Everyone's a Winner (Page 4)

Unless you have a helicopter waiting for you, like I always do.

But I digress.

I'd disagree. The people who give you the "whatever" looks probably just don't care about the sport. Believe it or not, there ARE people in America who don't care about triathlon! I'm not saying that to offend you, but it's the truth. A lot of people know very little about it and frankly, don't care. I don't care about golf or professional basketball. No different, really. But aside from that, I don't think that the Ironman coverage is marketing "everyone is a winner", but that it takes a lot of effort, will power and determination to conquer a goal like that. I think it's very obvious how hard an Ironman is - they are always showing video footage of people staggering, walking with their broken bikes, etc. And maybe it'll get someone off the couch and decide they want to participate in the sport - I don't think that is a bad thing at all. Then maybe less people will give you weird looks. I know there are people on here who saw Ironman footage on TV and that was what prompted them into the sport. We know that people have been drawn into the sport by seeing people like John Blais or other physically challenged athletes participate. Not bad publicity for the sport, I don't think.

As I said before, and as others said before as well, there's a difference between promoting "everyone is a winner" in kids so that they grow up thinking everything will be handed to them, and simply going out and achieving goals you set for yourself, whatever that is.

I read the entire blog entry. I don't think what Friel wrote was controversial.

I also think the subject of this thread is misleading, with respect to Friel's overall message. For example, he also wrote this: 

One good thing I see about this shift in attitude in sport is that it encourages more people to participate.

It's been many moons since I had to take a reading comprehension test, but if I had to summarize his blog entry I would choose:

Many people are choosing endurance events because the attitude seems to be that going long is more macho (or a more worthy accomplishment) than performing well at a shorter distance. I prefer the days when performance was the measure, rather than simply finishing a long(er) event. But it's good that more people are participating, in general.

My 2cents but adjusted for inflation, you owe me a quarter.

I do agree with him but he's missing some huge points which are:

- Back then there was only one Ironman, and almost every interview I've listened to of early Ironmen, they just wanted to finish too.  Now there's what, 40? Ironmans and IM 70.3.  

- Races back then were set up to compete, many races today are set up as a fundraiser first, competition second.  Many people are doing it for a cause.  These people who are doing it for a cause lower the average of the competitors.

- America seems to look at endurance sports as a cure to obesity.  Its helped a few but its not a cure.

- The media profiles 'finishers' more than they do winners, giving couch potatoes and incentive that if they compete and finish, they've established just as much respect as if they've won.  I admire the girl who lost 100 lbs and finished a marathon, or the guy who finished on one leg,  but in the end of the day profiling them is an insult to the winners and the rest of the competitors in the race. 

Ironman (WTC) and others are in the sports/entertainment industry. More participants mean more income. The more they can brand their event as one that anyone can accomplish, the greater the field and the greater their income. It's called marketing.

There's a great trickle down effect to increasing the field of play that benefits all of us. For example, we have so many choices in bicycles because more Average Joe's and Jane's are getting into the sport. More choices and more price points. Shrink the field and you lose choice and price points.