Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine adaptations within competition day routines of female US Olympic medalists in differently formatted competitions in order to locate changes based on the organizations of the swimming competitions and differentiate the inflexible from the flexible parts of the routines. A purposeful sample of six elite swimmers participated in two 1-hour interviews with an observation at a national-level competition. A mixed-methods analysis protocol helped locate adaptions within the routine. Four results of note were reported. First, adaptations outside venue depended on format and/or individual schedule; adaptations inside the venue were in response to how they felt and their surroundings. Second, participants adapted their competition-day routines at different levels, i.e., segment and behavior levels, depending on being outside or inside the venue, respectively. Third, the competition-day routine of the participants followed similar competition-day routine segments at the venue that matched in scope and sequence for both the prelims and finals sessions. Fourth, once at the venue, adaptation of behaviors changed in order to accomplish the necessary active or passive preparations without changing the scope, sequence and duration of the segments. These findings deepen the understanding of competition-day routines by locating flexible and inflexible parts of the routines and showing greater variance when athletes adapt their routines.
Past studies examined the role of pre-performance and performance routines in the success of Olympians1–8 National Hockey League (NHL) players, 9 professional golfers10,11 and alpine skiers. 12 These earlier studies focused on pre-performance routines, which have been continually shown as effective, especially in closed-skilled, self-paced sports, 13 and mental skills used during elite competitions. For instance, Gould et al.5,6 followed Olympic wrestlers at competitions to determine the various skills employed prior to, during and following a match. Findings emphasized the critical role that matches preparation routines or pre-performance routines for success. Keating and Hogg 9 examined professional hockey players in preparation for a game. These researchers showed five phases of preparation—arrival, dressing, on-ice warm-up, off-ice adjustments, and team ritual—that were controlled by time and allowed for physical and psychological readiness.
More recent studies increased the scope of inquiry and made amendments to past research of pre-performance routines.11,14 Cotterill and Collins 14 presented results showing the timing of the pre-shot routine changed depending on the distance and accuracy of the shot. This revised past ascertained that consistent stillness and strictness of the golfer prior to striking the ball was significant. In 2010, Cotterill et al. 11 again expanded the research with golfers and their routine composition and routine evolution/application. The golfers explained their pre-shot routines helped them focus on their shot. Analysis showed that instead of a consistent, rigid pre-shot routine, golfers had different routines that they were able to abort for restart or strike the ball without being ready in response to stressful situations. Finally, coaches, the golfers' observations of other players, and written resources influenced the composition of the routines.
In a similar manner, a more universal approach of investigating competitions routines expanded the scope of the sports routine research from strictly performances in competition to all the actions of the entire day. Grant and Schempp7,8 posited that a competition-day routine encompassed all the various plans and routines that have been studied in the past in preparation for elite performance.3,5,6,10,15 In a study of United State (US) Olympic male gold medalist swimmers, the competition-day routine contained 12 segments of various behaviors and two preparations. Segments were defined as discrete portions of the athletes’ schedules in which specific actions were enacted for the purpose of preparation for competition. The segments included waking-up, wake-up swim, eating, traveling and arriving at the venue, stretching, warming up, relaxing/staying comfortable, a second warm-up, being in the ready room, racing, warming down, repeating the routine for other sessions. Within these segments, swimmers enacted a variety of behaviors to help them complete active preparations (e.g. warming up, warming down) or passive preparations (e.g. staying relaxed and comfortable) for elite performance. Flexibility—the defining feature of the competition-day routine—allowed participants to recognize their patterns of behavior and their adaptations to the environment, self and other factors that might diminish their performances. Although the sequencing of segments of the competition-day routine was the same for all swimmers, flexibility also defined and characterized how the athletes viewed the entire routine. Like Cotterill et al., 11 task acquisition was formulated from various sources—coaches, teammates and competitors—as well as refined through trial and error.
Although the competition-day routine study provided a new perspective for investigating athletes preparation for performance, specific questions arose about aspects of the competition-day routine adaptations. As stated above, participants in the competition-day routine adapted to the competitive environment and to themselves. These adaptations occurred when an aspect of the day did not go according to plan, i.e., arrived at venue late, wrong caps provided by sponsor, passing free time at the Olympic Village without internet or the food was unappetizing. 7 Of interest was the location of the changes within the routine, i.e., do the changes occur in the segments, the behaviors or both? Additionally, not all competitions follow the exact schedule; does the format and organization equate to adaptations of the routine? Finally, Grant and Schempp stated that “the overall routine [of the competition-day routine] remained the same in timing, sequence and action(s)” 7 (p. 168); but what exactly was that “overall routine”? By identify the parts of the competition-day routine that were unchanged, the differences between the “overall routine” (inflexible) and the adaptable (flexible) could be identified and help better understand how to help athletes prepare for performance. In short, by better understanding the adaptations within the routine, an unchanging part of the routine can be identified and help athletes in creating a more effective competition-day routine.
