Comments

As far as medals per-capita, here's a statistical article about the advantage a large country would have over a small country in the Olympics. It was written about what would happen if men and women had equal ability but differing interests in sports. The same principles apply to large countries vs small countries, how much advantage drawing the best from a larger pool gives.

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/08/12/variation-in-male-and-female-olympic-performance-ii/

Posted by John at August 29, 2008 3:58 PM

An overall table.
Cool.
Slovenia at No. 1.

Discussion that went on at the previous post
accounted for the Top 5 GOLD medal table.

The Top 5 result was that Australia was first place in
the GOLD medal table per head of population
followed by Great Britain in second place:

Australia (AUS)...........14........21 million 1.5
Great Britain (GBR).....19........61 million 3.2
Germany (GER)..........16........82 million 5.1
Russia (RUS)...............23.....142 million 6.1
United States (USA)....36.....305 million 8.4
China (CHN)................51.....1.3 billion people 25.4

Looking forward to second place getters, Britain,
hosting the games in 2012.

..............................................................................

Posted by Paul at August 29, 2008 7:26 PM

Thanks, Shelley. Tried to open the Save the Children link but couldn't.

Posted by Judith Ellis at August 29, 2008 8:15 PM

The Save the Children link worked fine for me.
The faces of children who need help sometimes suggests that we spend money in the wrong places.

China spent over 45 BILLION dollars for this Olympic. Total spent by all competing nations for the 2008 bash might be close to or surpass 55 BILLION dollars.

The Iraq war alone is now over 500 BILLION...

Can't help thinking that victims of Katrina, many children, could have benefited from some of those wasted war funds. If all the money spent on war around the world was used instead to prevent world hunger and homelessness - how much better would our planet be?

That healthcare could benefit greatly, not just in the U.S.A., but around the world, if the Olympics were skipped for 8 years and each nation used Olympic fund money in an effort to aid their nations starving children.

Looking at the faces of the children at the SaveTheChildren website reminds us that WAR and THE OLYMPICS do serve a similar need one that doesn't directly benefit the starving children of this world.

Posted by Andy Z. at August 29, 2008 8:52 PM

Thanks for the link on Iceland! This country rocks! High literacy, very low HIV/AIDS (0.2%), low deaths, low unemployment, longevity etc.... Now, that's a great model for a country, even though the population isn't comparable to many. Yet, I'm sure there are countries with the same population that do not have such stats--plus the Silver this year at the Olympics. Bravo!

Posted by Judith Ellis at August 29, 2008 9:03 PM

The two things that we will probably always have with us are war and poverty. But it is without doubt our responsibility to look after those who can't look after themselves, namely children, seniors, and the disabled. If we could assist these AND keep the Olympics, I'd vote for this. I think we can do it. It probably doesn't have to be an Either/OR. I do, however, appreciate the spirit of your comment, Andy Z.

Posted by Judith Ellis at August 29, 2008 9:33 PM

In response the the very last question, I DO know a number of Olympic medallists.

I'm an American, living in London, and have gotten into the sport of rowing. It so happens that the UK excels in the sport. A really good friend won the bronze in women's double sculls, another friend won silver in women's quad sculls, and the brother of a good friend won silver in men's eights.

Photo proof here: http://twitpic.com/7w40

The only thing I can say after knowing my friends is just HOW MUCH time, effort and energy they put into their goals. Their focus is nearly super-human, yet they are also completely normal outside of their sport. It's really amazing...

Posted by Jed Christiansen at August 31, 2008 10:10 AM

Seems like rationalization to me. The first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that we didn't come out trumps...and we bring out our statistics to say, "Hey, no one did come out trumps really...and if anyone did, it's this little country that got a silver medal."

Posted by Porus Munshi at August 31, 2008 4:10 PM

Before we turn statistics into an Olympic sport (which might not be such a bad idea) here's one to ponder: "L'important n'est pas de gagner, mais de participer." ("The important thing is not to win, but to take part.") - Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the International Olympic Committee and the modern Olympics.

Posted by Mark JF at September 1, 2008 6:00 AM

Interesting post. In my opinion, comparing the medals tally vis-à-vis country’s population is not very meaningful, since it fails to recognize certain key factors like how good (or bad!) a country’s sporting facilities are, availability of sponsors to promote sporting events / activities (or lack of it!), access to sporting resources & training, a country’s representation across different events and a host of other factors.

If you look at the overall medals listing, you will find USA in the 1st place with 36-Gold; 38-Silver; 36-Bronze and China in the 2nd place with 51-Gold, 21-Silver and 28-Bronze medals – China, despite winning more Gold medals than USA (almost 1.5 times that of USA) is ranked only 2nd purely based on overall medal count, which according to me doesn’t make sense.

A gold is a gold is a gold – it means YOU ARE THE WORLD’S NO.1 athlete in a particular event – Come on, IT’S A BIG DEAL but sadly, it doesn’t reflect on the overall medals tally where gold, silver & bronze are assigned equal weights & values. I believe, the rankings WILL change if appropriate weights are assigned scientifically. It’s time for the Olympic committee to ponder & re-work their ranking methodology.

