|
The top 10 (pending Iceland’s Sunday medal):
1. Bahamas (2) - 153,725
2. Jamaica (11) - 254,939
3. Slovenia (5) - 401,542
4. Australia (46) - 447,844
5. New Zealand (9) - 463,717
6. Norway (10) - 464,445
7. Armenia (6) - 494,764
8. Cuba (22) - 519,270
9. Trinidad & Tobago (2) - 523,683
10. Belarus (18) - 538,097
Selected others (from 86 countries with medals):
11. Estonia (2) - 653,802
14. Latvia (3) - 748,474
25. Great Britain (47) - 1,296,678
29. South Korea (31) - 1,588,156
30. France (38) - 1,685,730
31. Ukraine (27) - 1,701,640
35. Germany (41) - 2,009,013
36. Russia (69) - 2,039,160
39. Spain (16) - 2,528,193
44. United States (107) - 2,839,482
67. China (96) - 13,854,630
81. Sudan (1) - 40,218,455
Olympic medals per GDP
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/medals_per_capita/index.html
http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympic-update/
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
is there a gold medal breakdown?
go NZ!!
|
|
|
I'm proud of Australia. Go Aussies!
|
Vatican City State1872 Posts
this is a really worthless and pointless graph/whatever
|
Really? I think it's a great graph! Go Australia + NZ. Basically it shows that despite a much lower population (21m for Australia), we get medals. Ergo: We have a much lower possibility of getting naturally better people, but we do well anyway.
Gogo Australia, slighty gogo NZ
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
this is probably one of the few times that aussie have placed higher than NZ iirc 
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
w/e noobs.
|
On August 24 2008 20:27 Plexa wrote:this is probably one of the few times that aussie have placed higher than NZ iirc You're right, NZ has a much higher Sheep per capita than Australia!
|
|
|
that was hilarious....Zzz
Australia wins a lot because it spends a lot
/end
|
it shows the regional specializations of sports. e.g. all of Jamaica's 11 medals came from track, 34 or Australia's 46 medals came from water related events
|
Norway28781 Posts
i think this list is better than the unadjusted one! 
|
Means nothing really, I bet you the poorest Countries spend more on their athletes than Canada does so the graph has 0 relevance. A lot of Countries take the Olympics very seriously, others such as Canada do not 
|
Honestly, People make those graphs to feel good about themselves.
|
So that's why Mugabe ran Zimbabwe into the ground.
|
On August 24 2008 20:17 CrownRoyal wrote:
this is a really worthless and pointless graph/whatever
eh I don't know. I'm sad obviously that USA isn't placed higher,
+ Show Spoiler + USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
however in a way I guess it's pretty cool to see the medal count in this format, since obviously the countries with a much larger pool of talent will almost always dominate in most sports (and in turn have the highest medal count). Although I will admit that due to the incredible imbalance between populations this is still an inaccurate way of judging talent though since a country like China would probably need to win every Olympic medal to be in the top 10.
It was a good idea though.
Oh, and the medals per GDP is completely worthless imo...
|
go norway, with only 4,5 million ppl, 10 medals
|
On August 24 2008 22:56 Falcynn wrote:
Oh, and the medals per GDP is completely worthless imo...
I find it to be very interesting
|
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
|
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
|
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?
|
Every single one of those medals from Zimbabwe is from one swimmer, Kirsty Coventry. And she swims in America.
|
Somewhat interesting. I had a bit of trouble figuring out what it was in the first place, haha. Now I get it...
|
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
|
Braavos36390 Posts
every swimmer and non-distance track and field athlete trains in the United States, all of them are introduced as students from US colleges
|
..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
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
This is the most useful information in the history of mankind.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On August 25 2008 01:53 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
.... Is that why USA didn't win World Baseball Classics 2006?
|
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.
|
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
|
On August 25 2008 02:00 1tym wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2008 01:53 Servolisk wrote: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. .... 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.
|
|
|
Olympic is not representative at all, a single guy can win 8 medal by swimming but a team of 10-12 people going first place is only counted as only one medal. And only one medal for a sport in wich there is easily 100 times more people parcticing for it (football and basketball especialy).
|
Braavos36390 Posts
On August 25 2008 02:00 1tym wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2008 01:53 Servolisk wrote: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. .... Is that why USA didn't win World Baseball Classics 2006?
baseball is not as popular as football or basketball in the united states, and the US team is certainly not the favorite in baseball when it comes to international competition when you compare them to the latin american or caribbean nations. his point was that with the NBA and NFL sucking so many great athletes in, the best athletes aren't participating in the Olympic sports.
if you look at China or other countries with state-sponsored programs, their olympians are taken care of for most of their lives. in the US, despite the wealth and facilities, the costs are extremely high to raise an kid training for an olympic event, and very few get $ from sponsorships or other things. there's no state helping you out, you pay your way through all the practicing.
i'm not saying we should be so impressed with the american medal count (they do have the most, despite not the most golds), but we shouldn't dismiss it either. China and the US were expected to win the most medals, and they did. A lot of the medals came in sports they weren't the favorites in.
|
*Win 161 medals, OR, exile 600 million people
|
Braavos36390 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
???????
The "feel good thread" for countries that didn't win enough medals .
|
For the record I never said US and China performed poorly in this Olympic. They impressed me the most. This is just looking at it from another perspective. Also this isn't a 'feel good thread' for me personally because Korea is ranked 29th in this chart.
|
Braavos36390 Posts
On August 25 2008 02:49 1tym wrote:
For the record I never said US and China performed poorly in this Olympic. They impressed me the most. This is just looking at it from another perspective. Also this isn't a 'feel good thread' for me personally because Korea is ranked 29th in this chart.
i don't think anyone is saying anything about korea or a korean bias, but you keep defending against some sort of imaginary attack for whatever reason lol
|
I'm not defending anything about Korea per se. This is to explain that the intention behind opening this thread is not merely to create something countries with less medal counts can masturbate to. It's the Americans in this thread that are defending hard.
|
There's probably something like, probably quite un-pc about it but...it seems that the more people you have in a country then the more tards you have. Especially when there is welfare for having children. The dumb, incompetent people in society have loads of kids and the successful, competant ones have less. And, forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't quite a lot of china's population in rural areas or essentially, away from the hustle and bustle of the city and of international games and such? I don't think you could ever get a big country high up on those charts for those reasons.
|
On August 25 2008 03:05 1tym wrote:
I'm not defending anything about Korea per se. This is to explain that the intention behind opening this thread is not merely to create something countries with less medal counts can masturbate to. It's the Americans in this thread that are defending hard.
Explaining and defending are two different things.
|
Yes and you can see the difference in my post. I was explaning not defending.
|
Everyone is explaining I guess ^_^
|
basically, what we're trying to say is India sucks
|
|
|
Do this for the winter Olympics and Canada will pwn.
|
|
|
whats the rating for india
|
Why isn't India a big olympic country? It seems like they would be a strong potential with physical size and population.
|
On August 25 2008 13:01 [X]Ken_D wrote:
Why isn't India a big olympic country? It seems like they would be a strong potential with physical size and population.
They pretty much only play cricket.
|
Although much more difficult, would be interesting to see how productive each country was compared to the number of people practising that sport (would be more valuable per sport).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.swivel.com/graphs/image/29430282)
![[image loading]](http://www.swivel.com/graphs/image/29430317)