To answer these questions, the current study examined adaptations within competition day routines of female US Olympic medalists in differently formatted competitions in order to locate changes based on the organizations of the swimming competitions and differentiate the inflexible from the flexible parts of the routines. More specifically, the competition-day routines of female US Olympic medalist swimmers were examined at elite competitions—US nationals and the Olympics. For some of the swimmers, the formats of the meets were the same, for others the formats were different. The comparisons within and between the competition-day routines would help locate adaptations and the parts that are flexible and inflexible. In all, the results of the study could help athletes create a more successful, effective competition-day routine.
Method
Participants and procedures
Participants were recruited as part of a purposeful sample of female US elite swimmers. Initial contact between the lead researcher and athlete was mediated through US Olympic coaches who helped identify and contact current female Olympic medal-winning swimmers. Out of a population of 11 current women who won at least one Olympic medal, 1 6 athletes participating in this study (55% of the population). Past studies have defined an elite swimmer as one who won an Olympic gold medal, World Championship gold medal, a world record holder or a top-five finish in the world rankings. 16 For the current study, an elite US female swimmer needed to earn a top finish (gold medal) at the world's most elite competition—the Olympic Games. Further, all participants were required to compete at the upcoming US National Long Course Championships and/or the US Short-Course National Swimming Championships as these two championships was where data were collected. Although not a criteria, it should be noted that all the swimmers swam mid-distance events during data collection for clarification in the analysis of the warm-up distances below.
Data collection
Each female Olympic swimming medalist voluntarily consented via signed consent to take part in three-part qualitative data collection. These methods included (a) an initial interview, (b) a competition observation, and (c) a follow-up interview.
Initial interview
This initial digital-recorded, retrospective interview used a semi-structured protocol focused on essential components of the swimmer's competition-day routine at her most successful elite performance. Participants recalled the day during which they won an Olympic medal. After the swimmers recounted the day in which they won an Olympic medal was won, follow-up questions explored and briefly defined her actions and the various factors of her best performance. These included her actions taken, the order of the actions, and other details (i.e., training, psychological factors, preparations, travel, competitive environment and other factors prior to the day) taken into consideration when enacting these behaviors and the experience of the day. The data from these interviews provided a baseline for the segments and behaviors of their competition-day routines, which will be observed at a US Nationals competition. This initial interview was transcribed for data analysis through a constant comparison method. All the participants participated in this data collection.
Elite competition observation
The lead researcher observed each swimmer at either the US National Long Course Championships or the US Short-Course National Swimming Championships. In past research, national-level competitions are considered elite, especially in years in which the Olympics Games were not being contested. 16 Each swimmer provided her time of arrival and an outline of her schedule for each day of the meet. Based upon these schedules, the lead researcher chose a day in which each swimmer swam her “best” or most competitive event(s) based on performances within the previous 12–24 months prior to the observation, current rank within the USA, and seed within the event at the elite competition. Once the observation day was selected, each swimmer was contacted and informed of the observation day. The lead researcher also reiterated no contact would be made with the participant unless the swimmer initiated an interaction. The lead researcher observed all activities in public areas during preliminary and finals sessions.
Data collection during the observed sessions recorded the start/stop times and description of the various behaviors during both the prelims and finals sessions. These provided the minute-to-minute account of what the swimmers did through the entire session. When the swimmer was not at the venue, the lead researcher contacted the swimmer's coach at the meet and held impromptu interviews regarding the interactions between the coach and swimmer, insights into the various essential components, and pertinent information about that day. Observation notes were supplemented to create expanded field notes. All the participants participated in this data collection; however, one of the swimmers was not observed in her preliminaries session and was not included in the qualitative data analysis.
Follow-up interview
Each participant was interviewed within two weeks following the elite competition observation. This semi-structured, digitally recorded interview focused on the competition observations. This interview was used to examine the accuracy and motivations behind observed behaviors at the elite competition and theoretical sampling based on codes and categories created through constant comparative method. Clarification questions based on constant comparison methods of the data from the first interview and observation were asked. In essence, this interview acted as an informal member check that confirmed the accuracy of statements from the initial interview, helped clarify initial themes and aided interpretation of observations. Based on the current statements surrounding the use of member checks, 17 researchers of this study found the use in this context to be appropriate and fit within the data analysis framework. Five of the six participants completed the follow-up interview.