Posted by Sriram K at September 1, 2008 6:03 AM

Actually, what I find far more interesting than the "medals per capita" debate is the way that the biggest countries no longer dominate across the board. Instead, you see islands of excellence springing up. My own UK was excellent at rowing and cycling; the US was good in the pool; Jamaica was unbelievable at the sprints; Africans have long had a reputation at the distance events. It looks like the days of the conglomerates have gone and excellence has been off-shored.

Posted by Mark JF at September 1, 2008 6:07 AM

And another point you can't ignore: once upon a time, athletes ran, swam etc for their country of birth. Now they run and swim for the country that pays them. Kinda distorts the historical analogies, don't you think...?

Posted by Mark JF at September 1, 2008 6:10 AM

Mark JF: "Now they run and swim for the country that pays them."

Noticed that a few year ago. When did that happen??

Now an athlete receives residence and then competes for the country of residence. Doesn't really seem fair.

"Country Of Origin" should be brought back!
(Probably impossible now.)

I don't know any Olympic medalists personally...

.

Posted by Salvo at September 1, 2008 7:29 AM

Interesting stats. As an ex-pat Canadian, I'm used to poor medal performance. In spite of all the cash thrown at athletes, Canadians never seem to get to the medal rounds. And I suppose that although it seems like a lot of cash to me, it's not as much as other countires do to support their athlettes. Canada ( if I recall correctly) doesn't have athletic scholarships, so we don't have the strong emphasis on sports at the college level that the US has. I agree that Country of Birth should be brought back. When Ben Johnson won his gold medal, Canada rejoiced at the victory of the young Canadian. and when he tested positive for steroids, he became "that Jamaican kid". And maybe Canada should lead in drug testing -- when Ross Rebagliati tested positive for the ganja after his gold medal snowboarding performance, he was able to claim that it was secopnd hand smoke from a party he had attended before the games. He got to keep his medal, but more importantly, he set a legal precendent. The Rebagliati Defence now allows smokers to say "It must have been something I inhaled from someone else."

Know any medal winners? I worked the Calgary Games and got to know the Jamaican bobsled team well, and a few other athletes. A school friend won a silver in wrestling at the last Summer Games.

Posted by Brian T at September 1, 2008 9:01 AM

MarkJF - Your comment reminds me of the many actors who upon not getting the Academy Award inevitably say something like "it's just great to be nominated, great to be included with such artists." Right?! Nice quote, though.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 1, 2008 11:59 AM

Let's see...The UK has this...the US has that...Jamaica has this...but AFRICANS have...Funny. It's amazing how these competitive long-distance runners from Africa are second to none. I wonder if it's nature or nurture. The others above clearly have trained for the Olympics in the best of environments with the best equipment. (No equipment needed for running. Siriam makes a good point above. What countries in Africa are these runner from, by the way? I don't think they're from the more industrialized countries. And, if so, they're often from the mountain regions.) Do you think their daily way of life better prepares them for such contrived competitive events as the Olympics?

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 1, 2008 12:22 PM

Brain T - Ha! Loved your comment on Rebagliati and Johnson! It seems that we can spin just about any story and postively affect the outcome. It also seems that we can easily be disowned depending on our actions. Where's the love, man? :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 1, 2008 12:47 PM

Judith: Kenya, mainly. It's probably related to the mountains (but then what about Asians from the Himalaya - why haven't they done well?) but it seems more to do with altitude and metabolism.

Posted by Mark JF at September 1, 2008 1:17 PM

MarkJF - I think you've got a point about the altitude of the region and metabolism of the Kenyans. It might also have something to do with the body structure of these runners, including length and mass. They seem to be tall and lean by nature. As an aside, the Masai people are quite beautiful too. But I don't think they're running, competitively at least.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 1, 2008 2:29 PM

Per capita is the only reasonable way to evaluate the top sporting nation.
Australia's performance has long been dominant.
Check out the previous two Olympics for instance.
Clearly, they are the world's premier sporting country.
Their beer's not bad either.

Posted by siimon at September 1, 2008 11:31 PM

great insight, that is a super interesting way of looking at things.

Posted by Brett Tilford at September 2, 2008 5:50 PM

Picking up on my Pierre de Coubertin quote, here's another way of looking at it: how many athletes produced a personal best at the Games?

Posted by Mark JF at September 3, 2008 2:20 AM

Actually, Canada does fairly well on the per-capita basis for medals at the Summer Olympics and does extremely well in the Winter Olympics. Australia would still be ahead statistically as there are far more events at the Summer Games. But at the end of the day success depends not just on genes or motivation or talent but how much money you throw into the project. The Australians imported the East German system and it has worked well for them but you have to be willing to pay for it. When you look at the rising rates of obesity in the Western World you have to wonder about priorities.

