The French Swimming Federation (Fédération Française de Natation) recently released a booklet with data analysis on every event at the Paris Olympics. This data-rich guide lists information like swimmers’ 25-meter splits, time spent underwater, total strokes, and more in a table with a breakdown of each finalist’s information. Over the next few days, I’ll be picking some of my favorite events from the Olympics and analyzing the data from the fastest swimmers in the world.

This data goldmine, entirely in French, consists of four distinct sections: Round (divisions), Nagées parties (swam parts of the race), Parties without nagées (Parts of the race that are not swum, including start, underwater and finish) and Movements (Total number of strokes and so on).

REVIEW

One of the most anticipated events of this meeting was the women’s 200m individual medley, which featured some of the biggest names in the sport, such as Summer McIntosh, Kate Douglas, Alex WalshAnd Kaylee McKeown finally had the chance to all compete. This race took place on the second to last day of the finals and the final featured two interesting things: an empty lane in an Olympic final and a disqualification. Ella Ramsay, the original eighth-place finisher who qualified from the semi-finals, withdrew from the 200m individual medley final due to illness. Normally that spot would have gone to reserve swimmers Anastasia Gorbenko and Ye Shiwen, but neither swimmer competed in the final, leaving an empty lane. Alex Walshwho swam the third fastest time in the final, was disqualified after crossing the vertical line when switching from backstroke to breaststroke. With this information, there were only six swimmers who achieved a time this year.

1. Summer McIntoshCanada – 2:06.56
2. Kate DouglasUnited States – 2:06.92
3. Kaylee McKeownAustralia – 2:08.08
4. Yu Yiting, China – 2:08.49
5. Abbie Wood, Great Britain – 2:09.51
6. Sydney PickremCanada – 2:09.74
7. Ella Ramsay, Australia – DNS
8. Alex WalshUnited States – DSQ

ROUND (SPLIT)

Up to 50m (butterfly):

1. Douglas – 26.73
2. McIntosh – 26.80
3. Ju – 27.31
4. Wood – 27.43
5. McKeown – 27.59
6. Pickrem – 27,89

50m-100m (backstroke):

1. McKeown – 31.68
2. McIntosh – 31.80
3. Pickrem – 32.47
4. Yu – 32.74
5. Wood – 32.78
6. Douglas – 34.32

100m-150m (breaststroke):

1. Douglas – 35.75
2. Pickrem – 37.19
3. Yu – 37.37
4. McIntosh – 37.53
5. McKeown – 37.77
6. Wood – 37.87

150m-200m (freestyle):

1. Douglas – 30.12
2. McIntosh – 30.43
3. McKeown – 31.04
4. Ju – 31.07
5. Wood – 31.43
6. Pickrem – 32.19

Since the 200 individual medley is a true test of a swimmer’s ability to swim all four strokes as quickly as possible, weaknesses are also revealed wherever possible. For example: Kate Douglas was the fastest in the field in all swimming events (including a 1.44-second lead over everyone else in the breaststroke), except in the backstroke, where she was nearly three seconds behind the fastest split time. Summer McIntoshthe winner of the race, was not the fastest swimmer in any event, but she was in the middle of the pack in every stroke and had the second fastest split times in all strokes except breaststroke. Kaylee McKeown She fell behind in the butterfly and breaststroke, but her performances in the backstroke and freestyle were enough to give her a chance at a medal.

PARTIES NAGEES (PARTS OF THE RACE SWAM)

This section lists the swimmers’ times from 15m to 45m, as well as their times from 65m to 95m, 115m to 145m and 165m to 195m, taking into account everything except the start, turn and finish. The ranking below shows their total time spent “swimming”.

1. McIntosh – 1:18.55
2. Douglass-1:20.25
3. McKeown – 1:20.63
4. Yu – 1:20.73
5. Wood – 1:21.42
6. Pickrem – 1:21.44

This metric is not as surprising as some others when considering the overall finish order, since the time spent “swimming” is exactly the finish order. While underwater swimming, starts, and turns can be very helpful in a shorter distance race, they (in most cases) have less of an overall effect on a race the longer the distance. Although this race was very close between McIntosh and Douglass for first and second place, McIntosh took almost 2 seconds less than Douglass during the 120m in the middle of the pool.

