USA or China?

[sharks]

USA or China?
Who will get more medals and Gold in Beijing?

[LaRoza]

I really don't care, but I think the USA will get more total medals. I don't know about golds.

[Chessmaster]

Interestingly, the medal tables have traditionally been ranked by way of gold medals.

For the first time (as has been noted by numerous non-american news sites) on American news sites the medal tables are ranked by number of medals.

Under the old system USA is coming second, and under the system the USA has currently employed they are ranked first (which is probably why they have changed the system).

Both systems seem a bit unfair. Because the first ranks 1 gold higher than an infinite amount of other medals, while the second ranks all medals as having equal value.

Surely they should do something like give 3 pts to gold, 2pts for silver, and 1pt for bronze, and then see who has the most points.

I know no-one really cares...but writing this was a nice distraction from working.

[waapwoop1]

It surely can't be rankted by total medals. It is entirely not fair.

China have more golds because they came first in the events, which means that usa have more silver because they were mainly beaten by the chinese. So being resoundly beaten, and coming second and third, does not make you number one.

[billgoldberg]

Yaeh, only gold medals count.

I guess they are counting total amount of medals because their are getting their behinds kicked.

It also makes no sense to count the total amount of medals.

[gn2]

The size of population of the countries should be considered, the table would look very different.
Australia would probably be top?

Anyway, 16 golds from 60 million people (UK) kicks the butt of 26 golds from 300 million or 44 golds from 1.3 billion.

[billgoldberg]

The size of population of the countries should be considered, the table would look very different.
Australia would probably be top?

Anyway, 16 golds from 60 million people (UK) kicks the butt of 26 golds from 300 million or 44 golds from 1.3 billion.

I see your point, but the world doesn't work like that.

[gn2]

I see your point, but the world doesn't work like that.

No reason why it shouldn't, seems like a much fairer system to me.

[Chessmaster]

The size of population of the countries should be considered, the table would look very different.
Australia would probably be top?

Anyway, 16 golds from 60 million people (UK) kicks the butt of 26 golds from 300 million or 44 golds from 1.3 billion.

I think New Zealand is leading the per head of population stakes at the moment. 3 golds from 4.6 million people.

Per head of population is obviously the way to go! :)

[frup]

I think New Zealand is leading the per head of population stakes at the moment. 3 golds from 4.6 million people.

Per head of population is obviously the way to go! :)

We really do suffer from shortman syndrome as a country.

[ukripper]

Only gold counts, despite the fact we are on number 3 I still think China deserves rank 1 in this competition.

Only gold matters!!!

[ukripper]

Anyway, 16 golds from 60 million people (UK) kicks the butt of 26 golds from 300 million or 44 golds from 1.3 billion.

+1 on that one mate!!!!:)

[LaRoza]

It surely can't be rankted by total medals. It is entirely not fair.

China have more golds because they came first in the events, which means that usa have more silver because they were mainly beaten by the chinese. So being resoundly beaten, and coming second and third, does not make you number one.

You do realise that an Olympic medal is a great achievement?

And I remember medal counts being by totals every Olympics I remember.


I think New Zealand is leading the per head of population stakes at the moment. 3 golds from 4.6 million people.

Per head of population is obviously the way to go! :)
That doesn't make sense. They aren't tossing dice here, or using math. They are individuals (or teams of individuals) competing against each other. Honestly, the only way the medals should be counted is who has them, not what country they happen to be from.

[ukripper]

That doesn't make sense. They aren't tossing dice here, or using math. They are individuals (or teams of individuals) competing against each other. Honestly, the only way the medals should be counted is who has them, not what country they happen to be from.


It does make sense when you have more people that means more talent which further means in mathematical terms the talent is directly proportional to the amount of people living in one area.

[LaRoza]

It does make sense when you have more people that means more talent which further means in mathematical terms the talent is directly proportional to the amount of people living in one area.

In that case, India would have more than one gold medal ;)

Population:

People's Republic of China
India
United States
Indonesia
Brazil
Pakistan

Gold Medals:

China
United States
Great Britain
Russian Fed.
Australia
Germany


The only correlation I see is that China is number in both. After that, poplution means nothing. Indonesia, Brazil and India each have one gold.

