One question for swimmers: people who sometimes follow track (like me) have the vague impression that swimming world records are broken way more often and by much larger margins than comparable records in track racing. Is this a correct impression? If so, what explains it? I used to think it was because in swimming you have a few more distances than in track and all are multiplied x4 for the different strokes, so there's more slack. But I'm not sure that's right.
As an example, Seb Coe's 800m World Record of 1:41.73 was set in 1981 and not broken until 1997. The guy who broke it, Wilson Kipketer, is still the only person to have run 800m faster than Coe.
This came up recently on a swimming blog. It's not exactly a concise explanation, but it gets the job done. I can't remember if it mentions that weight training has only recently been widely adopted, but it should.
And seeing as I'm talking to myself here, here is Coe's 800WR. That's what destroying the field in two laps looks like.
And if you want to see the record progression, it's all in this pdf.
The various theories sound somewhat plausible ... my bias, naturally, is toward the social/infrastructural point that you need a big old pool (or at least a stretch of open water) to get you started, unlike running.
One point that's concealed a bit in the "it's a new sport" explanation is that swimming is much more technical than running, so it's possible that someone will hit upon a better way to do something, as opposed to having a bit more natural talent and more modern training techniques. And then, everyone imitates the innovator, and all the times come down.
Also, pools are constructed differently than they used to be. This came up on the Track and Field News discussion site back during the 2004 Olympics. I'm not sure they kept their archives.
Swimming is more technical than running, but on the other hand -- as a commenter in the link in 10 says, "[swimmers] always have perfect conditions. There aren't other people to block you in, there is no advantage in going out slow, the water is always calm, weather has almost no effect, and so on. Every race is a time trial."
12: Heh. Track vs Swim flamewar! For family reasons, I am on the side of the Track guys.
The best swimmers have only recently become professionals. In track, the amateurs have been professionals for a long time.
800m World Record of 1:41.73
for reference, both of his 400m splits are faster than my high school's 400m record.
11 seems to me like a reason to vastly prefer swimming.
14: That will surely reduce the times. Weightlifting might be another reason. And I wonder when doping will pop up. During the summer Olympics some NYT noted that it had been less of a risk for swimming because unlike track and field, there wasn't as high of an expected payout for winning. Less financial incentive to dope.
And I wonder when doping will pop up
Doping has already been a serious problem, particularly among the women. For about five years, Chinese swimmers dominated, then people complained, drug testing became more stringent, and the Chinese swimmers disappeared. There's still a lot of suspicion, because they don't send their best swimmers to non-Olympic meets (where they might be tested). Alli/son Wag/ner, who I'm supposed to get lessons from, was denied gold in two or three events in 1996, each time coming in second to someone who it was later found was a cheater (one was an Irish woman). How much does that suck?
I was curious about the same thing -- I remember Mark Spitz from when I was a kid and can't believe that his best-in-the-world performance in the '70s would have been beaten so thoroughly by every single swimmer in the pool yesterday. Youtube has lots of Mark Spitz clips, and the difference in technique is really easy to see. Spitz seems to dive far off the block, and starts stroking immediately, and the other racers beside him do too. I wonder if there isn't a bias among trainers towards perfecting the dominant technique, rather than developing a new one that could ultimately turn out to be better.
Spitz lost a few seconds just from the mustache.
one was an Irish woman
Oh yeah, the awful Michelle DeBruin. What an embarrassment that was. They caught her in the end, but not soon enough.
Inge De Bruijn never failed a test, even though there's a lot of chatter.
I wonder if there isn't a bias among trainers towards perfecting the dominant technique
Coaches are traditionalists, and often enough they really care how the performance looks. You're always hearing about effective basketball players who play ugly, like Ilgauskas or McHale or even Charles Barkley.
Coaches resisted the Fosbury flop at first, even though he won with it. (He's an engineer now, I'd like to ask him if he calculated what he did in engineering terms). Grace Kelly's father was a rowing Olympian with an innovative, ugly style that everyone uses now. (He had to hire a lawyer to get into the Olympics, because he was not a gentleman.)