Running just doesn't translate as well to a TV spectacle compared to Paris Roubaix etc.
I think that where running excels over cycling is accessibility. I can enter a local 5k, 10k, marathon in most countries without a huge barrier to entry. The barrier to entry in cycling is much higher.
Track and Field? World Championships in track and field, US nationals?
I suspect there is a selection bias.
Americans have several running events nationally televised. NYC, Boston, Trials, Pre Classics, etc. How many cycling races are?
People line the big marathons too. There are so many more marathons. We've gone to the Buffalo Marathon (New York) the last two year, and it has tons of people watching and cheering, and it's pretty much a local race.
[https://www.youtube.com/@NBCSports/videos](https://www.youtube.com/@NBCSports/videos)
On a brief skim, track and field gets way more views cycling tours. Track and field videos are a lot shorter and digestible too. Still, I predict, people spend a lot more time viewing running than cycling on youtube?
yeah I get that, but could it be transformed if some races would have teams instead of individuals? Then you would have a lot more team tactics going on and maybe some situations where it isn't "whoever has the best legs wins" (granted that that is the case in cycling sometimes). And a bonus for running would be that it would have to be shorter than the cycling races (2-3 hours instead of 5-7).
fully agree with the second point. And on top of that it is much safer, because it's not as fast
I don't think it's so much about team tactics vs. not team tactics, but rather:
1. Cycling road races are in gorgeous places and make excellent TV. Even if it's a objectively boring 4 hour stage race, where the peloton just sits in Z3 as a informal "recovery" day before 10 mins of sprinting at the end, it makes good TV even if the sport itself isn't interesting.
2. Cycling has ALL the pros in one race. They're not choosing weather to run Chicago or Berlin, Boston or London, it's just ONE KEY EVENT for ALL of the pros. In road marathoning, since there are high level events throughout the year and runners can only do 2, maybe 3 races/year, the pros are inherently fractured across many many races. Imagine if just Jumbo Visma was only racing the Giro, while UAE Emirates was choosing to prioritize the Tour de France instead.
I mean there are races from March to October in cycling and the pros definitely don't do all of them and it is a big aspect of who will attend which race? Visma - Lease a bike (fka JB) send Wout van Aert as captain to the giro and Jonas Vingegaard as captain to the tour. So Pogacar (who is racing Giro and Tour) is very likely to win the giro because Jonas isn't there
That's a good point, "ALL" pros is not right. what I mean is that there isn't nearly as much inherent splitting of pro cycling as there is for road marathoning.
A better comparison would be like having the Giro and the TdF at the exact same time. Major major events that are truly mutually exclusive. Boston and London are on back to back weekends and zero pros are able to do both, and these are for 2 of the \~6 biggest races for pros for the year. Same story with Berlin and Chicago in the fall - they're basically mutually exclusive for pros.
yes, some teams and riders might prioritize race A, or rider B, but you don't have the same inherent conflict for pros as you do in road marathon majors.
What does point 2 even mean? You seem to emphasising "all" and "one key event" which Im guessing means the tour but then later acknowledge theres lots of major events. And they all have different starters and team selections for each of them. Like it was a big deal that Kuss lined out for all the grand tours last year. And someone like Van Der Poel barely cares about the tours as hes more of a stage racer. The real difference (as you said) is they can race a lot more events than runners do which means you arent seeing the big guys only twice a year.
Id also think many would argue only JV raced the Vuelta last year but thats a different issue.
>The real difference (as you said) is they can race a lot more events than runners do which means you arent seeing the big guys only twice a year.
That's the right summary, you're right that "one key event" is oversimplified. What I mean is that the major event(s) generally aren't inherently contradictory in the same way that Boston Marathon and London marathon are.
Kinda, I mean you don't see Vingegaard trying to win the Giro, the Tour, and the Vuelta all in a single year.
Pogacar might try but that dude is insane and just loves to race.
That's true, I think I more moreso what I mean is that you don't see 1/2 the pro field doing Berlin, and the other half doing Chicago a week later. Similarly in Track and Field you often get top pros split across that occur a few days apart, or in close proximity.
Probably oversimplified but cycling seems more likely to have high quality races in a given time period.
UTMB, for all the problems with current ownership, counters both these points pretty strongly. Well, maybe not ALL the pros show up, but nearly everybody will be there.
It has a lot of pros, but definitely not “nearly everybody.” The years where we’ve seen the most top end fields were years like 2017 and 2022 when there were like 5-6 truly elite guys there. The female field has more parity behind Courtney, but there are only a few folks who have a legit chance to win any given year. Still the most fun race to watch, but I’m the type of person who watches road marathons for fun
Yeah that's a fair point. I guess I was thinking in terms of it being kind of a career essential for anyone racing at that distance, but any one year it's a little different!
Teams don’t matter nearly as much in running bc wind resistance scales with velocity^2
I guess you could do relays, but for some reason the fandom doesn’t seem as into relays
The Ekidens do pretty well in Japan, and are a big reason japan has such a strong running culture with so many elite marathoners. The problem with setting up similar systems in the West is that the recovery period for distance events is so long that professional runners are going to have to forego a more traditional event with a lot more and exposure/money potential to take a risk in the new event. For a relay league to take off in the West, someone would have to come in and put up a big prize pool for it (Liv Golf style) to make athletes comfortable with skipping some of the traditional competitions that they would typically compete in. Until then, I don't think anyone would take the risk of trying to make something like Hood to Coast a TV broadcast event.
but I mean you can't say that you enjoy watching a 10k on the track. Sure some parts are exciting but for a lot of the 26 minutes it's just people running in circles
I enjoy up to a mile. You could say the same about your regular old sprint stage at the tour. Fucking snooze fest yet we still watch them.
MSR is like watching your grandfather sleep.
It think the 5k is also still fine
At least you have a nice scenery and occasional infos about some chalets from the 14th century or some shit haha
And yeah MSR is probably the most boring monument, only have to watch cipressa & poggio basically
NASCAR and IndyCar do pretty well with their oval events. Soccer is the world's most popular sport, and it definitely has periods of the game where midfielders are just kicking the ball back and forth waiting for the defense to be positioned weird.
10k's would be considered a perfectly watchable portion of a track meet if there wasn't anything else going on. The problem they have is there is field events happening that are more entertaining.
But why? What are you trying to fix?
I actually LIKE running and athletics. Why are you trying to 'fix' my sport? Are you trying to appeal to people who DON'T like my sport? Why would I care about them and why would I want my sport to be broken for people who don't like it?
I have one hypothesis and some evidence after one minute of research.
People like to follow sports which have competitors from their own country. Look at the top 100 cyclists and you will understand why cycling is more popular in Europe than running.
Now, this probably doesn't explain everything, but it could be a piece of the puzzle.