Posted by Sprocketboy at September 3, 2008 1:29 PM

Mark JF. Thanks for the perspective. To the importance of participation, I can't blame an athlete for wanting to, whether or not it's for her own country or an adopted one.

Two Olympic connections from my neighborhood: One World One Dream indeed

Posted by Lynn Stevens at September 3, 2008 2:37 PM

Yes siimon, Australia is a crazy sporting nation.

We love to compete on a world stage.

We love our athletes and we love sports.

The beer might be good...

BUT AUSTRALIAN WINES are so much better!!

Posted by Salvo at September 3, 2008 7:01 PM

Yes Sprocketboy, Australia does have world class sporting facilities, mainly in high profile sports. Money is thrown at sports in the guise or "idea" that people will become active as a result of national and world winners.

For the past three Olympics the same... SAME! media release has done the rounds... "Gym memberships are up, People are exercising more, They're getting up and competing in local sports..." When we know that motivation is a short lived process and generally without a decent structure, nationally, people will revert back to where they were, until the next Olympics.

It was mentioned before and it's interesting to see how much money the UK spent in the past few years to produce winners. This time around they focused on a few sports rather than the many. It worked. I wonder how the other athletes faired in "lesser" sports in terms of funding. How much did that motivate people in the U.K. to change to a healthier lifestyle? Time will probably tell.

Same thing in Australia years ago (and to some extent now), lesser high profile sports did not then nor now get the funding and training facilities they deserve. Australia's Institute of Sport might be world class, but not without it's flaws of "going for gold" in high profile sports and leaving out the rest. That is one criticism that is levelled every time the Olympics come around... and that (now) obesity in Australia is at the highest it's ever been and more should be "done" about it!!

We wonder what happened to our "LIFE BE IN IT" campaign some twenty-five years ago, that was so successful in getting people to get up off the couch and exercise. That was "probably" the foundation for our sporting growth and is probably, in a cruel twist, part of the foundation for our obesity problem.

You are so right....

Where are our priorities?

Especially when it comes to behavioural problems?

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the our health care funds are consumed for diseases that are well known and behavioural, two major problems are obesity...

EATING TOO MUCH and

buy viagra online without a prescription

NOT ENOUGH EXERCISE!!

Posted by Salvo at September 3, 2008 7:17 PM

One question that keeps coming up time and time again is competitive spirit in schools. i.e. Should we be celebrating and pushing a few winners or helping the mass to be active (competition tends to put many children off sport entirely)

A while ago in the UK there was a backlash against competitive sport in schools now the argument is swinging the other way.

Personally I think the question is wrong I think the issue is that we are poor at helping children set and achieve goals in general for themselves. For one child a goal in sport might be to be region or national champion in 100m sprint (i.e. compete against others and win). For another being reasonably fit and healthy to persue another career is just as valid.

I think we need to think about this stuff differently

Posted by PaulH at September 4, 2008 4:56 AM

I agree with PaulH. It reminds me when I was training (yes training!) to become an opera singer in middle school and high school, preparing for various national and international competitions. I was reminded of the many auditions that I went on. Many times I was not successful in getting a particular role. But each audition fortified me, built my confidence. There is something to be said for processes among others that is important, even if your life does not take the particular path you are on at any given moment. Competition matters. Yes, you want to be the very best for yourself, but others help us in the process.

When I met the great Soprano, Leontyne Price, in high school after a concert in New York City she told me in her southern way, "Jump on in the water's fine and always remember that when you're not practising, someone is and when they meet you they'll be better." I was always charged, but whenever I thought of those words I practiced even more to develop my talent and hone my skills, in not only music but in drama and languages too. When I didn't want to practice, the looming picture of others practising propelled me to the practice room. I became better for this and I can honestly say that these early experiences have made who am now and encourages me still to become better. uk viagra no prescription

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 4, 2008 8:22 AM

And what are you thinking about Georgia?

We are just 4,5 million (source: http://www.statistics.ge/main.php?pform=47&plang=1 ) and our GOLD medal per head of population is 1.5

viagra buying

P.S. During the Olimpic Games in Georgia there was a war!

Posted by George Barbakadze at September 4, 2008 11:09 AM

buy cheap viagra online from india See the following link http://www.ozanonay.com/blog/statistics/fair-olympic-medal-tally-normalized-by-population/ to get access to a tool to normalise the tables by various filters such as GDP (probably addresses in part one of the comments below about access to sporting facilities), population etc.

Posted by JonT at September 5, 2008 7:00 AM

Interesting discussion. I wonder how the US would look if we compared fifty years ago with today? It seems to me that how much a culture values vigorous physical activity plays a role in how well it does at the Olympics and it seems like we now value watching athletes on television more than we do actually doing something physical.

I've known two Olympians. One died a few years ago. The other is Marilyn King. You may want to check out her Beyond Sports site (http://www.waybeyondsports.com/marilyn_king.html )

Posted by Wally Bock at September 6, 2008 2:59 PM