IAAF sees New-Look GP/GL Series

[Marlow]

excerpt from home-page-linked article:

"In short, we need to have the best athletes in the world competing more often, the most exciting presentation possible, more meetings around the world, and as much coverage as possible on free-to-air television"
* * *
see the sport expand into largely unchartered areas, including the Middle East
* * *
a radical overhaul of the traditional one-day type of meeting designed to appeal more to younger audiences
* * *
restructured World Athletics Tour and a strong level of interest has emerged for a 'short form' of athletics based on the changes being proposed.
* * *
"The challenge of Beijing is to use the global impact and popularity of Usain Bolt to connect with a younger demographic."

[dl]

I'm all for trying new things and changing the presentation at meets to attract and retain new fans, but upon reading the article, I have two questions (apart from wondering when the IAAF actually consulted athletes and their agents...)

1. What if Bolt gets hurt?

2. How can the fundamental presentation of a track meet change? Perhaps I'm just too stuck in linear thinking, but it's hard for me to imagine huge changes in how a track meet can be presented.

[Marlow]

1. What if Bolt gets hurt?
2. How can the fundamental presentation of a track meet change?

1. I think Bolt was just the example of a young, marketable star. He will be the model for others to come. Dix could be one, Merritt, Jelimo, - the idea is to get the Under-25 stars and market them ala MTV to the younger generation
2. Things like the 2-hour meet, 4 attempts per FE, seed the star into the final of 100 when there's a prelim, have $$$ incentives for leading at 1200 of a 1500 and still finishing in top 3 (I'm making up crap now), doing what the NFL/NBA do with crowd-pleasing antics.

[kuha]

Yeah, a quick read of this article boils down to: "Bolt was great in the Olympics and we want a lot more of that." No kidding.

This writeup is entirely vague on what this supposedly innovative and exciting new format will be. From what little has been revealed, it so far sounds like a lousy idea. Bolt's performance was so memorable because (conventional wisdom here) it was a one-time mega-explosion on the highest and more important athletic stage of all. What kind of idea is it to attempt to take that "one-time, special" quality and merchandize it to dozens of meets all over the world, grinding it out week after week? Seems to me that a) what began as "special" would quickly not be; and b) you're pretty much back to GL business as usual, with the top athletes performing mostly below their peak.

Frankly, I've always been in favor of fewer GL meets, more autonomy for local meets to organize the programs as they see fit, and athletes having the freedom to compete when and where they want to. It doesn't look like that's the way things will be headed.

[Marlow]

Frankly, I've always been in favor of fewer GL meets, more autonomy for local meets to organize the programs as they see fit, and athletes having the freedom to compete when and where they want to. It doesn't look like that's the way things will be headed.

I'm also for a free market, but like golf and tennis, we need to 'direct' the best to meet each other in the big meets, i.e., the Golden League. I think we have about the right number now, once a week for the bulk of the season. The lesser meets should negotiate together for the least amount of overlap in events, since only 1/3 of the events will be contested in any one meet (of course everyone wants the m100, m1500 and wPV! ). The IAAF can find the right 'incentives' (doesn't always HAVE to be $$$) to induce the stars to go head-head (although I also agree that TOO many head-heads can dull the sensation).

[imaginative]

I would actually consider a radically different approach:
Make sure that there are a number of couples of athletes who only meet once or
twice in a given season. (And distribute those head-ons onto different meets.)
Consider for next year that Bolt/Powell, Bolt/Gay, and Powell/Gay only have one
pre-WC meet, and what publicity opportunities those three races would give.
Similarly (in the appropriate circles), Thorkildsen/Pitkämäki, Hellbaut/Vlasic,
etc.

(As always, my general opinion is that all decisions in this area should be
made with the best of the athletes, not the meets/audience/IAAF-big-wigs/...,
in focus.)

[EPelle]

imaginative, who would decide which athlete match-ups would occur at which venues? Given that the athletes are in this for the money, first, I presume that each would want to race as much as possible in big-money meets. Providing one third of a match-up eliminates two-thirds from earning money in a key event, and won:t fly.

[imaginative]

That would all be a matter of negotiation. One possible way would be
to have an umbrella organisation for the meetings negotiate deals with
individual athletes (resp. their managers) and, in a second step, have
individual meetings bid for specific duels.

As for the money issue, this can be resolved by having more prize
money (or start money) for these duels to compensate for any missed
meetings. Also note that even for the GL meets it is common that
the victory contenders do not participate every time (even as is).

That said, this is of course a speculative idea that could well turn
out to be impractical. Still it is something I, personally, likely
would enjoy.

[dl]

1. What if Bolt gets hurt?
2. How can the fundamental presentation of a track meet change?

1. I think Bolt was just the example of a young, marketable star. He will be the model for others to come. Dix could be one, Merritt, Jelimo, - the idea is to get the Under-25 stars and market them ala MTV to the younger generation
2. Things like the 2-hour meet, 4 attempts per FE, seed the star into the final of 100 when there's a prelim, have $$$ incentives for leading at 1200 of a 1500 and still finishing in top 3 (I'm making up crap now), doing what the NFL/NBA do with crowd-pleasing antics.

