When last would have been first

By The Economist online

Continual improvement in sporting performance means today's also-rans would have won gold quite recently

THE FOUNDER of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, attached two mottoes to the games. The pursuit of “citius, altius, fortius” (faster, higher, stronger) has been overwhelmingly successful in the years since 1896, as the improvement indices in our chart below show. But along with this aspirational creed, de Coubertin also held fast to the idea that triumphing and conquering were not as important as fighting well. This second motto can ring rather hollow in the face of the public and media reactions to Olympic champions, who tend to be lauded as much as the also-rans are forgotten. So our chart also offers comfort of sorts to the slowest, lowest and weakest of various finalists in this year's Olympics (or in Beijing if relevant), indicating when in the past their performances would have won gold. For example, Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago, who came last in the 100m final (if one ignores the injured Asafa Powell, who limped over the line an age later), can console himself with a virtual triumph over Carl Lewis, a true Olympic legend, in the 1984 final.