Why were these Olympics so good?
August 22, 2016 9:22 AM Subscribe
The Rio Olympics just concluded, and they were great. I'm an Olympics-lover, so any Olympics are fun, but these seemed better than usual, and there is some support for that. So why were these so good?
In both the men's and women's divisions of the three most popular individual sports (swimming, track, and gymnastics), there was arguably the "greatest of all time" competing. Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympian of all time. Katie Ledecky's four golds and a silver make her Olympics the most successful of any US female athlete ever. Usain Bolt is the first person ever to win either the 100m or the 200m three times in a row; he did both. Allyson Felix has won more gold medals than any other female runner ever. Kohei Uchimura repeated as men's all-around champion, in addition to winning the team gold, and is widely considered the best male gymnast ever. Simone Biles is also widely considered the best female gymnast ever; she won four golds and a bronze.
Each of these would be one of the most dominant performances in their respective sport's history. They all happened at the same time. How is that possible?
The two easiest explanations are better funding and modern coaching and training methods. Previously, lack of funding would force Olympians to retire earlier so that they could support themselves. Meanwhile, better coaches and more effective training can prolong the athletic peak. Taken together, it means it's much easier now to sustain a successful career than it has been in the past.
I don't buy either of these, though. They can explain the careers of athletes like Justin Gatlin, Aly Raisman, or Ryan Lochte well enough, but they don't explain dominance. In fact, they actually work against dominance, by increasing the overall talent level. In the most talented field ever, it should be even harder to stand out.
The other obvious explanation is doping, but there have not been any serious allegations of doping against any of these athletes. USA Swimming is well-known as clean. Felix submits to extra doping tests. Jamaica has had a couple of minor incidents, but nothing major like the BALCO thing or the Nike Oregon Project allegation, and there has been nothing against Bolt personally. It seems a stretch to think any of these dominant athletes are doping.
The other confounding factor is that, aside from Ledecky, these weren't world-record performances. Phelps and Bolt own a ton of world records, but didn't set any in Rio. Overall, it didn't seem like there were a lot of records set comparatively. So that's even weirder. These six athletes dominated the best field ever, but without setting records? What happened? And how did it happen all at once?
In both the men's and women's divisions of the three most popular individual sports (swimming, track, and gymnastics), there was arguably the "greatest of all time" competing. Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympian of all time. Katie Ledecky's four golds and a silver make her Olympics the most successful of any US female athlete ever. Usain Bolt is the first person ever to win either the 100m or the 200m three times in a row; he did both. Allyson Felix has won more gold medals than any other female runner ever. Kohei Uchimura repeated as men's all-around champion, in addition to winning the team gold, and is widely considered the best male gymnast ever. Simone Biles is also widely considered the best female gymnast ever; she won four golds and a bronze.
Each of these would be one of the most dominant performances in their respective sport's history. They all happened at the same time. How is that possible?
The two easiest explanations are better funding and modern coaching and training methods. Previously, lack of funding would force Olympians to retire earlier so that they could support themselves. Meanwhile, better coaches and more effective training can prolong the athletic peak. Taken together, it means it's much easier now to sustain a successful career than it has been in the past.
I don't buy either of these, though. They can explain the careers of athletes like Justin Gatlin, Aly Raisman, or Ryan Lochte well enough, but they don't explain dominance. In fact, they actually work against dominance, by increasing the overall talent level. In the most talented field ever, it should be even harder to stand out.
The other obvious explanation is doping, but there have not been any serious allegations of doping against any of these athletes. USA Swimming is well-known as clean. Felix submits to extra doping tests. Jamaica has had a couple of minor incidents, but nothing major like the BALCO thing or the Nike Oregon Project allegation, and there has been nothing against Bolt personally. It seems a stretch to think any of these dominant athletes are doping.
The other confounding factor is that, aside from Ledecky, these weren't world-record performances. Phelps and Bolt own a ton of world records, but didn't set any in Rio. Overall, it didn't seem like there were a lot of records set comparatively. So that's even weirder. These six athletes dominated the best field ever, but without setting records? What happened? And how did it happen all at once?
and it felt like michael johnson had just as many amazing statistics back in the day (won both 200m and 400m at same olympics, crushed everyone else, etc).
i think you're just carried away by the moment, tbh.
posted by andrewcooke at 9:45 AM on August 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
i think you're just carried away by the moment, tbh.
posted by andrewcooke at 9:45 AM on August 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
Well, don't discount the impact of funding. This was Britain's best year at the Olympics and there has been some discussion that Britain had an Olympics strategy that has started to pay off dividends at the Rio Olympics. Tl;dr it has to do with funding disbursement specifically focused around Olympic medals.
