Why aren't more track & field athletes also fans?

Re: Why aren't more track & field athletes also fans?

In reply to zilch...

i agree with the post from zilch. as a professional track and field athlete, I would say that there are many differences between the athlete and the fan. For one, the athlete is not concerned with all of the gossip and fine points of track and field knowledge as the "fan" is. After reading many topics here on this website, I find it sad that many fans claim to know the actual lives of the athletes that cheer on. The truth is, we the athletes know the scoop on what really goes on and the fan is in a lot of ways clueless in what goes on. To be honest, Who cares if Kluft will compete in 4 olympics or not? I'm certain she is not worried about peaking too soon. As an athlete, I'm certain she's only concerned with the present moment and what she can control. Only the fan concerns himself with the past and future. My advice would be to love the sport but not to be so fanatic in the process. Maybe that is why most professional athletes don't associate with fans or media.

[Rob]

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

..

[dj]

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

If you're using attendance figures to make your case, you're liable to miss your point. Many of the 1950s meets with large crowds were in California. The thing that changed in California was major league baseball coming in 1958.

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

Kuha-

Interesting. Thanks for the research. Well, then one can conclude that a few factors have changed the interest - which is going to the original question asked by this thread.

Probably - As you stated ARs and WRs were being set on a more frequent basis, more international competitors were competing in the US, world class US athletes competed more domestically rather than saving it for Europe, less competition from other sports (big time spectator sports ie. football, basketball), a more educated public, more media interest.

Of course most of the above are interrelated. Fewer US world class competitors leads to less meets, leads to less interest by the general public, leads to less media attention, leads to less education, leads to more of an interest in other sports. It is ends up in a downward spiral.

A few things can start to turn it around. Some more dominant US athletes in the high profile events would help to attract fans - #1 we need milers (not to beat a dead horse but we saw the media attention Mr. Webb got when they though he might be the next US miler to hit it big - it doesn't have to be Webb but a US miler in at 3:46 would help tremendously). A grass roots campaign to educate and responsibly coach the young kids would also help to build things from the bottom up - but it would help if "role models" were there for them.

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

Oops. I was going to add that the Drake and Penn Relays still draw great crowds, but that the Kansas Relays is a sad shadow of its former self. Most of the rest of the meets listed in T&FN in these earlier years are now simply gone.

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

Cyril: I remember that one or more issues of T&FN had summaries of the US meets with the highest attendance...which I couldn't find. However, I took a quick look at a few random years: 1953-54 and 1962. Not a scientific survey, by any means, but informative nonetheless. In a nutshell, I feel confident in saying that, in this period, there were not only far MORE US track meets, but the average attendance was quite good (both in actual numbers and relative to what we might expect today).

For example:
1953:
May 9: West Coast Relays, Fresno, 13,000
May 15: Coliseum Relays, LA, 36,000
May 16: California Relays, Fresno, 7000
May 30: Pacific Coast Conference, Stanford, 8500
June 5: Compton, "an overflow crowd"
June 23: PCC vs. Big Ten, 6100

1954:
March 27: Chicago Daily News (indoor), 17,691
April 17: Kansas Relays, 16,000
April 23: Drake Relays, 15,000
April 23: Penn Relays, 31,000

1962:
May 11: West Coast Relays, Fresno, "cool weather cut attendance at the 37th West Coast Relays to less than capacity for the first time in many years."
May 25: Modesto Relays: 10,000 (considered very small)
June 7: Compton Invitation, "a turnaway crowd of 9000"
Etc.

T&FN did not routinely give attendance figures, and obviously the above do not represent any sort of genuinely "meaningful" sample... However, even a casual survey of the reports from this era make it clear that the US public was offered far more high-level track meets than they are today, and that they turned out in very healthy numbers. Part of the appeal, of course, was that American records were being set with some regularity and WRs were not uncommon. And, as we know, there was far less competition from professional sports.

It seems very clear to me that US track and field has suffered a significant decline in public interest in the last half century and that we can, with some accuracy, describe the sport in this earlier era as "popular."

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

Cyril: Good challenge--to back up impressions with facts. I'll go thru the archive in the next day or so to see what I find...

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

>"Track has never been a big spectator sport."

While this statement may be
>qualified in various ways, I would question it. The major meets of the 1950s
>and '60s often attracted significant crowds--at least by comparison to today's
>(US) meets.

Kuha-

I would be interested in knowing the numbers of spectators of these "significant crowds". They may have been large by the standards of the day but they may actually be very similiar to the numbers that the large meets with world class talent attract today.