PARTIES NOT NAGEES (PARTS OF THE RACE NOT TO SWIM)

This section highlights the start, turn and finish of the race, including reaction times, time spent underwater, distance covered underwater, time to reach the 15m mark and the 5m finish time on each 50, alongside the distance from the last stroke to the last wall. The leaderboard below shows the total time for starts, turns and the final 5m (15m from and 5m into each wall).

1. Douglas – 46.67
2. McKeown – 47.45
3. Yu – 47.76
4. McIntosh – 48.01
5. Wood – 48.09
6. Pickrem – 48,30

The following ranking shows the distance (in meters) each swimmer spent underwater during this race:

1. Wood – 47.1
2. McKeown – 43.3
3. Yu – 39.5
4. Douglas – 39.1
5. Pickrem – 38.3
6. McIntosh – 37.9

These values ​​also underline that there are several ways to win a race and that each swimmer plays to his or her own strengths in the 200 m individual medley. Summer McIntosh spent a full 10 metres longer on the water surface than Abbie Wood, as underwater use is not as crucial to her racing schedule. Kate Douglas was the fastest in the extra sections of her race, but was still beaten by McIntosh. Douglass had the fastest time from every wall up to the 15-meter mark (except the backstroke, where Yu Yiting was the fastest), demonstrating UVA’s fast and efficient underwater style that has worked very well for her in the past. Yu Yiting continued to be in the top three-quarters of swimmers in every aspect of this race, matching her very comfortable fourth-place finish.

MOVEMENTS (STROKE)

This final section modeled the total number of strokes each swimmer completed during the race. The following ranking shows the number of strokes from least to greatest.

Butterfly:

1. Douglas – 18
2. McIntosh/Yu/Wood – 20
3. .
4. .
5. McKeown/Pickrem – 21
6. .

Backstroke:

1. Douglass/Yu/Wood – 35
2. .
3. .
4. McKeown – 37
5. Pickrem – 38
6. McIntosh – 39

Breaststroke:

1. Douglass/Pickrem – 19
2. .
3. Wood – 20
4. McIntosh/McKeown/Yu – 23
5. .
6. .

Freestyle:

1. Douglas – 38
2. Ju-39
3. McIntosh/Wood – 40
4. .
5. McKeown/Pickrem – 42
6. .

IN TOTAL:

1. Douglas -110
2. Wood – 115
3. Ju-117
4. Pickrem – 120
5. McIntosh – 122
6. McKeown – 123

Because this event is so varied, the total number of strokes is less important when considering the number of strokes per 50 m. In butterfly, the number of strokes correlates similarly with their split times, with Douglass being the fastest but also taking the fewest strokes, and McKeown and Pickrem taking the most and reaching the 50 m mark later than their competitors. Pickrem and Douglass’s low stroke rate in the breaststroke is consistent with their experience in the 200 m breaststroke, as both swimmers competed in the breaststroke semifinals, which Douglass then won comfortably.

Each of the swimmers between McKeown, McIntosh, and Douglass won a 200-distance event before swimming the 200 individual medley, and their stroke rates and splits revealed some interesting things about the similarities/differences between their two races. McIntosh, for example, completed her 200 butterfly in 19 strokes and a time of 27.38, which was similar in strokes but not in time to her 200 individual medley (20 strokes, 26.80). The second 50 of McKeown’s backstroke resulted in 38 strokes and a split of 30.88, while the second 50 of her 200 individual medley required 35 strokes and a split of 31.68 (three more strokes and almost a second slower). Douglass clocked a time of 35.81 in her winning 200m breaststroke, and took 17 strokes in her third 50m, compared to her 19 strokes and 35.75 in her 200m individual medley (similar in time, but not in number of strokes). It’s no surprise that every swimmer has a different race schedule for their individual swims and their individual medleys, but it’s interesting to see how the previous/following sections of the individual medley affect the fastest swimmers in the world.

The previous data breakdowns can be found in the following articles:

The full breakdown can be found in the brochure here.