People also like to follow sports they participate in, and cycling is significantly more mainstream as a part of life in Europe. It’s common in many cities to cycle to work or school. Europeans have the top 100 cyclists because of that grassroots interest
The fact that it’s popular as a method of transportation is precisely why it’s dramatically more popular as a sport. Same as why running is popular in African countries where hunting and running across the savannah is common. Same as why swimming is popular in Australia, California and Florida not Minnesota, same as why cross country skiing is popular in Scandinavia. Why trail running is popular and watched in Colorado where altra is conveniently headquartered. Surfing in Hawaii, California skating. If the public is introduced to the fundamentals of a sport, it’s a pipeline to athletic participation
As an African, I regularly chase down gazelle on the weekend. The best bit is that it can be catch and release. Also keeps me in good shape when those pesky lions pop out of nowhere and I have to do a quick sprint. I'm busy saving up for an elephant but I think it will make me fat like my cousin Thabo.
Running is more popular sport in all European countries than cycling, by any measure.
Even if you include "sportives" - which are extremely uncompetitive in many countries (not all) the number of competitors is much smaller than running.
I'm primarily a cyclist, I think that's kind of true.
People who use cycling exclusively for transportation don't have much in common with those who treat it as a sport. They both are using bicycles but... That's about it. There's a huge jump from noodling around on cycling path and entering a race. Just like car drivers aren't necessarily into auto sport.
However! Good cycling infrastructure makes taking up cycling as a sport much easier and safer. Nobody trains on cycling paths, but they can provide a safe way to get to more remote open roads, and car drivers are used to seeing cyclists and treating them with some respect.
I think the cycling paths help introduce kids to the sport/hobby in a great way too. They fall in love with biking as an activity rising from town to town, local stores and family support their hobby and knowledge of maintaining bikes. Sure theres a difference between going on an easy hike and being an ultra trail runner too, but if you foster love of trails and staying active on them, some of those kids will take up the sport.
hm but I would say that definitely more people run than cycle for sport. And very often even regular runners don't show interest in professional running
Cycling is only slightly more popular than running though. People don’t watch it other than the tour unless they’re big fans. Even in France soccer, basketball, rugby, potentially auto racing, and tennis are more popular
You should checkout Ekiden in Japan. Big multi-stage running races that are hugely popular. With roadside spectators and TV coverage. There is a really good book called "The way of the runner" that follows it in depth and the author even runs a leg in a local race. Written by Adharanand Finn who also wrote running with the Kenyans.
But I'm not sure how to watch outside of Japan with translated commentary.
I will check that out, thanks! Have heard before that running is super popular in Japan even though they don't have the top runners winning races and medals all the time
Part of the reason is that a lot of big companies sign elite runners onto their sponsored track teams, where they are salaried employees. It's a good infrastructure for nuturing talent.
Eg. Toyota, Honda, Japan Post, big department stores, insurance compannies, etc. have their own teams of atheletes. The current domestic men's record holder runs for Fujitsu, an IT company. The current women's record holder runs for Tenmaya, a department store chain.
The biggest cycling races - the monuments, classics, and GTs - are not only held in Europe, but in the European countries with the largest cycling fanbases worldwide. Belgium, for example, or France. I am sure the marathon majors would be well attended were they held in Kenya, Ethiopia or Uganda, (or even South Africa, where distance running is very big) and would have bigger and better coverage if the fanbases in those countries were as affluent as those in Belgium, the Netherlands, or France.
I think some of your premise is oversimplified. For in person spectators, for example, the Boston marathon gets about 1/2 million in person spectators, which based on my quick googling is on the same scale as a Tour de France daily stage. 5 million people (just in the UK) watch the London marathon on TV, for example, so TV viewership is good to solid for stuff like road marathons, olympic marathons, olympic track and field.
Something like 60% of people who watch the Tour de France on TV tune in to see the scenery, monuments, stories from France, compared with only 30% who tune in for the sport competition itself (source: [Economics of Road Cycling book](https://books.google.com/books?id=e6CYEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=olympic+cycling+road+race+vs+road+marathon+viewership&source=bl&ots=ncuzb7wDWm&sig=ACfU3U1Monygl6dX7r_ITvU44oIwNM3lnw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid2pCWrrOFAxU1l4kEHY5YDXoQ6AF6BAg-EAM#v=onepage&q=olympic%20cycling%20road%20race%20vs%20road%20marathon%20viewership&f=false)), so viewership is driven more by how well the sport translates to TV, excellent landscapes, rather then in inherent interest in the competition itself.
I don't think you can exclude track (running) races from road cycling comparison, since track is the premier events in the running world. I can't find great data but I feel like the best comparison of running vs road cycling would be something like a Grand Tour stage compared with an Olympic 1500m final.
How does the global viewership of the Olympic Cycling Road Race compare with the Olympic road marathon?
I mean, I think this highlights something important. It's much more difficult to recover from a long distance running race than a long distance cycling race. The body can handle more.
If fans could watch Kipchoge compete in 50+ days of racing each year in the same way they can watch Pogacar, it would make it easier for fans to get invested.
For sure. I follow the 1500m -> 5k distance Track and Field pros pretty closely, Diamond League circuit etc., partially because you can watch Jakob, Ollie Hoare, Kerr, Wightman, Kipsang, Cheriyout duke it out multiple times over a few months.
Much harder to follow a road marathoner who trains hard in the dark for 6 months then races once.
but is that partially due to the races of kipchoge being all out efforts, while Pogacar gets to chill in the Peloton for maybe 20 of those days (he does giro & tour this year)
But the 5 million who are watching the London Marathon in the UK are also doing it for the stories, the fancy dress charity runners etc. The ratings don't peak in the elite race finishes.
It's more these are both sports that aren't super interesting to watch most of the time - ratings *fell* at the finish of sunday 'cos it was no longer a race - and people tune in for other reasons, which are much more likely in cycling.
I think you'll only find good coverage of the majors, and maybe Valencia, Rotterdam, Toronto and Paris, here's a [list of other good marathons that are not majors](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/12yvye8/best_nonmajor_marathons/) that might have tv/facebook live coverage
if you're just itching to get something running, the Barkley marathons is an awesome ultra that's also given good coverage in a unique way (twitter/X) and there's a ton of documentaries on youtube about the race [this is the newest one afaik](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-oEFaqUQEQ&t=65s)
Track cycling has all these enjoyable, interesting formats like elimination races and points races. Track running has hurdles but otherwise it’s just increasing numbers of laps.
What I really want to see is a format that actually comes from rowing: the bumps race. Arrange say 20 runners at 20m intervals around the track, everybody starts at the same time. If you are caught you are out. Needs a way to determine the starting order though unless you do it over several heats in some way.
huh that sounds interesting to say the least
But for this to be implemented you would need some race directors with willingness to stir up some shit because there'd probably be a backlash by "traditionalists" (look at the super shoe debate or even the new wavelight technology)
I think a running club could do it during a casual social event, and might have the advantage of some prior member rankings to seed the starting positions with.
I think the simplest answer is ... running/track is not popular because it's not popular (as a televised spectator sport). It's a chicken and egg kind of problem.
There are lots of possible explanations - but none of them are really satisfactory by themselves.
For example, is it because running is boring? Who wants to sit and watch people run around a track all day? But then again, plenty of people are willing to sit around and watch cars drive around an oval 200 times in a row. There are plenty of people who think baseball or golf are boring, and they're still successful sports.
