Newbie question

1 wsb race = good

2wsb races = better!

I think two shorter races are easier for casual fans to digest, and make the spectators feel they get value for money without the need of a high profile support package.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 20 2009, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think two shorter races are easier for casual fans to digest, and make the spectators feel they get value for money without the need of a high profile support package.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 20 2009, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think two shorter races are easier for casual fans to digest, and make the spectators feel they get value for money without the need of a high profile support package.

Im not sure about BSB, but AMA and CSB all run 2 races per round also. Its a Superbike thing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Son of Doohan @ Jul 20 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>

Why funny?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 20 2009, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why funny?

Amazing you don’t see it, but not surprising CONSIDERING THE SOURCE. What you said is CONDESCENDING.

'Hey look, two races, I feel so much better now that I spent the money for a ticket since I’m such a moron.' Is that what the dumb spectators are saying Tom?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jul 20 2009, 06:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Amazing you don’t see it, but not surprising CONSIDERING THE SOURCE. What you said is CONDESCENDING.

I don't think it is, its just good sense

Could it also be to give the smaller teams in WSBK more chances to race? They don't have as many rounds as GP; the races are also spread out more, hence Povol jonesing his ... off for a race.

Two races mean the teams get to race one more time, and fans get to see them one more time, before that three week break, perhaps?

It's a good question. Obviously no one so far knows the sure answer. I have nothing else to add

Why not just say what you meant?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 20 2009, 04:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think two shorter races are easier for casual fans to digest,

...because they are so dumb.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>and make the spectators feel they get value for money without the need of a high profile support package.

...since they don't know better, dumb .......s.


Tom, even if I was to give you the benefit of the doubt that you where not being a snob, it's amazing that you can say something like this and not realize its still condescending.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jul 20 2009, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Amazing you don’t see it, but not surprising CONSIDERING THE SOURCE. What you said is CONDESCENDING.

'Hey look, two races, I feel so much better now that I spent the money for a ticket since I’m such a moron.' Is that what the dumb spectators are saying Tom?

Casual fans, not necessarily dumb ones. Think people who ride motorcycles, yet don't actively follow racing, and think it would be cool to see motorcycles being raced.

Also, promoters are known to tinker with race formats to provide more value, a more packed schedule of on-track activity for the spectators. Knock-out qualifying is the most recent example. A rider can't put in a fast lap 15 minutes into the 1-hour session and sit in the garage the rest of the time; the fans get to see Ben Spies throughout qualifying. Super Pole is another example of this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J708 @ Jul 19 2009, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I was wondering something. Why are there two races on the same day in the WSBK?

Why are races the distance they are?

Because somebody just decided it would be part of the series. Period. Not sure you're gonna get a technical answer, it just is, enjoy it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jul 20 2009, 11:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why are races the distance they are?

Because somebody just decided it would be part of the series. Period. Not sure you're gonna get a technical answer, it just is, enjoy it.

I think it's a huge bonus IMO.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jul 20 2009, 04:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think two shorter races are easier for casual fans to digest, and make the spectators feel they get value for money without the need of a high profile support package.

Definitely about value for money and differentiation. People forget that WSS didn't even come on the scene until 1990 and it wasn't until 1997 that expanded outside of the European rounds.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Jul 20 2009, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Casual fans, not necessarily dumb ones. Think people who ride motorcycles, yet don't actively follow racing, and think it would be cool to see motorcycles being raced.

Tom said: "easier for casual fans to digest"

The qualifier for "casual" fan is "easier"; that is in connotation, to summon the antonym, meaning "harder". In other words, he qualified what he meant by "casual" fans to mean those that cannot digest something harder.

This is very different from what you are saying Shupe. One doesn't have to follow the sport, as in casual fans, to be insulted by the insinuation that they must have two races (according to Tom) for it to be "easier to digest" Comprende?

Much can be hidden in subtle, if allowed. (Something that didn't get past Roger or Son of Doo in this thread).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Also, promoters are known to tinker with race formats to provide more value, a more packed schedule of on-track activity for the spectators. Knock-out qualifying is the most recent example. A rider can't put in a fast lap 15 minutes into the 1-hour session and sit in the garage the rest of the time; the fans get to see Ben Spies throughout qualifying. Super Pole is another example of this.

True. The idea is promote, that is, get more people to tune in. However, it does NOT mean they are targeting the dumb fan that needs an assist to "digest" the racing. You're not saying there is a message inherent by the promoter to the fan (casual or informed) are you? Which is what Tom insinuated (perhaps as I said before, maybe by mistake, nonetheless still condescending).

Some fans are more hard core than others. Having a shorter attention span for a race doesn't make one stupid, just not as dedicated or interested as others. In addition, casual fans may have a harder time "digesting" a longer race as the field spreads out and more riders get lapped, mixing the leaders with the back markers. Casual fans, who may not be up to date on who is who, could possibly lose track of the positions, making the race more difficult to "digest."

Does this make them stupid? No

Do promoters condescend to casual fans when they try to make things more simple? No, they just want to make the spectacle more enjoyable to a wider audience and get more viewers.