Data analysis
Several analyses of the competition-day routines for each of the prelims and finals sessions were conducted to locate adaptations. For the purposes of this study, the entire competition day was examined through comparison of the initial descriptions of the participants’ experiences on the day in which they earned their Olympic medals and the observation at an elite competition. Each competition day was divided into sessions—prelims and finals—with the elite competitions organized using either traditional (prelims session events in the morning and finals session events in the evening) or non-traditional (finals session events in the morning and prelims session events in the evening) formats. In both the traditional and non-traditional formats, the prelims and semi-finals for non-distance events were swum on the same day—prelims in the prelims session and semi-finals in the finals session—with the event's final heat swum in the finals session on the following day.
Based on participation of the swimmers in the various formats and number of sessions within the data, researchers conducted two qualitative and one quantitative analyses: (a) comparison of competition-day routines in total (qualitative), (b) analysis of timing of competition-day routine segments at the venue (quantitative), and (c) comparison of behaviors between the prelims session and finals session at the elite competition observation (qualitative). Each of these analyses are presented in more detail in the remainder of this section.
Qualitative analyses of competition-day routines
Researchers used a thematic analysis approach starting with immersion.18,19 All interviews were transcribed verbatim and read multiple times by researchers in order to understand the contexts, terminology, events and meanings provided by participants. All observation field notes were expanded for full transcription of notations and phenomena seen each day of the national swim meets. These notations were read multiple times and used to make connections with interviews and generate deeper questions for the follow-up interviews. Finally, the follow-up interviews were transcribed verbatim and read multiple times by researchers along with comparison to all the data provided in order to provide complete immersion into the data.
After all data were collected and the steps of immersion completed, researchers generated initial in vivo codes of all data. The codes were listed together and collated for the entire data set. These data were used to compare, contrast and identify themes. All the codes were sorted into possible themes. Using a constant comparative method of the essential meanings, researchers began creating tables and figures to represent possible themes. The results of this phase of analysis produced the initial themes of the study.
All initial themes were reexamined in order to see if they aligned with the codes; they make a coherent pattern as a theme. Several themes were redefined in order to have internal consistency and form a definable whole. Once completed, the second stage of theme review compared the themes with the entire data set to assess whether all relevant codes were included and the rigor of the analysis was consistent. Themes were reviewed; researchers defined and named them within final memos and created tables and figures to represent these findings.
Finally, the drafting of this manuscript provided an opportunity to provide specific, vivid data within the themes for clarity and depth. By placing direct quotes and presenting tables with the defined themes within the context of the report, researchers presented the nuances of the themes with richer descriptions for the reader to better understand these athletes’ competition-day routine actions and their flexibility with specific contexts. All the qualitative analyses consisted of following these steps to analyze the overall competition-day routines and comparisons between the formats (traditional and non-traditional) and sessions (single and double) experienced by participants, respectively.
Quantitative comparison of competition-day routine segments at the venue
Past research showed that all sessions—prelims and finals—follow the same routine7,8 and suggested similar timing of segments. To test for the consistency of routines, which could identify adaptations, researched compared the duration of each segment of the athlete's routines at the competition venue. Researchers identified the segments of each routine through interviews. The duration of each segment was then measured through observations for both the morning and evening competitions. Segments were excluded if they were not in both sessions; these included awards ceremonies and events in which the swimmer did not compete in the finals. There were 36 pairs of segments with durations in the morning and evening.
The researchers hypothesized that each routine segment would have taken the same amount of time in each competition session. If tijk is the duration of swimmer i segment j in session k, then the hypothesized relationship is
Durations were measured for each segment of the athlete's competition. The segments used in the analysis were ones that could be paired between a segment in session 1 (morning) and session 2 (evening). Award ceremonies and events in which the swimmer did not compete in the finals were excluded. Again, a total of 36 pairs of segments were used. The analysis included two forms of the duration. The first is the number of minutes. The second is the log10 of the duration. The logged distribution is used because the distribution of the durations is truncated at zero and positively skewed (see Table 4).
The log10 value model was used because the log10 distributions are log-normal (see Table 4). A secondary reason for using the log10 values is that resulting models also provide a useful interpretation for the analysis. A model with the log10 values on both sides provides estimated values for the proportional differences between variables. In this case, a coefficient of one means that when a duration in the morning increases by x percent, then the afternoon duration increases by x percent. For example, a swimmer who spends 20% more time warming up in the morning will also spend close to 20% more time warming up in the evening. In short, both durations were analyzed and provided a robust analysis of the time spent using competition-day routines at the venue.
Qualitative comparison of behaviors between the prelims session and finals session at the elite competition observation
Researchers used a thematic analysis approach.18,19 All observation field notes were expanded for full transcription of notations and phenomena seen each day of the national swim meets. These data were used to reconstruct the minute-to-minute activities of the swimmers during the prelims and finals sessions during the elite competition observation. Comparisons of their activities between these sessions based on their program for the session (races and other responsibilities like awards and press) were taken into account. The similarities and consistency of behavior was then assessed.