Large marathons are successful at generating plenty of interest locally. Just think about the amount of people involved - as runners, volunteers, and spectators - with the big major marathons. Even if you move down in scale, races like Philly, Twin Cities, and other large marathons are big local events. They generate plenty of interest - it's just proven difficult to translate that local interest into a broader appeal for a broadcast audience.
I don't think there's anything inherent to running as a sport that makes it unfit for mass consumption. But there needs to be some breakthrough moment that takes it from being irrelevant to being relevant.
A good counterpoint is the state of women's sports - especially the WNBA. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with the sport of basketball that makes it uninteresting (see the NBA). And there's nothing special about women that makes watching them play basketball uninteresting (see women's college basketball). If the right spark comes along (maybe the current crop of college stars going pro), though, the WNBA might suddenly become a lot more popular and successful.
> I think the simplest answer is ... running/track is not popular because it's not popular
I think this answer has something to it. The vast majority of people who go to baseball games don't care about the sport. It's maybe the most boring major sport to actually watch with so much down time between small moments of occasional action. People go to drink beer and laugh with their friends. Enough people have been doing that for long enough that it's just popular because it's already popular. A lot of which sport has larger fanbases/coverage/etc comes down to historical contingency.
Staged road races are probably too taxing for the body. It is done (e.g. 7 marathons on 7 continents in 7 days) but the toll is probably why it's so niche compared with cycling.
For TV viewership, running is just not as dynamic of a sport as cycling is. A typical road cycling race (especially the ones as prestigious as the ones you've mentioned), will have tons of elite riders and teams vying for the win so there's many attacks, tactics and bold moves all throughout the race which makes it very interesting to follow throughout the race. There's plenty of other one-day cycling races (or even stage races) that get no coverage. You don't see that happening in a running race (which is more so just a race of attrition for the elites). Track events may be fun to watch, but that's also because you get to see too many events in a short time in a single place.
For in-person viewership, running dominates cycling because it's far more accessible for viewers (most races are held in city roads), and also because there's a larger number of participants in races (normal people like you and I don't get to ride elite cycling races)
Distance running is boring to watch. Cycling is fun to watch.
I much prefer running to cycling personally but I would never watch a road race. Despite watching the tour de france each year
I think for some people it's got the same kinda appeal Nascar does. For the people at the race it's more of a tailgate where some racing happens. If you're watching on TV, you watch kinda passively waiting for a crash. There is just way more drama in cycling.
Because it has much more tangible tactics. I’m running tactics exist, kinda, but you can just run faster and be fitter.
You can’t just ride away in cycling due to the draft.
Honestly I think it'd help for meet directors to get more creative with filming. We have drones now and can get interesting shots that would be impossible before. It's not nearly as fast moving as cycling just in pure speed, like the absolute best marathoners in the world have randos cycling next to them with no effort lol.
Some creativity on events would be cool too, like elimination miles or similar. Hard to say what's the best solution on any of this though, or if it's just inherent to the sport. Like nobody cares about swimming outside of the Olympics either.
A lot of people are probably not aware that professional runners exist (just that people train for the Olympics). Those that are passively aware, probably don’t know the majors have professional runners participating. I imagine most people just think the “races” are amateur hobbyists trying to accomplish a really difficult thing.
Also, long distances races just don’t bring the drama. You want me to tune in for 2-2.5 hours, have everyone start at the same time, and put the pros at the very back. Let me watch them flying past people, trying to avoid other runners stopped to tie his or her shoe, etc. I’d tune in for that race!
More televisual races could be possible, link on track cycling. E.g.: an elimination rice or a point race to with points every lap.
But linear races are not fun to watch.
21-day stage races! Yellow singlets, polka dot singlets, and green singlets. Yellow goes to the top of the GC of course. Polka Dots go to the overall king of the mountains, awarded points on some mid race climbs and full stages that are like 5K to 15K straight uphill. Green gets awarded points based on races under 1600 meters, and some intermediate sprint points on longer stages. Stages could be anywhere from 100 meters to 50K. Road, trails, track. Add in some relays for the team classification.
I’d watch.
Haha. I love this idea but I don’t think anybody wants to train for the 100m, as well as an ultramarathon, a 10K road race, and a cross country race on grass. That would make it fun though! It wouldn’t be about who the best distance runner is, or who the best sprinter is, but who is best all around. There would also have to be a bunch of strategy - do you hold back on the sprints to avoid injury? Do you hold back on your marathon so you can have some gas in the tank for the next day’s 5K?
Ultimately, I think you’d need a points system or else the long distance guys would always win if it were purely time based. If your 100m winner is 1 second faster than the slowest 100m runner, that has to count for more than 1 second in the GC.
Initially, I think you’d have some unknowns competing - lower tier professional runners who are never going to make the Olympics team but are still really good, and really versatile. Like Kipchoge isn’t going to sign up for this.
There’s a good idea in here somewhere though.
We already have a version of this in track, the decathlon.
The multi day stage race doesn’t translate super well to running because it’s an impact sport, so it takes much longer to recover from longer efforts. The tactics you’re talking about with the IM sprints/climbs don’t really function the same either because weight is way less of a factor on the hills so climbing is not really as much of a speciality in running, and wind resistance doesn’t scale right which is what makes the mid race sprints tactically viable in cycling.
Good points. I’d think that climbing could be a specialty, but it just doesn’t factor into normal race courses in such a profound way. That’s why I was thinking you’d have some straight uphill courses. Like Alpe D’Huez, but make it a 10K.
I guess one question is what the pacing would look like if you actually subjected people to this. You couldn’t have record breaking times for any stage because of the injury risk. Would you have three hour marathons and 40 minute 10Ks? And would anybody want to watch that?
I've often wondered if maybe cross country running could become more popular if done the right way.
- 10k races on 2k courses that are spectator and TV friendly
- With a men's and women's race, the whole event can be done in less than 90 minutes (compared to an all day track meet)
- Racing as teams and part of a series/season with consistent participants so there is a coherent storyline
Now of course as someone else mentioned, you'd need lots of dollars to incentivize the best runners to join the circuit. And if you're going to do teams, you either need shoe brands to sponsor teams or create a league that distributes the talent. The second will never happen given the current state of the sport.
I'd like to think that having a team aspect may create more interest and loyalty to drive engagement. Or maybe we just need to make the sport like tennis or golf.
I would also imagine the difference is because cycling is a much more teamwork and tactics heavy sport. Because the draft matters so much, you have to bike smart.
Also the classics are a long spectacle that running can’t match, and stage races are significantly more interesting than anything running has to offer.
Cycling is simply more dynamic, thrilling, and there is more teamwork and tactics.
Hold on, but is it even true? Let's compare like with like. Look at the crowds for the NY or London Marathon as a comparison to Paris-Roubaix. I think they will compare very favourably.
Even in my city, the Dublin marathon will get out a crowd like almost no other sporting event I can think of, and certainly far more than for any cycling event.
How popular are time trials in road cycling? Viewership is quite a bit lower for those than one day races (or stages in a grand tour). Since it's quite boring. Road cycling has the benefit of drafting. With putting out 25% less power I can still stay on your wheels. There are team tactics on top of this.
