Does elite athletics matter?

--amadeus-- · 22-09-2011 2:34pm #1

I'm heading away for a weekends drunken debauchery and hungover biking so I thought I'd open a wee bit of debate to come home to

The vast bulk of us on here are active participants in the sport. We train, we race. The vast majority of us race exclusively on the roads at distances of 5k and up.

So apart from an in passing "oh thats interesting" way why should we care what a bunch of pros do? In particular why should regular runners and road racers care who can throw a lump of lead or a pointy stick furthest? After all angling is the most popular participant sport in the UK but the TV schedule (apart from the furthest reaches of the Discovery channel) is unblemished by fishing programs. Even the programs that there are focus on interesting fishing that anyone could do rather than competition. Clearly the interest isn't there to sustain elite fishing programs.

So why should there be an assumption that a runner should care about elite running? And why should that assumed interest extend to who can use a stick to jump over another really high stick?

Any second now someone will say that elite athletics is the pinnacle and that peak is supported by the grassroots, by clubs and the AAI so we are all an interconnected organic whole. But sure the last time we asked a sizeable number of people on here didn't even belong to a club and you could happily race every other week in events that are unconnected to the athletics infrastructure (either by permit or by club). And with the AAI ignoring the shambles that is race permitting they are clearly happy for the common or garden runner to grow away from the sport so why should we buy into what thier stars do?

See you all on Monday

shels4ever · 22-09-2011 2:48pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm heading away for a weekends drunken debauchery and hungover biking so I thought I'd open a wee bit of debate to come home to

The vast bulk of us on here are active participants in the sport. We train, we race. The vast majority of us race exclusively on the roads at distances of 5k and up.

So apart from an in passing "oh thats interesting" way why should we care what a bunch of pros do? In particular why should regular runners and road racers care who can throw a lump of lead or a pointy stick furthest? After all angling is the most popular participant sport in the UK but the TV schedule (apart from the furthest reaches of the Discovery channel) is unblemished by fishing programs. Even the programs that there are focus on interesting fishing that anyone could do rather than competition. Clearly the interest isn't there to sustain elite fishing programs.

So why should there be an assumption that a runner should care about elite running? And why should that assumed interest extend to who can use a stick to jump over another really high stick?

Any second now someone will say that elite athletics is the pinnacle and that peak is supported by the grassroots, by clubs and the AAI so we are all an interconnected organic whole. But sure the last time we asked a sizeable number of people on here didn't even belong to a club and you could happily race every other week in events that are unconnected to the athletics infrastructure (either by permit or by club). And with the AAI ignoring the shambles that is race permitting they are clearly happy for the common or garden runner to grow away from the sport so why should we buy into what thier stars do?

See you all on Monday

King troll

Bloody Nipples · 22-09-2011 2:51pm

Great as a benchmark! And it's nice to watch the human body being pushed to it's limit. The mens 5000m final at the world champs was claaassss...

sideswipe · 22-09-2011 2:57pm

elite athletics is the pinnacle and that peak is supported by the grassroots, by clubs and the AAI so we are all an interconnected organic whole:p

ThePiedPiper · 22-09-2011 3:00pm

Yes, the vast majority of us here are plodders, many of whom took up running well into our 20s or even later, heaven forbid.. When I first took up running, I only had a casual interest in elite athletics, I probably tuned in for the worlds and Olympics or if there was nothing else on, I'd probably have watched athletics on TV.

However, over the course of a few years, my times improved at marathons and I started running a few smaller local races and then got picked up by a local club. Some of the lads I'm training with get in among the places at the biggest races in Ireland, some have represented Ireland and others are definitely on this road. I know I'll probably never win a race where there is any depth in the field, I'm probably only the 4th or 5th fastest guy in the club. But, some of the guys I'm training with are, have been or are on the road to becoming elite (at least in the Irish scene). This makes it relevant to me.

Continuing on from this, when I've travelled abroad to marathons, I've shared the road with some of the greatest athletes in the world. I ran in the Paris marathon when a certain Tsegaye Kebede announced himself as a global superstar, I started 20 yards back from Haile Gebrsellasie in Berlin 2008 when he broke the world record and ran New York when Meb Keflezighi became the first American in a generation to win. This is a true honour and while I'm not fit to lace their runners, I feel as if I at least can relate to and appreciate their greatness having been there and seen them.

Pisco Sour · 22-09-2011 3:07pm

Would be gas if somebody posted a thread in the Rugby forum saying "Does elite rugby matter?".

donothoponpop · 22-09-2011 3:09pm

Bloody elites. Taking all our marathon prizes...

shels4ever · 22-09-2011 3:10pm

04072511 wrote: »

Would be gas if somebody posted a thread in the Rugby forum saying "Does elite rugby matter?".