Role of researcher
Within qualitative research, researchers were considered participants. 17 In accordance with this role, the lead researcher was the only author with a swimming background or connection to the sport. He competed as a swimmer for 13 years. At the time of data collection, he had coached swimming professionally for 20 years on US swim clubs and as a volunteer assistant coach for a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I swimming and diving team in the southeastern United States for five years. This is the highest level of collegiate swimming in the US. Swimmers and include many Olympic and World Champions. All participants were swimmers with whom he had no prior personal or professional relationship prior to this research project. To this end, and as noted above, two swimmers within the population were excluded from inclusion in the study due to a professional relationship, i.e., he coached them during their university swimming participation. Additionally, two of the researchers extensively studied expertise theory prior to conducting this study within competition-day routines. Although bias as to these experiences was impossible to counter, significant effort, i.e., extensive memo writing, self-reflection and use of a critical friend, were taken to reduce the possible influence of prior knowledge of this theory as it pertained to elite athletes.
Judging quality
Researchers used the “letting go” perspective to define criteria for judging quality.17,20 This relativistic approach rejects validity as normative, fixed, and rigid for all inquiries. Instead, the quality criteria are characterizing traits of each study that show the way the researchers conducted their inquiry based on their standpoint on the issues within the study. As a result, the criteria of a worthy topic, rich rigor, and meaningful coherence were used to guide the reader to make their own judgment about the quality of this study.17,21,22
This study was a worthy topic for sport coaching pedagogy. It extended the current understanding of a competition day routine1,2 in scope, i.e., gender and consistency, and provided more insight into the adaptive practices of elite swimmers within the context of the competition-day routine. Also, this study used rich rigor and meaningful coherence by using similar qualitative data collection methods—interviews, observations, expanded field notes—as the original competition-day routine studies. The thematic analysis approach 19 added rigor to the data analysis with the use of verbatim transcriptions, topic coding, theme analysis provided familiarization, immersion and comparison within and between in vivo codes and emerging themes. Finally, this study provided meaningful coherence both internally and externally. The data collection and data analysis methods fit within the stated goals of the study. Additionally, the results of this study align and extend the findings in past competition-day routine studies and other sport routine literature.
Results
A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze the data. The qualitative analysis of the interviews and observations lead to four key findings. First, the routine outside the venue adapted to differences of competition format and/or individual schedule; adaptations inside the venue were in response to how they felt and their surroundings. Second, participants adapted their competition-day routines at different levels, i.e., segment and behavior levels, depending on being outside or inside the venue, respectively. Third, the competition-day routine of the female participants followed similar competition-day routine segments at the venue that matched in scope and sequence for both the prelims and finals sessions. Fourth, once at the venue, adaptation to behaviors changed in order to accomplish the necessary active or passive preparations without changing the scope, sequence and duration of the segments. These results located the adaptations within the competition-day routines of these elite swimmers and added to the current knowledge of performance routines. The remainder of this section provides more details of data analysis and results.
Comparison groups emerging from analysis
As stated above, the data analysis divided the swimmers into two groups based on (a) the format of their Olympic competition and (b) the number of sessions in which they competed at the Olympic day described during the initial interview. Two of the six athletes participated in a traditionally formatted Olympics for their medal-winning experience (see Table 1). Results also showed that the one of the swimmers at the traditional Olympics did not swim the morning prelims session on the day in which she won her medal (SW2); the other swimmer swam both sessions, prelims and finals (SW1). The other four participants (SW3, SW4, SW5, and SW6) swam in a non-traditional formatted Olympics (see Table 1) and competed in both the finals session in the morning and the prelims session that afternoon. Finally, all the swimmers competed in a two sessions at a traditionally formatted meet for their observed elite competition. The differences of meets’ formats and swimmers’ session schedules provided an opportunity to examine how participants adapted based on these factors.
Grouping swimmers based on meet format and competition sessions.
Segment adaptations outside the venue
The first data analysis examined the segments enacted within the athletes’ Olympic competition-day routines based on the format of the Olympic Games in which they competed. Segments were considered singular, distinct parts of the day consisting of behaviors that enact active and/or passive preparations for elite performance. Results showed both the traditional and non-traditional swimmers followed nearly the same segment scope and sequence, respectively.
