Sport,Olimpics and world dominacy ;)))

A saw some strange fact.The most powerful countries win most medals in olimpics.Some years ago CCCP was really on the top.Now two countries with most medals are USA and China.Is it only accident or there is some sense in this statement???

So going this way China is now the second one in the world ???

its a simple matter of population man, nothing more nothing less

Your argument is flawed if it were true Australia would be one of the worlds superpowers (last time I checked aussie was 3rd on the medel tally. population 20 million people. ) instead Australia is just a middle power.

Then you find Australia currently at number 3 position on the medal tally, which kind of throws out the idea of only superpowers being in the top.
I've never thought of my country(Australia) as being a superpower.
So there are many factors involved when it comes to this.
Australia only has a population of around 20 million to choose from, to find the athletic talent.

yeah...its a matter of population and culture I guess, not just population of course.

USSR did not rule the world though it was on top of a lot of sports back in the days.

Originally posted by dolphinguy2004
Then you find Australia currently at number 3 position on the medal tally, which kind of throws out the idea of only superpowers being in the top.
I've never thought of my country(Australia) as being a superpower.
So there are many factors involved when it comes to this.
Australia only has a population of around 20 million to choose from, to find the athletic talent.

If you read my post you will find that I said that Australia is a middle power not a superpower.

I didn't read your response because I was in the middle of typing mine, and obviously didn't see yours come up until after I sent it.

I hope that's ok.

Originally posted by xpert11
Your argument is flawed if it were true Australia would be one of the worlds superpowers (last time I checked aussie was 3rd on the medel tally. population 20 million people. ) instead Australia is just a middle power.

Its not flawed and thier is always exceptions to the rule. However, as a rule, elite athletes are really freaks of nature that have the right muscle build etc to excell at a chosen sport. That being the case, the bigger the population, the more likely someone will be born with the right set of genetics etc.

Also, the bigger the country the more likely that sport are considered a leisure activity and the country can support dedicated athletes who do not have to work.

Originally posted by dolphinguy2004
I didn't read your response because I was in the middle of typing mine, and obviously didn't see yours come up until after I sent it.

I hope that's ok.

yeah thats okay I should have thought of that.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by xpert11
Your argument is flawed if it were true Australia would be one of the worlds superpowers (last time I checked aussie was 3rd on the medel tally. population 20 million people. ) instead Australia is just a middle power.

Its not flawed and thier is always exceptions to the rule. However, as a rule, elite athletes are really freaks of nature that have the right muscle build etc to excell at a chosen sport. That being the case, the bigger the population, the more likely someone will be born with the right set of genetics etc.

Also, the bigger the country the more likely that sport are considered a leisure activity and the country can support dedicated athletes who do not have to work.

I think you would find that most athletes that are a part of the Australian team have day jobs. If we follow your logic then then Australia must have the "the right set of genetics " bred amongst the population. Just compare
Australias population to that of china or the USA.

Originally posted by Kollapse
its a simple matter of population man, nothing more nothing less

Population certainly helps.
I saw O'Reilly the other night talking about how the US rules over Socialist countries, like those in Europe, at the Olympics because socialist governments are not conducive to achievment or some such crap.

In terms of medals per capita though, the US ranks at number 35 so far.
Behind the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Greece and many other countries.
Per Capita Medal Tally

Medals Table

Originally posted by xpert11
I think you would find that most athletes that are a part of the Australian team have day jobs. If we follow your logic then then Australia must have the "the right set of genetics " bred amongst the population. Just compare
Australias population to that of china or the USA.

There are no absolutes. You still have to play the game to find out who wins. The US Mens Basketball team looks pretty good on paper and all are good athletes, but how well have they played? I was making a general statement, but there are other intagables like psychology etc that also come into play. Luck also will play a factor.

A more accurate comparison would be say Aus. vs. California. Hmmm got you beat in wine (not by much, I do like the Balmoral Shiraz from Rosemount, or the Penfolds GWT) beyond that its a toss up

If you consider the EU as one country, it really has twice the metals from all other countries.

But in the age of the sport industry, which builds athletes out of chemical substances, should we talk about super powers?

Originally posted by masterp
If you consider the EU as one country, it really has twice the metals from all other countries.

Why would we do that? It isn't one country.

And why would you want us to?????

Really, I think it relates to the support base a society is able to provide the potential athlete. Especially when they are children. If the US entered a prolonged severe depression, the support base would dry up as ordinary families would not have the resources to provide the training that enables their children to develop the skills an olympic class athlete needs. If that were to happen, I think the number of olympic class athletes from the US would become much less.

Originally posted by Montana

Originally posted by masterp
If you consider the EU as one country, it really has twice the metals from all other countries.

Why would we do that? It isn't one country.

And why would you want us to?????

I believe he's saying that to keep the population differences in mind.

If you combine the populations of France, Germany and Great Britain, they total 202 million. Less than the population of the US.
If you combine the medals of France (27), Germany(42) and Great Britain (25), they total to 94.

The US, with a population of over 290 million has 84 medals.


[edit on 27-8-2004 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by gattaca
A saw some strange fact.The most powerful countries win most medals in olimpics.Some years ago CCCP was really on the top.Now two countries with most medals are USA and China.Is it only accident or there is some sense in this statement???

So going this way China is now the second one in the world ???

Actually, China is not number 2 in terms of total medals.
They are number 2 with gold medals.

US is number one with 84 total medals.
Russia is number two with 60
China is number three with 54
Australia is number four with 43
Germany is number five with 42

The race for 2nd place close though.
By the end of the Olympics, China could be number 2.

olympics.nytimes.com...


[edit on 27-8-2004 by AceOfBase]

Very odd indeed. I was thinking this exact thing a few days ago. Note China's position.

Originally posted by Montana

Originally posted by masterp
If you consider the EU as one country, it really has twice the metals from all other countries.

Why would we do that? It isn't one country.

And why would you want us to?????

Really, I think it relates to the support base a society is able to provide the potential athlete. Especially when they are children. If the US entered a prolonged severe depression, the support base would dry up as ordinary families would not have the resources to provide the training that enables their children to develop the skills an olympic class athlete needs. If that were to happen, I think the number of olympic class athletes from the US would become much less.

I agree, I'm getting annoyed more or less by the people that want us to count the EU as one country. Seriously, with all due respect, the situation in Europe (with the exception of Britain) is so pathetic they need to combine as one in order to assure that they don't get crushed by rising powers. The place has literally been torn apart by wars from Naploeon to both World Wars. Sorry to the Europeans out there, I don't mean to disregard you or anything to that respect but I'm merely stating the chaos European politics have driven themselves into.

Originally posted by AceOfBase

I believe he's saying that because to keep the population differences in mind.

If you combine the populations of France, Germany and Great Britain, they total to 202 million. Less than the population of the US.
If you combine the medals of France (27), Germany(42) and Great Britain (25), they total to 94.

The US, with a population of over 290 million has 84 medals.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by AceOfBase]

Ah, I see. Thanks!

As I said though, I don't think population size has as much to do with it as the available support base for emerging athletes. Not an expert by any means though!

It has to do with the size of the population and the investment in those sports in a country.

It also is to do with the sport itself. For example running needs far less investment than say Soccer, so less well off countries have every chance of doing well in running but maybe not such a good chance in Soccer.