No Field Events

[Guest]

Due to the poor field event coverage, particularly the throws, let's rename this magazine "Track and Womens Pole Vault News"

[197hjsteve]

Re: No Field Events

you know, I'm a Field Guy too, and I do not agree with you. Be it cover photos, athletes of the year, or just all coverage in general, I feel and have always felt that T&FN gives Field events completely equal coverage, and I bet you will find that you will not hear much disagreement on that.

Yes, the women's PV has gotten a lot of ink but that is for the obvious 3 fold combination of 1) new and different 2)most exciting field event anyway, and 3) US woman as Oly champ and WR holder.

[hammer forever]

Re: No Field Events

sorry to bring this to the front but I didn't get to sign on at work on Wednesday or at home, too busy.
Can Garry or anyone tell me the date of the issue which had a hammer thrower (Lance Deal??) on the front cover?

[Guest]

Re: No Field Events

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archiv ... overs.html

[Guest]

Re: No Field Events

Track events are more popular than field events. Always have been, always will be. T&FN is just serving the interests of the majority of their readers.

[MJR]

Re: No Field Events

>Track events are more popular than field events.
>Always have been, always will be. T&FN is just
>serving the interests of the majority of their
>readers.

Its a fallacious argument, constantly used by the media, to cover what they want to. Things become popular because they are given ridiculous amounts of exposure, which generates interest by the populace, which requires more coverage. Its a circular argument. The World's Strongest Man is ridiculous, but forced into the public's attention, so people think it is popular. Look at the ratings for that, no one watches, but ESPN continues to show it, even from 10 years ago.

All of the market analysis that NBC, ESPN, T&FN use to justify what they do is complete hogwash. If you ask the right questions to the right people, the answers will always say what you want. W/ the number of people watching the Hammer, and it getting no coverage on TV, it is plainly obvious that the TV people have no clue. The broadcasts of the USATF meet were decided down to the very second days ahead of time. I read the schedules myself. Its so programmed, that they don't have 10 seconds to congratulate the only athlete who set a US Record at the Meet (actually 2 in the same race). Turn the cameras on, show the athletes names, with some bio info below, and let them compete. No announcers are needed.

[Guest]

Re: No Field Events

Yeah, you're right. A bunch of TV executives sat around one day and decided to make the NFL and NBA the most popular sports. It's all a conspiracy!

[bubba]

Re: No Field Events

MJR- please find me chapter and verse where T&FN has justified how/what it does with "market analysis." I'd like to see that one.

[Guest]

Re: No Field Events

The only field events in the future will be high jump and pole vault. The interest in the throwing events is nill , the major meets have been dropping the throws one by one. No one wants to watch a muscle head rubbing chalk on there hands , when a 1500m run is under way. No one as in ,"television media".

[tandfman]

Yes, Field Events!

TV has been ignoring the throwing events for years, but they have survived and will continue to survive for a long time. Two reasons. First, they are an integral part of our sport. More important, to many real fans who go to live meets, including yours truly, field events are generally much better to watch than track events.

[Guest]

Re: No Field Events

All of the market
>analysis that NBC, ESPN, T&FN use to justify
>what they do is complete hogwash. If you ask
>the right questions to the right people, the
>answers will always say what you want. W/ the
>number of people watching the Hammer, and it
>getting no coverage on TV, it is plainly obvious
>that the TV people have no clue. The broadcasts
>of the USATF meet were decided down to the very
>second days ahead of time. I read the schedules
>myself. Its so programmed, that they don't have
>10 seconds to congratulate the only athlete who
>set a US Record at the Meet (actually 2 in the
>same race). Turn the cameras on, show the
>athletes names, with some bio info below, and
>let them compete. No announcers are needed.

Who set an American Record at the meet besides Michelle Rohl in the 20K race walk?

[Guest]

Re: Yes, Field Events!

>More important, to many real fans who go to live
>meets, including yours truly, field events are
>generally much better to watch than track events.


Define many. This may be the case for you, but I suspect you are in the vast minority of track fans.

[197hjsteve]

Re: Yes, Field Events!

The shot is an example of an event that is GREAT but only if you can get "up close and personal" with it.... which you cannot at most meets.

I remember when the NCAA was at U. of Illinois in 1977 and 1979; shot, hammer, et.c were outside the Stadium, before the track events started.
For us hard core fans, that was just great. Got to stand around the rings,scratch line like at a dual meet.

But that's not realistic very often or even desirable. Makes it hard to get the feel of the vent from afar up in the stands. And this is also true for the High Jump to a lesser degree. It has to be centered at the end of the field and as such is not super close to the fans. At least with the PV, at many stadiums, the runway is parallel to one of the straights and pretty close to it.... good for the fans.

So it's tough to get much pizazz out of the field events while at the met. But on TV, if the want to to do, particularly if it's taped and can be compressed, they have the potential to do a great job with any Field event.

[MJR]

Re: No Field Events

Michelle Rohl at 15000m during the 20000m RW. I was one of the timers.

[blacklily]

Re: No Field Events

Its a fallacious argument,
>constantly used by the media, to cover what they
>want to. Things become popular because they are
>given ridiculous amounts of exposure, which
>generates interest by the populace, which
>requires more coverage. Its a circular argument.
>The World's Strongest Man is ridiculous, but
>forced into the public's attention, so people
>think it is popular. Look at the ratings for
>that, no one watches, but ESPN continues to show
>it, even from 10 years ago.

Not completely true. Otherwise, we wouldn't see NASCAR on television so much. Not too long ago, it was a sport relegated to Southern, tobacoo-chewing rednecks named Billy Bob. Hardly on TV at all. Yet unlike track & field, NASCAR has worked hard to mainstream its sport. It built up its fan base from regional to national, & we're now seeing the fruits of its efforts. USATF should look into some of NASCAR's strategies.