As stated above, two swimmers attended a traditional Olympic Games formatted competition with SW1 swimming in two session and SW2 swimming in only the finals session. SW1 planned and used 25 segments to her day over two sessions (see Table 2). In comparison, SW2 only planned and used 14 segments on her Olympic winning day. SW2 experienced a different morning schedule in which she woke up, completed a wake-up swim, ate breakfast, returned to the dormitory at the Olympic Village to relax (downtime) before returning for lunch. The wake-up swim and the downtime at the dormitory prior to lunch was used to “just kind of loosening up, trying to destress”. From lunch onwards, both swimmers followed the same segment scope and sequence as the other participants (See Table 2). The four participants (SW3, SW4, SW5 and SW6) that swam in a non-traditionally formatted Olympics followed almost the same competition-day routine (see Table 2). There were two differences between their routines. SW5 returned to her dorm to pick up her swim bag for the meet and take 15 min to relax; the others took their bags with them to breakfast and immediately went traveled to the venue following breakfast. SW3 did not use a wake-up swim prior to going to breakfast (see Table 2).
Competition-day routine segments per athlete at Olympics and elite competition observation.
These segments were not observed. Data were collected during the initial interview for the Olympics and the follow-up interview for the elite competition observation.
Depending on the format of the meet, the ready room is not used for all races.
Relay races at the elite competition observation did not have a ready room. Instead, all the swimmers met behind the blocks prior to racing.
These results also showed that the athletes chose from the same 12 segments throughout their entire competition-day routine. These segments were learned through trial and error and formed the overarching organization of the actions on the day of competition. Participants arranged them as needed to maintain optimal arousal for competition. Outside the venue, the segments were adapted by reordering—adding or subtracting known segments—based on the format of the competition or sessions swum; inside the venue, the segments were not adapted. Further, the behaviors within these segments were basically the same. For instance, SW2 only swam one session on her Olympic medal winning day discussed in the initial interview. After breakfast, she went “back to the housing. [and] normally I would watch movies on my computer or, um, read a book or something that is laying down and relaxing.” The behaviors of the same segment at the venue were reported as “I tend to just go lie somewhere, … and um, I just talk to people back there and had [the masseuse] shake me out and get ready to go, but still not talking to swimming.” In both calm/relax segments, SW2 enacted similar behaviors that reduced thinking about swimming and maintain appropriate arousal needed for that segment.
In the end, results from the analysis showed that adaptations at the segment level occurred outside of the venue and were based on the format of the competition or the number of sessions in which they swam. This was seen as minimal and predictable. If a swimmer needed to destress and swim easy, she added a wake-up swim. If a swimmer did not swim in a morning session, she relaxed at the Olympic Village to remain calm and relaxed. All the swimmers planned their segments based on the 12 segments they normally used on competition day to prepare to race based on their schedule and the format of the meet.
A second qualitative analysis compared the segments between each athlete's routines from the Olympics and from the elite competition observation. During the elite competition observation, all the participants competed in a two-session day within a traditionally format meet. For SW2, this added a morning prelims session to her day. As a result of adding a session to their schedule, the number of segments increased from 14 to 28. Further, the same interlude of a travel to the dorm and relax/calm segment before the eating (lunch) segment was eliminated. SW1, in comparison, followed the exact same competition-routine used at the Olympic Games and followed almost the same competition-day routine as the other athletes with the number of segments remaining stable—25 at the Olympics and 24 at the elite competition observation (see Table 2).
The swimmers from the non-traditional Olympics competed a traditional format at the elite competition observation meet, which flipped their day's schedule from their Olympic experience. Results showed that the two-sessions completed at the Olympics was the same as those at the elite competition observation barring the use of wake-up swims; only one of the three swimmers used a wakeup swim in her routine at both meets. More specifically, four of six participants used the wake-up swim at the Olympics to get ready for the competition, destress and remain calm because there was much more pressure on them; it was the Olympics and the finals session was in the morning. This might point to a major reason for only one swimmer using a wakeup swim at the elite competition observation. Most of the swimmers in this study felt no pressure of “making a team” or, as SW3 stated, “The meet itself was fine. I wouldn't say mentally I was, you know, overly excited to be there, … and not really anticipating having a good time when I go to it.’” These results showed that when the meet format and number of session were the same, except for the one swimmer who completed a wakeup swim at the elite observation (SW5), the segments for the day were the same. The changes to the routine based solely on the number of events swum were considered nonconsequential to the purpose of the study because the segments were predictable and followed the same pattern preparation for all races.
Adaptations inside the venue
As stated above, results showed that participants adapted segments of their competition-day routine based on the number of sessions swum and the meet format outside of the competition venue. A qualitative analysis of the swimmers’ segments inside the venue showed an almost identical scope and sequence when participating in the same number of events (see Table 2). The only exceptions were when three swimmers did not use a second warm-up prior to their first race and the use of additional warmup and warm down segments when the swimmer had multiple races. Results also showed that within these segments, the preparations and behaviors were the same. Based on these findings, adaptations within the competition sessions did not occur in the segments (Table 3).
