It turns out that if the current holder also set the record in the past, the record is more likely to be broken at the next games.
If the current Olympic record is also the world record, it is less likely to be broken in the next games.
A change in the number of countries competing in an event is also an important indicator of whether the record will fall.
And most surprising of all, the percentage by which the existing record improved on the first Olympic record, is also a significant indicator.
There is more here, and the original paper is here. For the pointer I thank Michelle Dawson.
“And most surprising of all, the percentage by which…”
All of these things are intuitive, none are surprising. Surprising would be a record which hasn’t been broken in a long, long time suddenly broken again and again.
It seems like there are people who take these Olympics really seriously.
That is most surprising to me.
The fact that he lingers on this topic is more surprising.
Slow blogging day?
Is Tyler still in Manila? Is he OK? http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iz8z9dfciDUfIoO9c1bgT5oTiOWw?docId=CNG.ab5b58870ed1ab2c91fea1c72388eebe.181
See https://twitter.com/tylercowen/status/232768286729834496 The locals do not appear to be so fortunate…
“If the current holder also set the record in the past…”
When else would the current holder have set the record but in the past? What am I missing?
It means he has set the record twice, but I agree that the sentence is a bit confusing.
I think they are implying that if someone sets the records in 2 consecutive olympics ( doesn’t happen often) , its more likely to be broken in the next olympics.
I find interesting the question of: Which famous sports accomplishments of the fairly distant past were set on steroids?
For example, O.J. Simpson’s 1968 sprint relay world record in track and Heisman Trophy in college football? (I’m becoming increasingly dubious about any Southern California sports accomplishment of the 1960s or 1970s set within 50 miles of Muscle Beach. How about the Lakers great 1972 season?)
How about Maris and Mantle’s 61 / 54 homer season in 1961?
The most important criteria is whether women are competing.
Title 9 is really paying off.
Comments on this entry are closed.