Queue the arguments that, “Pro racing hasn’t gotten more boring, it’s just gotten so competitive that the bar has been raised and every true fan of the sport can appreciate the difference. Besides, it would have been so much worse at 12m and we had to try something, and all the pros agreed and it just wasn’t fair…”
This is sorta where we get into a debate of what is “exciting dynamics” for an event that includes either a 2hr or 4+ hour bike leg to complete. There’s no real exciting dynamics in that if we are being honest, it’s just different levels of “boringness”. I mean there’s no answer to solving making IM or 70.3 a viable broadcast product; it is what it is. So I don’t know that 20m will create any better racing dynamics than we currently have, I think what it does do is unify non-draft racing, which I’m probaly a bigger fan of. I think it allows for more potential for “honest effort” and if that allows more freedom for people to give it a go then before (or have to work harder to maintain position; which then can lead to “blowups” on the run)- well we’ll be able to know in a few years when all these pro’s talk about how it can change well we can now see if they follow through.
But the fear of it becoming any more boring than it currently is…ok, I just think the racing is boring by default regardless of the draft zone dynamics.
(And yes I think having WTCS events on “boring” courses that have 50 people coming into T2 is as boring except it’s only 1 hour of boringness).
1 Like
Those are boring not because 50 people show up at the same time but because the bike and run courses are generally repetitively boring.
Thumbs up, I thought I explained that with the “boring” course notation. shoulder shrug
But none the less, the point remains, boring is boring regardless of duration. But the longer your duration, the by default more “boring” your event likely becomes, and I just don’t think there is an ah ha moment draft distance in non-draft racing that you can point to and say- X distance solves the “boring” aspect of our sport and all others is now “boring”.
Hell IM probaly did more by cutting it’s partnership (or letting contract lapse) with Outside to create a better likely viewership opportunity than by changing the draft zone.
There’s a reason more people watch the marathon than the 10k on the track and it’s not that there’s not a lot fewer 10k runners in the world.
Long events tend to be more boring, but the extreme long events get eye balls for the spectacle of it. As long as they aren’t…. Running circles on a track. As spectacular as a nonstop track last man standing race might be, the repetitive nature of it is boring as hell.
However, watching a marathon, as boring as it should be, if the camera work is done well, so you feel the speed of the runners and the course is reasonably dynamic enough, it’s actually something you can watch. Yes, you do tend to tune out, but I’d suggest those times you zone out are often the result of the deliberate choice of the production.
Where Ironman and T100 have going for them is we are rapidly getting to the point where we can send a drone hovering next to them in the swim and on the bike and on the run. It will become a lot more interesting as long as no one ever utters the phrase, “first of 8 laps” (or more?!?).
Back to draft distance, generally, I’d argue the more athletes you can fit into the frame the better for viewership. I’m not sure the marathon becomes more watchable if we sent them off in a time trial start or insisted on non draft spacing.
No amount of single loop hard as fuck courses (or easy as hell courses for that matter) is ever going to make IM an broadcastable event that gets masses tuning in. Full stop’
I’d argue creating any rule for viewership purposes/reasoning within IM racing is dumb as hell because it’s all non-viewable basically…your literally only arguing small differences in viewability within this sport; 20 person peloton on screen if they went DL rules is as boring on the Kona lava fields as 3 people on screen over 1 mile of terrain if they went to 100m draft zone. Your not solving viewership puzzle with better draft distance rules.
Have you been watching the Olympics downhill skiing races? These drones chasing after the skiers provide a video that really pulls you in. A handful of those on the course, supported by some motos, makes a huge difference. The fact that we’ve got drone shows with hundreds of drones, suggests we aren’t very far off from a broadcast company being able to prestage 100 drones along a race course and send them up to track and broadcast the action as long as the battery will last.
Great visuals with dynamic movement pulls people in. Combine that with microphones on the bikes, and you’ve got a compelling production. I don’t think it’s that far off.
Interestingly enough, that would be a much better use of resources than radars to allow athletes to calibrate their draft distance better to reduce risk of penalty… a clear demonstration that listening to the pros sends an organization off in the wrong direction.
1 Like
No it won’t. People tune into the Olympics because it’s the fucking Olympics and it’s 1 time every 4 years and it can pull in tons of random non-specific sport fans. Making for better camera shots or angles is not going to make a huge difference in an 8 hour telecast viewership number for IM. To even compare it to the Olympics is stupid as hell.
IM’s ability to pull in people and likely sponsors likely peaked when it was only broadcast as a 2hr infomercial 3 months after the fact, than going all in on full live race day broadcast production.
Obvious the Olympics have massive appeal. You consistently miss the comparisons even within the Olympics and then resort to bizarre tirades. If you’re being triggered, do some breathing exercises, or better yet, just go work out.
But as I’ve pointed out, the fact that a long race race on a track that’s much shorter than a much longer race on the road gets less viewers, suggests….tadaah, that visuals make a huge difference.
Looking into the crystal ball, we can be curmudgeon and say there’s not much hope. I might have agreed a little, minus all the useless invective. But recently looking at some of the camera visuals I’ve thought about what compells you to watch and it’s a sense of being in the action (too much for too long can be overwhelming perhaps), and technology is going to only help on this front.