The UK is 22 for population, Russia in 9, Australia is 53 and Germany is 14.

It seems that the who "whoever has the most populations has more medals" comes from the fact two nations, China and the USA, are on top. However, it fails to take into account every thing else.

[gn2]

In that case, India would have more than one gold medal ;)

Population:

People's Republic of China
India
United States
Indonesia
Brazil
Pakistan

Gold Medals:

China
United States
Great Britain
Russian Fed.
Australia
Germany


The only correlation I see is that China is number in both. After that, poplution means nothing. Indonesia, Brazil and India each have one gold.

The UK is 22 for population, Russia in 9, Australia is 53 and Germany is 14.

It seems that the who "whoever has the most populations has more medals" comes from the fact two nations, China and the USA, are on top. However, it fails to take into account every thing else.

Just how difficult is it to get your head around the concept of gold medals per head of population?
I'm guessing very difficult, simply because the USA would never be at the top.

[LaRoza]

Just how difficult is it to get your head around the concept of gold medals per head of population?

Very, because it doesn't work that way. Look at the numbers. China is number one in terms of population and gold medals, but it falls apart after that. One could take any characteristic of China/Chinese people and say that is what it is based on and it would be just as logical/illogical. "The country with the most athletes with very dark hair will have the most gold medals". China has all (that I saw) athletes like that so it must be true. However, India doesn't go along with that, just like it doesn't when it goes by population.



I'm guessing very difficult, simply because the USA would never be at the top.

I don't care. The USA isn't competing, athletes are. I am not nationalistic.

[ukripper]

In that case, India would have more than one gold medal ;)

Population:

People's Republic of China
India
United States
Indonesia
Brazil
Pakistan

Gold Medals:

China
United States
Great Britain
Russian Fed.
Australia
Germany


The only correlation I see is that China is number in both. After that, poplution means nothing. Indonesia, Brazil and India each have one gold.

The UK is 22 for population, Russia in 9, Australia is 53 and Germany is 14.

It seems that the who "whoever has the most populations has more medals" comes from the fact two nations, China and the USA, are on top. However, it fails to take into account every thing else.

I agree India would have more gold medals only if Indian government invest in talented people by providing sports facilites and giving grants to them rather not just concentrating towards study only sector to drive economy.

Don't you question why after 28 years India won just one gold medal?

[LaRoza]

Don't you question why after 28 years India won gold medal?
India didn't win a gold medal, an Indian athlete did. Abhinav Bindra was his name. He won the gold medal for his skill.

[ukripper]

India didn't win a gold medal, an Indian athlete did. Abhinav Bindra was his name. He won the gold medal for his skill.

He has skill but he was headhunted by sports sector of that country to train him for olympics.

[Canis familiaris]

India didn't win a gold medal, an Indian athlete did. Abhinav Bindra was his name. He won the gold medal for his skill.

True! In fact his family was so rich that they were able to fund him so that he could follow his passion of shooting. He wasn't even in fact truly supported by the state.
But even then he was among those shortlisted athletes from India sent to Beijing so in some way or other it was Indian Gold Medal.

But if the Indian Hockey team had qualified and won the Gold (they didn't even qualify!)then it would have been more of an Indian Medal.

[gn2]

The USA isn't competing, athletes are. I am not nationalistic.

But in the Olympics athletes represent their country, they are not competing as individuals.
Athletes are selected by the country to represent the country.
When the medals are presented the athletes' names are not announced, the medals are presented to the winning country.

You may not be nationalistic, but the Olympics is.

Some nations are bigger than others, so to provide a fair comparison, medals per head of population is really the only way.

[Canis familiaris]

Some nations are bigger than others, so to provide a fair comparison, medals per head of population is really the only way.
I beg to differ. That would leave my country on the last spot.
This Medal per unit Population idea is idiotic. If you would say that I would say they should count by medals received per unit facility provided by the country's government.

[bfc]

Just how difficult is it to get your head around the concept of gold medals per head of population?
I'm guessing very difficult, simply because the USA would never be at the top.