Comparison of warmup and warm down distances.
This is the difference between the described “normal” wakeup swim and the PM warmup swim. SW5 reported that she completed a wakeup swim at the observed competition and the distance shows consistency with her interview.
SW5 stated that her wake-up swim (warmup prior to the beginning of the first session, consisted of approximately 1500 yards. She also provided the normal format of this swim in her interviews.
Either the warmup or warm down for the athlete in one of the sessions (Prelims or Finals) was not recorded by the primary researcher.
To further verify the consistency of the routine and strength of consistency of segments, a quantitative analysis of segment duration was performed. As stated above, a total of 36 pairs of segments were analyzed using two forms of the duration: the number of minutes and the log10 of the duration. Figure 1 presents a scatterplot of the paired durations in minutes. The logged distribution is used because the distribution of the durations is truncated at zero and positively skewed (see Table 4). For both measures there is a positive correlation. For the paired duration in minutes the Pearson r is 0.84. For the log10 of the duration, the Pearson r is 0.87. The scatter plot includes the linear relationship between the two measures.
Scatter plot of session 1 durations and session 2 durations. (A) Durations in minutes. (B) Durations in Log10 of minutes.
Figure 1 presents the estimated regression models for the linear relationships in Figure 1. The first model uses the measure of duration in minutes; the second uses the log10 value. The table presents the unstandardized coefficients and the standard errors of the estimated coefficients. Both models support the hypothesized relationship. In the model with duration in minutes, the constant is not statistically different from zero (p < 0.13) and the slope is not statistically different from one (p < 0.23). The model with the log10 values shows stronger support for the hypothesis. The log10 values fit the normal distribution and thus meet the assumptions of ordinary least squares regression. Researchers found that the constant is zero and the slope is one. These estimates are near certainties; constant is not statistically different from zero (p < 0.95), and the slope is not statistically different from one (p < 0.98). The complete output for the models is available in Table 4.
Since the segments were consistent in scope and sequence (qualitative analysis) and the duration of the segments were statistically the same (quantitative analysis), a final analysis qualitatively located a wide variation of behaviors by each swimmers within their routine segments. The participants continually changed their actions based on how they felt, time to prepare and who was around—talking to other athletes in the water during warmups—while walking around the pool deck or as they passed the time in the team area. “I mean, I am definitely a very talkative person and very friendly and that's definitely part of my routine” (SW3). SW6 agreed with SW3 when she stated that, “For me its social. If I'm talking, and laughing, and goofing around the mass fun … And fun can be the thrill to compete or just being around your friends or just feeling lucky that you have the opportunity.” In preparation, SW1 reported one type of preparation during the meet: I mean, at a championship meet I think I'm always cognizant of just… everything right for my body and if I'm not thinking about [the meet] then [my coach] makes sure that I … get off my legs at big meets so (chuckle).
Expanded field notes from the lead researcher confirmed these sentiments with athletes having impromptu interactions with friends, coaches and competitors throughout the venue—team areas, pool deck, warmup/warm down pool, competition pool or walking throughout the venue. Additionally, within the segments, the athletes did not show a pattern of specific behaviors enacted. Instead, the behaviors only matched the expectation of behaviors within the segment, i.e., they warmed up in the warmup segment (see Table 2). As stated by the athletes, foci of preparation, timing and fun provided reasons for the varied manner in which the athletes prepared, even in the two segments considered most physical in preparation and having maybe the largest impact on performance—the warmup and warm down.
Researchers then compared the distances and content of corresponding warmups and warm downs of each swimmer's prelims and finals sessions for consistency. Like the previous section, five of the six swimmers were observed in both the prelims and finals sessions, which allows their data to be analyzed. Additionally, there were two issues with the data. First, SW1's warm down (prelims), SW6's warm up (prelims) and SW2's warm down (prelims) were not recorded, i.e., sets and distances. General notes, such as “swimming and kicking” were recorded along with the time of the swimming. Second, as also presented in the previous section, SW5 participated in a wake-up warmup prior to the start of the prelims session on the date of observation. Her description of swimming sets and account of her distance in a “normal” wakeup swim was used in the analysis in comparison to her initial warmup of the finals session. Unsurprisingly, the wakeup swim's distance was similar to the first warmup of the finals session; however, the format of the finals session warm up did not match her description of a normal wakeup swim during the initial interview regarding her wake-up swim at the Olympic Games. These gaps in the data were accounted for in the analysis (see Figure 1).
