American sports

[Apatheist]

If one were to pick the likely Olympic 100m finalists, one would probably pick 3 Americans and 3 Jamaicans, and probably the same for the 200m, with maybe a bit more variety with the 400m, although still three Americans.
After that - what happens? In the middle distances, one might select a few Brits and other Europeans, and for the longer distances, East Africans (Kenyans and Ethiopians).
Of course the occasionally oddity pops up - from a British perspective, the likes of Linford Christie and Paula Radcliffe for example.
Given the amazing collegiate track and field system though, why don't Americans seem to have any success beyond the sprints? If anything, I'd have thought the sprinters would have been attracted more towards being wide receivers.
I'm really struggling to think of even a finalist, let alone a winner.

Having seen some of the NCAA swimming, where they still compete over 100 yards rather than 100 metres, I did wonder whether they do that on the track, and that's the point where the extra 8% really makes a difference - is that the case? If not, why don't America produce any top class athletes other than sprinters?

PS Found this list: https://www.runnersworld.com/races-plac ... nce-races/

[jusplay4fun]

This is not something I have given much thought to, but I will make a few comments.

1) Interest in watching, and I also assume, competing in Track and Field events have fallen in the USA in the past 30-50 years. Fewer athletes opt for such sports, it seems to me.

2) I see athletes NOW in High School focus on only ONE sport year round and NOT do a variety of sports. Both 1) and 2) means that fewer good American athletes compete in Track and Field in the USA.

3) Many athletes in Track and Field in US Colleges are often foreign born, and I assume therefore are likely to compete in their Home nations and NOT for the USA.

4) As for swimming, I think that only TWO athletes can compete in a single event from the same nation in the Olympics. So the USA cannot sweep ALL 3 medals in an event.

[Apatheist]

This is not something I have given much thought to, but I will make a few comments.

1) Interest in watching, and I also assume, competing in Track and Field events have fallen in the USA in the past 30-50 years. Fewer athletes opt for such sports, it seems to me.

2) I see athletes NOW in High School focus on only ONE sport year round and NOT do a variety of sports. Both 1) and 2) means that fewer good American athletes compete in Track and Field in the USA.

3) Many athletes in Track and Field in US Colleges are often foreign born, and I assume therefore are likely to compete in their Home nations and NOT for the USA.

4) As for swimming, I think that only TWO athletes can compete in a single event from the same nation in the Olympics. So the USA cannot sweep ALL 3 medals in an event.

You still have sprinters though - in the 2024 final, 3 Americans (including Noah Lyles, the winner), 2 Jamaicans, and 1 each from RSA, Italy and Botswana.
It doesn't explain the disparity between the sprints and the distance events though. I was thinking it might be to do with the patience of the audience, that the longer events take more attention - but then you can watch a football game take 4 hours to have 60 minutes of actual on-field action, so it wouldn't seem to be an issue.

[Apatheist]

Worth noting of course that GB & NI now have the best sprinters in Europe - golds in men's and women's 100m, women's 200m, both 4x100m and 4x100 mixed. Still a way behind the US and Caribbean, but we're catching up, and certainly looking for finalists and even medals at the next Olympics (injuries permitting). We're still pretty strong in the middle distances too.

[devicegazelle]

American collegiate track and field does not use yards. While NCAA swimming still uses a 25-yard short-course pool for its winter championships, NCAA track and field fully transitioned to the metric system on outdoor tracks by 1976.Furthermore, your premise that American athletes don't have success or produce finalists beyond the sprints is actually a common misconception! While the U.S. dominates the sprints, they are arguably the most historically successful and well-rounded track and field nation across all distances, including middle and long-distance events.

[Apatheist]

American collegiate track and field does not use yards. While NCAA swimming still uses a 25-yard short-course pool for its winter championships, NCAA track and field fully transitioned to the metric system on outdoor tracks by 1976.Furthermore, your premise that American athletes don't have success or produce finalists beyond the sprints is actually a common misconception! While the U.S. dominates the sprints, they are arguably the most historically successful and well-rounded track and field nation across all distances, including middle and long-distance events.

Well no, they're not. I looked it up, and they've had very few medals beyond the sprints in the last few Olympics; even overall, GB has 5 golds in the men's 1500 compared with 3 for the US up to 2020.
In the men's 800m, the US has won one bronze in 2016, another in 1992, and the last gold was 1972. They did win 3 golds in a row (1904-1912) then another 4 (1936-1956) but only the 1972 one since. Curiously GB won all 4 in between those two sets.
In the women's, GB has more golds (3) than the US (2). This century, the US has 1 gold and 2 bronze; GB has 2 gold, a silver and bronze.
Given their medals in the sprints, and the size of the country and its emphasis on sports, I think it's a relatively poor return in the longer events for the US.