That concept is stupid... you can manipulate the data anyway you want. Why not look at "#of medals/gdp" obviously richer countries will be able to better train their athletes or "#of medals/athletic funding" or #of medals/#of training facilities" or "#of medals/#of athletes competing from that country" obviously if a country only has 5 athletes competing and they all win a medal, why shouldn't they be ranked #1... hope you see my point.

[LaRoza]

But if the Indian Hockey team had qualified and won the Gold (they didn't even qualify!)then it would have been more of an Indian Medal.

Odd. The Indian Field Hockey teams had gotten golds in the past. (I didn't specify earlier, the shooter was the first Indian individual to get gold. Indian teams had gotten golds in the past many times)



Some nations are bigger than others, so to provide a fair comparison, medals per head of population is really the only way.

What are you talking about? Did you see the numbers? The medals per head of population isn't at all near reality, except for the number one slot.



This Medal per unit Population idea is idiotic.

+1. It makes as much sense as the black hair correlation.

[ukripper]

True! In fact his family was so rich that they were able to fund him so that he could follow his passion of shooting. He wasn't even in fact truly supported by the state.


That proves my point home country needs to concentrate on sports side and provide facilities and funding to the atheletes/sports people who deserve it.

Private funding doesn't necessarily makes the best choice of right talent sent to the olympics as there is no talent competing against within the country itself. Therefore, candidates reaching the olympics are unable to compete due to the lack of competitiveness within the home country resulting from lack of interest & funding by the government.

[Canis familiaris]

Anyway if we count by medals per unit population, The Republic of Michael Phelps will knock all the countries in the world ever in the olympics. /joke

[ukripper]

Anyway if we count by medals per unit population, The Republic of Michael Phelps will knock all the countries in the world ever in the olympics. /joke

What if he wasn't from USA in first place and not been supported by the government he won't be in the medal table at all!:)

[Canis familiaris]

What if he wasn't from USA in first place and not been supported by the government he won't be in the medal table at all!:)
Thats true! Wonder How many Michael Phelps miss out on their Golds in Olympics due to lack of infrastructure in their Home Country.

[Alasdair]

Medals per head of population? That's hardly fair! How about medals per million pounds of taxpayer's money invested into athletes? The UK would likely be at the bottom of that table... not third. ;)

[ukripper]

Medals per head of population? That's hardly fair! How about medals per million pounds of taxpayer's money invested into athletes? The UK would likely be at the bottom of that table... not third. ;)

:lolflag:

[gn2]

That concept is stupid... you can manipulate the data anyway you want. Why not look at "#of medals/gdp" obviously richer countries will be able to better train their athletes or "#of medals/athletic funding" or #of medals/#of training facilities" or "#of medals/#of athletes competing from that country" obviously if a country only has 5 athletes competing and they all win a medal, why shouldn't they be ranked #1... hope you see my point.

I do see your point, but the Olympics is a meeting of nations.

The people of the nation compete.

The size of the pool of people varies, so more people = increased possibility of medal winners, therefore I still believe my way is best and we're higher up the table than either the USA or China.

[Canis familiaris]

I do see your point, but the Olympics is a meeting of nations.

The people of the nation compete.

The size of the pool of people varies, so more people = increased possibility of medal winners, therefore I still believe my way is best and we're higher up the table than either the USA or China.

Unless I am grossly mistaken, each country is given equal quota of athletes in the Olympics.
So countries with more population do NOT have more chance of winning medals.

[gn2]

Unless I am grossly mistaken, each country is given equal quota of athletes in the Olympics.
So countries with more population do NOT have more chance of winning medals.

Bigger nations have more athletes to select from so there is an increased probability of the athletes being better.

Bigger nations also have more resources to devote to training their elite athletes.

[Canis familiaris]

Bigger nations have more athletes to select from so there is an increased probability of the athletes being better.
Similar is Applicable for smaller countries. Since they have small population they can focus on individual talents more and train them with more focus.



Bigger nations also have more resources to devote to training their elite athletes.
Incorrect. This is not applicable for 'Bigger' Countries but 'Richer' countries.

[Chessmaster]

You do realise that an Olympic medal is a great achievement?

And I remember medal counts being by totals every Olympics I remember.