The participants swam almost the exact same distances during the corresponding warmup and warm down segments within their competition-day routine (see Figure 1). There was a slight tendency to swim a little less in the evening, but this was marginal, possibly the result of swimming and entire session in the morning or based on their “feel” in the water as they prepared for their finals session races. Further, researchers analyzed the observed sets within the compared warmup and warm downs, respectively. The content of the warmups and warm downs kept to an overarching template as each swimmer started with a continuous swim followed by drills and/or kicking and finishing with speed work. The warm downs contained swimming and, subsequently, kicking. Within these general template, the distances, strokes, format (sets of swimming, drills, kicking or sculling), and intensity of the warmups and warm downs did not contain a recognizable pattern that would show uniformity of a specific, relatively unchanged program. Instead, this analysis showed that within the larger template of swimming, kicking, drills and speed work, the participants enacted a very flexible series of behaviors that allowed them to complete their active preparations and even stop at times to chat with competitors, teammates and coaches intermittently during these segments. Further, in comparing of the bouts of continual swimming for warming up and warming down, the swimmers took more opportunities to stop and talk with coaches, teammates and friends in the final session warmups and warm downs, which meant more breaks in the swimming. In short, the athletes continually adapted to how they felt, or, as SW5 stated, “Routine, I'm pretty flexible, I mean, I like to do certain things. And maybe in certain ways, but they don’t have to be the exact same every time.”
These results confirmed that the segments used inside the venue were statistically the same in timing. Combined with the qualitative data showing the conformity of the swimmers using the same scope, sequence, and duration—an inflexible timeline at the venue. Adaptations and the preparations associated with them were also the same. The qualitative analysis presented an ever-changing series of actions in which the athletes spent time relaxing, socializing and maintaining the arousal level needed for elite competition. This meant the true adaptations occurred at the behavioral level, even in warmup and warm down. These findings point to what is really adaptable and changeable what is not, what is the overarching routine and what is flexible. It is not the same for the entire routine.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine adaptations within competition day routines of female US Olympic medalists in differently formatted competitions in order to locate changes based on the organizations of the swimming competitions and differentiate the inflexible from the flexible parts of the routines. Based on the results of this study, the competition-day routine of the female participants mirrored those found in past studies.7,8 Specifically, the same 12 segments were used throughout the competition-day routine in both studies. The alignment of the swimmers’ segments, behaviors and preparations inside the venue was consistent and suggested, as stated in the previous study, that “one explanation for this cohesiveness was the impact of the organization of the elite meet upon the swimmers’ schedules”. 7 (p.169) Similarly, Keating's and Hogg's 9 study of NHL players tracked the segments of the athletes pre-game routines. The times for on-ice warmup and off-ice adjustments were dictated in whole or part by the NHL. Although many of the segments and behaviors in the current study were similar, several segments seemed directly impacted by the organization of the competition (i.e., remaining relaxed and calm at the Olympic Village dorm when waiting for the evening finals session and use a wakeup swim as preparation prior to a morning finals session). These results aligned with past research and confirmed the importance of a competitions format.
Additionally, participants adapted their competition-day routines at different levels—segment or behavior—based on location. The current study provided the clearest analysis of adaptations made outside p and inside the venue. As stated above, outside the venue the segment-level adaptations allowed athletes to relax/calm at the Olympic Village dorm and use a wakeup swim as preparation; the same types of behaviors found within the similar segments in other parts of the competition-day routine. This suggested that the added segments were not invented or new to the athlete, but they were adapted from other parts of the competition-day routine in order to maintain a desired level of arousal, i.e., calm or relaxation, prior to traveling to the venue. At the venue, the segments were the same in scope, sequence, and duration (an inflexible timeline). Therefore, adaptations were located within the behaviors of the athletes and not within the segments.
Looking back at past research, these findings were, at best, illuded to by researchers. Previous research found athletes used one or more routines, e.g. pre-performance, overall performance, distraction, mental, or routines for competition.1,2,8,15,23 Some of these plans, such as the overall performance plan 23 aligned with the segment timeline—scope, sequence and duration—found in this study. Other plans, such as the distraction plan, seemed to align behavior variations to overcome changes in the environment. 15 Grant and Schempp7,8 introduced segment and behaviors as different levels of the competition-day routine; however, the present study seemed to show specificity of flexibility based on location and the preparations needed in those places.
The current study also found the segments at the venue represented a timeline within which athletes were free to improvise their routines to address personal, organizational and environment changes. Rogers and Paskevich 12 also found that alpine skiers used a “planned scheduled [sic] routine”(p. 4) that helped them to reduce uncertainties and aid in their preparations. Within the pre-performance routines of golfers, 11 the outline of the participants’ pre-shot routines was stable. Adherence was shown as important to success, while deviation was perceived as being unprepared for shot execution. In a similar manner, the adherence to the segments at the venue allowed the swimmers to consider themselves ready to swim. Grant and Schempp7,8 attested to this believe when discussing how Ricky arrived early to the venue, which changed his duration in the first segment of the day, resulting in a bad performance. Although bad performances were not recorded in the current study, the importance of scope, sequence and duration of segments at the venue could not be understated.
