Olympics medal table (president, athletic, Europe, Athletics)

[LindavG]

Originally Posted by botticelli

couple of mistakes

1) one gold doesn't equal one silver or bronze. I would think 1 gold = 2 silver = 4 bronze.
2) there is no point in mixing US with China. China is a developing country with a huge population. Maybe US + Canada? Do you think it is fair if I add Indian to the EU?

1) I never said it did. The EU would have just as many gold medals as the US & China combined and almost twice as many silver and bronze medals, despite having only 1/3 the population.

2) I mentioned the US and China because these are the two countries with the most medals, duh

Originally Posted by botticelli

you forgot home advantage, which is usually 25-40%.

China is a poor country. No point to compare with China on a per capita basis.

So what, the EU has plenty of 'poor' countries as well (Bulgaria and Romania for example). Many poor countries manage to win medals at the Olympics. China invests a huge amount of money in sports (relatively speaking) and has a very strict sports policy which involves taking talented children from their homes at a young age and training them in preparation for international competitions like the Olympics.

Originally Posted by Ghengis

Wow, imagine what the difference would be if the dutch would have pulled in their share...."help me I'm drowning....gurgle, gurgle, gurgle."

I think we're doing quite alright for a country of 16.5 million people with 5 gold, 5 silver and 6 bronze and a number of medals on the way (hockey men + women, BMX, sailing, possibly 4x100m relay men + women).

Wow, I didn't know this was such a sensitive issue for some, lol.

[LindavG]

Originally Posted by Natural510

1 United States 39 25 26 90
2 China 37 24 19 80
3 Russia 12 21 23 56
4 Great Britain 25 13 14 52
5 Germany 10 16 11 37
6 Japan 5 14 14 33
7 France 8 9 12 29
8 Australia 6 13 10 29
9 South Korea 12 7 6 25
10 Italy 7 6 6 19

In what world is Russia ahead of the UK when the UK has more than twice as many gold medals

[LindavG]

Originally Posted by botticelli

When you say huge population of middle-class, you were probably referring to those who make more than 4,000 pounds a year?

in the city of Shanghai where income is the highest, average salary is something like 4,000 pounds a YEAR.

Well, poverty clearly isn't stopping China and many other countries from winning medals at the Olympics so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by LindavG

In what world is Russia ahead of the UK when the UK has more than twice as many gold medals

That table was categorised by total medals; either way the numbers speak for themselves.

[artemis agrotera]

Originally Posted by paull805

The UK population is 62,262,000
The US population is 314,065,000
Chinas population is 1,347,350,000

The UK Gold 25 Silver 13 Bronze 14 Total 52
The US Gold 39 Silver 25 Bronze 26 Total 90
Chinas Gold 37 Silver 24 Bronze 19 Total 80

So clearly the most successful countries but I think the UK has done just as good as the USA or China considering the population difference.

well considering Australia's population is 22 million, I'd say we constantly do well.

....I know the objective is to win, however all this talk of gold vs silver etc annoys me a little; its pretty hard to get to the Olympics and sometimes the difference is .01 second. Hardly failure.

[paull805]

I wasn't talking about Australia, but if you think the aussies are doing well, then more power to ya!

And everyone knows gold medals are the deciding factor in the medal table. It isn't failure it is just who goes down in history are usually the gold medalists.

[LindavG]

Originally Posted by Natural510

That table was categorised by total medals; either way the numbers speak for themselves.

That is a ridiculous system. If a country has 0 gold, 0 silver and 10 bronze it would be ranked higher than a country with 9 gold

[artemis agrotera]

Originally Posted by paull805

I wasn't talking about Australia, but if you think the aussies are doing well, then more power to ya!

And everyone knows gold medals are the deciding factor in the medal table. It isn't failure it is just who goes down in history are usually the gold medalists.

I know, but Australia was mentioned earlier.

we're in the top 10.

The swimmers under performed. Not that big a deal.

[LindavG]

Originally Posted by artemis agrotera

well considering Australia's population is 22 million, I'd say we constantly do well.

....I know the objective is to win, however all this talk of gold vs silver etc annoys me a little; its pretty hard to get to the Olympics and sometimes the difference is .01 second. Hardly failure.

Australia's performance is always incredible if you take into account their population. It's much harder to compete for medals when you have a limited talent pool to fish from. I'm much more impressed with the performances of countries like Australia, Hungary, New Zealand, Cuba and the Netherlands, which all manage to stay in the top 20 or even the top 10 despite their much smaller populations. That's why I mentioned how many medals the EU would win if it competed as one entity, to put it all in perspective.

I don't think it's that much of an achievement for the US - one of the wealthiest countries in the world with a huge population and a sports culture - to be #1 in the medal table. It is expected. The state of Florida has a similar population as Australia. If it competed in the Olympics as a seperate entity, do you think it would consistently be in the top 10 and usually top 5?

[paull805]

If the region of Yorkshire in England with a population of 3,978,484 was a country it would be lying 14 in the medal table tied with The Netherlands.

BBC News - Yorkshire riding high on Olympic medal table