That doesn't make sense. They aren't tossing dice here, or using math. They are individuals (or teams of individuals) competing against each other. Honestly, the only way the medals should be counted is who has them, not what country they happen to be from.

I am pretty sure medal counts have always been ranked by number of golds.

The point of the per head of population ranking is so one country can say that they are, on average, better than another country per head of population at sport (or the olympics or whatever).

Obviously there could be numerous reasons why this might be the case, wealth, health, investment in sport, genes, etc, etc. But, it still gives bragging rights...irrespective of how silly it is.

Still, you don't see any small countries (other than NZ ;)) up high on the medal tables, so having a larger population combined with investment in sport etc has gotta help somewhat - lack of correlation does not mean there is no causation, it just could be that there are a multitude of other factors as well.

[Canis familiaris]

I am pretty sure medal counts have always been ranked by number of golds.

The point of the per head of population ranking is so one country can say that they are, on average, better than another country per head of population at sport (or the olympics or whatever).

Obviously there could be numerous reasons why this might be the case, wealth, health, investment in sport, genes, etc, etc. But, it still gives bragging rights...irrespective of how silly it is.

Still, you don't see any small countries (other than NZ ;)) up high on the medal tables, so having a larger population combined with investment in sport etc has gotta help somewhat.

Korea?

[Chessmaster]

Similar is Applicable for smaller countries. Since they have small population they can focus on individual talents more and train them with more focus.


But, in most cases they have less money per athlete. We don't have sports scholarships, high performance centres and the like in NZ (like they do in America, Australia etc) because we don't have the economies of scale available to us. No point in building a high performance swimming centre when you only have 50 swimmers and not much money.

[sailor2001]

medals are distributed fairly even in every country. so many gold, so many silver, so may bronze... EXCEPT for the host nation. This is called the home town advantage......There is the big boost to do everything just that little bit extra to get into gold..
It would really be disappointing if China didn't get heavy gold.

[Canis familiaris]

But, in most cases they have less money per athlete. We don't have sports scholarships, high performance centres and the like in NZ (like they do in America, Australia etc) because we don't have the economies of scale available to us. No point in building a high performance swimming centre when you only have 50 swimmers and not much money.
If we only think by that perspective, Will you explain then How is your Rugby team so strong?
Surely if NZ can have so many talented Rugby Players they can also have swimmers?

Well my point is that the sporting culture of country has more to do so rather than the population.

[Chessmaster]

If we only think by that perspective, Will you explain then How is your Rugby team so strong?
Surely if NZ can have so many talented Rugby Players they can also have swimmers?

Well my point is that the sporting culture of country has more to do so rather than the population.

We focus all our energy on one sport, Rugby. We have a high performance centre and because it is popular we have quite a lot of money thrown at it. We could have talented swimmers (and have had the odd one in the past) but that would mean spending some of our limited resources on swimming which is not what people want to do - they would prefer that the all blacks won.

Of course sporting culture plays a massive part, hence we do well per head of population at the Olympics. But, we could do better if we had a bigger population...

[Canis familiaris]

We focus all our energy on one sport, Rugby. We have a high performance centre and because it is popular we have quite a lot of money thrown at it. We could have talented swimmers (and have had the odd one in the past) but that would mean spending some of our limited resources on swimming which is not what people want to do - they would prefer that the all blacks won.

Of course sporting culture plays a massive part, hence we do well per head of population at the Olympics. But, we could do better if we had a bigger population...

No you wouldn't. In India (where I live) Cricket is the dominant sport just like Rugby in NZ and all limited resources are spent on cricketers and other sports persons are just poor cousins of the cricketer counterpart. So Population does not really help.

[Chessmaster]

No you wouldn't. In India (where I live) Cricket is the dominant sport just like Rugby in NZ and all limited resources are spent on cricketers and other sports persons are just poor cousins of the cricketer counterpart. So Population does not really help.

Well, we have a sporting culture very similar to Australia. They are good at cricket, rugby, rugby league, swimming, loads better than us at football, golf...and I am sure that it is because they have more resources available for all different sports. They poured loads of money into their elite sports centre. New Zealand, being the poor little cousins next door, even have to send our sports people over to it...when we can afford it that is.

