Posts
118
Joined
4/29/2009
Location
Rochester, NY
US
Edited Date/Time
7/20/2020 1:28pm
I've been thinking about this for a while, but the new racerx article about unbreakable records made me revisit this. I'm really not convinced I'm right, I just wanted to throw this out there for discussion.
It seems like the common belief is that fans want lots of guys that can win and close racing. But is that really what we want? What are the actual ratings numbers for different eras in sports? It seems to me like everyone loved golf when Tiger was dominating. Everyone wanted to watch Michael Jordan. And everyone wanted to watch MC and RC dominate. Maybe they loved to root for them, or maybe it was the hope that someone would finally beat them.
The standard answer is that it's boring watching the same couple guys win all the time, but do the ratings support that? I honestly don't know. I think we like to see legends born and records broken. If I really think about it, I actually prefer watching 2-3 guys completely dominate the sport. When it was RV, Stewart, and Reed, we knew they could start anywhere and move through the pack quickly. I think people might like witnessing greatness over close racing by different riders every week.
Now I'm not trying to take away anything from the riders right now. These guys are all incredible. I think it's harder than ever to be dominant. Every generation gets more polished by then time they get to the pros, they all have trainers, and they all have access to professional practice facilities. I think the fact that Eli can somewhat dominate nowadays is maybe more amazing than we give him credit for.
That being said, I wish there was more separation between the top talents and then next tier down. Maybe it's the tracks, maybe it's 4 strokes, maybe it's both, maybe it's something else...but I for one wish we could get more races like the mud race in SLC. I want to have my jaw dropped to the floor for 20min at two guys lapping the field. I want to see someone fall in the first turn and win an outdoor national like Herlings did.
In reality we actually still have very few winners each season, but I think it's harder for the average fan to appreciate the greatness. I think when common sense says we need less separation, we might actually prefer more.
It seems like the common belief is that fans want lots of guys that can win and close racing. But is that really what we want? What are the actual ratings numbers for different eras in sports? It seems to me like everyone loved golf when Tiger was dominating. Everyone wanted to watch Michael Jordan. And everyone wanted to watch MC and RC dominate. Maybe they loved to root for them, or maybe it was the hope that someone would finally beat them.
The standard answer is that it's boring watching the same couple guys win all the time, but do the ratings support that? I honestly don't know. I think we like to see legends born and records broken. If I really think about it, I actually prefer watching 2-3 guys completely dominate the sport. When it was RV, Stewart, and Reed, we knew they could start anywhere and move through the pack quickly. I think people might like witnessing greatness over close racing by different riders every week.
Now I'm not trying to take away anything from the riders right now. These guys are all incredible. I think it's harder than ever to be dominant. Every generation gets more polished by then time they get to the pros, they all have trainers, and they all have access to professional practice facilities. I think the fact that Eli can somewhat dominate nowadays is maybe more amazing than we give him credit for.
That being said, I wish there was more separation between the top talents and then next tier down. Maybe it's the tracks, maybe it's 4 strokes, maybe it's both, maybe it's something else...but I for one wish we could get more races like the mud race in SLC. I want to have my jaw dropped to the floor for 20min at two guys lapping the field. I want to see someone fall in the first turn and win an outdoor national like Herlings did.
In reality we actually still have very few winners each season, but I think it's harder for the average fan to appreciate the greatness. I think when common sense says we need less separation, we might actually prefer more.
David Bailey was my favorite rider from that era and he remains an icon and a legend. But his career numbers might look unimpressive compared to, say, Ryan Dungey or Chad Reed. That's okay, he was my guy and I rooted for him every race.
Was it really that exciting during the 90's if MC got the holeshot or took the lead on lap two? Not in my opinion. You knew how the rest of the race was going to play out. Carmichael outdoors? I always looked forward to watching to 250 class during those days because I didn't know what was going to happen.
I think I appreciate a dominant career much more after it is over. It's great to watch a legend like RV operate in his prime as an abstract, but I just prefer to watch a close, hard-fought, competitive race between these amazing athletes. Just my two cents, but good hard racing is the best thing about being a fan.
I love that we have an "anyone can win" situation right now. I think the biggest reason why is because I don't have a "favorite rider" type of opinion towards the races each weekend. I just want to see good racing no matter who is doing it.
Good tracks, good racing, multiple guys who can win. I don't know how it can get any better than that but I also don't know which matters to the ratings or perception of the sport.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
Then again, if he had gotten the holeshot, we'd probably never remember that race either because he would have checked out. Lol, I don't know. It's hard to catch lightning in a bottle. I wish every year could be 2011.
The last thing I want to see is one of today's super serious vanilla pros go out and dominate multiple years. No thanks. Exciting close racing is the only thing that will keep my attention.
Jett Lawrence might be the exception. I want to see him get on a roll.
Tracks need more dirt.
There's nothing wrong with it... It's just different!
Also, for fun... How many of the top 20 are millionaires? I feel like money in the sport peaked in the mid to late 00s, but I could be wrong. Who is flying on private jets these days?
Pit Row
MotoGeeks Invite Only Podcast
Patreons Count (9043)
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssss.
Some riders just have “it” on and off the track. IMO, no current racer fits superstar status.
Don’t want to see a 7 year run like Mc’s again though. Tough for most hardcore fans.
Personally I’ll take the close racing. I also agree with poster about seeing greatness.
Win win.
Or some other way. But when a factory guy falls and is back to 3rd 3 laps later. It really make me question the integrity of the race. And wonder would that privateer that just had a career best 10th place finish be battling for the podium if they all had more equal bikes.
The factory guys are the factory guys because they are that good. The privateers are the privateers because the results bear it out.
A great example is Justin Brayton. Factory Honda this year, but his results were pretty much the same as they were in 2017-2019 when he was on MotoConcepts. He's a great rider, he has a main event win, but he's not in the elite echelon IMO.
The standard accessible technology is helping equalize the playing field. Much of it is coming down to fitness, health, and budget.
Its obvious factory riders have more access to top trainers, coaches, and dietitians etc.; the sub-factory teams often trying to manage the budget and simply ride tracks near their headquarters. True privateers are just trying to make it to races, make the main or motos, and earn points.
The disproportion of resources will either create parity or not.
Post a reply to: Do we really want parity?