No I’m not triggered, the idea that we are just a few drones and microphones away from being some legit broadcast that you are suggesting is complete laughable. Why you keep doubling down on the idea makes no sense. IM is what it is, it’s an epic 1 day event that is basically stuck in our lane of no one caring about it. No improvements in the telecast is going to change that. Why you think we are, makes no sense to me. 100% we can make the broadcast bettter, and all the things you suggest would make it better. But that’s not going to cause a large change in viewership numbers and sponsors all of a sudden roll in and suddenly the sport is revoluntionized.
I’ll also point to ultra trail running and how they manage to pull you in to their live streams (when they aren’t glitching) because they often consist of a dude following another dude with a phone on a stick. You get pulled in to what’s happening.
Am I suggesting IMWC can replace the Superbowl? No. But I’m actually hopeful that the best broadcast days for long distance triathlon are NOT behind us.
Right but see this is where your sorta changing the discussion point. I’m just saying that it doesn’t matter what upgrades they do or add to the broadcast; it’s not going to change it within any magnitude of difference within people tuning in (your suggesting it will make a “huge difference”). Any improvement will make it for a better viewing experience for small fraction of people that will tune in and care. So back to my original point to Tim, if this is all just arguing magnitude of “boring”, then worrying about the broadcast angle, seems to be a miss.
The thing is- any actual real uptick in the broadcast will have HUGE impact on the sport. That would bring in more sponsors, advertising, etc., which helps the sport hugely. I just don’t see that happening with even the best technology available, yet they are going to have to do it to put the best broadcast product out there. I just think IM is sorta is what it is at this point (as well as triathlon), and these long endurance events is likely the worst chance of actually bringing in influx of money vs imo going to 1hr telecast product. You add all those cool tech ideas to 8 mins of racing 3 times within in an hour, and you’d have way better chance to keep eyeballs than you would for a 4 or 8 hour telecast.
The Tour de France is 80+ hours of cycling over a month through the countryside and gets millions of eyeballs. Most of those eyeballs aren’t there to watch the cycling - they’re there to watch the scenery, learn about the wine of the region, and see farmers configure haybales in the shape of bikes.
I know its not exactly the same thing, but surely there’s a lesson or two about how we can make our sport similarly exciting to watch. The commentators are good at what they do, they are entertaining, they talk about relevant things on the screen, and the time is filled with content that’s cycling adjacent.
(This is where the rotating WC venue would have given the broadcast an advantage - you can only talk about the lava fields so much each year - but I digress)
Even so, the one lesson they (ASO) seemed to have learned over the past decade is course design - notably fewer boring transitional stages, and (wait for it) fewer time trials.
I don’t think I’ve not said they can’t do things to improve. I’ve said none of those improvements are going to result in increased viewership numbers ilike events that y’all keep bringing into the conversation (Olympics and TdF). IM racing isn’t just a few improvements away from becoming legit world wide audience accepted and thus able to capitalize on it. It’s basically stuck on the only small marginally improved again for a lot of valid reasons- but again we are talking about a sport that obsesses about every rule for every segment over 8 hours. No shit no one will care to tune in.
Again, you’re disagreeing with the strawman. If I tell you the marathon is one of the most watched events in the Olympics, you respond that triathlon will never be the Olympics. That totally misses the point.
It’s entirely possible for the public to become captivated by incredibly fit (and attractive, which doesn’t hurt) people doing amazing feats of endurance. But the visuals have to hold the interest.
Does that mean it’s equal to the Olympics? No, but many are actively choosing to watch a longer event than a shorter one.
So are you saying the visuals maxed out at the shorter distance (talking about the draft zone) within the broadcast viewing (besides adding drones or microphones)? Again if so did we hit our high water mark already? Which if so then yeah….kinda proves my point the broadcast rules method would be low on my priority.
I don’t think I’m misssing any point. They can totally improve the broadcast ability, I think we all agree there. You and others keep bringing in how other sports have massive followings, and I’m disagree with that being part of the discussion.
I forgot entertaining ADHD armchair spectators was the main purpose of triathlon. Quadbox was a good start, now we should show Minecraft gameplay on two of the squares, add tiktok music and broadcast everything at 4x speed.
I know you’re being facetious, but I think that one of the things IM could do is to rapidly put out a sport version 1hr summary of each pro series, and WC race, within a few hours of it finishing.
None of the inspiration stuff, no waiting 8 months to get it out. Put out a 1hr race summary on the same day that highlights the tactics and sporting side of what just happened. Put in the key passes, this transitions, finish line and some odd footage of the key players.
If you want to make it palatable for those who find SBR for 8-9 boring, this is how you do it. If you want an example, Lanterne Rouge does this for a bunch of cycling races that are 10 mins long
5 Likes
Add in some post-race interview / press conference and voila.
Obviously Lanterne Rouge has the “ease” of not having to put together a full broadcast first…
…but that would be useful. It’s also a theoretical package that you could sell off for re-broadcast or stream on .
1 Like
I definitely agree with this as well. But the point still stands then. If there’s a 20m draft zone, you are foolish to get involved in passing and jockeying for position assuming you aren’t racing from 5min back.
Just sit off the back of the group and save your energy to match any attacks. I’m not really sure that’s all that better than 12m, other than now everyone is just riding more on the limit and being even more cautious with the matches they burn on the bike.
Maybe the Sanders and Longs can hammer the bike like they always need to, and be happy that everyone behind them is working a little harder. But the net result seems to be nearly everyone starts the run more tired and spread out?
1 Like