[ukripper]

Government should provide resources, facilities and incentives to sports people. Ignoring them and then expecting those few chosen ones to win medals for the country is ludicrous.

[Chessmaster]

Government should provide resources, facilities and incentives to sports people. Ignoring them and then expecting those few chosen ones to win medals for the country is ludicrous.

It's not that governments don't invest loads of money into sports (mine included) but some govts invest a lot more because they can.

Although, one has to wonder whether investing money in top sports people is really the best use of public money. Most people enjoy watching elite sports, but I am sure most people also want working hospitals and free education.

[ukripper]

It's not that governments don't invest loads of money into sports (mine included) but some govts invest a lot more because they can.

Although, one has to wonder whether investing money in top sports people is really the best use of public money. Most people enjoy watching elite sports, but I am sure most people also want working hospitals and free education.

Well there comes balance!

When there is a will, there is a way!!

[linuxguymarshall]

China. They use underage gymnasts.

[Canis familiaris]

China. They use underage gymnasts.

How can you be so sure?

[LaRoza]

How can you be so sure?

Documents from the past ;)

They both can't be true, and since the older ones (documents) were from before the Olympics were involved, they'd have no reason to lie then.

[waapwoop1]

The size of population of the countries should be considered, the table would look very different.
Australia would probably be top?

Anyway, 16 golds from 60 million people (UK) kicks the butt of 26 golds from 300 million or 44 golds from 1.3 billion.


Its not fair to see it that way either. I am australian, and it woul be good to see it that way, however it is more fair to see how many medals you get from money spent.
Or medals per GDP.

Poor countries with lots of people get few medals, and rich countries with few people can get a lot. Divide by gdp and you have your winners. Of course population can play a part too. Which is why U.S normally wins, and china is now winning, huge budgets and huge populations guarantee winning.

[gn2]

No you wouldn't. In India (where I live) Cricket is the dominant sport just like Rugby in NZ and all limited resources are spent on cricketers and other sports persons are just poor cousins of the cricketer counterpart. So Population does not really help.

A high number of grass-roots participants certainly does help, because there are so many cricketers in India, the Indian cricket team is stuffed full of outstanding talent.
Sachin Tendulkar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachin_Tendulkar) is perhaps one of the world's top sportsmen in any sport and he is just one of many great cricketers in the team.
If cricket was in the Olympics you would have an extremely good chance of achieving gold.

[gn2]

Although, one has to wonder whether investing money in top sports people is really the best use of public money. Most people enjoy watching elite sports, but I am sure most people also want working hospitals and free education.

I think that government spending on sports should be targeted at the grass-roots, not the elite.
I would rather 100 kids got a chance to participate in sport than 1 elite athlete got funding for coaching and development.

In the UK the national lottery has funded all manner of things it shouldn't have, near where I live a gliding club (of wealthy members) had half the cost of a £120,000 hangar met from lottery funds at a time when the local council was closing youth clubs and selling off school playing fields.

EDIT: here's the per capita figures for Athens 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachin_Tendulkar

[Nano Geek]

Another thing to take in to consideration are the Chinese gymnasts who are suspected of being underage. A lot of the Chinese medals came from them, and if they were proven to be underage, they might loose their medals.

But that's just a what if statement.

[Chessmaster]

Another thing to take in to consideration are the Chinese gymnasts who are suspected of being underage. A lot of the Chinese medals came from them, and if they were proven to be underage, they might loose their medals.

But that's just a what if statement.

They may well be underage but no one will do anything about it even if they are. It would be too much of a controversy and it is controversial enough having the games in China let alone accusing them of cheating.

[ukripper]

I think that government spending on sports should be targeted at the grass-roots, not the elite.
I would rather 100 kids got a chance to participate in sport than 1 elite athlete got funding for coaching and development.

In the UK the national lottery has funded all manner of things it shouldn't have, near where I live a gliding club (of wealthy members) had half the cost of a £120,000 hangar met from lottery funds at a time when the local council was closing youth clubs and selling off school playing fields.

EDIT: here's the per capita figures for Athens 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachin_Tendulkar

I think we are also mad about charity in uk!!

I get stopped almost everyday during my lunch hour in the city to raise money for the poor, cancer sufferers, unwanted pets, children all over the world. I think it would be good idea to fund the poor kids with sports talent as well.

