The interesting thing is that the US did pretty close to how they did in 2000, but china just did SO much better, and russia fell off the map. interesting what 4 years and being the host country can do for you

fbs

United Kingdom2476 Posts

August 24 2008 14:38 GMT

#22

On August 24 2008 23:17 KOFgokuon wrote:
now i wonder how many of those athletes from these countries actually train in the USA
i know a bunch of the jamaican sprinters do

such as?

theonemephisto

United States409 Posts

August 24 2008 14:42 GMT

#23

Every single one of those medals from Zimbabwe is from one swimmer, Kirsty Coventry. And she swims in America.

Archaic

United States4024 Posts

August 24 2008 14:51 GMT

#24

Somewhat interesting. I had a bit of trouble figuring out what it was in the first place, haha. Now I get it...

KOFgokuon

United States14910 Posts

August 24 2008 15:23 GMT

#25

Let's see
Unfortunately their wikipedia articles aren't very updated
Veronica Campbell Brown lives and trains in the US, so does Novlene Williams, Michael Frater, Nesta Carter
Look around some more if it interests you

Hot_Bid

Braavos36390 Posts

August 24 2008 15:28 GMT

#26

every swimmer and non-distance track and field athlete trains in the United States, all of them are introduced as students from US colleges

fbs

United Kingdom2476 Posts

August 24 2008 15:40 GMT

#27

..and with that comment this thread could yet rival the Phelps one on stupidity

I asked about the Jamicans because their coach was on the BBC yesterday and obviously asked what their success was down to and he said it's because they base their athletes in Kingston rather than sending them to the States which they have been doing for years

1tym

Korea (South)2425 Posts

August 24 2008 15:44 GMT

#28

Anyone dismissing this graph as 'completely worthless' is somewhat ignorant. You should take this with a grain of salt of course, as it doesn't take into account other important factors such as infrastructure, investment, facilities, regional attributes and the passion for the sport. However, with population probably being one of the most important if not the biggest factor, how can you completely ignore this chart?

There is a class named 'A' consisting of 50 students and class named 'B' consisting of 1000 students. The school runs an exact same test across class A and B. Without taking into account geographical and other random factors, if we're to collect the test results of the top 30 marks, which of the two classes is likely to include more people into top 30? Sure in some cases class A may include more, if the tuition level of class A is vastly superior to class B, but in most cases class B will include more people in the top 30.

P.S It's also interesting to note that people who disregard the chart are people from the lower ranked countries compared to official chart. Would you have said the same thing had your country been higher up in the chart? I'm Korean and Korea is not even high up on this chart. In unadjusted chart Korea is 7th. Have fair and balanced opinion on things people.

KOFgokuon

United States14910 Posts

August 24 2008 15:55 GMT

#29

On August 25 2008 00:40 fbs wrote:
..and with that comment this thread could yet rival the Phelps one on stupidity

I asked about the Jamicans because their coach was on the BBC yesterday and obviously asked what their success was down to and he said it's because they base their athletes in Kingston rather than sending them to the States which they have been doing for years

well he's just wrong or making stuff up because a bunch of them do NOT train in jamaica

1tym

Korea (South)2425 Posts

August 24 2008 16:11 GMT

#30

Yes I think we all agree that US has really good infrastructure and facilities as to attract many athletes from all around the world. However, these facilities are primarily used by the US athletes. Top that with massive sporting population, you have less excuse to not perform well in the Olympics.

Frits

11782 Posts

August 24 2008 16:27 GMT

#31

Who cares, we're all the same species anyway, not to mention that this graph is pointless and you can't base any conclusions off it because there are so many factors that contribute to it and even then it's pointless because it only encourages retarded nationalism.

Flakes

United States3125 Posts

August 24 2008 16:43 GMT

#32

The problem is that the number of medals to win is limited by the number of events. Even if a larger country places in every event, its size would place it lower on the chart.

CrimsonLotus

Colombia1123 Posts

August 24 2008 16:51 GMT

#33

This is the most useful information in the history of mankind.

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

August 24 2008 16:53 GMT

#34

On August 25 2008 01:11 1tym wrote:
Yes I think we all agree that US has really good infrastructure and facilities as to attract many athletes from all around the world. However, these facilities are primarily used by the US athletes. Top that with massive sporting population, you have less excuse to not perform well in the Olympics.

Well the sports that are popular in the US are not generally Olympic sports.

1tym

Korea (South)2425 Posts

August 24 2008 16:54 GMT

#35

Had there been more medals on the table, would the situation be different? Maybe maybe not. It works both ways, as it opens up more opportunities to other countries who didn't score as many gold in the Olympic. Like I said, we shouldn't take this graph as a sole basis for the performance level, but as a reference, a valid one.

1tym

Korea (South)2425 Posts

August 24 2008 17:00 GMT

#36

On August 25 2008 01:53 Servolisk wrote:

Show nested quote +

Well the sports that are popular in the US are not generally Olympic sports.

.... Is that why USA didn't win World Baseball Classics 2006?

BlackJack

United States10574 Posts

August 24 2008 17:09 GMT

#37

China only needed to win some 8,800 medals to top the list. 51 golds is not bad, but let's face it. They're no Bahamas.

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

August 24 2008 17:16 GMT

#38

On August 25 2008 02:09 BlackJack wrote:
China only needed to win some 8,800 medals to top the list. 51 golds is not bad, but let's face it. They're no Bahamas.

lol :p

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

August 24 2008 17:22 GMT

#39

On August 25 2008 02:00 1tym wrote:

Show nested quote +

.... Is that why USA didn't win World Baseball Classics 2006?

I have no idea. I don't watch baseball, or think baseball players are good athletes. ^_^

Quite a lot of our talented athletes go into sports like football and basketball. So out of all the great athletes we have in those sports, we can win one gold medal at best.

I'm not attempting to make excuses btw, but it is worth considering. I have no idea if, for most olympic sports, the US programs put relatively much into the programs for them.