What does olympic medal count say about a country?

[apathoid]

I had a somewhat similar discussion with a Dutch co-worker/friend this past week. His argument was that the USA is doing rather poorly against the EU as a whole. Initially I thought it was a fair point, and one that I conceded. Indeed, if you added up the EU member states medal count and compared them to the USA's - the EU's haul destroys ours. But after thinking about it for a bit, I realized the IOC creates rules to even the playing field and ultimately there is a cap to the size of the delegation that a nation can send.

In response to the OP, I think that looking at medals per capita is a poor metric. You, me and about 300 million other Americans aren't competing, so why are we even part of your equation? Only a miniscule percentage of a nations population make up their Olympic delegation. So, wouldn't a better metric would be the ratio of medals against delegation size...notwithstanding the numerous other factors pointed out upthread?

Since the 2012 games are still finishing up, I'll use the Beijing '08 figures.
Here is the medal haul totals of the top-10 nations with that countries delegation size in parenthesis, and finally the ratio of medals to the size of delegation.

USA -110(802) 13.7%
China - 100(814) 12.3%
Russia - 73(634) 11.5%
Great Britain - 47(440) 10.6%
Australia - 46(601) 7.7%
Germany - 41(604) 6.7%
South Korea - 31(381) 8.1%
Japan - 25(482) 5.1%
Italy - 27(509) 5.3%
France - 41(460) 8.9%


It seems to me the only thing stopping the US from winning more medals is the limit to the size of the team. But then again, every single nation can say that. Just try to enjoy the Olympics and leave the politics out of it.

ETA: Stats obtained here.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by apathoid

I had a somewhat similar discussion with a Dutch co-worker/friend this past week. His argument was that the USA is doing rather poorly against the EU as a whole. Initially I thought it was a fair point, and one that I conceded. Indeed, if you added up the EU member states medal count and compared them to the USA's - the EU's haul destroys ours. But after thinking about it for a bit, I realized the IOC creates rules to even the playing field and ultimately there is a cap to the size of the delegation that a nation can send.

Exactly. Imagine if each of the 50 US states got to send their own athletes.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Exactly. Imagine if each of the 50 US states got to send their own athletes.

Idaho and Maine would be kicking ass! Each has a gold medal from a population of less than 1.5 million! By the OP's standards, the US is pathetic in comparison!

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by apathoid

Idaho and Maine would be kicking ass! Each has a gold medal from a population of less than 1.5 million! By the OP's standards, the US is pathetic in comparison!

Except that I suspect the OP understands that a sample size of 1 is too small to draw conclusions from.

[Quad4_72]

Saw this on my Facebook. Figured the OP would enjoy it :

[Beerina]

What does olympic medal count say about a country?


I don't know, but I hear the Spice Girls are getting back together tonight!

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by apathoid

I had a somewhat similar discussion with a Dutch co-worker/friend this past week. His argument was that the USA is doing rather poorly against the EU as a whole. Initially I thought it was a fair point, and one that I conceded. Indeed, if you added up the EU member states medal count and compared them to the USA's - the EU's haul destroys ours. But after thinking about it for a bit, I realized the IOC creates rules to even the playing field and ultimately there is a cap to the size of the delegation that a nation can send.

In response to the OP, I think that looking at medals per capita is a poor metric. You, me and about 300 million other Americans aren't competing, so why are we even part of your equation? Only a miniscule percentage of a nations population make up their Olympic delegation. So, wouldn't a better metric would be the ratio of medals against delegation size...notwithstanding the numerous other factors pointed out upthread?

Since the 2012 games are still finishing up, I'll use the Beijing '08 figures.
Here is the medal haul totals of the top-10 nations with that countries delegation size in parenthesis, and finally the ratio of medals to the size of delegation.

USA -110(802) 13.7%
China - 100(814) 12.3%
Russia - 73(634) 11.5%
Great Britain - 47(440) 10.6%
Australia - 46(601) 7.7%
Germany - 41(604) 6.7%
South Korea - 31(381) 8.1%
Japan - 25(482) 5.1%
Italy - 27(509) 5.3%
France - 41(460) 8.9%


It seems to me the only thing stopping the US from winning more medals is the limit to the size of the team. But then again, every single nation can say that. Just try to enjoy the Olympics and leave the politics out of it.