[sailor2001]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407803,00.html

[Nano Geek]

They may well be underage but no one will do anything about it even if they are. It would be too much of a controversy and it is controversial enough having the games in China let alone accusing them of cheating.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407803,00.htmlI think that it is shameful that the Olympic Committee will not investigate when there is so much evidence against that girl's age.

By not acting, they are basically saying that cheating is permitted.

[LaRoza]

I think that it is shameful that the Olympic Committee will not investigate when there is so much evidence against that girl's age.

By not acting, they are basically saying that cheating is permitted.

I almost feel that way, but cheating is rampant in the Olympics and I bet there are politics that we will never see.

Keep in mind that drug use is very high, but almost none are caught. During the USSR times, drugs schedules were part of the state training, but almost none were caught despite it being a none fact.

[Canis familiaris]

Well Cheating has always been part of Sports.
But the fact remains it takes away the gloss off the sheen.

[ooobuntooo]

It is officially measured by number of gold medals, then silver, then bronze!
NOT by total number of medals. A gold medal is worth more than a silver or bronze.

China have over double the number of golds that the USA have and they will finish top of the Olympic table.

[Mhurst1]

Of course China is thats what you get for having the Olympics in a communist country.

[Nano Geek]

I almost feel that way, but cheating is rampant in the Olympics and I bet there are politics that we will never see.

Keep in mind that drug use is very high, but almost none are caught. During the USSR times, drugs schedules were part of the state training, but almost none were caught despite it being a none fact.Well that surprises me. I didn't realize that cheating was so widespread.

It certainly diminishes my view of the Olympic games.

[LaRoza]

Well that surprises me. I didn't realize that cheating was so widespread.

It certainly diminishes my view of the Olympic games.

Drug use has become an integral part of training for athletes that are paid, or have high expecations since the 1950's.

It isn't going anywhere, and there are new things that cannot be detected with blood/urine tests.

[capink]

I think all the medals should count when ranking countries. But instead of counting the total number of medals, award points for medals. e.g. 10 points for each gold medal, 5 for silver, 3 for bronze.

It does not make sense to have a country with say 10 silver medals be ranked behind a country with only one gold medal.

[Chessmaster]

I think all the medals should count when ranking countries. But instead of counting the total number of medals, award points for medals. e.g. 10 points for each gold medal, 5 for silver, 3 for bronze.

It does not make sense to have a country with say 10 silver medals be ranked behind a country with only one gold medal.

The problem is that any ranking/points system that you use is going to be arbitrary. Who says the a gold is worth twice as much as a silver and that a bronze is 3/5ths that of a silver?

My argument for ranking only by number of gold medals:

The Olympics don't have the worlds top athletes competing as each country can only send a certain number in each event. So say the USA had the top five 400m sprinters in the world, they could only send at most two of them to compete. So you miss out on world number 3, 4, and 5 competing.

So, really, Gold says that you are the best in the world (because to no. 1 from each country will be there) but all the other medals only say that you were no. 2 or no. 3 of the people competing, not 2. or 3 or the best in the world.

Therefore, it should be ranked on number of gold medals, as gold really does say you are number 1 in the world.

QED.

[Canis familiaris]

My idea should be of a point system:
Gold 5 points
Silver 4 points
Bronze 3 points

It would not imply that Gold has twice value of silver and would be a better rating.

[Chessmaster]

My idea should be of a point system:
Gold 5 points
Silver 4 points
Bronze 3 points

It would not imply that Gold has twice value of silver and would be a better rating.

Either way you cash this out, the relative weighting are going to be arbitrary unless one can provide some reasoned justification for the relative points allocation.

Under the above system, two bronzes would be worth more than one gold. That seems crazy. Even if you change it all around, who it to say that say 1 gold = 2 silver and a bronze, or any other combination.

Gold means you are the best of the best in the world. Bronze does not mean that you are 3rd best in the world, only 3rd best at the Olympics, not the world because maybe the 3rd best couldn't come because their country also have the 1st and 2nd best.

It kinda gives some justification to the old saying that "second is the first loser".

One gold trumps the lot.