Track and Field Blogs - Justin Kopunek

Coverage of Track and Field, particularly in mainstream media is often a major topic of debate among fans. From the quality, to the quantity, to the focus, there is always something to critique after a big meet. During coverage of the World Championships this year I began to remember the feelings I had during the Olympics last year. There is such a stress on winning a medal that it has become the only way to measure success. It has gotten I can not even count how many times I heard about East African dominance, Jamaican dominance, and how the United States is no longer dominant.

First, I would like to address this idea that American dominance in the sport is waning. Did the United States win every medal in sight? No. But this is not the USA v. the World like at Penn Relays. The US was 1 of 37 countries that medaled (how many did not even score a medal?). Team USA did win a total of 22 medals which is 15% of the possible medals and 10 gold medals which is an amazing 21% of possible gold medals. Winning over one fifth of the events is pretty dominant. So where is the criticism that the US is a weakening empire coming from? Obviously the United States has a history in which they had higher medal totals, but this was before many countries had developed track programs. Because I am trying to dispel the medal-centrism which has been prevalent, I would like to prove America’s dominance this past week without focusing on medal counts. The fact of the matter is that Team USA is the most balanced and deep team. They had at least one athlete in the finals of every single event with one exception, triple jump. No other country can make a similar claim. Dominance in one category, like sprinting or throwing, does not make a team dominant in the sport as a whole. What does Kenya’s best 200m guy run? Does Jamaica have anyone who can break 14 minutes for 5k? Where were Ethiopia’s shot putters in Berlin? Russia is the next closest in terms of overall quality, variety, and depth, but their women’s half is much stronger than that of the men. This year the US had a solid team from top to bottom, left to right; men, women, sprinting, mid-distance, distance, hurdling, throwing, jumping, relays, you name it. Think about if countries faced each other in dual meets. The US would have been easily undefeated this year and the fact of the matter is they could win against entire continents. If you score out Worlds like a dual meet using just the athletes from the United States and Africa, giving points out to the top three places 5-3-1, the US wins 252 to 140.

This all gets lost, however, in much of the coverage of track and field because the medal count and who is on the podium seem to be the only things deemed worthy of reporting. This mindset has begun to rub off on the fans and athletes, as well. You can witness athletes who feel like they have let down their country for not winning a medal even though they had their best performance ever at a Global Championship. Likewise, fans will be quick to dismiss an athlete’s performance because they were however many seconds behind the leader or places out of a medal spot. It is as if placing 5th, 6th, or even 10th in the world (population 6.7 billion) is bad. Is winning a medal at the Olympics or Worlds important and the ultimate goal for these athletes? Yes, but there has to be some progression in between a heroic, medal winning effort and a total disappointment. Some attention needs to be paid to a major improvement, or a gutsy performance. Someone could set an American Record and there is a good chance you would not hear it mentioned in the broadcast if they did not place top 3. A lot of the coverage has a Ricky Bobby “If you ain’t first, you’re last” mentality. In the movie, however, even his deadbeat father was able to recognize “That doesn't make any sense at all, you can be second, third, fourth...hell you can even be fifth.”

In order to alter this way of thinking about international track and field, I thought that maybe they could take a hint from every level of the sport below it; Team scoring beyond the medal table. One of the most exciting aspects of the NCAA meet is how each individual in a final can affect team scoring. It has found a harmonious balance between the importance of team and individual success at the championships and makes every person in an event scrapping for points important. Sometimes at a meet like NCAAs, a surprise seventh, or eight place finisher can be just as notable as someone who was in the top three. If the team scores for each country replaced, or worked concurrently with the medal count, perhaps some attention would be given to a greater variety of commendable athletes doing their best for their country. Imagine hearing an announcer say something like, “And kicking hard to finish fifth and grab 4 key team points is…” during a broadcast. In fact, the IAAF already scores out the meet in this way, but as a barely noticeable feature on the website. What if it became more prominent? Perhaps, if like in gymnastics, team awards were given out as well as individual awards. In the IAAF team scoring at Worlds this year, the USA romped the competition with 231 points. Russia was second with 154 and Jamaica and Kenya were third and fourth with 136 and 120 respective points. So I would like to congratulate Team USA on their victory at the World Championships in Berlin and give some attention below to each athlete who helped make it happen by placing in the top 8. The IAAF uses 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 scoring and those points are seen in the parenthesis.

100m – 2. Tyson Gay (7), 8. Darvis Patton (1) 3. Carmelita Jeter (6) Lauryn Williams (4)

200m – 3. Wallace Spearmon (6) 4. Shawn Crawford (5) 6. Charles Clark (3) 1. Allyson Felix (8) 4. Muna Lee (5)

400m – 1. LeShawn Merritt (8) 2. Jeremy Wariner (7) 1. Sanya Richards (8) 6. Debbie Dunn (3)

800m – 6. Nick Symmonds (3)

1,500m – 3. Bernard Lagat (6) 8. Lopez Lomong (1) 3. Shannon Rowbury (6) 5. Christin Wurth-Thomas (4) 6. Anna Willard (3)

5,000m – 2. Bernard Lagat (7) 8. Matt Tegenkamp (1)

10,000m – 6. Dathan Ritzenhein (3) 8. Galen Rupp (1) 6. Amy Yoder-Begley (3)

110/100 Hurdles – 2. Terrance Trammell (7) 3. David Payne (6) 6. Dawn Harper (3) 7. Virginia Powell (2)

400 Hurdles – 1. Kerron Clement (8) 3. Bershawm Jackson (6) 2. Lashinda Demus (7) 5. Tiffany Ross-Williams (4)

3,000m Steeplechase – 5. Jenny Barringer (4)

4x400m Relay – 1. Angelo Taylor, Wariner, Clement, Merritt (8) 1. Dunn, Felix, Demus, Richards (8)

High Jump – 7. Chaunte Howard (2)

Pole Vault – 2. Chelsea Johnson (7)

Long Jump – 1. Dwight Phillips (8) 1. Brittney Reese (8)

Shot Put – 1. Christian Cantwell (8) 4. Reese Hoffa (5) 5. Adam Nelson (4) 6. Michelle Carter (3)

Discus Throw – 5. Casey Malone (4)

Hammer Throw – 7. Jessica Cosby (2)

Decathlon/Heptathlon – 1. Trey Hardee (8)

You can see a lot of great performances there in addition to the 22 medalists. Yoder-Begley and Ritzenhein set big PRs in the 10,000m, with Ritz turning in the best time by an American ever at a Global Championship meet. Debbie Dunn ran under 50 seconds for the first time in the 400m and Jenny Barringer set an American Record in the steeplechase by 10 seconds. There are hoards of great performances that, when fittingly interwoven for a broadcast or print article, create more diversified and entertaining coverage. This team scoring and awards scenario is all just theory and conjecture, but it is an interesting premise to contemplate. I know this would likely never happen, but have always been interested in the idea of bringing out the team aspect of professional track and field more, as it is done at the high school and college levels. For now, I have conceded to the fact that the coverage will remain one dimensional for track and field. If it will not change any time soon, perhaps the sport will have to evolve and alternative forms of coverage will have to come to the forefront in order to change the way people receive and perceive the sport.