Not to take away credit from the amazing British, USA and China teams, but I have noticed that no one really mentions how a ton of Russian athletes were banned from competing, thus there were more medals to be won by the remaining countries. So there's that.
But honestly, I don't know what it is you're asking.
posted by like_neon at 9:59 AM on August 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not to take away credit from the amazing British, USA and China teams, but I have noticed that no one really mentions how a ton of Russian athletes were banned from competing, thus there were more medals to be won by the remaining countries. So there's that.
But honestly, I don't know what it is you're asking.
posted by like_neon at 9:59 AM on August 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Each of these would be one of the most dominant performances in their respective sport's history. They all happened at the same time. How is that possible?
A lot of these are only "happening at the same time" if you count "the last three to five Olympic Games" as "the same time":
posted by Etrigan at 10:02 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
A lot of these are only "happening at the same time" if you count "the last three to five Olympic Games" as "the same time":
- Phelps didn't break the Olympic record for medals in a single Games this year -- that was eight years ago. He won more golds and medals overall in 2004 than he did this year.
- Bolt was faster four years ago in all three events.
- Ledecky will very likely be even better in Tokyo than she was here.
- Felix won three golds four years ago vs. two this year.
posted by Etrigan at 10:02 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: In shorter form, my question is "how is it that the best male swimmer ever, arguably one of the best female swimmers ever, the best male sprinter ever, the best female sprinter ever, the best male gymnast ever, and the best female gymnast ever all competed at the same time, especially considering that the talent they're competing against is the highest it has ever been?"
Clarification for Etrigan: I'm referring to career performances, not just these particular Games. Basically, how is it that their careers overlapped in such a way that they were all present at Rio at the same time? Is it just chance that all of these great careers happened at the same general time?
like_neon re: funding: I don't dispute that increased funding has raised the overall level of talent. But I'm asking about these six athletes in particular.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:09 AM on August 22, 2016
Clarification for Etrigan: I'm referring to career performances, not just these particular Games. Basically, how is it that their careers overlapped in such a way that they were all present at Rio at the same time? Is it just chance that all of these great careers happened at the same general time?
like_neon re: funding: I don't dispute that increased funding has raised the overall level of talent. But I'm asking about these six athletes in particular.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:09 AM on August 22, 2016
In shorter form, my question is "how is it that the best male swimmer ever, arguably one of the best female swimmers ever, the best male sprinter ever, the best female sprinter ever, the best male gymnast ever, and the best female gymnast ever all competed at the same time, especially considering that the talent they're competing against is the highest it has ever been?"
Don't discount the equipment - the compression swimsuits, the shoes, the more scientifically inclined nutrition and training schedules. This stuff adds up.
posted by dinty_moore at 10:20 AM on August 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Don't discount the equipment - the compression swimsuits, the shoes, the more scientifically inclined nutrition and training schedules. This stuff adds up.
posted by dinty_moore at 10:20 AM on August 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Basically, how is it that their careers overlapped in such a way that they were all present at Rio at the same time? Is it just chance that all of these great careers happened at the same general time?
It's not that rare for the apparently-greatest-ever athletes to be currently competing at any given point in history. Training is getting better, equipment is getting better (yes, even in such elementary events as the 100m dash, equipment both on and off the athlete matters), careers are getting longer (thanks to less of the "amateurism" figleaf at the Olympics in particular)... it adds up. So we say "Usain Bolt has the record in the 100m dash, therefore he is the greatest 100m dash runner of all time", but is he really better than everyone in history who could have benefited from the same training and equipment and nutrition and suchlike?
