parkrun vs Olympics - which has had a greater positive impact to UK sport?

2 lurkers | 6 watchers

OhMyFleecingGod Apr 2016 12:52pm, 12 Apr 2016 27,256 posts	0 OhMyFleecingGod The research shows the Olympics did fuck all in terms of increasing participation. Parkrun seems like much better value to me
Binks Apr 2016 12:55pm, 12 Apr 2016 7,149 posts	0 Binks I remember Super Saturday, watching Mo in Hyde Park. Been a long time since I drank that much.
TRO Saracen Apr 2016 1:17pm, 12 Apr 2016 12,666 posts	0 TRO Saracen Speaking as a West ham supporter, Olympics all the way....:-)
Rach E Apr 2016 1:23pm, 12 Apr 2016 7,891 posts	0 Rach E I think the Olympics plants the seeds, but parkrun makes them grow.
FenlandRunner Apr 2016 1:37pm, 12 Apr 2016 8,190 posts	0 FenlandRunner It's chalk and cheese. The Olympics don't seem (to me) very inclusive, by it's very nature it is elite. How do people relate to an Olympic athlete, apart from the drug taking on a Friday night? joke However parkrun is completely inclusive and uplifting. How many people have had their lives transformed.? We all know people that have gone from struggling to walk 5k, to being sub-25 or even faster.
Ulric Apr 2016 3:46pm, 12 Apr 2016 183 posts	0 Ulric I'm a big fan of both. I started running watching the Olympics but I also think parkrun is brilliant for showing non-runners that there is more to our sport than marathons. As FR above says its not really a valid comparison, the Olympics can easily steer people towards parkruns... I do hope that talented runners though don't stop there if they find they are excelling, not sure the extent to which they then get steered towards joing a club etc.
Jono. Apr 2016 3:56pm, 12 Apr 2016 4,012 posts	0 Jono. I often throw myself around Birkenhead park, which is lovely. Birkenhead park was opened in 1847 - there'd still a gravel path around the park were the well to do could ride their horses, no one would have charged them. We have to remember what parks are there for and it's not to make council's extra money.
larkim Apr 2016 6:49pm, 12 Apr 2016 622 posts	0 larkim I think parkrun can be argued for having a greater impact on UK well-being than the Olympics, but not necessarily on UK sport. I actually think it's important to decouple parkrun from sport, at least in the public perception of it. Yes, some sports people do take part in parkrun. But far more people "just take part in parkrun" (©wittertainment) and enjoy out because it isn't part of a sport, it's just running.
mblnFERCr Apr 2016 7:06pm, 12 Apr 2016 782 posts	0 mblnFERCr Isn't it fair that parkruin pay towards the upkeep of the park though? While it's super-inclusive and all, it's only a few hundred of the potentially thousands of local residents who are causing the damage... The health budget isn't controlled by the local council, so it's no gain for them that the small percentage of the local population may live longer/be slightly healthier. The olympics isn't likely to have a great effect on mass participation in sport, similar to the world cup. It's a showcase of elite talent. GB doing well will help the aspiring elite, in terms of funding etc. but a 9 second 100m means nothing to the man/woman on the street.
ChrisHB Apr 2016 7:24pm, 12 Apr 2016 12,933 posts	0 ChrisHB They don't charge for use of the children's playgrounds even if there are paddling pools with fresh water every day. They don't charge to use the public library. Some towns (Wetherby, Witney at least) don't even charge for parking.