Tag rugby is the key element of that sport with more people playing it on a week to week basis.

EC1000 · 22-09-2011 3:18pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So why should there be an assumption that a runner should care about elite running?

Your argument is predicated on this being the case. What are you basing this on? Maybe it's just you that's assuming this?

RoyMcC · 22-09-2011 3:22pm

Like he said ^^^it's clear that there's only a hardened core on here that are enthused by elite athletics. That's slightly sad but inevitable. Most A/R/Tists are do-ers tather than watchers.

Pisco Sour · 22-09-2011 3:23pm

shels4ever wrote: »

Tag rugby is the key element of that sport with more people playing it on a week to week basis.

Yep and imagine one of these tag-rugby players going onto the rugby forum and asking "Does elite rugby matter". It would be laughed at and not taken seriously, yet here we are actually discussing such a topic on the athletics forum.

You could say that elite athletics doesn't matter (nor any sport for that matter), if you are looking at things in the grand scheme of things, compared to 3rd world poverty, natural disasters etc, but that's a completely different discussion entirely.

pgmcpq · 22-09-2011 4:23pm

I enjoy watching the longer distance stuff - I can watch re runs of the Boston marathon forever

. But athletics does not come over well on tv. There is little sense of the speed involved so it just does not translate well. In Barcelona this year a few friends came over to see me. So they ended up watching the marathon. For the first time they got some idea of what happens up the the elite end of the race. I pointed out to them that the leaders were doing a pace over the 26 miles that I could hold for maybe 800m on a good day.

As a kid I remember everyone watching Coughlan's races - then John Tracy in the world cross country. But a) without an outstanding Olympic candidate in a "glamour" event and b) with so much sport on tv now ... it does not catch the imagination the same way.

RoyMcC · 22-09-2011 4:33pm

You're right pgmcpq - your average punter (average road runner even) has no notion what running 22 secs for 200m is like - unless you've got out on the track yourself to find yourself still miles back on the home straight after that length of time.

Putting a shot is desperately dreary to watch, no matter how you dress it up. I know how awesome it is to launch a 7.26k shot 22 metres but it's still hard work to watch.

Pisco Sour · 22-09-2011 4:34pm

pgmcpq wrote: »

But athletics does not come over well on tv. .

I disagree. It's an ideal spectator sport with so much going on at the one time. In between races on the track, there's usually 3 different field events going on, so the TV coverage switches back and forth between each. My oul man, who is a big sports fan, but would be primarily GAA, and athletics wouldn't be anywhere near his favourite sports said to me that it is a great sport to watch for that exact reason.

In terms of watching it live, I paid 25 euro for a full evening session, sitting in the lower tier, at the worlds in Daegu. 25 euro to watch the best athletes in the world over numerous different events. In terms of value for money, excitement, atmosphere and variety, no other sport comes remotely close IMO. I've attended numerous sports events down the years across many different sports, and IMO the only sport that comes in any way close to athletics for the things listed above would be tennis (was at the Aussie Open this year).

nerraw1111 · 22-09-2011 4:49pm

Of course it matters.

The question is does anyone care.

The difference with soccer, gaa, and rugby is that most people taking playing those sports have a stronger affinity with the game.

There is the assumption that runners should care about elites when in fact, there is no connection between the two.

Same as asking why those out for a stroll in the evening don't care about elite walkers.

For many, running isn't a sport. It's an enjoyable hobby.

Pisco Sour · 22-09-2011 5:01pm

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Of course it matters.

The question is does anyone care.

The difference with soccer, gaa, and rugby is that most people taking playing those sports have a stronger affinity with the game.

There is the assumption that runners should care about elites when in fact, there is no connection between the two.

Same as asking why those out for a stroll in the evening don't care about elite walkers.

For many, running isn't a sport. It's an enjoyable hobby.

There's a difference between going out for a jog to relax, for fitness or to lose weight and actually taking part in races across Ireland and beyond.

Going off for a jog on a sunday afternoon with your mates while you discuss the scandel of the previous night's schenanigans in Coppers is NOT a sport, so why would these people have any affinity with the likes of Paula Radcliffe, Mo Farah etc

On the otherhand, the people who actually compete regularly in races on the roads, and are racing against their own previous PB's, trying to better themselves, are competing in a sport, and it should be only natural that somebody who participates in a sport would want to watch and learn from the best in their chosen sport.

gerard65 · 22-09-2011 5:02pm

You're all missing the OP's point. He claimed angling is a 'sport'!:pac:

Pisco Sour · 22-09-2011 5:12pm

Does elite athletics matter?