For instance, Mark Spitz set seven world records in the 1972 Games and was faster twenty years later, but he didn't even pass the 1992 Olympic qualifying times. And Spitz retired after the 1972 Games at the age of 22, because he didn't make any money as a swimmer; Phelps didn't have to do that after 2008.
posted by Etrigan at 10:34 AM on August 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's not that rare for the apparently-greatest-ever athletes to be currently competing at any given point in history. Training is getting better, equipment is getting better (yes, even in such elementary events as the 100m dash, equipment both on and off the athlete matters), careers are getting longer (thanks to less of the "amateurism" figleaf at the Olympics in particular)... it adds up. So we say "Usain Bolt has the record in the 100m dash, therefore he is the greatest 100m dash runner of all time", but is he really better than everyone in history who could have benefited from the same training and equipment and nutrition and suchlike?
For instance, Mark Spitz set seven world records in the 1972 Games and was faster twenty years later, but he didn't even pass the 1992 Olympic qualifying times. And Spitz retired after the 1972 Games at the age of 22, because he didn't make any money as a swimmer; Phelps didn't have to do that after 2008.
posted by Etrigan at 10:34 AM on August 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would have phrased the question differently. In an era with highly optimized training, where 1st place athletic performances tend to be a fraction of a second or of an inch better than #2, how do these athletes manage to achieve such unworldly leads? I asked myself that while watching Ledecky waiting patiently, almost with embarrassment, what seemed like about 20 seconds for the rest of the pack to arrive at the finish line of one of her races.
But to answer YOUR question: you forgot something just as important as funding and modernity of training: a strong sense of national team momentum. Why do Jamaicans and Kenyans dominate running? A racist will have one answer, but the correct one is that becoming a great runner is the preeminent dream of young Jamaicans and Kenyans, who have no other obvious avenues to huge success. Same with American basketball; it's THE inner city dream. This existence of a specific vaunted avenue creates an intensity of desire, and the sum total of intense desire raises the local quality bar - both contributing to a virtuous circle. At a certain point, Jamaican and Kenyan runners are always superior because Jamaican and Kenyan runners are always superior. That explains Jamaican running in general, if not Bolt in particular.
It's true that most Americans who take up swimming have other avenues available to them, but they still enjoy a boost from that same virtuous circle. Lithuanian swimmers don't have as high a bar to aim for, or a similar sense of team momentum, or the visceral sensation that the national swim team is A Thing they desperately want to be part of. So, again, American swimmers are always better because American swimmers are always better.
American swimming and gymnastics and Jamaican sprinting all enjoy this virtuous circularity, and it's no coincidence that the dominating figures - Bolt, Ledecky, Phelps, Felix, and Biles - are on teams with storied domination. AND...above/beyond all that, these individuals take it to the next level. They're exceptional; they're edge-cases.
Exceptional edge cases also crop up on less dominant teams. Those red shirts you see being trounced at the back of the pack in swimming, running, and gymnastics competitions - and even the ones you don't even see, because they don't make it through the preliminary heats - are mighty heroes of their respective countries. They're doing exceptionally better than what's being expected of them. They are edge cases in a less extreme data set.
Merely existing on a high tower is a lofty advantage. But being a genetically talented jumper atop a high tower is always going to take you to the highest height.
posted by Quisp Lover at 10:47 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
But to answer YOUR question: you forgot something just as important as funding and modernity of training: a strong sense of national team momentum. Why do Jamaicans and Kenyans dominate running? A racist will have one answer, but the correct one is that becoming a great runner is the preeminent dream of young Jamaicans and Kenyans, who have no other obvious avenues to huge success. Same with American basketball; it's THE inner city dream. This existence of a specific vaunted avenue creates an intensity of desire, and the sum total of intense desire raises the local quality bar - both contributing to a virtuous circle. At a certain point, Jamaican and Kenyan runners are always superior because Jamaican and Kenyan runners are always superior. That explains Jamaican running in general, if not Bolt in particular.
It's true that most Americans who take up swimming have other avenues available to them, but they still enjoy a boost from that same virtuous circle. Lithuanian swimmers don't have as high a bar to aim for, or a similar sense of team momentum, or the visceral sensation that the national swim team is A Thing they desperately want to be part of. So, again, American swimmers are always better because American swimmers are always better.
American swimming and gymnastics and Jamaican sprinting all enjoy this virtuous circularity, and it's no coincidence that the dominating figures - Bolt, Ledecky, Phelps, Felix, and Biles - are on teams with storied domination. AND...above/beyond all that, these individuals take it to the next level. They're exceptional; they're edge-cases.
