And the ESPY goes to....

Originally posted by Rain Man You have on more than one occasion taken a thread and turned it into your own personal ramblings not content to cease until you have swayed majority opinion your way. Most often they wisely give up. Stop being so ridiculous, you refuse to accept any opinion other than your own, and I doubt you even read what most of them are saying anyway. Swimming is not a big sport in this country. Never has, maybe never will. I don't think Masters' Swimming of all places needs to hand out prize money. USA-S maybe could, but where will they get it from? Television revenues? Get serious, name a network that is going to offer up gobs of money to air a sport that to an average viewer... 1. Makes no sense, where's the scoring? 2. Can't do on their own, what percentage of the population do you think can swim butterfly? It's also a timed sport, which never have fared well with American sports viewers. It's like Track and Field, but everyone can at least run, and that's why a little more Track is seen on TV than swimming. Thanks for turning what was supposed to be a little pro-swimming jab at ESPN into a less-than-comical hack job claiming that the Australians know it best because they realize swimming is the only sport in the world. But truth is they love their football and rugby just as much, if not more. Move to Queensland then. Maybe they'll give you some prize money to swim 2:13 in the over-35 age group 200m free. -RM I would like you Rain Man to discuss the points when you understand the content, not to roll on the floor kicking and screaming again.

Rather than continuing this "pissing match" as to what is a sport or a game, how about a focusing on our shared passion: swimming? The common theme in this thread is our mutually shared love of our sport and our frustration with the lack of publicity. My "challenge" to everyone is to take you complaints outside this forum and beat up on the folks who are responisble for lack of coverage. With 60+ million people out there who enjoy swimming, either for fitness, competition, etc. we can make quite a "lobby" if we were better organized and more vocal. How many people here have emailed, faxed, called or written any of the sports channels and challenged them to provide more/better coverage? I'm guilty. The other thing that needs to take place (which no one responded to, I guess complaining is better than providing solutions!), is a fundamental change in how we "don't" provide entertainment value at our meets. Got any ideas? Or should we all just keep bitching about lack of respect for our sport and who's an "athlete" and who'd not!!!

Originally posted by KeatherSwim ... But he also was the swimmer, I seem to recall, who got a lot of attention for his air-guitar playing that drew some nice, and some not so nice media attention and rivalry between us and the Aussies. I suppose if the playful jabbing is kept on a friendly level, that kind of attetion can help draw people to watch something they might not normally, as long as the competitors don't over do it and draw negative attention. That would stand, of course, for any sport... not just swimming.:p ;) Next year there is a dual competition US versus Australia, in Indianapolis, for 'bragging rights' since a controversy in 2001 World Champioships, and the hype should attract media. This angle of "...playful jabbing..." also contributes to generating media interest.

Its not a crazy analogy. Most states wonder why California does play water polo so much and think that water polo is that a important sport. When I grew up in Orange County in the 1970's, some schools were just as glad that their schools won the CIF title in water polo as much as Football. In fact about 85 percent of the mens and women's national team in Water Polo comes from California. The Aussies of course are the only ones who love swimming. So swimming will not be as popular in other countries and other parts of the United States will not end up playing water polo as much as California.

Ion, Once again you have shown how illogical/flawed your thinking is. You omitted boxing as a sport because of a boxer who died because of injuries received from his sport - so following that logic then Basketball isn't a sport because Hank Gathers, Cycling isn't a sport because of Fabio Casteratelli (sorry for my spelling - but he was killed after a crash during the tour de France several years ago) for that matter swimming and triathlon wouldn't be a sport either because of the drowning during the recent Ironman Utah race. Yes I do think it is a slap in the face when the swimming world seems to go unnoticed about their achievements, but the bottom line as I said before who is better at deciding what is a worthy swimming endeavor swimmers or non-swimmers? Jeff