Track and Field = the showpiece sport of the Olympic Games
Olympic Games = the World's biggest sporting event for global viewing figures

World Athletics Championships = the 3rd biggest sporting event in the world after the Olympics and FIFA World Cup in terms of global viewing figures, and the biggest sporting event of 2011 (you can kid yourself all you like but the Rugby World Cup is watched in about 10 small to medium sized countries!)

Yeh I think it matters.

Right I'm going to sleep. Cant believe I've let myself be dragged into this debate

RayCun · 22-09-2011 5:38pm

shels4ever wrote: »

King troll

I'm not fit to bait his hook:pac:

ecoli · 22-09-2011 5:44pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

After all angling is the most popular participant sport in the UK but the TV schedule (apart from the furthest reaches of the Discovery channel) is unblemished by fishing programs. Even the programs that there are focus on interesting fishing that anyone could do rather than competition. Clearly the interest isn't there to sustain elite fishing programs.

Hold your tongue. Us hardcore fishers have been rewarded by Sky Sports with coverage annually

http://www.matchroomsport.com/sports/fishing/individualevents/fishomania.htm

As far as I remember their was an big athletics meet that weekend yet SS decided to show this. ANGLING 1 ATHLETICS 0:D

robinph · 22-09-2011 5:45pm

About 50% of athletics coverage on the likes of the BBC is actually normal punters running a marathon in a daft costume. The rest is made up of a small portion of the London and Great North coverage showing skinny Africans running silly fast and now some Diamond League coverage as well recently, sure I can't remember that being on much previous years. London Marathon coverage tends to be 2 hours on the elites, then about 4 hours in total, including the build up, on people in chicken costumes. GNR was probably an even bigger ratio towards the chicken costumes, although they were mostly just wearing football jerseys in fact.

So clearly the audience want to see fancy dress and don't care about the skinny Africans.

ecoli · 22-09-2011 5:58pm

robinph wrote: »

About 50% of athletics coverage on the likes of the BBC is actually normal punters running a marathon in a daft costume. The rest is made up of a small portion of the London and Great North coverage showing skinny Africans running silly fast and now some Diamond League coverage as well recently, sure I can't remember that being on much previous years. London Marathon coverage tends to be 2 hours on the elites, then about 4 hours in total, including the build up, on people in chicken costumes. GNR was probably an even bigger ratio towards the chicken costumes, although they were mostly just wearing football jerseys in fact.

So clearly the audience want to see fancy dress and don't care about the skinny Africans.

THE DL format is only recently established (i.e 2 years) and BBC won the rights from Eurosport to view them so obviously there must have been some demand to actually out bid Eurosport.

On top of that you have Eurosport still showing Grand prix meets, SS showing English school championships, The Great Run series (including Great city games) on BBC, RTE showing the Great Ireland run (not a part of the Great Series so individual tv rights), NYC, Berlin, London and for first time Dublin this year.

And the amount of athletics on tv is growing so I obviously its slightly more appealing than you might think

thirtyfoot · 22-09-2011 7:15pm

The key to a good troll, in my opinion, is it may take the victims about 150 posts in the thread before they realise it's a troll. Reading the subject alone sent the troll alarms off on this one. It reminds me of a recreational troll, trying their best but ultimately going nowhere until they join a proper troll club.

On topic though, elite matter to those interested in athletics. It also matters to those involved in some form of authority of athletics. To those not interested in athletics, it doesn't and there is no obligation for it to matter.

Three main types of runners.

Type 1 - Those interested and involved in elite/competitive/club athletics.
Type 2 - recreational runner who by their competitive nature and desire to progress will become a type 1.
Type 3 - recreational runner who has no competitive ambition and will never become a type 1. They are the most likely to get bored and stop running altogether.

So, for type 1 and 2 it matters.

pgmcpq · 22-09-2011 9:37pm

04072511 wrote: »

I disagree. It's an ideal spectator sport with so much going on at the one time. In between races on the track, there's usually 3 different field events going on, so the TV coverage switches back and forth between each.

There ya go - takes all sorts ! I HATE that switching between events in coverage of the DL. They'll switch off the 10k in the middle laps to watch one participant in a field event. By the time they return the race has a completely different shape:mad:. Drives me nuts! How do I know the didn't actually take the middle laps off and were picnicking by the side of the track for 5 minutes. No wonder I can't get my damn 10k times down !!!! That why I prefer triathlon or marathon coverage.

Chartsengrafs · 22-09-2011 10:56pm

Not sure about tri coverage really. Splash splash splash....cagey group cycle with everyone biding their time......a Brownlee winning with a ridiculous run followed closely by another Brownlee and possible that Gomez fella.