Exceptional edge cases also crop up on less dominant teams. Those red shirts you see being trounced at the back of the pack in swimming, running, and gymnastics competitions - and even the ones you don't even see, because they don't make it through the preliminary heats - are mighty heroes of their respective countries. They're doing exceptionally better than what's being expected of them. They are edge cases in a less extreme data set.
Merely existing on a high tower is a lofty advantage. But being a genetically talented jumper atop a high tower is always going to take you to the highest height.
posted by Quisp Lover at 10:47 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Look back at highlights from past Olympics. In 1976, Nadia Comaneci scored the first perfect 10 in gymnastics. The US fielded a boxing team that netted 5 gold medals, members included Sugar Ray Leonard, Leon Spinks, and Michael Spinks. Caitlin Jenner won the gold medal for decathalon and set a world record. Edwin Moses set a new world record for 400m hurdles at 20 and was the only US competitor to receive an individual track gold medal that year. These are some pretty famous names, and then there are the names you probably don't know: John Naber, US swimmer, won 4 golds and 1 silver. Japanese gymnast Shun Fujimoto broke his leg during the floor exercise and went on to score a 9.7 on rings, WITH A BROKEN LEG, to win the team gold for Japan. Luann Ryon won gold for the US in archery despite having never competed at an international level before.
And that's just 1976. My point being, there are athletes at the top of their game at every Olympics.
posted by cabingirl at 10:53 AM on August 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
And that's just 1976. My point being, there are athletes at the top of their game at every Olympics.
posted by cabingirl at 10:53 AM on August 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
"American swimming and gymnastics and Jamaican sprinting all enjoy this virtuous circularity, and it's no coincidence that the dominating figures - Bolt, Ledecky, Phelps, Felix, and Biles - are on teams with storied domination"
Woops, also American woman's mid-distance and relay running (accounting for Felix).
posted by Quisp Lover at 10:56 AM on August 22, 2016
Woops, also American woman's mid-distance and relay running (accounting for Felix).
posted by Quisp Lover at 10:56 AM on August 22, 2016
I'd also add coverage and exposure - there are dozens of sports each of which could receive a week's or more high level coverage. And it wraps up in two weeks. There's just _so_much_to_see_ and one person can't really. But we have great means to catch highlights, weave stories, collect scores and the like that a casual spectator can now grasp so much more of the games than anyone could easily do so not that long ago.
Every games are filled with amazing stories, perhaps we are just getting better exposure to more of them.
posted by mce at 11:05 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Every games are filled with amazing stories, perhaps we are just getting better exposure to more of them.
posted by mce at 11:05 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
the compression swimsuits
Just FYI, the suits have actually been dialed back from the peak but people still set swimming WR, so that argument is unlikely, in this particular case, and — since I assume swimming isn't special — in other cases as well.
I think an interesting related question is how people in speed sports continue setting world records. Equipment certainly improves, but I think a lot of it is a mix between improvement in training (swim training has gotten a lot smarter) and a wider base to draw from. Swimming is still kind of a rich kids' sport, but much less so than it once was. Wider groups to draw from mean more of a chance of discovering that kid with the right genetic and mental combination.
(Sorry this is all about swimming: it is the only sport I really know.)
posted by dame at 11:26 AM on August 22, 2016
Just FYI, the suits have actually been dialed back from the peak but people still set swimming WR, so that argument is unlikely, in this particular case, and — since I assume swimming isn't special — in other cases as well.
I think an interesting related question is how people in speed sports continue setting world records. Equipment certainly improves, but I think a lot of it is a mix between improvement in training (swim training has gotten a lot smarter) and a wider base to draw from. Swimming is still kind of a rich kids' sport, but much less so than it once was. Wider groups to draw from mean more of a chance of discovering that kid with the right genetic and mental combination.