ETA: Stats obtained here.

But the delegation is just a subset of a country's population, so I don't see how it can be independent of the population.

The GB delegation is a much larger fraction of the population of GB than the U.S. delegation is of the U.S.

I would expect that were the U.S. the size of China, it would be able to populate its delegation with even more high quality athletes, and the medal count per delegate would be even higher.

You don't think that is the case? You think that if we had 1.5 billion, or even 600 million, instead of 300 million, that the medal count per delegate would remain similar ?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Exactly. Imagine if each of the 50 US states got to send their own athletes.

But the fact that even in our delegation the medal saturation is less than 20% suggests that even if all the states got to send their own athletes we wouldn't get any more than 20% more medals than we have now.

I don't see the logic otherwise. Are you suggesting that somehow, because our delegation size is limited, that we are forced to send athletes to the Olympics that don't represent the best available? Isn't that sort of what the Olympic trials are for ?????

If the Olympic trial system is functioning, then we should have sent the absolute best runners, swimmers, gymnasts, and ping-pong players from any state to the Olympics. If less than 20% of them got medals, how would allowing even more delegates change things ?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

So you're ashamed of our athletes who aren't the best in the world?

No, of course not. This isn't China where people have to face shame for failing to be the best.

However, the athletes that aren't quite good enough to medal in a given event certainly don't inflate my sense of national pride like the others do.

Are you claiming otherwise? Are you claiming that even if we won zero medals, you would still be as proud of team U.S.A.? If so, then you are definitely a better person than me, and I suspect almost anyone else as well.

Originally Posted by Spindrift

That's not the logical thinker in you. That's the non-thinker that ignores the fact that per capita medal statistics are useless.

It hasn't been established that they are useless. In particular this thread is full of very good reasons why per capita differences exist, and that implies that the statistics are not useless at all.

What you probably mean is that you think it has been established that they are useless for comparing the greatness of nations.

I might agree, but only if total medal statistics are also useless for comparing the greatness of nations. Do you agree to that as well?

My point was only that if total medal statistics are used to compare the greatness of nations, then per-capita medal statistics seem to be more accurate.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

No, of course not. This isn't China where people have to face shame for failing to be the best.

However, the athletes that aren't quite good enough to medal in a given event certainly don't inflate my sense of national pride like the others do.

Are you claiming otherwise? Are you claiming that even if we won zero medals, you would still be as proud of team U.S.A.? If so, then you are definitely a better person than me, and I suspect almost anyone else as well.

Well, if you say so, I guess I am better than you. I am proud of anyone who can make it to the Olympics and also those that try and don't make it.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

It hasn't been established that they are useless. In particular this thread is full of very good reasons why per capita differences exist, and that implies that the statistics are not useless at all.

What you probably mean is that you think it has been established that they are useless for comparing the greatness of nations.

I might agree, but only if total medal statistics are also useless for comparing the greatness of nations. Do you agree to that as well?

Medal count has to do with greatness of a country at getting Olympic medals. That's it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

My point was only that if total medal statistics are used to compare the greatness of nations, then per-capita medal statistics seem to be more accurate.

Who here, besides you, has contended that medal statistics are used to compare greatness?

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

I don't understand why the math is so difficult to understand?

Come back when you learn math, and you'll be surprise how much other people have gained in their understanding of the subject.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

But the delegation is just a subset of a country's population, so I don't see how it can be independent of the population.

The GB delegation is a much larger fraction of the population of GB than the U.S. delegation is of the U.S.

I would expect that were the U.S. the size of China, it would be able to populate its delegation with even more high quality athletes, and the medal count per delegate would be even higher.

You don't think that is the case? You think that if we had 1.5 billion, or even 600 million, instead of 300 million, that the medal count per delegate would remain similar ?

Again, you ignore facts in order to defend your long since disproven position.