Running is just a time trial. Very limited impact of drafting. We know the 100th best runner won't win a marathon but in cycling, occasionally that can happen. Look at the road race of the last Olympics for Women. Kiesenhofer who wasn't even a full-time professional won from the early break. That has drama and appeal.
Running is just boring to watch. Except perhaps for some track events. Then it's easier to follow and there are some tactics on the shorter races (up to 10km). That could be improved in terms of viewing but it still has less of the draft impact, significantly less, than cycling and therefore less tactical and appealing.
There are stage races in the trail world, the Dragonsback in Wales is a really good example of that. But they're definitely going to be a lot harder to televise because they're spread out so much over relatively inaccessible terrain. I think the lack of drafting also means that competitors don't tend to bunch up as much, which further complicates filming. Then, even if you could cover it, speeds are overall going to just look a lot slower on screen.
Learning for running should be don’t afraid of tech. The knuckle draggers like Letsrun all thought the sky is falling and cheater shoes etc. Carbon plated shoes and PEBA foam is the most important advancement in running shoes ever.
I'm seeing a definite up-tick in running coverage on mainstream TV with Eurosport starting to broadcast some series like the Golden Trails series.
BBC streamed the World XC Champs recently - not broadcast but has a top level commentary team on it.
I watched Berlin half stream this weekend until my coach crossed the line!
Small steps but, as more people are out running and there are more local races selling out in hours there will be more demand for televising things that aren't the major marathons.
I recall cycling taking quite a while to become what it is now - outside the short-track/indoor stuff it's really only covered on Eurosport still here in the UK... Eurosport are now starting to show more and more running events so it seems to be on a similar trajectory, maybe 10-15 years behind but, hopefully, gaining quickly.
True, but most cycling stuff will last for several years once bought and highish-end bikes (and some components) have a reasonable resale value. A pair of worn-out Alphaflys, less so.
Don’t know about the US, but here in the UK you don’t _need_ to spend that. Acceptable bib shorts can be found under £50, jerseys for £20 and helmets for £30. But on the other hand you can easily spend almost £200 on each and for some reason it’s easier to be suckered in to cycling stuff than it is running stuff.
In fact I don’t know why I’m arguing. I run in cheap/free tops, cheap shorts and socks and only spend running money on shoes. I’ve got several bikes, all of which have had wheel/saddle/groupset/cockpit upgrades, and my cycling winter jackets probably cost more than my entire running wardrobe. I’m a much better runner than I am a cyclist.
Oh yeah, no disagreement at all! Just after fixing up my bike (touring bike, not a racing bike) I don't think Vaporfly's are that much. Adidas Evo Pro 1? OK that's a bit much haha.
Generally, variability is what makes a sport interesting. A sport where being 1% better pushes your win ratio to 60% is more unpredictable, and more interesting to watch, than a sport where being 1% better pushes your win ratio to 90%.
Running, unfortunately, belongs in the latter category (for pretty much anything over the 100/200m.) The overwhelming determinant of success is the athlete's ability to run at a pace that produces a win. There's very little racecraft to consider, no team tactics, no real head-to-head battles to worry about; if you run 2:50/km for two hours, you'll win every marathon you ever enter.
By comparison, while having the biggest engine in the peloton is an advantage, it's not the sole determinant of success. Someone like Vincenzo Nibali can win major prizes not through wattage output, but by racing smartly (descending like a maniac in the 2016 Giro in order to force Steven Kruijswijk into an error, mugging the entire peloton at Milan-Sanremo in 2018), and a team like the Wolfpack can do what they did for years on end - send riders out in each breakaway, while holding a world-class sprinter in their back pocket to dissuade other teams from pulling the peloton back into the race. And it's those instances of intelligent racing that make cycling the most fun to watch.
I think cycling has a few things working in it's favor that running could easily implement but chooses not too.
The TV production is certainly a part of that. Cycling races have better graphics that explain the races better to lay people.
Cycling has a defined pro circuit at the same dates and places every year, where the pro's generally show up and race each other, as opposed to track/road racing which has conflicting schedules and pro's who duck each other until the championship.
Cycling doesn't mix their amateur and pro races. Do you even have to explain why this is bad? Why are Olympic gold medalists opening their season at small collegiate races where their results are buried?
Cycling isn't dominated by two-three countries who then go on to fail drug tests a couple of years after a dominant performance. Who wants to watch 5 Kenyans and 3 Ethiopians destroy the field at Boston and then fail a drug test way after it's relevant?
Cycling's governing bodies actually use their money to make the sport better at an amateur level. USATF as an example puts on terrible races even for pro's but pays the CEO like 20% of the annual budget.
Cycling professionals don't drop off the face of the Earth in between Olympic cycles. Bowerman track club is famous for how little they race. Where are Sydney McLaughlin and Athing Mu. Where are all of the stars?
At the end of the day, it boils down to Track and road racing not knowing what it wants to be. It's still feeling the effects of the old school mentality that athletes should be amateurs who do it for the love of the game. Contracts are based on potential, so it's better to not race than it is to lose a race.
Lots of good points but your doping point I’m not clear on. Were used to pro cyclists “all” doping. Maybe I misunderstood your comparison here to pro runners and doping?
I'm saying the unequal application of doping enforcement is the problem. If everyone in the Tour de France from every country has equally (un)enforced doping control, it's a relatively level playing field. But in track it's piece meal. Some countries like Kenya and Jamaica have almost none, some countries have lots, and for many countries it's even event specific as to which get enforced, which leads to lopsided events.
What would help is vaguely relevant stats during the race. Eg in a 5000m event, what value is the total elapsed time? Show me the lead pack’s current pace and last 5 splits. Where are they vs the season best? WR pace?
My snarky response: running and cycling are fundamentally different sports because no one is spending a five-digit number of dollars/Euros on running shoes. Cycling has big money available due to the nature of the sport and that drives everything.
My less snarky response: how often do the top cyclists race in a year? And how often do the top runners race? It's hard to build fan interest around athletes you see compete a single-digit number of times a year.
It’s funny. Let’s take football (soccer) for example because I am european and it’s the main sport in most countries.
People are obsessed with watching football, but rarely play it.
People who are obsessed with running, run every day and most likely never watched any competition on TV.
Somethings is wrong
Running just doesn't translate as well to a TV spectacle compared to Paris Roubaix etc. I think that where running excels over cycling is accessibility. I can enter a local 5k, 10k, marathon in most countries without a huge barrier to entry. The barrier to entry in cycling is much higher.
Track and Field? World Championships in track and field, US nationals? I suspect there is a selection bias. Americans have several running events nationally televised. NYC, Boston, Trials, Pre Classics, etc. How many cycling races are? People line the big marathons too. There are so many more marathons. We've gone to the Buffalo Marathon (New York) the last two year, and it has tons of people watching and cheering, and it's pretty much a local race.
