KEY POINTS:
It's one of the romantic notions about the Olympics we cling to: the bolter. Fed by the legend of athletes of yesteryear such as Peter Snell, who went to Rome as New Zealand's second-best 800m runner and won gold, we dream of seeing an unknown snatching victory.
In
modern times, reality says forget it (and if someone does bolt for glory, you can bet the drug-testers will be on their tail). Winning takes years of hard graft - by some estimates roughly eight years, or 10,000 hours, of international competition to make that step to the top of the Olympic dais.
Research released by Sport and Recreation NZ (Sparc) this week proves the point. Since 1996, only one New Zealander without previous top-level international success has won a medal (silver medallist three-day equestrian rider Sally Clark at Atlanta).
Analyst James Gibson has traced athletes' performances over the past two decades to find what patterns lie behind success on the world stage. The message is clear: medallists come from the pool of those who are already in the top-eight in the world.
In that light, things look rosy for Beijing. In 2007, 27 New Zealanders placed in the top-eight in world championship or Olympic test events. In 2003, the year prior to Athens when New Zealanders earned three golds and two silvers, there were 17 in the top eight.
"It means that we're encouraged to think that we're in a better position a year out from Beijing - although nothing's guaranteed," says Gibson. "Hopefully we can convert as many of those performances in 2007 into medals in 2008."
You may have noticed the deliberately cautious approach Sparc is taking. Prior to the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games, the agency calculated the medal haul could be 46, provoking howls of failure when the team returned with "only" 31.
Prior to Beijing, you won't hear Sparc being so definitive. Its predictions are couched with qualifiers and an acknowledgement that statistics and sports are not always friendly bedfellows.
"Some sports have a better conversion rate than others," says Gibson. "Rowing, for instance, has a reasonable success rate. There are less environmental factors than in sailing or triathlon, for example."
In other words, for an athlete to win, some have to overcome more than others. A rower travels in their own lane and in a straight line. A sailor has to pick the best course, hoping like hell a competitor doesn't catch a windshift; a triathlete has to put up with the jousting and shoving that inevitably marks the swim, before navigating the potential carnage of riding in a pack.
There's more to picking winners than maths.
