Medal table | Olympic schedule | Olympic news
PARIS — In the men's 100-meter breaststroke final here at the 2024 Olympics on Sunday, eight world-class swimmers glided through a pool … and not a single one would have finished better than eighth at the Tokyo Olympics three years ago.
In the "Race of the Century" one night earlier, the women's 400 freestyle, three one-time world record holders all fell well short of their personal bests; Katie Ledecky failed to even break 4 minutes.
After two cacophonous days of swimming here at Paris La Défense Arena, no world records have fallen, and murmurs have rippled through the sport: Is the pool the problem?
If so, many believe, the specific problem is its depth.
World Aquatics, swimming's global governing body, recommends that Olympic pools be 3 meters deep. The pool here in suburban Paris — a temporary vessel plopped into a rugby stadium, similar to the one built at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis for last month's U.S. Olympic trials — is 2.15 meters deep. It's beyond the minimum standard of 2 meters that was still in place when Paris 2024 plans were approved; but below the new World Aquatics minimum of 2.5 meters.
The even more specific problem is that, in shallower pools, the water that swimmers displace with their strokes can essentially bounce off the bottom of the pool and make the second 50 meters of a 100-meter swim “wavy” or choppy.
More depth, on the other hand, lessens the impact. Some experts believe that deeper pools maximize performance.
Those same people often describe shallower pools with an adjective that laymen might never associate with a pool: “slow.”
Some have said that the breaststroke, in particular, is susceptible to the “wavy” turbulence.
Others believe the impact is marginal, even negligible. When asked in May about the difference between 3 meters and 2.5 meters — the depth of the U.S. Olympic trials pool — John Ireland, the U.S. director of technical services at Myrtha Pools, responded: “Nothing.”
“A lot of this is perception vs. reality,” he said. “If you were to talk to many very accomplished coaches, they would say the pool has to be a minimum 3 meters deep. Most of our research shows that anything over 2 meters is frivolous. … Obviously, some depth is very important. But after a certain point, it's diminishing return.”
But what, if not depth, would explain a 100-meter breaststroke final in which no swimmer cracked 59 seconds? (The world record is 56.88.)
What would explain why five of seven races have produced a winner who was slower than the winner at 2023 world championships?
What would explain why neither French phenom Léon Marchand nor U.S. star Gretchen Walsh, nor dozens of others, could touch their own personal-best times?
'Not ideal for record setting'
Ken Ono, a data specialist who works with U.S. swimmers, subscribes to the prevailing theory. “The pool is fast compared to your neighborhood swim club. However, it is not ideal for record setting,” he told Yahoo Sports via email. “The shallow depth is a primary reason. I have heard from a few competitors that they have been forced to (slightly) modify their dives off the blocks.”
He clarified, and reiterated, that the "athletic performances have been breathtaking by every measure." But, he speculated: "Could we have seen a sub-4 minute 400 IM by Marchand, or a sub-55s 100 fly by [Olympic champion Torri] Huske and Walsh? Honestly, perhaps we would have in other pools."
Swimmers have been talking about the slowness, too. “It’s been a strange one, in terms of times,” Adam Peaty, the British world record holder in the 100 breast, said of this meet.
The Italian who beat Peaty to gold in Sunday’s 100 breast final, Nicolò Martinenghi, said: “The time wasn't fast for anybody, we spoke to each other about it.” He wasn’t sure why.
“But I don't care about it,” he continued. “I'm Olympic champion. Today I was fastest — that's enough for me."
Others have taken a similar route around questions about the quality of the pool. U.S. freestyler Paige Madden, when asked, initially smiled, and said: “You know … honestly, it's hard to tell. I think the results will show as the meet goes.” More importantly, she added, “we're all in the same boat. Times don't matter. It's all about place at the Olympics.”
Katie Grimes, after her first swim Monday morning, said: “I don't know, a lot of people have been saying they don't like the feel of the pool. I honestly don't feel any different in it. Sure, the times have been slower, but everybody's in the same boat, so it doesn't really matter.”
Multiple coaches and officials cautioned that the meet was still young, only two days old. Ireland, when reached by phone Monday, also noted: “There's been three Olympic records set in two days.” He said that Myrtha — the industry leader which built the U.S. trials pool and this Paris pool — was “pretty confident that this is an excellent example of an Olympic pool.” Surely, at some point, world records will fall.
And although top times haven’t met expectations, on average, four of the seven finals so far have been faster than the equivalent race in Tokyo; four of the seven have been faster than at last summer’s worlds.
Some might expect six or seven of seven to be faster, given "swim-flation," the broader progression and acceleration of the sport.
But there are several factors that could also contribute to the relatively underwhelming times. Walsh mentioned the “pressure” of living up to a world record. Coaches have mentioned that the venue could be “intimidating.” Dozens of swimmers have said it’s the loudest atmosphere they’ve ever experienced.
The prevailing opinion among the athletes, though, seems to be that this entire conversation about a “slow” pool is a bit silly.
“I mean, the pool's 50 meters, and it's 10 lanes,” Canada’s Summer McIntosh, the favorite in Monday’s women’s 400 IM, said. “It's an Olympic pool. I don't think any Olympic pool should really be called slow. No matter what, everybody's racing in the same pool. Doesn't matter if it's the fastest pool in the world, slowest pool in the world — I have the same goals.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0