Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athletes

[Gordon18]

Caster Semenya

[glimp5k]

In a similar vein, when will the mile or 1500 records be taken down again? Does there have to be a dominant figure for these to be broken?

[sprintblox]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

In swimming, the fact that World Records are falling willy-nilly at the craziest level ever (no matter what the reason) doesn't seem to have made the sport anymore valuable.

Either extreme is bad, whether it is world records lasting for multiple decades without anybody getting close, or short-lived frequently broken records.

[jpaule]

Does anyone know how many track and field athletes make over a million dollars per year and who they are?

[nony]

There wasn't really much marketing value before Usain so how can he destroy it. Worlds will soon be over, your misery will be over, your hate will subside, and track and field will carry on just fine. Europe loves bolt, only the Americans are bitching and track and field gets no love in the US anyway. You should all bow and kiss this mans feet, instead of posting this nonsense. Bolt is more than just demolishing records, he is a personality. Embrace this man or just stop watching track and field completely. As a matter of fact stop posting because you are only adding to your own misery. This man can't be stopped, you should all just curl up with your pillows and cry, it might help.

[El Toro]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

Swimming records will now become scarce as they have banned those scientifically engineered suits. In fact, at WCs recently they predicted some of the records set there will last a lifetime once the ban sets in.

I doubt the lifetime thing because swimming really has a small competitor base compared to athletics. There has been an expansion in numbers in recent years, so if this continues there will be more genetic freaks and better chances to break records.

Also, because of the density of water, there is still potential for significant improvement just through stroke refinement. Don't forget that swimming erased all the 70's and 80's marks prior to the recent swimsuit stupidity, something that athletics hasn't been able to and may never be able to do.

[jpaule]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

In swimming, the fact that World Records are falling willy-nilly at the craziest level ever (no matter what the reason) doesn't seem to have made the sport anymore valuable .

I was thinking about that since the WR in swimming is broken like every other day how much significance does it actually hold in the sports world.

Swimming records will now become scarce as they have banned those scientifically engineered suits. In fact, at WCs recently they predicted some of the records set there will last a lifetime once the ban sets in.

[ATK]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

In swimming, the fact that World Records are falling willy-nilly at the craziest level ever (no matter what the reason) doesn't seem to have made the sport anymore valuable .

I was thinking about that since the WR in swimming is broken like every other day how much significance does it actually hold in the sports world.

[JWiz]

[Vault-emort]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

Although you can make a good story out of such a statement, is it really true?? If so, then what about all the untouchable world records from the 80s and 90s?

Bubka's WR may still be unattainable to most but the men's vault will feature on many, many (most??) T&F programmes and the crowd will still get into it big-time (despite TV giving most field events short shrift).

Carl Lewis could never beat Beamon's LJ WR from 20 years earlier (and he really only got the 100m WR once - if you discount Seoul - and couldn't take Mennea's 200m WR), but he was still the sport's major star for a decade or more.

In swimming, the fact that World Records are falling willy-nilly at the craziest level ever (no matter what the reason) doesn't seem to have made the sport anymore valuable .

So I dunno...

ETA -sorry meant to quote JRM's post in this msg

[steve]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

I'm guessing other sprinters are going to increase/alter their training in an effort to compete.

I wonder how many sprinters have added yams to their diets.

[steve]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

I'm guessing other sprinters are going to increase/alter their training in an effort to compete.

I wonder how many sprinters have added yams to their diets.

[sprintblox]

Re: Usain Bolt Has Destroyed Market Value of Track Athlete

Has Usain hurt market value of athletes in 1100m and 200m as well as athletes in other events as well. For example, who is going to pay Asafa huge money when he is no longer a threat to break WR (especially after him dogging it in many of the meets this year. Since Bolt will have to be payed a huge amount of money just to appear at a meet, will that cause a reduction in other athletes appearance fees?

Yes. As long as there is much more money to be made by Bolt and others at the top in appearance fees than prize money, the money for the others will be reduced.

To change that situation would require a change to seasonal contracts, and/or the near-elimination of appearance fees (with that money going towards performance-based prize money) so that the top athletes have to show up and face each other to make good money.

[kuha]

I make (or attempt to!) the case that like Carl Lewis before him (or like Tiger in golf) he may be bad for the sport overall. At least in the sense of trying to put a meet on: he's bigger than the sport now. He IS the sport, so if you don't have him, you got bupkis.

Really pretty true. At present, I honestly think that with Bolt on one side of the scale and ALL other t&f athletes on the other side, Bolt easily outweighs them in "market value." That can't be good for the sport as a whole. And, in terms of head-to-head competition: it will be big news when Bolt first loses, but until then, will anyone honestly care who else is in the field against him?

All of this has a "be careful what you wish for" quality. Despite malmo's contrary point of view, a realistic view of history suggests that Bolt has kicked these records quite far into the future. No one can say how far, of course: a "mere" 6 or 8 years?; 15 years?; a whole lot more? The bottom line, however, will clearly be a distinct lack of fan excitement at 9.75-type 100s and 19.60 (or 19.40!) type 200s--which is too bad.

Historically speaking, some of these massive records get caught up with fairly soon: Geb's 1995 5000, for example, lasted a much shorter period of time than I ever would have guessed. In other cases--all entirely too familiar--records sit for decades on the books, no matter how questionable or ridiculous, diminishing the real stature of later, "lesser" marks.

It was a total thrill watching Bolt run. I suspect we will be living with the memory--and the consequences--of his Berlin races for quite a few years.

[CookyMonzta]

I don't see how I said that -- I was imposing no restrictions on who can run what. The fact of the matter is that the 100m and 200m WRs are now out of reach for quite some time..

These kinds of statements have always been proven wrong.

History is your friend. Pay attention to it.

How does one prove such a statement to be false? What does "quite some time" mean? Wasn't Owens' LJ record around for "quite some time"? Unless you're saying there's an implication such as "we won't see this record beaten in our lifetimes", I don't see where the problem lies with JRM's choice of words.

Flojo's 21.34 WILL be around for quite some MORE time......I don't expect to see it bettered before it turns 50 years old, which would give it another 29 years to go......but wait, genetic engineering could skew this prediction...

We're at a point where 9.99 ain't shit now. Either the big dogs run under 9.85, or they can forget about an Olympic medal. That speaks of the progression of the men's 100 (and even the 200) today.

The same can't be said about the women's 100 and 200. The girls are a step behind. I figured by now we'd have a couple of girls capable of 10.70/21.70; unfortunately that is not the case.

Dirty or not, the sprints needed a Marion Jones to force progression out of them. Like Mo Greene 11 years after Ben, It took the girls a decade to respond. They're not quite there yet, but in the 200 they are still struggling to break 22.00 even more, despite the fact that Ottey, Torrence and even Privalova made it seem like child's play nearly 20 years ago.