But in answer to the original question..probably not. But does anything??

Pisco Sour · 23-09-2011 1:18am

ecoli wrote: »

BBC won the rights from Eurosport to view them so obviously there must have been some demand to actually out bid Eurosport.

Interesting that one. I've been watching the Diamond League all this year down in Oz on Eurosport, with Tim Hutchins and the gang in commentary. Maybe BBC outbid British Eurosport, but on regular Eurosport they very much had the DL coverage.

And Robinph, 50% of the BBC's MARATHON coverage is dedicated to people in Batman and Robin (hehe) costumes. If you look at Athletics in general this is not the case.

SeanKenny · 23-09-2011 9:43am

There should be no coverage of the Olympic Games, World or European championships or indeed national championships. The papers should also discontinue even mentioning them. What we need is a 4 hour special on events like the mini marathon, "tri-wherever you like" and a few egg and spoon races from various locations.

Lets hear interviews live from city centre bars where Jason and Nora can tell their story of completing the marathon with only 3 weeks preparation and how they now feel amazing after such an achievement (please ignore the fact that they walked half of it and completed in in 5 hours 30!!!)

This is the stuff of dreams, not mad len making the world final or Deirdre Ryan finishing 6th. Oh and before I go, would it be possible to run a mile in 4 mins 30 in 6 weeks time if I limit myself to 10 cigarettes a day, 4 pints a night, only have a take away on wednesdays, fridays and special occasions? I am also willing to train: 2-3 jogs of 15 minute duration per week?

RayCun · 23-09-2011 10:02am

SeanKenny wrote: »

Oh and before I go, would it be possible to run a mile in 4 mins 30 in 6 weeks time if I limit myself to 10 cigarettes a day, 4 pints a night, only have a take away on wednesdays, fridays and special occasions? I am also willing to train: 2-3 jogs of 15 minute duration per week?

I don't know, but if you do it, we'll be waiting at the finish for a group hug and your fluffy bunny award.

tunguska · 23-09-2011 12:29pm

I think elite athletics is important because it gives us something to aim for. When banister broke the 4 min mile barrier, after it being thought to be physically impossible, a whole load of other lads went sub 4 within the space of a couple of weeks. Elite athletes set the bar for the rest of us. A lot of people have a very defensive reaction to the concept of elitism, I mean even in the charter of this forum theres a bit warning against any elitist posts. But I think elitsim is a healthy thing, it drives people to levels they ordinarily wouldnt get to. And Im not talking about the type of elitism where somebody tries to beat others over the head with their faster times, look at me Im great, you're not. But elitism doesnt have to be that way, it can be inspiring. I actually think theres not enough elitism in Irish sport, we have very much a mid table mentality. The whole saipan thing with Roy keane was a classic example of how low we aim. And look at the womens mini-marathon, the standard in that race(and it is meant to be a race) is shocking. That race could do with a lot more elitism.
The Ballycotton 10mile road race has the right idea, top 100 get a special T-shirt. That in itself motivates people. I know lads who go all out just to get one of those T-shirts. Thats healthy elitism This everybodys a winner thing helps nobody

T runner · 23-09-2011 2:01pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

..........
The vast bulk of us on here are active participants in the sport. We train, we race.

We try to improve.

So apart from an in passing "oh thats interesting" way why should we care what a bunch of pros do?

Because we share a sport and an interest in improving. Their natural ability and their training (alla spects) tower above ours. But we can and do learn from them. If we train to get faster we have a lot in common with elites and a lot to learn from them.

In particular why should regular runners and road racers care who can throw a lump of lead or a pointy stick furthest?

We dont share as much in common with these as distance racers. We do share a desire to improve at our sport and as susch may have a more keen eye for technique which may make this sport more interesting to watch.

After all angling is the most popular participant sport in the UK but the TV schedule (apart from the furthest reaches of the Discovery channel) is unblemished by fishing programs. Even the programs that there are focus on interesting fishing that anyone could do rather than competition. Clearly the interest isn't there to sustain elite fishing programs.

Some sports are more watcheable than others. If fishing had a probable risk of a Jaws like fish rising and taking the arm off a competitor- then the participation rate would go down but the viewership would go up---and it may not be just anglers watching. You are incorrectly assuming a direct correlation between enjoying a sport and watching it.

crazy cabbage · 23-09-2011 2:50pm

i don’t watch any sports on tv because i find it incredible boring. i simple can’t sit to watch people running around in circles or kicking the football over and back across the pitch (the only exception is when the Irish rugby team are playing but that is more got to do with national pride than sport).
That is just me though and really couldn't care what other people do (i say that in the nicest sense possible)

Does elite athletics matter?

Comments