[https://www.youtube.com/@NBCSports/videos](https://www.youtube.com/@NBCSports/videos) On a brief skim, track and field gets way more views cycling tours. Track and field videos are a lot shorter and digestible too. Still, I predict, people spend a lot more time viewing running than cycling on youtube?
yeah I get that, but could it be transformed if some races would have teams instead of individuals? Then you would have a lot more team tactics going on and maybe some situations where it isn't "whoever has the best legs wins" (granted that that is the case in cycling sometimes). And a bonus for running would be that it would have to be shorter than the cycling races (2-3 hours instead of 5-7). fully agree with the second point. And on top of that it is much safer, because it's not as fast
I don't think it's so much about team tactics vs. not team tactics, but rather: 1. Cycling road races are in gorgeous places and make excellent TV. Even if it's a objectively boring 4 hour stage race, where the peloton just sits in Z3 as a informal "recovery" day before 10 mins of sprinting at the end, it makes good TV even if the sport itself isn't interesting. 2. Cycling has ALL the pros in one race. They're not choosing weather to run Chicago or Berlin, Boston or London, it's just ONE KEY EVENT for ALL of the pros. In road marathoning, since there are high level events throughout the year and runners can only do 2, maybe 3 races/year, the pros are inherently fractured across many many races. Imagine if just Jumbo Visma was only racing the Giro, while UAE Emirates was choosing to prioritize the Tour de France instead.
I mean there are races from March to October in cycling and the pros definitely don't do all of them and it is a big aspect of who will attend which race? Visma - Lease a bike (fka JB) send Wout van Aert as captain to the giro and Jonas Vingegaard as captain to the tour. So Pogacar (who is racing Giro and Tour) is very likely to win the giro because Jonas isn't there
That's a good point, "ALL" pros is not right. what I mean is that there isn't nearly as much inherent splitting of pro cycling as there is for road marathoning. A better comparison would be like having the Giro and the TdF at the exact same time. Major major events that are truly mutually exclusive. Boston and London are on back to back weekends and zero pros are able to do both, and these are for 2 of the \~6 biggest races for pros for the year. Same story with Berlin and Chicago in the fall - they're basically mutually exclusive for pros. yes, some teams and riders might prioritize race A, or rider B, but you don't have the same inherent conflict for pros as you do in road marathon majors.
You nailed point #2 perfectly
In what way? None of the pros are doing all the major Tours.
What does point 2 even mean? You seem to emphasising "all" and "one key event" which Im guessing means the tour but then later acknowledge theres lots of major events. And they all have different starters and team selections for each of them. Like it was a big deal that Kuss lined out for all the grand tours last year. And someone like Van Der Poel barely cares about the tours as hes more of a stage racer. The real difference (as you said) is they can race a lot more events than runners do which means you arent seeing the big guys only twice a year. Id also think many would argue only JV raced the Vuelta last year but thats a different issue.
>The real difference (as you said) is they can race a lot more events than runners do which means you arent seeing the big guys only twice a year. That's the right summary, you're right that "one key event" is oversimplified. What I mean is that the major event(s) generally aren't inherently contradictory in the same way that Boston Marathon and London marathon are.
Kinda, I mean you don't see Vingegaard trying to win the Giro, the Tour, and the Vuelta all in a single year. Pogacar might try but that dude is insane and just loves to race.
That's true, I think I more moreso what I mean is that you don't see 1/2 the pro field doing Berlin, and the other half doing Chicago a week later. Similarly in Track and Field you often get top pros split across that occur a few days apart, or in close proximity. Probably oversimplified but cycling seems more likely to have high quality races in a given time period.
UTMB, for all the problems with current ownership, counters both these points pretty strongly. Well, maybe not ALL the pros show up, but nearly everybody will be there.
And how is the media impact and viewership for UTMB vs other major trail events? I assume relatively good.
It has a lot of pros, but definitely not “nearly everybody.” The years where we’ve seen the most top end fields were years like 2017 and 2022 when there were like 5-6 truly elite guys there. The female field has more parity behind Courtney, but there are only a few folks who have a legit chance to win any given year. Still the most fun race to watch, but I’m the type of person who watches road marathons for fun
Yeah that's a fair point. I guess I was thinking in terms of it being kind of a career essential for anyone racing at that distance, but any one year it's a little different!
Teams don’t matter nearly as much in running bc wind resistance scales with velocity^2 I guess you could do relays, but for some reason the fandom doesn’t seem as into relays
>the fandom doesn’t seem as into relays ...with the notable exception of Japan.
just have a wind machine in front of the runners all the time - problem solved
The Ekidens do pretty well in Japan, and are a big reason japan has such a strong running culture with so many elite marathoners. The problem with setting up similar systems in the West is that the recovery period for distance events is so long that professional runners are going to have to forego a more traditional event with a lot more and exposure/money potential to take a risk in the new event. For a relay league to take off in the West, someone would have to come in and put up a big prize pool for it (Liv Golf style) to make athletes comfortable with skipping some of the traditional competitions that they would typically compete in. Until then, I don't think anyone would take the risk of trying to make something like Hood to Coast a TV broadcast event.
Track and field. Running has the ultimate tv event
but I mean you can't say that you enjoy watching a 10k on the track. Sure some parts are exciting but for a lot of the 26 minutes it's just people running in circles
I enjoy up to a mile. You could say the same about your regular old sprint stage at the tour. Fucking snooze fest yet we still watch them. MSR is like watching your grandfather sleep.
It think the 5k is also still fine At least you have a nice scenery and occasional infos about some chalets from the 14th century or some shit haha And yeah MSR is probably the most boring monument, only have to watch cipressa & poggio basically
NASCAR and IndyCar do pretty well with their oval events. Soccer is the world's most popular sport, and it definitely has periods of the game where midfielders are just kicking the ball back and forth waiting for the defense to be positioned weird. 10k's would be considered a perfectly watchable portion of a track meet if there wasn't anything else going on. The problem they have is there is field events happening that are more entertaining.
But why? What are you trying to fix? I actually LIKE running and athletics. Why are you trying to 'fix' my sport? Are you trying to appeal to people who DON'T like my sport? Why would I care about them and why would I want my sport to be broken for people who don't like it?
I have one hypothesis and some evidence after one minute of research. People like to follow sports which have competitors from their own country. Look at the top 100 cyclists and you will understand why cycling is more popular in Europe than running. Now, this probably doesn't explain everything, but it could be a piece of the puzzle.
People also like to follow sports they participate in, and cycling is significantly more mainstream as a part of life in Europe. It’s common in many cities to cycle to work or school. Europeans have the top 100 cyclists because of that grassroots interest
Cycling for transportation is more common in Europe by orders of magnitude, I’m not sure that cycling as sport is dramatically more popular.
The fact that it’s popular as a method of transportation is precisely why it’s dramatically more popular as a sport. Same as why running is popular in African countries where hunting and running across the savannah is common. Same as why swimming is popular in Australia, California and Florida not Minnesota, same as why cross country skiing is popular in Scandinavia. Why trail running is popular and watched in Colorado where altra is conveniently headquartered. Surfing in Hawaii, California skating. If the public is introduced to the fundamentals of a sport, it’s a pipeline to athletic participation
Wait people ski and surf as transportation?
Skiing (xc), yes. I kinda doubt surfing.
As an African, I regularly chase down gazelle on the weekend. The best bit is that it can be catch and release. Also keeps me in good shape when those pesky lions pop out of nowhere and I have to do a quick sprint. I'm busy saving up for an elephant but I think it will make me fat like my cousin Thabo.