GBs delegate/population ratio is higher because the host nation is afforded more athletes than any other nation.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Well, if you say so, I guess I am better than you. I am proud of anyone who can make it to the Olympics and also those that try and don't make it.

He didn't ask if you would still be proud if no medals were won, he asked if you would be as proud.

Personally I don't really feel proud of the accomplishments of others, but if I did that pride would likely be proportional to the achievement, the greater the achievement the greater the sense of pride. At least, that's how I feel about my own achievements.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

It hasn't been established that they are useless. In particular this thread is full of very good reasons why per capita differences exist, and that implies that the statistics are not useless at all.

Its been explained by many different posters in many different ways why its a worthless metric. I showed you that in '08 the US' medal haul per capita of the delegation(not the population of the nation) was the highest of any of the top 10 countries in the medal count - higher than GB and higher than Germany, whom you'd lauded as being far superior by your metric. The size of the US team is limited only by IOC rules as well as the US' inherent focus on some events and disinterest in others. It has zero to do with not having enough talent for a larger team. Imagine if the USA could have fielded 2 more men and women's basketball teams. That's another 50 athletes on the team and four more medals. But again, lots of countries would love to change the rules to suit them.

Nations with large populations like China, Russia, and the US will always do worse than smaller nations per capita. Finite number of events. Finite number of slots for a given country. Limits on a countries total participation in a given event(that kinda skews your metric all by itself).

It's not all that complicated rocketdodger.

Quote:

My point was only that if total medal statistics are used to compare the greatness of nations, then per-capita medal statistics seem to be more accurate.

Neither have anything to do with the 'greatness' of a nation. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they do.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

But the fact that even in our delegation the medal saturation is less than 20% suggests that even if all the states got to send their own athletes we wouldn't get any more than 20% more medals than we have now.

I don't see the logic otherwise. Are you suggesting that somehow, because our delegation size is limited, that we are forced to send athletes to the Olympics that don't represent the best available? Isn't that sort of what the Olympic trials are for ?????

Just the opposite. Quite a large number of otherwise eligible prior Olympic athletes didn't make the cut. It's easier to make the cut if you're an athlete of a smaller nation. If the US team size was double what it is now, I'd expect more medals but the % per delegate to drop(while your silly medals per capita metric would go up). At some point, they'd just be "extra bodies" with little potential for medalling.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

...Are you suggesting that somehow, because our delegation size is limited, that we are forced to send athletes to the Olympics that don't represent the best available? Isn't that sort of what the Olympic trials are for ?????

If the Olympic trial system is functioning, then we should have sent the absolute best runners, swimmers, gymnasts, and ping-pong players from any state to the Olympics. If less than 20% of them got medals, how would allowing even more delegates change things ?

See my post above. One of your continuing errors is in assuming that the best athlete in each event will win. That is far from the case. A reasonable definition of "best athlete" would be the one who would win the most on average over a long period of time. Depending on the event, against many almost-as-good athletes that long term winning percentage could be quite small.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Modified

See my post above. One of your continuing errors is in assuming that the best athlete in each event will win. That is far from the case. A reasonable definition of "best athlete" would be the one who would win the most on average over a long period of time. Depending on the event, against many almost-as-good athletes that long term winning percentage could be quite small.

But this is not an error in the current context, because I specifically said that the working definition of "best" is whoever won the gold medal at the time of the event. That is the only definition needed.

Regardless of "who" that is, the chances of them being from a given nation increase as population goes up.

The fact that Bolt is from Jamaica doesn't change the fact that the likelihood of China hosting a sprinter who is faster than Bolt, when considered in isolation, doubles if you double the population of China.

Unless that likelihood is a perfect zero. Is it? Are you confident that if we put every single of the 1.5 billion Chinese citizens on a 100m track, that Bolt will be faster than every single one of them? It seems possible to me that there is a chance, just based on the statistics of biology, that there could be a freak of nature in China that is even more of a freak than Bolt himself. Maybe not, but maybe so.

And even if so -- so what? The superiority of Bolt over everyone else isn't indicative of the competition in most events.

