Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nowadays, two percent of the Hungarian society works in agriculture. The ratio of the workers of agricultural sector declined to 50% in the 1890s.
So it is hard to say that Hungary is an agricultural country.
I don't understand this comment.
I never claimed that Hungary has many people working in agriculture, I claimed that the country is heavily agricultural feel, which is true. Not many mountains in Hungary, and not super-heavily forested, so obviously much of the country is has an agricultural landscape.
Hungary won 25 gold medals in swimming, 19 in wrestling, 15 in gymnastics and 10 in athletics and boxing. Not exactly minor international sports. They also won more gold medals than any other country in team sports like water polo and football (soccer).
Right, but these are medal-heavy sports where you can run up the medal totals.
If Cold War Hungary put millions in basketball, they would still lose to the U.S. (or whomever), no matter the expense. If they somehow won, they would only get one medal for all their work and investment.
But if Cold War Hungary put millions in swimming, wrestling and gymnastics, they could win dozens and dozens of medals (and indeed they did). And their investment will almost certainly yield results.
Right, but these are medal-heavy sports where you can run up the medal totals.
If Cold War Hungary put millions in basketball, they would still lose to the U.S. (or whomever), no matter the expense. If they somehow won, they would only get one medal for all their work and investment.
But if Cold War Hungary put millions in swimming, wrestling and gymnastics, they could win dozens and dozens of medals (and indeed they did). And their investment will almost certainly yield results.
But these are also incredibly competitive sports that are played all over the world. It is much harder to become a dominant force in those sports, especially as a smaller country with a limited population and resources. And I have seen no evidence that Hungary invests relatively more in their popular sports than the US, Australia or Britain do. Somehow I doubt it.
99% of the Olympic gold medals won came from skating?
That's the Winter Olympics, but what do you expect from a country that has no mountains or permanent snow? We have done very well in the Summer Olympics in a wide variety of sports.
But these are also incredibly competitive sports that are played all over the world. It is much harder to become a dominant force in those sports, especially as a smaller country with a limited population and resources.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
What evidence do you need? We have the proof, because that's exactly what Eastern Bloc countries did, and they all confirm they did this. You seriously think all the Eastern Bloc countries are tricking the world, and it was just coincidence that East Germany, Cuba, Hungary, etc. won all these medals under Communism, and stopped winning after Communism ended?
China does this today, and admits they do it today. They invest based on the number of medals awarded, and chance one can receive a medal. Obviously China is not going to invest in basketball or soccer (only one medal awarded, requires assembling a team, not an individual, impossible to win). But they will invest in swimming or gymnastics (many medals awarded, only requires one individual for a medal, any country can win).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
And I have seen no evidence that Hungary invests relatively more in their popular sports than the US, Australia or Britain do. Somehow I doubt it.
Well then argue with all the athletes from Hungary, the govt. of Hungary, the Hungarian press, the global sports community, and the global press, because they all agree this happens, and never happened in the U.S., Australia or Britain.
And you have no clue what you're even talking about. The U.S. govt. doesn't spend one penny on the Olympics athletes. U.S. Olympic athletes are 100% privately funded. The top sports in the U.S. (American football and baseball) aren't even Olympics sports. Olympics are not very popular in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
Besides, if you look at the medal table you'll see that Hungary has ranked in or around the top 10 ever since the Olympics Games started in 1896.
Wrong. Hungary is not always in the top 10. And the medal count rose after Communism started, and dropped after Communism ended.
What are you trying to even prove here? No one argues that Communist states don't put money into Olympic training. You never heard of the East Germany doping scandals and gender reassignment scandals? Enough, already.
What evidence do you need? We have the proof, because that's exactly what Eastern Bloc countries did, and they all confirm they did this. You seriously think all the Eastern Bloc countries are tricking the world, and it was just coincidence that East Germany, Cuba, Hungary, etc. won all these medals under Communism, and stopped winning after Communism ended?
But as I already showed you, Hungary has performed consistently well over the past century. There is no marked improvement under communism nor decline after communism ended. In 2012, Hungary won 8 gold medals and 18 medals in total and ranked #9 in the medal table. That alone disproves your entire argument.
Quote:
China does this today, and admits they do it today. They invest based on the number of medals awarded, and chance one can receive a medal. Obviously China is not going to invest in basketball or soccer (only one medal awarded, requires assembling a team, not an individual, impossible to win). But they will invest in swimming or gymnastics (many medals awarded, only requires one individual for a medal, any country can win).
Well then argue with all the athletes from Hungary, the govt. of Hungary, the Hungarian press, the global sports community, and the global press, because they all agree this happens, and never happened in the U.S., Australia or Britain.
What does China have to do with this?
Has it occurred to you that Hungary invests more in sports like swimming, water polo, wrestling and gymnastics because these are simply the most popular sports there (along with football, in which they also have an impressive legacy) rather than a cynical plot to bag the most medals at the Olympics? Why on earth would Hungary put all their money in basketball or volleyball when the population doesn't care about these sports?
Australia also wins most of its medals in individual medal-heavy sports like swimming, cycling, rowing, equestrian and sailing. Why are you so convinced that they do not invest more in these sports to win medals but Hungary did?
Quote:
And you have no clue what you're even talking about. The U.S. govt. doesn't spend one penny on the Olympics athletes. U.S. Olympic athletes are 100% privately funded. The top sports in the U.S. (American football and baseball) aren't even Olympics sports.
Who cares where the money comes from? Your argument was that Hungary and other former east block counties were successful because they invested more in certain sports.
The fact is that pro sports is big business in the US and American Olympic athletes have access to resources most other athletes can only dream of, even for relately minor sports.
Wrong. Hungary is not always in the top 10. And the medal count rose after Communism started, and dropped after Communism ended.
I said "in or around the top 10", which is true. The only time in the entire Summer Olympics history where Hungary was below #13 was in 2008, when it was #21.
And anyone who looks at the all-time Hungarian medal table can see that your claim that Hungary did worse before and after communism is utter nonsense.
Quote:
What are you trying to even prove here? No one argues that Communist states don't put money into Olympic training. You never heard of the East Germany doping scandals and gender reassignment scandals? Enough, already.
That doesn't mean you can discredit all of Hungary's athletic achievements over the past century.
and of course you totally dismissed the rest of my sentence about mongols having the biggest empire in history:
I also didn't see anything negative in your video? do you believe that the russians of the year 1200th were more civilized?
Yes, the Russians of the year 1200th were more civilized; they were not nomads, as the majority of the inhabitants of the Central Asian steppe.
Why else do you think centuries later these people didn't even have their own written language?
its an incredibly corrupt country , hardly anyone pays any tax if they can avoid it , everyone from taxi drivers to people who offer professional services are pretty brazen in their attempts to swindle you ( and the goverment )
That's not a very attractive look either - straight from steppes of Central Asia or something...))))
But why would that be unattractive? It all depends on personal perspective, personal taste, etc. Mongols and some of the Turkic peoples are among the most attractive peoples in Asia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
