2012 Olympics

**Edited by NoNukes, : Pointless

Seriously. Using your argument, both China and India's proportion ought to be 4 times what the US accomplishes, always. But that never happens. They always underperform, at least according to your argument.The size related argument has some merit, but you well overstate the impact here. It is certainly the case that a straight per capita rating is not appropriate. There are limits to how many Chinese athletes or US athletes can participate in the 100 meter race.Only the top few athletes in each country get to compete. Only the smallest countries are so tiny that they have a little chance of fielding a few world class athletes in a sport. And there is little point in sending more than your best three individuals or teams. I completely agree that a weighting scheme is appropriate, but the scheme does not work to the US's advantage in this Olympics, because no advantage is needed. The US would be first with any rational weighting including 10:2:1, 3:2:1, or 1:1:1. Only an irrational and indefensible weighting that valued bronze medals over gold or silver by huge amounts could have changed this in 2012.

No, but for reasons that have already been expressed, per-capita performance is a nonsensical metric because of the entry limits in the events.Are you seriously arguing that there is some size at which a country ought to ashamed at not being able to field an athlete faster than Usain Bolt? That argument is a non-starter. As I recall, the US 4x100 relay team matched the previous record in losing.Essentially the only people who care about per-capital medal count are people in smaller countries. I would expect that small countries that are at least of a size where they can produce world class athletes in a few sports have a statistical advantage when they only need a few medals to achieve a high medal/head ratio.

EU puts itself top of Olympic medal table...and Britain is nowhere to be seen | UK | News | Express.co.uk"EU CLAIMS IT TOPPED THE OLYMPIC MEDAL TABLE...AND BRITAIN IS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN"

quote:

---

On the agency's website EU Medal Tracker | The European Union in Olympics comparison, it combines the 27 members of the EU into one, meaning that - with 306 medals - it is placed above both the USA and China.

​

It states: "We count and compare how many medals the EU would win if it took part in the Olympic Games as one team. The European Union is the Winning Team."

​

Britain, who were in third position at the end of the OIympics with 65 medals in total and 29 golds no longer appear on the table at all. Conservative MEP Marina Yannakoudakis spoke of her outrage at Brussels' attempt to impose a federal identity on nations.

---

Funniest part of the article...

quote:

---

The agency denied it was attempting to upset the people of the UK but then disparagingly referred to Britain as 'the island.'

​

A spokesman said: "We didn't do it just to annoy the Brits. But then we have already received tons of mail from the island."

---

That's the way people talk about sports. You also didn't score a single bucket in the last NCAA basketball tournament. But I'll bet plenty of your neighbors, if not you yourself, feel proud of 'their' Wildcats.

Are the two parts going to give up all of the extra event entries they get by being actually multiple countries? I note that the Gasol Brothers were beaten by an American team whose only seven footer was Tyson Chandler. In other words, more of the same guys that LeBron and Durant punk on a nightly basis already. Sorry, but now that the NBA's opened up to international players, I'm just not all that willing to believe that there are a bunch of Dirk Nowitzkis hanging around in European leagues (which have a sizeable number of American players who cannot make an NBA roster).

I did not say they did. I'm commenting on the people you've suggested augmenting the team with. I And I'm suggesting that there is not a single player in all of Europe (800,000,000+) the equal of Lebron, Durant, and Carnelo. And I haven't even raised the issue of the American bigs who were saddled with injuries and did not make the trip. Dirk's the best player in Europe and adding him to the Spaniards is a considerable upgrade. I'm not worried about the rest of those guys.

It seems a bit inconsistent, in my opinion, to acknowledge this, and then to insist on evaluating medal count on a per capita basis. No one has made any such claim. But despite being the best team, the US basketball team was not invincible and could have been beaten on some nights. Having a second team would reduce the odds of the US missing out on a medal.Further Onifre has clarified what he was talking out re the US wrestling team.

Good. I agree that this "sporting culture" idea is nonsense. The US has a system for preparing athletes for the Olympics as does every other country that won an appreciable number of medals. But the US system does not pervade the US culture. The system only impacts the few athletes that are identified as having world class talents.And it is not like the US gov't dumps huge amounts of tax payer money into training athletes. US athletes are not state sponsored. But this I respectfully disagree with. The US has a higher medal count, using any metric you chose than both large countries four times it size, and small countries. The count includes far more gold medals than anyone else. I think that's impressive.