Taking your counter-argument, look at the men's platform diving. I think everyone agreed that the Chinese men are better if you amortize their performance over time, yet they didn't perform as well when it counted in London and our guy won gold. If we only had 150 million people instead of 314 million, how confident are you that he would have been in the 150, and not the half that doesn't exist?

In fact, I don't know why I havent' thought of that before.

If I am wrong, and everyone else here is correct, then we should be able to randomly remove fractions of the population and maintain a similar medal count.

Right?

Yet, we know that won't happen. We know that if we randomly remove 150 million people from the U.S., a ton of medals will dissappear. Statistically, almost half of them.

You can argue that now others will step up and take their place, but statistically, the replacements wont be as good as the prior medal winners. So statistically, our medal count will go down.

It might not go down by half, which would lend weight to the argument people are making that population increases offer diminishing returns, but I never disputed that in principle anyway. My dispute with that argument was that I don't think diminishing returns alone are responsible for the extent of the lower per capita medal count.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by apathoid

Just the opposite. Quite a large number of otherwise eligible prior Olympic athletes didn't make the cut. It's easier to make the cut if you're an athlete of a smaller nation. If the US team size was double what it is now, I'd expect more medals but the % per delegate to drop(while your silly medals per capita metric would go up). At some point, they'd just be "extra bodies" with little potential for medalling.

You're picking and choosing though.

Yeah if we could field more basketball teams the medal count would go up.

Would the medal count go up if we could send more sprinters? Or long distance runners? Or high jumpers? Or swimmers? Or gymnasts? Or divers? Or cyclists? Or rowers? Or wrestlers? Or any of the numerous sports in the olympics?

If the olympic trials function properly, and we send the best candidates for each event, and they fail to medal, or even get bronze, then statistically there shouldn't be a significant increase if we also send the second-best candidates for each event, assuming the best candidate will perform better, on average, than the second best.

Modified's point is correct, that often it is far more than just time-averaged-performance that correlates with performance when it counts, but still. I don't see the U.S. getting *that* many more medals in swimming or cycling or track and field or whatever else if we just sent more and more lower rung candidates. Yeah crazy things happen, like the best vaulter in the world falling on her vault and giving up a gold medal, but what percentage of the performances are that volatile?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by sarge

Again, you ignore facts in order to defend your long since disproven position.

GBs delegate/population ratio is higher because the host nation is afforded more athletes than any other nation.

lol

Germany has 82 million people, they sent 600+
Australia has 22 million people, they sent 600+
Russia has 140 million people, they sent 600+
Italy has 60 million people, they sent 500+
France has 65 million people, they sent 400+
South Korea has 50 million people, they sent 300+

In fact, besides China, every single nation listed in that post has a higher delegate/population ratio than the U.S.

This is obviously because the U.S. is near hitting the limit on how many delegates they can send, so it doesn't necessarily advance my argument.

But it is clear that no, it isn't "just because they are the host nation" that GB's delegation size is a larger fraction of their population. What is your excuse for Australia sending 600+, that they were the host nation 8 years ago and there is a special rule for them too?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Unless that likelihood is a perfect zero. Is it? Are you confident that if we put every single of the 1.5 billion Chinese citizens on a 100m track, that Bolt will be faster than every single one of them? It seems possible to me that there is a chance, just based on the statistics of biology, that there could be a freak of nature in China that is even more of a freak than Bolt himself. Maybe not, but maybe so.

No. Not enough black guys in China (more specifically, men of West African decent). Look at podium for the mens 4x 100m. 12 Guys... all black. I think there was one Japanese guy who made the semi-finals.

No Asian (or East African for that matter) has ever ran the 100m in under 10 seconds.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Would the medal count go up if we could send more sprinters? Or long distance runners? Or high jumpers? Or swimmers? Or gymnasts? Or divers? Or cyclists? Or rowers? Or wrestlers? Or any of the numerous sports in the olympics?

Yes.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Caper

No. Not enough black guys in China (more specifically, men of West African decent). Look at podium for the mens 4x 100m. 12 Guys... all black. I think there was one Japanese guy who made the semi-finals.