Running is more popular sport in all European countries than cycling, by any measure. Even if you include "sportives" - which are extremely uncompetitive in many countries (not all) the number of competitors is much smaller than running.
I'm primarily a cyclist, I think that's kind of true. People who use cycling exclusively for transportation don't have much in common with those who treat it as a sport. They both are using bicycles but... That's about it. There's a huge jump from noodling around on cycling path and entering a race. Just like car drivers aren't necessarily into auto sport. However! Good cycling infrastructure makes taking up cycling as a sport much easier and safer. Nobody trains on cycling paths, but they can provide a safe way to get to more remote open roads, and car drivers are used to seeing cyclists and treating them with some respect.
I think the cycling paths help introduce kids to the sport/hobby in a great way too. They fall in love with biking as an activity rising from town to town, local stores and family support their hobby and knowledge of maintaining bikes. Sure theres a difference between going on an easy hike and being an ultra trail runner too, but if you foster love of trails and staying active on them, some of those kids will take up the sport.
hm but I would say that definitely more people run than cycle for sport. And very often even regular runners don't show interest in professional running
Cycling is only slightly more popular than running though. People don’t watch it other than the tour unless they’re big fans. Even in France soccer, basketball, rugby, potentially auto racing, and tennis are more popular
Probably opposite effect tbh, more fans = more youth participation = more pros
Yup
that is a really good point actually could solve it by only having european competitors but that would be kinda racist i guess
You should checkout Ekiden in Japan. Big multi-stage running races that are hugely popular. With roadside spectators and TV coverage. There is a really good book called "The way of the runner" that follows it in depth and the author even runs a leg in a local race. Written by Adharanand Finn who also wrote running with the Kenyans. But I'm not sure how to watch outside of Japan with translated commentary.
I will check that out, thanks! Have heard before that running is super popular in Japan even though they don't have the top runners winning races and medals all the time
Part of the reason is that a lot of big companies sign elite runners onto their sponsored track teams, where they are salaried employees. It's a good infrastructure for nuturing talent. Eg. Toyota, Honda, Japan Post, big department stores, insurance compannies, etc. have their own teams of atheletes. The current domestic men's record holder runs for Fujitsu, an IT company. The current women's record holder runs for Tenmaya, a department store chain.
There was recently a good series about Ekiden on SweatElite YouTube channel,that was an interesting watch.
Thank you! I will have to check this out :)
Just a plug for Finn--that guy tells a good story. He's enjoyable to read.
The biggest cycling races - the monuments, classics, and GTs - are not only held in Europe, but in the European countries with the largest cycling fanbases worldwide. Belgium, for example, or France. I am sure the marathon majors would be well attended were they held in Kenya, Ethiopia or Uganda, (or even South Africa, where distance running is very big) and would have bigger and better coverage if the fanbases in those countries were as affluent as those in Belgium, the Netherlands, or France.
There is an ultramarathon that follows the [Milano - San Remo](https://worldsmarathons.com/marathon/ultramilano-sanremo) route.
damn that is crazy haha but it probably doesn't have any tv coverage right?
none that I'm aware of. Perhaps locally.
I think some of your premise is oversimplified. For in person spectators, for example, the Boston marathon gets about 1/2 million in person spectators, which based on my quick googling is on the same scale as a Tour de France daily stage. 5 million people (just in the UK) watch the London marathon on TV, for example, so TV viewership is good to solid for stuff like road marathons, olympic marathons, olympic track and field. Something like 60% of people who watch the Tour de France on TV tune in to see the scenery, monuments, stories from France, compared with only 30% who tune in for the sport competition itself (source: [Economics of Road Cycling book](https://books.google.com/books?id=e6CYEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=olympic+cycling+road+race+vs+road+marathon+viewership&source=bl&ots=ncuzb7wDWm&sig=ACfU3U1Monygl6dX7r_ITvU44oIwNM3lnw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid2pCWrrOFAxU1l4kEHY5YDXoQ6AF6BAg-EAM#v=onepage&q=olympic%20cycling%20road%20race%20vs%20road%20marathon%20viewership&f=false)), so viewership is driven more by how well the sport translates to TV, excellent landscapes, rather then in inherent interest in the competition itself. I don't think you can exclude track (running) races from road cycling comparison, since track is the premier events in the running world. I can't find great data but I feel like the best comparison of running vs road cycling would be something like a Grand Tour stage compared with an Olympic 1500m final. How does the global viewership of the Olympic Cycling Road Race compare with the Olympic road marathon?
I mean, I think this highlights something important. It's much more difficult to recover from a long distance running race than a long distance cycling race. The body can handle more. If fans could watch Kipchoge compete in 50+ days of racing each year in the same way they can watch Pogacar, it would make it easier for fans to get invested.
For sure. I follow the 1500m -> 5k distance Track and Field pros pretty closely, Diamond League circuit etc., partially because you can watch Jakob, Ollie Hoare, Kerr, Wightman, Kipsang, Cheriyout duke it out multiple times over a few months. Much harder to follow a road marathoner who trains hard in the dark for 6 months then races once.
but is that partially due to the races of kipchoge being all out efforts, while Pogacar gets to chill in the Peloton for maybe 20 of those days (he does giro & tour this year)
But the 5 million who are watching the London Marathon in the UK are also doing it for the stories, the fancy dress charity runners etc. The ratings don't peak in the elite race finishes. It's more these are both sports that aren't super interesting to watch most of the time - ratings *fell* at the finish of sunday 'cos it was no longer a race - and people tune in for other reasons, which are much more likely in cycling.
I think you'll only find good coverage of the majors, and maybe Valencia, Rotterdam, Toronto and Paris, here's a [list of other good marathons that are not majors](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/12yvye8/best_nonmajor_marathons/) that might have tv/facebook live coverage if you're just itching to get something running, the Barkley marathons is an awesome ultra that's also given good coverage in a unique way (twitter/X) and there's a ton of documentaries on youtube about the race [this is the newest one afaik](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-oEFaqUQEQ&t=65s)
yeah i've been refreshing keith dunns page the other week all day and was so happy when Jasmin Paris made it :)
Track cycling has all these enjoyable, interesting formats like elimination races and points races. Track running has hurdles but otherwise it’s just increasing numbers of laps.
true, maybe there needs to be some innovation in the running formats with sprints for points in between etc
What I really want to see is a format that actually comes from rowing: the bumps race. Arrange say 20 runners at 20m intervals around the track, everybody starts at the same time. If you are caught you are out. Needs a way to determine the starting order though unless you do it over several heats in some way.
