

I'm not going to defend Bingham, because what he said was idiotic, but...

He's not the only one saying things that help create the divide between the "fast" and the "slow."

You might have noticed RoJo himself mocking the back of the packers in the WSJ article:

"If you're going to get just as much praise for doing a four-hour marathon as a three-hour, why bother killing yourself training?" asked Robert Johnson, a founder of LetsRun.com, adding that, "It's hard to do well in a marathon if your idea of a long session is watching season four of 'The Wire.'"

I mean, let's be fair, both sides need to try to be a little more supportive on this issue. Personally, I don't give a rat's how fast you are as long as you're out there trying.

Its true that a big medal count and some charismatic athletes would go a long way. Hard to see that as the primary problem though, especially since it's already starting to happen.

An American won a medal in all 4 middle distance events this WC year. Would the coverage have been really different if one of the had been a gold? I don't think so. Maybe an extra two page spread in RW followed by a John Bingham article and something about great foods for runners.

Would have been nice to see someone do well in the 5k - 10k but that wouldn't make a huge difference either. Meb won the marathon silver and couldn't even get anyone besides Sketchers to sponsor him going into the next Olympics. What's the point at which NBC or ESPN or whoever starts to present the sport a little better? We're never going to be completely dominant. So, it would take a leap of faith by someone willing to put the money in and thats hard to imagine.

What Flagpole said is correct. Half the Americans are obese. Do you really think they give a zit about 115 pound men and 90 pound women running in tiny shorts? Hell no. 90% people showing up races don't even care. They're there for themselves and their goals.

If you want to get paid to run, get fast as Rupp, Mo and Shalene. Like other nobody care sports, there is room for maybe a dozen distance runners to make a good living in US.

"i wonder why track/cross are so popular in HS"

What planet are you on? At least 1/2 the kids running this is to put it down on a college application because they couldn't do other sports. They're not as popular as you think it is.