If a casual track and field fan was asked which of these performances is better which one would they pick?
10 0x 100m
1:44.1x 800m
3:55.4 mile
13:28 5,000
28:12 10,000
2:11:20 marathon
Not which is better in your feelings but in the mind of a person we would tune in a to watch a televised track meet.
10.0x 100 meters although the x might throw them a curve better to use 10.00 and 1:44.20
in America the 1mile. almost every American has run the mile at least once in there life so we have sort of an understanding of the distance and what would considered "fast".
You kinda asked two questions there. I agree with the last poster who said the mile. I think most casual fans have not idea what a good 100,800,5000,10000 is. They probably think the marathon WR is 2:00:00, or else they think 2:30 is Olympic caliber. If someone hears you broke 4 in the mile, they'll think you're one of the fastest people in the world.
As for what would get people to watch on TV: the 100. No one has time to watch longer than a minute of running.
Happy helper wrote:
You kinda asked two questions there . . .
I don't think so. Please point out the two questions I can only find one.
If a casual track and field fan was asked which of these performances is better which one would they pick?
10 0x 100m
1:44.1x 800m
3:55.4 mile
13:28 5,000
28:12 10,000
2:11:20 marathon
Not which is better in your feelings but in the mind of a person we would tune in a to watch a televised track meet.
Question 1: Which of these is better? Which one would they pick?
Answer: 3:55.4 mile
Questions 2: In the mind of a person, which would get them to tune into a televised meet?
Answer: 10.0x 100m
The mile and it's not even close. Americans don't know anything about the metric system and the only thing they care about in the marathon is if you have finished one.
Side note: A lot of Americans would believe that finishing a marathon under 3 hours is better than the sub-4 mile.