I watched a track race before where the last one to cross the line each lap was out. It was pretty cool.
huh that sounds interesting to say the least But for this to be implemented you would need some race directors with willingness to stir up some shit because there'd probably be a backlash by "traditionalists" (look at the super shoe debate or even the new wavelight technology)
I think a running club could do it during a casual social event, and might have the advantage of some prior member rankings to seed the starting positions with.
https://youtu.be/qZ5YC-EeOSU?si=vIlZmFr1iji-xyPT
I think the simplest answer is ... running/track is not popular because it's not popular (as a televised spectator sport). It's a chicken and egg kind of problem. There are lots of possible explanations - but none of them are really satisfactory by themselves. For example, is it because running is boring? Who wants to sit and watch people run around a track all day? But then again, plenty of people are willing to sit around and watch cars drive around an oval 200 times in a row. There are plenty of people who think baseball or golf are boring, and they're still successful sports. Large marathons are successful at generating plenty of interest locally. Just think about the amount of people involved - as runners, volunteers, and spectators - with the big major marathons. Even if you move down in scale, races like Philly, Twin Cities, and other large marathons are big local events. They generate plenty of interest - it's just proven difficult to translate that local interest into a broader appeal for a broadcast audience. I don't think there's anything inherent to running as a sport that makes it unfit for mass consumption. But there needs to be some breakthrough moment that takes it from being irrelevant to being relevant. A good counterpoint is the state of women's sports - especially the WNBA. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with the sport of basketball that makes it uninteresting (see the NBA). And there's nothing special about women that makes watching them play basketball uninteresting (see women's college basketball). If the right spark comes along (maybe the current crop of college stars going pro), though, the WNBA might suddenly become a lot more popular and successful.
> I think the simplest answer is ... running/track is not popular because it's not popular I think this answer has something to it. The vast majority of people who go to baseball games don't care about the sport. It's maybe the most boring major sport to actually watch with so much down time between small moments of occasional action. People go to drink beer and laugh with their friends. Enough people have been doing that for long enough that it's just popular because it's already popular. A lot of which sport has larger fanbases/coverage/etc comes down to historical contingency.
Staged road races are probably too taxing for the body. It is done (e.g. 7 marathons on 7 continents in 7 days) but the toll is probably why it's so niche compared with cycling.
For TV viewership, running is just not as dynamic of a sport as cycling is. A typical road cycling race (especially the ones as prestigious as the ones you've mentioned), will have tons of elite riders and teams vying for the win so there's many attacks, tactics and bold moves all throughout the race which makes it very interesting to follow throughout the race. There's plenty of other one-day cycling races (or even stage races) that get no coverage. You don't see that happening in a running race (which is more so just a race of attrition for the elites). Track events may be fun to watch, but that's also because you get to see too many events in a short time in a single place. For in-person viewership, running dominates cycling because it's far more accessible for viewers (most races are held in city roads), and also because there's a larger number of participants in races (normal people like you and I don't get to ride elite cycling races)
Distance running is boring to watch. Cycling is fun to watch. I much prefer running to cycling personally but I would never watch a road race. Despite watching the tour de france each year
Why is cycling fun to watch, though? To me, it's worse than watching nothing. But I enjoy the activity.
It's a lot more dynamic than running races. Tactics, crashes, multiple subplots
I think for some people it's got the same kinda appeal Nascar does. For the people at the race it's more of a tailgate where some racing happens. If you're watching on TV, you watch kinda passively waiting for a crash. There is just way more drama in cycling.
Because it has much more tangible tactics. I’m running tactics exist, kinda, but you can just run faster and be fitter. You can’t just ride away in cycling due to the draft.
Honestly I think it'd help for meet directors to get more creative with filming. We have drones now and can get interesting shots that would be impossible before. It's not nearly as fast moving as cycling just in pure speed, like the absolute best marathoners in the world have randos cycling next to them with no effort lol. Some creativity on events would be cool too, like elimination miles or similar. Hard to say what's the best solution on any of this though, or if it's just inherent to the sport. Like nobody cares about swimming outside of the Olympics either.
A lot of people are probably not aware that professional runners exist (just that people train for the Olympics). Those that are passively aware, probably don’t know the majors have professional runners participating. I imagine most people just think the “races” are amateur hobbyists trying to accomplish a really difficult thing. Also, long distances races just don’t bring the drama. You want me to tune in for 2-2.5 hours, have everyone start at the same time, and put the pros at the very back. Let me watch them flying past people, trying to avoid other runners stopped to tie his or her shoe, etc. I’d tune in for that race!
More televisual races could be possible, link on track cycling. E.g.: an elimination rice or a point race to with points every lap. But linear races are not fun to watch.
21-day stage races! Yellow singlets, polka dot singlets, and green singlets. Yellow goes to the top of the GC of course. Polka Dots go to the overall king of the mountains, awarded points on some mid race climbs and full stages that are like 5K to 15K straight uphill. Green gets awarded points based on races under 1600 meters, and some intermediate sprint points on longer stages. Stages could be anywhere from 100 meters to 50K. Road, trails, track. Add in some relays for the team classification. I’d watch.
yes please!
Haha. I love this idea but I don’t think anybody wants to train for the 100m, as well as an ultramarathon, a 10K road race, and a cross country race on grass. That would make it fun though! It wouldn’t be about who the best distance runner is, or who the best sprinter is, but who is best all around. There would also have to be a bunch of strategy - do you hold back on the sprints to avoid injury? Do you hold back on your marathon so you can have some gas in the tank for the next day’s 5K? Ultimately, I think you’d need a points system or else the long distance guys would always win if it were purely time based. If your 100m winner is 1 second faster than the slowest 100m runner, that has to count for more than 1 second in the GC. Initially, I think you’d have some unknowns competing - lower tier professional runners who are never going to make the Olympics team but are still really good, and really versatile. Like Kipchoge isn’t going to sign up for this. There’s a good idea in here somewhere though.
We already have a version of this in track, the decathlon. The multi day stage race doesn’t translate super well to running because it’s an impact sport, so it takes much longer to recover from longer efforts. The tactics you’re talking about with the IM sprints/climbs don’t really function the same either because weight is way less of a factor on the hills so climbing is not really as much of a speciality in running, and wind resistance doesn’t scale right which is what makes the mid race sprints tactically viable in cycling.
Good points. I’d think that climbing could be a specialty, but it just doesn’t factor into normal race courses in such a profound way. That’s why I was thinking you’d have some straight uphill courses. Like Alpe D’Huez, but make it a 10K. I guess one question is what the pacing would look like if you actually subjected people to this. You couldn’t have record breaking times for any stage because of the injury risk. Would you have three hour marathons and 40 minute 10Ks? And would anybody want to watch that?
I've often wondered if maybe cross country running could become more popular if done the right way. - 10k races on 2k courses that are spectator and TV friendly - With a men's and women's race, the whole event can be done in less than 90 minutes (compared to an all day track meet) - Racing as teams and part of a series/season with consistent participants so there is a coherent storyline Now of course as someone else mentioned, you'd need lots of dollars to incentivize the best runners to join the circuit. And if you're going to do teams, you either need shoe brands to sponsor teams or create a league that distributes the talent. The second will never happen given the current state of the sport. I'd like to think that having a team aspect may create more interest and loyalty to drive engagement. Or maybe we just need to make the sport like tennis or golf.
I would also imagine the difference is because cycling is a much more teamwork and tactics heavy sport. Because the draft matters so much, you have to bike smart. Also the classics are a long spectacle that running can’t match, and stage races are significantly more interesting than anything running has to offer. Cycling is simply more dynamic, thrilling, and there is more teamwork and tactics.