I don't know that much about Gary Hall Jr but I knew his dad a little. In the summer of 1972, when he was out of college he came to workout with the Huntington Beach Team I was on and was nice to me he always said, hi Cindy when he saw me before practice. Some people may not like the Halls because Gary Hall Jr grandfather is Charles Keating. However, just because grandfather was involved in a savings and loan scandal doesn't mean particularly Gary Hall Jr is a rotten apple. As for money some swimmers did profit from the sport while others didn't among the elite. Donna Devarona being in broadcasting for 4 decades since she won her medal in 1964. Both Gaines and Naber have been involved in covering swimming on TV and Naber other sports. Gaines even still makes money from advertsements like Enless pools. Summer Sanders has her own show showcasing different people that could in different sports win gold at Athens. Janet Evans in an info commercial about exercise. Before the last olympics, Amy Van Dynken a couple million dollrs in endorsments. Like Track and field only a handful of people make money.

Ion: I said swimming is boring to the uneducated viewer. To me, swimming is far from boring. To most American TV viewiers...I dare say swimming is not a real thrill to watch. Heck, I am not attempting to detract from a sport I love...I simply pointed out that the average Joe watching his beloved TV...is not a ratings plus for swimming. Let's face it...if the ratings do not support it...we will see very little... if... any..of it...Money drives the bus!

Good grief, man, where to next? Average number of medals won per the country's ant population. If per capita is the standard, rule out the US, China, Japan, USSR/Russia, Germany (east or west), etc. I prefer to use a figure that you can count, not some arbitrary calculation. Remember the old adage about liars and figures. If Romania is the standard by which all is to be judged, how many hours per year of swimming on TV do you get there? My guess is that it's about 1/1,000,000 of what we get in the US with all the sports channels here. I don't understand. You don't value capitalism but want us all to lobby the "TV bosses" for more swimming based on the potential market of swimmers, i.e. dollars. You can't have it both ways. Communism was so successful in making all things equal. Maybe that would be the preferred system for sports in the US.

Another big difference in golf is that there is a HUGE $$ value in the market for golf equipment/supplies/apparel/facilities etc. There is a huge number of people who regularly or occasionally venture onto the links (and practice facilities) and actively seek to do something vaguely reminiscent of what they see the pros do on TV. THESE people make up a large portion of the golf audience. Each of these people readily parts with cash to get that equipment/supplies/apparel/facilities etc. Golf equipment manufacturers pump money into golf because the simple act of watching golf causes more people to go out and spend $ in the golf market. Roughly the same can be said of fishing - which has SCADS more television coverage than swimming. By comparison, swimmers are notoriously stingy with the money they spend on their sport. Face it - as long as a couple Speedos and a pair of goggles are the only required equipment for swimming, there never will be much $$ in the swimming equipment market. Plus there are WAY fewer people who head out to pools in an attempt to do something vaguely reminiscent of what the pros do. Yes there are loads of people who "swim" from time to time, but a much smaller percentage really SWIM the way we think of it. Those who merely "swim" simply aren't highly likely to be in the audience for televized swimming. If some entity were to decree that all sports (and games) were to get equal time on TV regardless of the financial viability of producing and airing such shows, who should pick up the tab? Those who feel there really is a huge untapped market for TV swimming might consider going into the Pay per View business. That should keep them busy for awhile.

I keep thinking that if an activity, a sport for example like USMS, doesn't give out prize money, and have sponsors heavily involved, then in this culture the activity is deemed a wortless hobby by unmotivated participants, and by the TV. Prize money in USMS can be raised for the first time with a $2 surcharge in annual memebership, and to be given out as a $80,000 in a meet like the Long Course Nationals. Aside from this claim, I am addressing the following two posts for minor corrections, not grounbreaking corrections, to the topic of what sports are entertaining on TV. Originally posted by kaelonj ... then he should follow his capitilistic urges and go forth and conquer. ... Jeff Jeff, I have capitalistic urges behind about seven other human values that I consider more important than money; when people around me put money as their top priority in life, it does annoy me a lot; my post about 'prize money' addresses other people's top priorities. Originally posted by aquageek ... Our medal counts are awesome. ... Countries like my native Romania, have more medal counts per capita than US, including swimming in the 2000 Olympics.