Of course in the 50's and 60's the other professional sports competing for the attention of the sports fan weren't near the level they are today. I'm sure the number of fans watching track meets in the 50's and 60's doesn't come any where near the number of fans attending high-profile profession sports today.

So we are comparing apples and oranges. Different times with different circumstances. Waht was considered a big crowd 50 years ago may not be considered a big crowd today.

Big specator sport or not, what developes lifelong fans in any sport is an overall understanding and appreciation of the talents being observed. Going back to my statement above, this appreciation must come from the coaches. It should be the coach's responsibility to get the kids excited about the sport through education and encouragement - not just call out workout splits.

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

The "track and field virus post" is a good source for what I wrote above.

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

Why aren't most track athletes also fans?

I've often wondered why and here's my take. It's an exposure issue. A lot of the messages on this board relate to young athletes who don't seem to care about what happened in the past and who know star athletes in basketball, baseball, and football rather than in their sport of track and field. Just about everybody watches TV regularly, and catching a football/basketball/baseball game on TV isn't uncommon. It's not hard to learn who the stars of the sport are. Track and Field on the other hand does not get this type of TV exposure, and sometimes the meets that are aired are played at obscure hours of the day. Young athletes and older athletes hardly have enough exposure to any track and field athlete to become true fans. TV time makes a difference. LeBron James is a great basketball player, but would we really know about him if he was on TV as much as a track star is? I don't think so. Also, in the Midwest (I'm from Wisconsin) there are zero national class meets to watch live with the exception of Drake Relays. So not only rarely see these athletes on TV, but It's difficult to see them in person as well. EXPOSURE WILL MAKE THE SPORT MORE POPULAR!!

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

"Track has never been a big spectator sport."

While this statement may be qualified in various ways, I would question it. The major meets of the 1950s and '60s often attracted significant crowds--at least by comparison to today's (US) meets.

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

No, it has nothing to do with this generation vs. that generation. Talk like that is egocentric and simply untrue. Kids today are plenty bright and required to do more and get better grades to graduate and get into college than ever before. The kids aren't the problem.

Track has never been a big spectator sport. As far as the distances go, it did better in the 70s and 80s partly because there were Americans and Brits who our kids in the US could relate to running at the top of the game. But as someone else mentioned, it has more to do with the coaches - teachers of the sport. They should educate as to the "why's" not simply dictate and tell kids "do". Teach physiology, biomechanics, sport psychology, nutrition and sport history - the sport isn't about just putting one leg in front of the other, there is much more to it. That's how to get the kids interested. A good teacher will inspire through their own excitement in a subject. Unfortunately with sports budget cuts many coaches are walk-ons who don't have a clue other than what they may have read in Runner's World.

[stevehj197]

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

Iskipped to the bottom w/o reading all the postings so I hope I am not saying something already said:

The way to get younger kids ( age 13-16, etc ) interested in "THE SPORT OF TRACK AND FIELD" is to show them movies/videos of past meets/ athletes so they can see the bigger picture. Many coaches probably do this but they all should.
My high school coach used to play audio tapes for us... I remember one by Bob Richards, where he described the last 50 yards of Tom Courtney's stretch run in Melbourne to win the OG 800. It was riveting !

Re: If they did learn to have a little reverence

I have coached XC and Track for 35 years. Mostly I coach all 3 seasons. I don't have tremendous teams in terms of winning championships, but we do well. We win most of our dual meets and finish high in our conference each year. Sometimes we even have won. I don't get great athletes. I generally get kids who never gave our sport a thought until high school. They start off a bit soft, but they toughen up. I am a history teacher and have a broad knowledge and an appreciation for the sport. I remember getting the Olympic Issue for the 1956 Olympics at Melbourne. I love teaching the history of the sport in little vignettes. The kids get a kick out of the stories. I don't think kids have changed much since I was in high school. Yes kids read a lot more back then. They also walked a lot more. But essentially they haven't changed. I love what I do and I can't imagine doing anything else in the last 35 years that would make me happier.

If they did learn to have a little reverence

for their sport, maybe it would drastically reduce injuries as well.
Fact is, most of these kids, to include the good runners on the team respect the major sports more.
We always hear people say that kids shouldn't do too much mileage...too much speedwork...too many repeats...Fact is the vast majority of injuries come in playing basketball after practice or football frisbee on their free time...

If they could learn how great it is to have a talent in a sport like this...maybe they wouldn't do these stupid things.