No Asian (or East African for that matter) has ever ran the 100m in under 10 seconds.

I completely agree that it would be very unlikely.

But on the other hand, the standard distribution you get for 1.5 billion samples leaves some room for pretty extreme outliers. So are we really confident that the likelihood is absolute zero?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

I completely agree that it would be very unlikely.

But on the other hand, the standard distribution you get for 1.5 billion samples leaves some room for pretty extreme outliers. So are we really confident that the likelihood is absolute zero?

Npt absolute Zero.... but I'm pretty confident.

[rocketdodger]

Ok, then let's just phrase this argument in a much more simple way:

I contend that if Australia had 314 million people, Australia would be doing much better than the U.S. in the olympics.

My basis for this supposition is that the prowess Australians display for summer Olympic sports, evidenced by the fact that they consistently have a large number of medals despite only having 22 million people.

I would love to hear some argument for why anyone doesn't agree with this contention. I would love to hear some argument for why a person would think that somehow the addition of 14 times as many Australians wouldn't translate into just a little more than doubling their medal haul.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Ok, then let's just phrase this argument in a much more simple way:

I contend that if Australia had 314 million people, Australia would be doing much better than the U.S. in the olympics.

My basis for this supposition is that the prowess Australians display for summer Olympic sports, evidenced by the fact that they consistently have a large number of medals despite only having 22 million people.

I would love to hear some argument for why anyone doesn't agree with this contention. I would love to hear some argument for why a person would think that somehow the addition of 14 times as many Australians wouldn't translate into just a little more than doubling their medal haul.

Stricly speaking, they'd have to do better than double. They finished with 35 medals, to the US' 104(7 gold versus 46 gold).

At some point, you're going to do as well as you possibly can and population size/delegate size ceases to matter. Case in point was the US women's gymnastics this year. The world champ and defending gold medalist in the all around event couldn't compete this year because of slot limits. So yeah, doubling would be optimistic.

But here is another interesting case. California.

California as a state sent 128 athletes to the Olympics - not 600 - and won 65 medals. I didn't feel like breaking it down to find how many of those 65 were duplicates from team events(not just basketball, but relay races etc). Even if it was half, you have 128 Californians getting 33 medals, with 410 Australians getting 35 medals. California's population is about 50% higher than Australias. What if they were able to send a delegate 600 strong, how many more medals would they have gotten? What if California's population was 10x higher, how would they have fared?

Probably not that much better, IMO.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

But this is not an error in the current context, because I specifically said that the working definition of "best" is whoever won the gold medal at the time of the event. That is the only definition needed.

You're missing the point. It's one of the reasons that sending more athletes per country would be a benefit. The second-through-tenth best athletes combined may beat the very best one 80% of the time for some events, while the best may beat the second best 55% of the time. Sending more athletes can increase your chances dramatically, even if they are not the best or your best.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Ok, then let's just phrase this argument in a much more simple way:

I contend that if Australia had 314 million people, Australia would be doing much better than the U.S. in the olympics.

My basis for this supposition is that the prowess Australians display for summer Olympic sports, evidenced by the fact that they consistently have a large number of medals despite only having 22 million people.

I would love to hear some argument for why anyone doesn't agree with this contention. I would love to hear some argument for why a person would think that somehow the addition of 14 times as many Australians wouldn't translate into just a little more than doubling their medal haul.

The Australian people spent 38 million dollars to win their only gold medal in the pool.

In the period 1986 to 1996 It cost Australia an average of 40 million dollars per gold medal won.

China by way of comparison spends approximately 100 million dollars per gold medal.

What does the US tax payer spend on Olympics......zip

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Modified

You're missing the point. It's one of the reasons that sending more athletes per country would be a benefit. The second-through-tenth best athletes combined may beat the very best one 80% of the time for some events, while the best may beat the second best 55% of the time. Sending more athletes can increase your chances dramatically, even if they are not the best or your best.

Getting o/t now, but I'd say it depends hugely on the nature of the sport.