(Sorry this is all about swimming: it is the only sport I really know.)
posted by dame at 11:26 AM on August 22, 2016
----------
"Japanese gymnast Shun Fujimoto broke his leg during the floor exercise and went on to score a 9.7 on rings, WITH A BROKEN LEG, to win the team gold for Japan"
----------
"Asked years later whether he would do it again, Fujimoto replied with an emphatic: 'No, I would not'."
posted by Quisp Lover at 11:49 AM on August 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Japanese gymnast Shun Fujimoto broke his leg during the floor exercise and went on to score a 9.7 on rings, WITH A BROKEN LEG, to win the team gold for Japan"
----------
"Asked years later whether he would do it again, Fujimoto replied with an emphatic: 'No, I would not'."
posted by Quisp Lover at 11:49 AM on August 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Feels like recency bias. Records are broken and there are outstanding performances every Olympics.
Maybe some home field bias. You cite a lot of American athletes.
Also, I think the Internet and the ability to watch every sport adds to the feeling that there's a lot of awesome stuff happening. In the old days we only had the network broadcasts showing the most popular events.
Just my $.02.
posted by LoveHam at 12:24 PM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe some home field bias. You cite a lot of American athletes.
Also, I think the Internet and the ability to watch every sport adds to the feeling that there's a lot of awesome stuff happening. In the old days we only had the network broadcasts showing the most popular events.
Just my $.02.
posted by LoveHam at 12:24 PM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
One cannot possibly imagine the technical improvements in the sport of swimming over the years. My father was a Big Ten backstroke champion in the 60's but I had faster times than that on a regular basis while in high school in the 90s. The difference was in the rules surrounding starts and turns and of course training, diets and weight lifting and that has magnified itself a hundred fold over the years to now even having USA Swimming managing the amount of sleep, and the type of sleep, their Olympic caliber athletes get.
There are some physical qualities you can't train for, for instance Phelps' center of gravity and Biles smaller size and remarkable physical strength.
Science and training advances will one day relegate Phelps and Biles' Olympic successes to how we now quaintly talk about Spitz and Comaneci Olympic success. That's nuts.
posted by lstanley at 12:31 PM on August 22, 2016
There are some physical qualities you can't train for, for instance Phelps' center of gravity and Biles smaller size and remarkable physical strength.
Science and training advances will one day relegate Phelps and Biles' Olympic successes to how we now quaintly talk about Spitz and Comaneci Olympic success. That's nuts.
posted by lstanley at 12:31 PM on August 22, 2016
Here is a link to a collection of shorts that puts modern, record-holding athletes in their predecessors equipment. I.e. a 70 year-old kayak or a standard speedo swimsuit, etc.
The modern athletes mostly are neck and neck with those from decades ago.
http://rebrn.com/re/cbc-put-current-olympians-in-the-equipment-that-was-used-by-some-2764053/
posted by zyxwvut at 1:11 PM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
The modern athletes mostly are neck and neck with those from decades ago.
http://rebrn.com/re/cbc-put-current-olympians-in-the-equipment-that-was-used-by-some-2764053/
posted by zyxwvut at 1:11 PM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Title 9 is roughly 45 years old, and having two or three generations of women athletes compete, and shine, could be contributing to name recognition, attention, interest, and the all important focus of American news cameras... USA news coverage seems very focused on Stories, creating narratives, and, of course, winners.
The Russian bans probably hurt the competition in a lot of events they usually compete against the USA in, allowing the USA to win by bigger margins than normal.
The USA also has the time, money, peace, leisure, competitive sense, and infrastructure to identify, train, and basically raise great athletes, in many areas.
And, of course, it is the Olympics. Where else would we see so many dominant athletes? (or, in general, care, honestly? How often do we see sports figures on the news?)
posted by Jacen at 2:55 PM on August 22, 2016
The Russian bans probably hurt the competition in a lot of events they usually compete against the USA in, allowing the USA to win by bigger margins than normal.
The USA also has the time, money, peace, leisure, competitive sense, and infrastructure to identify, train, and basically raise great athletes, in many areas.
And, of course, it is the Olympics. Where else would we see so many dominant athletes? (or, in general, care, honestly? How often do we see sports figures on the news?)
posted by Jacen at 2:55 PM on August 22, 2016
There were more than 11,000 athletes competing in Rio. Phelps, Ledecki, Uchimura, Biles, Bolt, and Felix are six of them.
posted by not that girl at 5:18 PM on August 22, 2016
posted by not that girl at 5:18 PM on August 22, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:39 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]