Tracing relationships between Olympionikai is a complex task because earlier versions influenced later ones in numerous, overlapping ways that are hard to document. Each of the three different types of Olympionikai fulfilled a relatively narrow range of functions and thus tended to contain a similar array of material arranged in similar ways. There was, in addition, an unusually high level of interconnection among Olympionikai. Later authors who compiled catalogs of Olympic victors did not feel compelled to visit Olympia and carry out their own search of the relevant records going back to the first Olympiad. They found it far more expedient to take a preexisting catalog and make the requisite additions and modifications. This is reflected in the fact that, in the places where the preserved Olympionikai overlap, they show little variation in regard to victors' names, dates, and hometowns. (The relevant information is displayed in chart form below.) The striking uniformity in the victor catalogs of Olympionikai of widely variant dates demonstrates the degree to which later authors depended upon their predecessors. Authors of Olympionikai no doubt also took from their predecessors a considerable amount of information above and beyond victors' names. Olympionikai compiled after Hippias were, therefore, to a greater or lesser degree composites of earlier, similar works. A final difficulty springs from the fact that most Olympionikai survive in fragmentary condition and many are lost entirely.