A 10.0 100m runner can never run a legal 9.5 just by being inspired on one particular day or by getting plain lucky. Similar limits apply to sports like rowing, some of the cycling events, and others, because these athletes have approached their physiological best by the time they get to the Games.

But in sports like boxing, taekwondo, wrestling etc, and some of the team games, there is more unpredictability as to how each competition will pan out so multiple entries would obviously increase your chances.

No number of male Jamaican 100m runners or male Kenyan 800m runners would have improved those countries' chances of winning those events, as the rest of their athletes are measurably inferior.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by GlennB

But in sports like boxing, taekwondo, wrestling etc, and some of the team games, there is more unpredictability as to how each competition will pan out so multiple entries would obviously increase your chances.

True, but there are alot of those events.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by MG1962

The Australian people spent 38 million dollars to win their only gold medal in the pool.

In the period 1986 to 1996 It cost Australia an average of 40 million dollars per gold medal won.

China by way of comparison spends approximately 100 million dollars per gold medal.

What does the US tax payer spend on Olympics......zip

This is an interesting point. Do you have a link?

[Captain_Swoop]

This time round the Cycling was limited to 1 rider per nation in each event to try and limit the number of medals won by one nation. Some events were dropped and a new one included. GB still cleaned up because it is an area that has been concentrated on. Swimming was another area that was concentrated on but we didn't do as well as last time round.
Boxing a sport that wasn't one of those that was concentrated on produced a whole crop of medals, more than we ever won, Athletics didn't live up to expectations, it was another area of concentration.
Rowing was an area concentrated on and it produced the expected medals.
We got a gold and silver in the same Kayak event against the odds.

What am I getting at?

Sometimes it doesn't matter how big your team or effort in a certain sport, things don't always go the way you want, there is a whole world out there trying to win the same medals.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

This time round the Cycling was limited to 1 rider per nation in each event to try and limit the number of medals won by one nation. Some events were dropped and a new one included. GB still cleaned up because it is an area that has been concentrated on. Swimming was another area that was concentrated on but we didn't do as well as last time round.
Boxing a sport that wasn't one of those that was concentrated on produced a whole crop of medals, more than we ever won, Athletics didn't live up to expectations, it was another area of concentration.
Rowing was an area concentrated on and it produced the expected medals.
We got a gold and silver in the same Kayak event against the odds.

What am I getting at?

Sometimes it doesn't matter how big your team or effort in a certain sport, things don't always go the way you want, there is a whole world out there trying to win the same medals.

This is a very good point. Hell, a guy from Kazakhstan won the cycling road race. People all over the world are very good at stuff, no matter what country you come from. To think that a single country should dominate EVERY sport is just silly.

[swright777]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

This is a very good point. Hell, a guy from Kazakhstan won the cycling road race. People all over the world are very good at stuff, no matter what country you come from. To think that a single country should dominate EVERY sport is just silly.

That's true. But if US athletes don't win every medal in the Olympics, all three in every event, then they are pathetic.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

lol

You can "lol" me when you learn math.

Quote:

Germany has 82 million people, they sent 600+
Australia has 22 million people, they sent 600+
Russia has 140 million people, they sent 600+
Italy has 60 million people, they sent 500+
France has 65 million people, they sent 400+
South Korea has 50 million people, they sent 300+

Do you really not understand?

Delegates per capita is almost as silly a metric as medals per capita for the same resons. Nations are limited in how many delegates may be sent per event, except that the host nation may send delegates for every event.

If the very best in every sport were allowed to go to the Olympics, the US would have had a larger delegation (as would several other nations), while some nations would have had significantly smaller delegations.

So long as there are artificial constraints on the number of athletes a nation may enter into the competition, population size (past a certain point) is not a factor in either how many medals are won or in how many delegates a nation sends.

Quote:

In fact, besides China, every single nation listed in that post has a higher delegate/population ratio than the U.S.

And that is a nonsensical measure of anything except how many delegates a nation may send.

Quote:

But it is clear that no, it isn't "just because they are the host nation" that GB's delegation size is a larger fraction of their population. What is your excuse for Australia sending 600+, that they were the host nation 8 years ago and there is a special rule for them too?