Finally, changes made based on feeling, preparation and socializing and were greater in variation than expected or reported in past studies. Grant and Schempp7,8 found Olympic medal winners adapted their schedule based on how they physically felt and remaining calm and relaxed. Instead of providing a specific prescription of the level these changes, the competition-day routine was described as generally flexible through the use of adaptations. However, all the athletes made the same segment change outside the venue based on the meet format and all the athletes swam the same number of sessions. Further, warmups were consistent prior to racing. The current study deepened our understanding of these adaptations by demonstrating an additional segment change away from the venue based on number of sessions swum on the day, confirming the degree of consistency of segments at the venue and the equally extreme flexibility of behaviors as the athletes prepared to race.
Limitations
Every study has limitations that must be addressed. Per the purposeful sample, this study was limited to elite level female swimmers. The competition-day routine was very similar to their male counterparts7,8 and showed consistency for elite swimmers. With the results were considered robust based on consistency of competition-day routine between studies and of the segments between varying formats, the expectation would be that similar competition-day routines would apply for individual sports such as track and field. However, generalizations should be tempered based until future study in those types of sports confirm this suggestion.
Practical applications
The current study contained several key applications for coaches at various levels of performance, i.e., winning for a living, learning to win, training to compete, and learning to compete.24,25 The female Olympic medalist swimmers’ experiences and practices, in conjunction with past studies,7,8 provided a clear manner in which coaches can increase performance at a competition, depending on how their athlete(s) conduct prepare for competition. In particular, these applications should be focused on creating appropriate plans, maintaining segment durations and teaching flexible practices. The remainder of this section provides suggestions for implementing each application.
Competition plans have been proposed for decades3,4,5,6,15 as a means for elite performance at elite competitions. The competition-day studies extended those plans7,8 with the current study locating flexibility in the segments away from the venue and in the behaviors at the venue. This suggested that athletes should segment the day in blocks of time focused on relaxation, comfort and fueling when away from the venue. Participants in this study warmed up the day with a wakeup swim to get moving and relieve stress, breakfast for fueling the body, and then either travel to the venue or returning to rest and relax at their lodging. This simple segmenting flexibly structured the day outside the venue so that athletes arrived at the venue with proper state of arousal and preparation for continuing their competition-day routine more strictly at the pool.
Second, the competition-day routines at the venue must maintain a time schedule (see Table 5). Whereas coaches can be fixated on the actions of athletes—specific warmup, socializing or horseplay—the only factors that were shown as inflexible was their timeline—sequence and durations of the segments. This timeline created the framework within which all the behaviors were organized by type of behavior and timing of preparations based on their swimming schedule (type, distance and number of races). To point, a participant in a past competition-day routine arrived very early and tried to adapt by adding an early warm-up. 8 Upon reflection, he stated this was a mistake and learned what not do—an extra, early warm up. The current study suggested that he could either leave the venue, treat the venue as if he was not there, or start at the appropriate time for normal routine. This would maintain the sequence and timing of the routine at the venue and lead to better performance. Therefore, instead of being focused on the actions of the athletes such as a precise warmup or specific actions, be mindful teaching athletes how to create a timeline by teaching them when to arrive and how to schedule their time to complete preparations.
Regression models of routine event durations.
Note: Ordinary least squares regression model. The duration of the event in Session 1 is regressed on paired duration in Session 2. Models differ by whether duration is duration in minutes or log10 of duration in minutes. Table displays unstandardized coefficients with standard errors of the estimated coefficients in parentheses.
Duration ranges of segments (timeline) of participants at the venue.
Finally, coaches should allow flexibility in the warm-up of athletes. The participants of this study followed a very loose warmup template—swim, kick, drill and pace. Outside of these four parameters of the warm-up there was no discernable sets or pattern. The athletes completed their warmup based on how they felt and employed past successful actions to attend to their arousal levels and prepare to swim fast. This aligned with past studies in which only one of the six male Olympic swimmers followed a strict warmup. 7 In fact, in the follow-up interview of that study, this athlete found out that he could have a “bad” warmup and still compete well. 8 This meant that although the athletes have to warm up and get their bodies prepared, there was not a specific, unyielding series of sets or actions that needed completing. Instead, the standard or critical concern was their duration in the water and how it fit within their timeline. Therefore, coaches should provide an outline of what the athletes should be doing within a segment, and then guide them through the learning process—trial and error—as they build their competition-day routine.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
