Sprints v Endurance

[White Shogun]

Any ideas on why their is more interest / obsession with who runs the fastest (sprinters), rather than who can run the farthest (endurance runners)?

Is it more exciting? Does it have anything to do with our wavering attention span these days? You can watch a sprint in 10 seconds or so; endurance runs take hours. Is it more of the same media bias towards an event that is dominated by blacks, rather than whites as in endurance sports like 100 milers and ironman contests? Is there some prevailing attitude that sprinters are athletes but endurance runners are not, a la Chuckles Barkley?

Whats the deal? Any ideas or opinions?

 

[KG2422]

I think endurance is as admirable as sprinting ability. Its obviously as "athletic". So is throwing ability or shooting ability for that matter. Anything that helps someone perform a physical task is athletic ability. Lifting, jumping, running, punching, pedaling- all of that stuff.

 

[nordic_miler]

I think it is just the way our American society is nowadays.

When Bannister(UK), Landy(Aus), and Santee of the USA were all trying to become the first man to break the four-mintue mile in the early 50s', this made the headlines daily. It was more important then climbing Mt. Everest in some cirlces. In the 60's and 70's, THOUSANDS of people came out to watch the distance duels of John Walker(guy in my avatar) against Filbert Bayi, or Landy vs Bannister. In Peter Snells(former WR holder in the mile of 3:54.1) auotbiography, No Bugles No Drums, he wrote that over 20,000 people came out to see him run a sub-four minute mile in Auckland, NZ. Why? It was to be the first four-minute mile run in that city. Now nobody could care about that.

I think that the lack of interest in distance events compared to sprinting is that it doesnt satisfy the typical Americans need for a "quick fix", like Football, Basketball, etc.