It is crystal clear that GB delegate size is larger because they are not subject to the same restrictions as the US (and all other nations). That isn't even debateable.

It is also clear that delegate size is limited. Your argument is fundamentally identical to this one:

The US is the thrid worst country in the UN. The US is inferior to other countries at United Nations Participation because the US casts far fewer votes per capita than other nations. Indeed, the US even sends fewer delegates per capita than every other nation except China and India.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Getting o/t now, but I'd say it depends hugely on the nature of the sport.

Of course.

Quote:

No number of male Jamaican 100m runners or male Kenyan 800m runners would have improved those countries' chances of winning those events, as the rest of their athletes are measurably inferior.

The 100m sprint is unusual in the concentration of talent in certain countries, and in the gap between the best and twentieth-best.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

This is a very good point. Hell, a guy from Kazakhstan won the cycling road race. People all over the world are very good at stuff, no matter what country you come from. To think that a single country should dominate EVERY sport is just silly.

That shouldn't come as a surprise when you look at his record and the fact that one of the top level World Tour Cycling teams is Astana, a Kazakh team.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

lol

Germany has 82 million people, they sent 600+
Australia has 22 million people, they sent 600+
Russia has 140 million people, they sent 600+
Italy has 60 million people, they sent 500+
France has 65 million people, they sent 400+
South Korea has 50 million people, they sent 300+

In fact, besides China, every single nation listed in that post has a higher delegate/population ratio than the U.S.

This is obviously because the U.S. is near hitting the limit on how many delegates they can send, so it doesn't necessarily advance my argument.

But it is clear that no, it isn't "just because they are the host nation" that GB's delegation size is a larger fraction of their population. What is your excuse for Australia sending 600+, that they were the host nation 8 years ago and there is a special rule for them too?

Australia sent about 430 athletes, not 600+

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Australia sent about 430 athletes, not 600+

I just went off the numbers included in the post by apathoid, sorry.

EDIT -- looks like those numbers were from 2008

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by sarge

You can "lol" me when you learn math.



Do you really not understand?

Delegates per capita is almost as silly a metric as medals per capita for the same resons. Nations are limited in how many delegates may be sent per event, except that the host nation may send delegates for every event.

If the very best in every sport were allowed to go to the Olympics, the US would have had a larger delegation (as would several other nations), while some nations would have had significantly smaller delegations.

So long as there are artificial constraints on the number of athletes a nation may enter into the competition, population size (past a certain point) is not a factor in either how many medals are won or in how many delegates a nation sends.

All of this is irrelevant because I never said anything about medals per delegate. In fact I didn't even bring it up first, apathoid did.

Originally Posted by sarge

And that is a nonsensical measure of anything except how many delegates a nation may send.

It is crystal clear that GB delegate size is larger because they are not subject to the same restrictions as the US (and all other nations). That isn't even debateable.

Again, this is irrelevant. The post where I lol at you is specifically a response to your claim that the reason GB has a larger delegation, relative to their population, than the U.S., is because they are the host nation.

It turns out that many other countries have more delegates per capita as well, yet they are not the host nation.

That is the only thing I was speaking to in that post -- your prior assertion, which is incorrect.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by apathoid

Stricly speaking, they'd have to do better than double. They finished with 35 medals, to the US' 104(7 gold versus 46 gold).

Yeah I was looking at 2008 numbers, sorry. They would need to slightly better than triple their numbers for 2012.

My argument still stands. I think it just smacks of exceptionalism to think that Australia wouldn't be able to at least match our count, never mind easily surpass it, if they had 314 million people to draw from rather than just 22 million.

To make things political, that's the same kind of thinking conservatives use when they try to rationalize why the rich should be so rich -- never mind that people with less money have less money to invest and work with, but hey, even if they did have the resources of the rich, they aren't educated enough, or savvy enough, or responsible enough, to do it as well as the currently rich can do it.

It's simply a B.S. argument, and so is the argument that Australia wouldn't do just as well as the U.S. if they had the same population. Eddy Murphy proved it.