When Shorter won in the Olympics, many young, long distance runners like myself upped their training to LSD (long slow distance, as coined by Arthur Lydiard, the New Zealand coach) and started half- and full marathons.
The late, great Fred Lebow used Grete Weitz and the NYC Marathon to push long-distance road races in the U.S.
For my colleagues in New England, I'll add Shorter's buddy, Bill Rodgers and in the Mid-Atlantic, the late, great Tom Fleming, who won two NY marathons and was a hugely influential guy with local running clubs, which helped galvinize the area.
Pretty influential book at the time
I was already running at the time and paid attention to the runners/coaches.
But you're right: Fixx introduced/inspired/taught people.
giving extra foul protection to the biggest stars (Magic, Bird, Jordan, Dominique, Charles, Akeem, etc). It makes sense. Now the WNBA needs a team of Bad Boys (or I should say Bad Girls) - you always need a villain. Chicago Sky can now play that role!
More and expansion is going to take four more years! During that time interval half of more of the draft picks and even some #1s (Charli Collier) will be cut and go elsewhere.
My opinion WNBA is too slow.
Second, last year most games were televised but mostly on subscription channels like Apple, Max, HBO, etc. Very seldom were they on more accessible channels like ESPN CBS etc.
If they want to build a big fan base and take advantage of the Clark effect get the games on main stream tv. Don't hide them and shot yourself in the foot.
I obviously have concerns with WNBA management. They have an opportunity now don't blow it.
the profile of a sport as dramatically? I'm trying to think of something similar.
Bird & Magic together brought bb into the modern era. Gretzky kind of brought more eyes to hockey. Pele?
I think Tiger Woods brought a lot of eyes, especially black people, to a sport we kind of had been ignoring.
But this Clark thing is serious. I got people I work with say Clark single handedly changed their perspective of womens bb. I keep hearing Steph Curry. 'Never seen a woman shoot so effortlessly like Steph.'
Nielson ratings, over 1/2 of all tvs in America were tuned in for their Belmont races (52 and 53 ratings, respectively)
It’s a bit of a chicken and egg sort of phenomenon but you can tie the rise in popularity to the amount of tv time a sport gets.
Was it Magic and Bird or was it showing the NBA finals live instead of tape delayed after the 11pm news that drove NBA popularity up? Probably both.
I think I read that this year was the first year every single women’s tournament game was available on tv. I know in the past few years it’s gone from never being able to find a women’s game on tv to having a few every night.
I know I’ll probably piss off the legions of Clarkies but I think espn/tv has played a massive role in what is going on.
I also want to throw out there the fact that the NBA has had a 50 year head start on the WNBA so you could argue in terms of development and eyeballs they’re on track.
And it still is. ESPN has manufactured this controversy between Clark and DT. But it’s not like they had to work that hard. DT is bitter and angry like most ex-Huskies. So it took almost no effort to get to to say something stupid.
Clark has definitely ignited the WBB landscape and I think it is great for the sport. It will take a few years to more accurately assess the lasting effect of this phenomenon.
The Williams sisters raised the profile of women’s tennis. The others that you mentioned. But none of them raised it to this level. Not selling our season tickets and causing opponents to move games to larger venues level.
These are difficult comparisons because some of these sports are historically spectator sports whereas golf and swimming aren't necessarily so. But all of them changed the landscape of their respective sports and the culture of America. I'm throwing Beckham in there because his initial investment into the MLS was quite a culture shift, and doubling down with Messi will probably have far more lasting impacts than anyone realizes.
I hate to say it, but there is some truth to what Diana Taurasi said. There is a lot of pressure on Clark. America will tune in for greatness. She will be very good to great. But so was Allen Iverson. Fortunately for her, she and the league have a vested interest in her success. She'll need to get some help to achieve the kind of greatness that keeps America's attention.
Woods was popular and raised the tv ratings for the tournaments he was in, but didn’t really raise the tour and golf’s popularity regressed after he left. Jordan was an event after he and Bulls won, but it didn’t significantly raise the NBA’s ratings as a whole.
When we look at Clark’s effect, streams and ratings went up across the board the last two years for all of women’s basketball. Indiana sold out for women’s basketball for the first time ever last season.
There are other examples as well. Now, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if this trend will hold. I think it has a chance for a few reasons. The quality of college basketball is at an all time low. A lot of games are simply too bad to watch. And the NBA isn’t significantly better and most of current best players are foreign imports. If the quality of youth basketball in America doesn’t get better over the next decade, the NBA could begin to resemble the NHL.
Of course all of this is purely speculation. Clark could blow out her knee opening night and the WNBA could go back to being a niche league almost overnight.
Time will tell.
If you want to attribute the rise in interest in women's basketball across the board to CC, that's fine by me. That's point can be debated, as I think her popularity has coincided with the beginning of growth of the game, which has had an exponential impact on her interest. But I'm happy to concede it that point.
But arguing that there weren't rising tides from the other athletes is just wrong. A quick google search for example: "In the 1996 season when Woods joined late that year, the total prize money amounted to $101 million; between 1997 and 2008, the total prize money rose by an average of 9.3 percent per year, bringing the PGA Tour’s purse to $292 million by 2008."
Jordan revolutionized an entire culture and industry. His personal brand aside, the growth of NBA revenue and player salaries reflected the kind of growth during Tiger's prime.
I think Clark and Jordan are probably similar insofar as the sport's popularity was ready to embrace their next hero. But guys like Lance and Tiger undoubtedly lifted interest in sports that people just weren't watching.
That was point I was trying to make.
It might be purely anecdotal at this point, but several people I know who got into golf because of Tiger have since moved on. The same with cycling and Lance.
