Marketing Weightlifting: (Do we know our objectives)

By Mal Irwin

Summary.

Presentation of the sport of weightlifting seems to be more successful when the sport’s value to its participants is emphasised. Nobody in the sport discusses any analysis or clarification of what the sport really means to them, and how they actually became interested. Most media stories are incidental to the weights, with more emphasis on records and performances.

Stereotypes dominate the media’s image of the sport, so that stories are heavily biased towards reinforcing those stereotypes. If the publicity of the sport was aimed at presenting the inner notions experienced by seasoned lifters of differing standards then perhaps more ‘human interest" type features could be run. We could present the aspects that attracted lifters into the sport.

I am proposing that we ask such lifters and officials about their experiences and feelings about our sport. Perhaps this can form the basis of a marketing plan for the sport. What drew us into the sport might be carefully presented to a broader audience, which is unfortunately not getting the messages that we received early in our careers.

Context of Weightlifting

The sport originated as part of the spectrum of athletic conquest, intended to test strength, speed, balance, and skill. Instead of competitors contesting all sports, as the Greeks did, athletes have become specialised, so that a weightlifter would not be competitive against sprinters. Likewise a gymnast might be terrible in the water, and a swimmer could be hopeless in the marathon. I think that most people recognise the degree of specialisation for track and field and pool sports. However, my experience is that weightlifting is seen as some sort of trick. A Ph.D. candidate told me once that it’s 90% technique, most people taught the right way could lift almost as much as the State champion. Unfortunately, steroids have reinforced this type of impression. Anyone who really cares about the future of lifting should do everything to disown such gimmicky aids.

What makes sport interesting?

The generalist sports such as basketball and the football codes attract more interest, probably because they provide opportunities to witness spontaneous, free-form contests in the various facets of athletic skill. Cricket marginally fits the theory, partly because there is a fascination for the cerebral prowess of concentration and of course the ever-present fascination with developing fortunes. It provides an endless media feast, with the multi-faceted aspects of large teams, various personal stories, selection dilemmas, and the contest between states and nations. Of course, soccer, the most popular sport, contains all these elements in glorious abundance, bar the obvious one that outcomes are slow to develop (unless we consider the 43 second FA final goal).

How do we use this understanding?

I think people are interested in contests, personal achievement and insight into the athlete’s development. We could have juniors on a Sunday morning TV sports show; battling out a close contest, snatching 70 kg and jerking 95 kg; and so long as the contest aspect, and strategies being used were clearly described, it would gain more attention than say, a super heavy jerking 200kg on his own. People would just take it for granted that such a man could do it, because that’s the perception of large men. The bush is replete with stories of men who could pick up a 400 litre drum of petrol onto a truck, etc. Strength alone does not impress. Perseverance and mental application does. Witness the following that has grown up in Toowoomba. Who was the superman responsible for starting the club there?

Furthermore, the significant fact of weightlifting that many miss is the balance and flexibility involved. The sport occupies the strength and skill part of the Olympic polygon. Others will disagree on my placement of the various sports; perhaps there is a more objective way of measuring the relativities. One way might be to compare, say, shot-putter’s maximum muscle torque during throwing to their maximum muscle torque during a squat, while comparing the speed during the throw to the speed during the squat. This is probably possible with modern video technology, though being a trivial exercise from the point of view of improving performance, is not really worth doing. Of course it might be a fascinating media exercise!

So the differing skill vs. strength levels of lifters could be another point of interest. Our best chances to promote lifting come when the major Games are on, how much effort should be made to highlight our home-grown efforts while, or shortly after, the major media networks have revealed the top internationals to the public?

Why did we start lifting?

I think it would be instructive to find out what first motivated guys and girls to get fascinated with our sport to the point of devotion of several spare hours a week and foregoing the carnal pleasures of food and drink (in the Master’s lifters case; it’s reversed; we get away from the kids, and we should be on a diet anyway)..

It can’t be companionship, is it the mental challenge of discipline? Perhaps we are masochists, though in truth, the endorphins hide the pain long enough to get to work the next day. Perhaps it is a genuine physical high, stimulated by the release of hormones, and the feeling of growth and well-being, coupled with the pleasure of attaining goals (Master’s lifters are the real masochists, being unable by history to ever attain what they once were able to. Who doesn’t wish that?)

My own experience.

I think that what interests everyone in general about sport is also true of weightlifting. I understood the contest rules from the start, and we always had a Handicap comp. running in Queensland during the 60’s and 70’s. Trips away to Sydney, the interest in the Olympics of 1968, when Neville Pery was our State rep., the Uni team, and later Peter Phillips went to Munich. By then, I had made the personal acquaintance of most administrators and top lifters in the south, including Nick Ciancio. All welcomed our young talent to the fold. Our achievements were welcomed by all. Even being involved in the running of contests, demos, and later a stint as State Secretary all contributed to the sense of commitment.

But the first success was to clean and jerk the large bar-bells weighing 63 kg in the Wavell High gym (Greg Hobl might even remember them), at a special contest run by Pat Pacey in 1968. I was desperately trying to catch up to Trevor Walz, who had already set Under 16 records in various lifts. But the ego-boost of being successful with such a large, intimidating object in front of the less committed students, and the quiet approval of our mentor Pat Pacey, was a good enough reason to keep going through the Uni years, and even to put up with what is really minor inconvenience at the present time. I would have not dreamt of the achievements, such as one each of Australian Junior and Senior titles, junior records, Intervarsity and State Titles when I started. It was that early success against the yardstick that I had chosen, to jerk that barbell.

What was your first motivating encounter with weightlifting? Was it something different, like wishing to emulate a great performer, international or local; or was it just to surpass someone you knew? It’s easier to keep going towards an immediately achievable goal, so having highly motivated mates to train is one of the best things. I’ve never seen my son run more than 100 metres at a spell, until his first school walkathon. He came past the third checkpoint running, seven kilometres out, still racing his mate. Then they sprinted off up the hill. Two hours later, lactic acid had beaten the mind, but they were still walking towards the thirty kilometres! Both boys are ten years old.

What can weightlifting do to tap into the well-springs of human motivation (that Leo hasn’t already tried)?