No offense to any of the athletes you mention, but none has anything close to the star power of Bolt. You can build an entire meet around Bolt. I don't think you can say that about the others.

2. Pretty much all those things have been tried, to varying degrees of success. Most top meets in Europe have a 2-hour window for TV, but unfortunately, it has caused some meets (like Zurich) to become too thin. The B and C sections in Zurich used to be great, and a fantastic way to warm up the crowd, without affecting the TV window.

Four attempts per field event is a bad idea, IMHO. I think if you want to shorten the duration of a field event and maximize drama, it's better to limit the size of the field and re-order after each round. You want to feature your top athletes more, not less!

I understand the idea of giving the big stars a bye into the final, but this takes away from the drama. If you were at a meet with Usain Bolt, wouldn't you want to watch him in the heats? I realize that athletes don't want to comete too often, but I think everyone's now aware that if you want to run a fast 100m, it's best to have a heat about 60-90 minutes earlier.

Stockholm has had "primes" for the 5000 before. I thought it was pretty entertaining, making some otherwise stale match-ups a bit more interesting, and I think more can be done with this.

As for the actual presentation of meets, I think we've taken a giant step backwards. I don't want t sound like an old fart, but I think that playing music during races is a bad idea. It causes fans to not make any noise of their own (Dave Johnson does a much better job than I do lobbying for the natural sounds of a crowd). Music has a place during "dead" times, but during a track meet, there shouldn't BE any dead time, not if the presentation is done well. There should be so much to talk about on the field between track events that music isn't necessary!

[gh]

One of the reasons I quit going to NFL games is that they've made it almost impossible to talk between plays and with the amount of commercial time they fit in (if you think it's bad on TV, at least there you can go walk to the fridge or whatever; in the stadium you're stuck in your seat), that's a lot of time to sit and twiddle your thumbs.

I'm a head-banger from way back but there's a time and a place for everything, and in the middle of a track meet just ain't it.

[Smoke]

the music argument has been raging for years/
Look old guys, lol, music is a good thing. It brings atmosphere where there cannot be any. The inheritent silence of a track meet gives the illusion of dead time. No matter what is happening on the infield when a 10k is going on it grows quiet in spots. Having drums gives rhythm to the runners, and ambient noise. It also has the side effect of creating crowd noise because people will talk louder.
I do agree, there is a decibel level that should be adhered to, when you cannot hear to talk it sucks!

Best thing I have seen to date was the introductions at Millrose about 10 years ago. Each sprinter was asked for intro music and it was great!!! You cannot do that for all events but these type of decorations are good for the sport and its commercial presentation.

FUnny how no one complains about the music at the majors, which has been around for almost 20 years now, as my experience goes.

[KLocke]

Pole vault comps often intergrate music. Such as, Bubka's indoor competition the music chosen by each athlete is amped and the crowd goes crazy. Also, a certain young lady always breaks the world record with music blaring.

Here's a link below from Bob's site. Each competitor is jumping with music:

http://www.trackprofile.com/2005/05-02-12-Donetsk.html

the music argument has been raging for years/
Look old guys, lol, music is a good thing. It brings atmosphere where there cannot be any. The inheritent silence of a track meet gives the illusion of dead time. No matter what is happening on the infield when a 10k is going on it grows quiet in spots. Having drums gives rhythm to the runners, and ambient noise. It also has the side effect of creating crowd noise because people will talk louder.
I do agree, there is a decibel level that should be adhered to, when you cannot hear to talk it sucks!

Best thing I have seen to date was the introductions at Millrose about 10 years ago. Each sprinter was asked for intro music and it was great!!! You cannot do that for all events but these type of decorations are good for the sport and its commercial presentation.

FUnny how no one complains about the music at the majors, which has been around for almost 20 years now, as my experience goes.

[Marlow]

I'm a head-banger from way back but there's a time and a place for everything, and in the middle of a track meet just ain't it.

I like it. I don't remember what meet it was but they played the crescendo of Wagner/Apocalyse Now's Flight of Valkyrie during the 400, and it was chilling! :!:

[tandfman]

For me, personally, there's no need to play music at a track meet. The competition is all the entertainment I need. However, for many and perhaps most people, I think the right music, at the right volume, can add to the atmosphere. Unfortunately, too often, one or the other, or both, are wrong.

[az2004]

new age sports are all about the amped in music...

it's more a happening than anything else...

track just isn't gonna get this group of kids...

the espn generation is all about the highlite reel, NOT fundamentals...

there's no easy answer here, but getting the best to compete against each other more frequently is a major step...

they spend more time in avoidance than is good for the sport..

toobad