You are correct about Jordan and I concede that point. He might be the one athlete that we can point to as a good baseline for what Clark could be able to do for the women’s game.
Looks like the PGA tour died when Tiger quit playing regularly (his last almost full year was 2017).
And the NBA revenue has grown dramatically since Jordan left. Revenue in 2021 was ~$2.1 billion which steadily rose to ~$8.8billion before covid when it dipped. But by 2023 it was over $10billion.
30 years of growth for each (Tiger joined in 1996) seems pretty permanent, especially compared to something that has happened once.
….introduction into Asia courtesy of Yao Ming and reinforced by the insane popularity of Kobe Bryant. Had they not opened that new market, revenue would have had the exponential growth that they enjoyed.
The NFL is attempting to take a page out of that playbook by aggressively targeting Europe and South America, but the results have been mixed to say the least.
As far as the PGA Tour is concerned, purse values are one way of gauging growth. I don’t think it’s a great way to go about it, but it’s what we have. You can also look at television ratings which have regressed since the height of Tiger’s popularity.
Your post seems to suggest that the increased interest in women's basketball will be sustained. But we don't know that. Which was essentially my point. CC has a lot of pressure on her to sustain the kind of interest that those other generational talents did for long periods of time. But other than the NBA, the interest in those other sports was more about the generational talent than the sport itself, and the interest waned when the greatness did. Although golf revenue has definitely maintained its levels. But viewership and social media is definitely still improved by the mere presence of Tiger.
So the question is whether the WNBA interest will more reflect NBA type growth or women's soccer growth. The latter has been more tied to the greatness of teams/players like Mia Hamm, Carli Lloyd, etc. I haven't followed it closely, but it's my understanding that participation in girls' youth soccer in the US has been on the decline in recent years.
Mary Lou Retton, Jackie Robinson, Pele, Richard Petty, Mia Hamm, Fernando Valenzuela
Babe Ruth is pretty obvious in ushering in the Golden Age
Red Grange was a very well known football player, even legendary, before he boosted the fledgling NFL
Ali gave a boost to a dying sport and was its face for many years
Frank Shorter had a gold and silver in the Olympic marathon at the time road racing took off in the US. Not sure if his victories contributed to it or just occurred at the same time
Mary Lou Retton made the Cheerios package and was one of the first successful American gymnasts
Jackie Robinson and others (Sweetwater Clifton, Marion Motley) broke racial barriers
Pele was a marquee star in soccer when most Americans had minimal experience with it and he filled seats
Richard Petty seemed to be the most recognizable NASCAR star when it grew from a regional sport
I might make a case for Mia Hamm and Fernando Valenzuela - Fernando certainly exploded in Los Angeles, especially among the Hispanic folks
but Olga stole the show. Then came Comaneci and women's gymnastics (Olympics only) became must-watch TV.
- If so, having Aaliyah Boston as your starting center and Nylyssa Smith as your power forward is a pretty darn good way to start. As good as she and Monika Czinano were, Boston and Smith are both top shelf pros.
I think Clark will make Mitchell even better and will probably resurrect the somewhat flat pro careers of KLS and Lexie Hull.
Weirdly, I think the person who will play with/off her very well is Grace Berger, who is tough, measured and knows what to do. CC is uber talented can use someone like Berger to take over every few times up the court and go to the wing.
- I think there are going to be some adjustments to the speed/physical nature of the game, but I think a lot of these somewhat older players are going to be stunned at what CC can do, too. Her ability to manufacture shooting space while dribbling at a fast pace is uncanny, as is her step-backs, -asides and -throughs.
Still, we'll see soon enough...
There may be no one player as electrifying as Clark, but the classes behind her are loaded with talent, particularly this year's freshman class. That class is full of players who are not only great, but very exciting to watch.
As I watched the draft the other night it was hard not to think about Hidalgo, Watkins, Fulwiley, Booker, Williams, et al., all of whom will have their day in the WNBA. There's no telling what they will accomplish before their draft day.
Clark brought a lot of eyes to Women's College Basketball, and now to the WNBA. She may be a "one-off" in some ways, but once people start paying attention to the sport there are a lot of players coming up that can keep them watching.
But seeing as how a good game plan and experienced/crafty defense by Nika Muhl nearly took down Clark, it's apparent that there will be a period of adjustment and the need to have some additional guard help as teams will hound her and move her off the ball. Imagine Uconn's game plan with Muhl getting help from Skyler and Jewell.
Anyway, my point is simply that CC will need help from her teammates to attain the kind of greatness that keeps America's attention. They will tune in expecting greatness.
- Yes, I can imagine Jewell or Sky helping out.
- But, in the Iowa game, CC only had Kate Martin helping to create her own shot.
With Indiana, she'll have Mitchell, Smith and Boston to take pressure off her.
- Lastly, I might be an outlier here, but as good as Nika Muhl was in the first half, she was getting tired and accumulating fouls in the second half. Plus Clark (and Martin) were figuring out ways around it.
Your point holds, of course, and Taurasi and Bird are bringing up that the vets will attack Clark with tricks she isn't ready for. Agreed. But she's good enough to learn and counter...with help from her teammates.
Late add: I just saw CC talking at her intro press conference. She doesn't expect to score 40 a game and wants to be part of the overall team. Smart. She'll get the lay of the land and then raise the game as needed and appropriate.
47 points. PSU was geared to stop Clark, double and triple teaming her, so she took what they gave her. Which was feeding a wide-open Stuelke all night long. i think Clark wouldn't mind doing that all season long with Boston if it brings a bunch of wins with it. And, btw, Clark still scored 27 with all the defensive pressure that night from PSU.