Photo: tpower1978 We tend to think of recent technological change as a complex process involving huge amounts of capital and labor (large numbers of researchers and developers). Yet the Winter Olympics should remind us that it is still possible to improve output with a little thought, luck and experimentation.
Consider cross-country skiing. It is now standard for skiers to “skate,” as that enhances speed; yet nobody was doing that when I learned the sport 30 years ago. Similarly, no ski jumper would have spread his skis at an angle 30 years ago, yet today forming one’s skis into a wing is standard and has greatly increased distances. Further afield, stomach ulcers were treated in many ways, until a lone Australian researcher showed they are caused by bacteria. How many other examples are there of recent major improvements in an activity that resulted from a single individual’s insight?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Looking at the summer games, the high jump was revolutionized when someone figured out you should go over the bar backwards.
clap-skate, fosbury flop
I think it is hard to necessarily attribute these to an “individual”. While we usually remember the first individual to do it and be successful, it is rarely the first time a technique was demonstrated. I don’t know the specifics, but my guess is that the Fosbury Flop wasn’t a spontaneous ad lip, but rather the result of practice and collaboration of many. The same is probably true of the other instances mentioned in the article. I’m not saying it is impossible for an individual to be revolutionary, even with something as small and insignificant as athletic technique; I’m just saying the odds are against most of the examples people are sure to provide actually being the sole work of an individual.
This also doesn’t take into account the people who attempted to be revolutionary (either individually or collectively) who failed. Some changes are the result of deliberate, thought-out improvements. Others are the result of just trying something different and seeing if it sticks. In this case, it is generally luck that is the determining factor and, as such, I find it hard to give anyone genuine credit for the innovation.
In my personal opinion, the fosbury flop was also helped along by the padded landing pit instead of sawdust …
In downhill (recreational and freeride) skiing, the shape of skiis had been unchanged for many years until, perhaps inspired by snowboards, kids started wanting a raised tip on the rear of the ski (called “twin-tip”). That revolution, combined with the expanding ski width of modern setups, prompted pro skier Shane McConkey to mount snow-skiing bindings on water skis in order to prove that alpine skiis would perform better in deep powder if they had a curve opposite that of skiis used in racing. The sport is currently seeing a huge revolution based on this concept (called “rocker” and “reverse-camber” skiis) such that every ski company manufacturer makes at least one rockered ski, even though many entrenched ex-racers still shun the idea.
Actually, Fosbury did come up with his idea all alone. There are several more detailed articles out there, but from a 2000 Sports Illustrated piece:
“In the high jump Fosbury’s problem was with the straddle method, the dominant style of his day, in which the jumper threw one leg into the air and passed facedown over the bar. In 1963, as a sophomore at Medford (Ore.) High, he experimented with a variation on the outdated and upright scissors method. “With the scissors, you usually knocked the bar off with your butt,” he says. “So I tried to lift my hips a little.” Soon he was going over the bar faceup and had raised his personal best by six inches, to 5’10″. The next year he turned his back to the bar and kept his legs together as he jumped. As a senior he began arching his spine as he went over. By the time he arrived at Oregon State in 1965, the Fosbury Flop had fully evolved.
In curling like a comma over the bar at 7’4″ to set an Olympic and U.S. record at the Estadio Olimpico three years later, Fosbury became one of the truly revolutionary figures of the radical ’60s. Four years later, in Munich, 28 of the 40 competitors in the men’s high jump were copying Fosbury, and of the 36 medalists in subsequent Olympics, 34 have been Floppers. “I had no inkling I would revolutionize the event,” says Fosbury, who retired in 1973 after failing to qualify for the 72 Games. “It was all intuition.”
Here is the link for the Fosbury interview that confirms that he indeed came up with the technique by himself:
http://speedendurance.com/2007/06/15/dick-fosbury-former-olympic-high-jumper/
In fact, his coaches tried to convince him to return to the “normal” technique.
Interesting, though, why the skepticism over a single individual coming up with groundbreaking innovations?
There are many examples in sports, such as:
1. Babe Ruth swings for the fences, changes baseball. Baseball was “scientific,” all hit and run, advance the runner, and strike outs, which come with swinging big and hard, were greatly frowned upon.
2. Filbert Bayi runs the 3rd leg of the mile faster. (To explain, the mile was for years a game of pace, pace, pace and then all out to the finish but Bayi moved the effort part up and that quickly dropped the mile record. Credit also to John Walker.)
Some advances are banned, such as the backstroker who stayed underwater the length of the pool or Sam Snead straddling the line of the ball to putt without the yips – a form of dystonia – affecting him.
Other advances are affected by further changes. I can’t remember the hurdler who realized it was more effective to hit each hurdle – because that lowers your jump, which means you drive further and faster – but changes in hurdles made that harder.