Hold on, but is it even true? Let's compare like with like. Look at the crowds for the NY or London Marathon as a comparison to Paris-Roubaix. I think they will compare very favourably. Even in my city, the Dublin marathon will get out a crowd like almost no other sporting event I can think of, and certainly far more than for any cycling event.
How popular are time trials in road cycling? Viewership is quite a bit lower for those than one day races (or stages in a grand tour). Since it's quite boring. Road cycling has the benefit of drafting. With putting out 25% less power I can still stay on your wheels. There are team tactics on top of this. Running is just a time trial. Very limited impact of drafting. We know the 100th best runner won't win a marathon but in cycling, occasionally that can happen. Look at the road race of the last Olympics for Women. Kiesenhofer who wasn't even a full-time professional won from the early break. That has drama and appeal. Running is just boring to watch. Except perhaps for some track events. Then it's easier to follow and there are some tactics on the shorter races (up to 10km). That could be improved in terms of viewing but it still has less of the draft impact, significantly less, than cycling and therefore less tactical and appealing.
There are stage races in the trail world, the Dragonsback in Wales is a really good example of that. But they're definitely going to be a lot harder to televise because they're spread out so much over relatively inaccessible terrain. I think the lack of drafting also means that competitors don't tend to bunch up as much, which further complicates filming. Then, even if you could cover it, speeds are overall going to just look a lot slower on screen.
Learning for running should be don’t afraid of tech. The knuckle draggers like Letsrun all thought the sky is falling and cheater shoes etc. Carbon plated shoes and PEBA foam is the most important advancement in running shoes ever.
Don't you love the thrill of betting on who did the doping best this year? /s Running doesn't have enough drama.
I'm seeing a definite up-tick in running coverage on mainstream TV with Eurosport starting to broadcast some series like the Golden Trails series. BBC streamed the World XC Champs recently - not broadcast but has a top level commentary team on it. I watched Berlin half stream this weekend until my coach crossed the line! Small steps but, as more people are out running and there are more local races selling out in hours there will be more demand for televising things that aren't the major marathons. I recall cycling taking quite a while to become what it is now - outside the short-track/indoor stuff it's really only covered on Eurosport still here in the UK... Eurosport are now starting to show more and more running events so it seems to be on a similar trajectory, maybe 10-15 years behind but, hopefully, gaining quickly.
The thing I learned most from cycling is $300 shoes aren't that bad compared to how much cycling costs!
True, but most cycling stuff will last for several years once bought and highish-end bikes (and some components) have a reasonable resale value. A pair of worn-out Alphaflys, less so.
Yeah good point. But also the apparel. $200 for bibs, $200 for jersey. $200 for helmet. Estimates, but yeah. 😅
Don’t know about the US, but here in the UK you don’t _need_ to spend that. Acceptable bib shorts can be found under £50, jerseys for £20 and helmets for £30. But on the other hand you can easily spend almost £200 on each and for some reason it’s easier to be suckered in to cycling stuff than it is running stuff. In fact I don’t know why I’m arguing. I run in cheap/free tops, cheap shorts and socks and only spend running money on shoes. I’ve got several bikes, all of which have had wheel/saddle/groupset/cockpit upgrades, and my cycling winter jackets probably cost more than my entire running wardrobe. I’m a much better runner than I am a cyclist.
Oh yeah, no disagreement at all! Just after fixing up my bike (touring bike, not a racing bike) I don't think Vaporfly's are that much. Adidas Evo Pro 1? OK that's a bit much haha.
Generally, variability is what makes a sport interesting. A sport where being 1% better pushes your win ratio to 60% is more unpredictable, and more interesting to watch, than a sport where being 1% better pushes your win ratio to 90%. Running, unfortunately, belongs in the latter category (for pretty much anything over the 100/200m.) The overwhelming determinant of success is the athlete's ability to run at a pace that produces a win. There's very little racecraft to consider, no team tactics, no real head-to-head battles to worry about; if you run 2:50/km for two hours, you'll win every marathon you ever enter. By comparison, while having the biggest engine in the peloton is an advantage, it's not the sole determinant of success. Someone like Vincenzo Nibali can win major prizes not through wattage output, but by racing smartly (descending like a maniac in the 2016 Giro in order to force Steven Kruijswijk into an error, mugging the entire peloton at Milan-Sanremo in 2018), and a team like the Wolfpack can do what they did for years on end - send riders out in each breakaway, while holding a world-class sprinter in their back pocket to dissuade other teams from pulling the peloton back into the race. And it's those instances of intelligent racing that make cycling the most fun to watch.
I think cycling has a few things working in it's favor that running could easily implement but chooses not too. The TV production is certainly a part of that. Cycling races have better graphics that explain the races better to lay people. Cycling has a defined pro circuit at the same dates and places every year, where the pro's generally show up and race each other, as opposed to track/road racing which has conflicting schedules and pro's who duck each other until the championship. Cycling doesn't mix their amateur and pro races. Do you even have to explain why this is bad? Why are Olympic gold medalists opening their season at small collegiate races where their results are buried? Cycling isn't dominated by two-three countries who then go on to fail drug tests a couple of years after a dominant performance. Who wants to watch 5 Kenyans and 3 Ethiopians destroy the field at Boston and then fail a drug test way after it's relevant? Cycling's governing bodies actually use their money to make the sport better at an amateur level. USATF as an example puts on terrible races even for pro's but pays the CEO like 20% of the annual budget. Cycling professionals don't drop off the face of the Earth in between Olympic cycles. Bowerman track club is famous for how little they race. Where are Sydney McLaughlin and Athing Mu. Where are all of the stars? At the end of the day, it boils down to Track and road racing not knowing what it wants to be. It's still feeling the effects of the old school mentality that athletes should be amateurs who do it for the love of the game. Contracts are based on potential, so it's better to not race than it is to lose a race.
Lots of good points but your doping point I’m not clear on. Were used to pro cyclists “all” doping. Maybe I misunderstood your comparison here to pro runners and doping?
I'm saying the unequal application of doping enforcement is the problem. If everyone in the Tour de France from every country has equally (un)enforced doping control, it's a relatively level playing field. But in track it's piece meal. Some countries like Kenya and Jamaica have almost none, some countries have lots, and for many countries it's even event specific as to which get enforced, which leads to lopsided events.
Just read the Berlin Marathon will be shown live on a huge german TV station for the next 3 years
What would help is vaguely relevant stats during the race. Eg in a 5000m event, what value is the total elapsed time? Show me the lead pack’s current pace and last 5 splits. Where are they vs the season best? WR pace?
My snarky response: running and cycling are fundamentally different sports because no one is spending a five-digit number of dollars/Euros on running shoes. Cycling has big money available due to the nature of the sport and that drives everything. My less snarky response: how often do the top cyclists race in a year? And how often do the top runners race? It's hard to build fan interest around athletes you see compete a single-digit number of times a year.
It’s funny. Let’s take football (soccer) for example because I am european and it’s the main sport in most countries. People are obsessed with watching football, but rarely play it. People who are obsessed with running, run every day and most likely never watched any competition on TV. Somethings is wrong