"A more equitable distribution of skills" in Laser Run: What Olympic Performance Data Reveal and the Implications for a More Balanced Shooting–Running Format

This research is divided into two parts. The first part examines the relationship between running performance (TRT) and shooting performance (CST) in relation to the total time (TT) of the Olympic Laser Run. To this end, an observational and comparative analysis was conducted using data from London 2012, Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020, and Paris 2024, considering gender, Olympic edition, and three performance levels (Q1, Q2, and Q3), both individually and in combination. The results show that, in most contexts defined by gender, Olympic edition, and performance level, running performance has a greater influence on TT. However, shooting performance, although secondary, remains significant and may exert a greater relative influence when running performances are more evenly matched. The second part examines how the regulatory change introduced by the UIPM—namely, the addition of an initial shooting round (Shot0) to the Paris 2024 format—could influence these relationships. The findings suggest that the impact of this modification depends on the behaviour of Shot0: the relative contribution of shooting will remain unchanged if Shot0 performs as the “average” of all shooting rounds, but it could exceed 26% if its outcome mirrors that of Shot1 in Paris 2024, although it would never surpass the predominant influence of TRT. As a first practical implication of this study, the sensitivity of the new format incorporating Shot0 is analysed. Its effectiveness depends largely on the performance achieved by pentathletes in this initial round, which is completed without prior running-induced fatigue. In this context, it is proposed that the impact of Shot0 is mediated by psychological factors such as emotional control and the initial pressure of competition, together with the superior ability of top-level pentathletes to manage a first shooting round under these psycho-emotional conditions and in the absence of physical fatigue. For example, in Tokyo 2020, Q1 athletes achieved a 74% success rate in the first round, compared with 57–65% for Q2 and Q3. A second practical implication considers the potential redesign of the Laser Run format should the inclusion of Shot0 prove insufficient to achieve a more equitable distribution of skills. In this scenario, three explicit adjustment options are proposed: (1) modifying only the running component by reducing the distance per section or the total running distance, which would shift the TRT/CST balance but presents clear limitations due to the handicap start and the risk of lapping, potentially reducing the clarity of competition positions for spectators; (2) intervening exclusively in the shooting component by increasing its difficulty through structural modifications conceived as theoretical design scenarios—an option that is conceptually effective but more complex to implement because of technological, operational, and spectator-clarity constraints; and (3) adopting a combined strategy involving moderate, fine-tuned adjustments to both running and shooting to achieve a more balanced proportion between the two. In this sense, our analysis provides a means to visualise, through scenario-based modelling, the potential effects of adjustments to running distance and, more importantly, the limits within which the format can be modified without departing from a coherent sporting framework. The aim is to calibrate the proportions within TT rather than to assume a direct or automatic correspondence between running distance and the relative “importance” of running and shooting. From this perspective, regardless of the design strategy adopted, a key practical recommendation is to evaluate the run-to-sprint ratio in each specific context, since this “effective balance” is not fixed by the regulations but emerges empirically and may vary according to competitive level, athlete profile, fatigue conditions, tactical dynamics, and the characteristics of the event or season. Indeed, one of the overarching findings of the study is that the relative contributions of TRT and CST vary substantially depending on the analytical context (sample, competition, gender, running speed, etc.), reinforcing the need for continuous, data-driven monitoring of any format adjustments—not only to assess progress towards a more equitable balance between running and shooting but also to identify unintended consequences, such as diminishing the importance of performance at the target. Overall, beyond its academic contribution, this study aims to contribute to innovation processes in the design of evidence-based competitive formats. It approaches each regulatory change as a testable hypothesis—one that can be modelled in advance, implemented under controlled conditions, and assessed using clear indicators (e.g., the effective shooting-to-running distribution within TT and its stability across contexts). From this perspective, the goal is to advance design strategies that refine the Laser Run competition format, in line with the UIPM’s policy of continuous improvement and innovation within Modern Pentathlon.