Quantcast
How well did your nation perform at the olympics?

Forums - Sports Discussion - How well did your nation perform at the olympics?

The Fury said:
pokoko said:
I had no idea how the USA did until I read this thread. I knew we'd get at least a 100 so I didn't pay attention. The only gold medal winner I know of is Phelps because he was all over the news.

Kind of jealous of countries that only win a few, to be honest, because it seems like they mean a lot more.

I have a question to the USA folk, you and others if need be, as I always wondered something. Sure the USA are interested in the Olympics but how much? I ask this as one of your greatest ever competitors in the Olympics, Michael Johnson (whose 400m record was broken at these Olympics) is part of the BBC athletics team and has been for years. Infact he awesome at this job and I wonder why he doesn't do said job for an American company? (The BBC coverage would be so much better if they got rid of Denise Richards, she knows nothing and adds nothing to the analysis of events.

Not all that much, really, I don't think.  At least, where I live.  It's nothing at all like when it was the USA against the USSR and people were hanging onto every single contest where we had a chance at a medal.  I know in the last polls, interest had dipped a lot.

There is also an issue with representation, where almost half our team came from just five states.



Around the Network
croatia 10 medals 5 or 4 gold

Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

One of our best performances!

Thanks, you're welcome.

The Bitch is back! And better then ever! #BritneyReturns

SONY Bring them BACK for PS4 and VITA!

Spanish here. 17 medals.

The Fury said:
Machina said:

Edit - Ignore me, just saw the 'away' bit.

No worries. Guessing a comment about the 1908 Olympics in which only 22 countries competed in London and we basically won everything? I wonder about that because yes, we did indeed do well in those Olympics but times have changed, the events have changed, any Olympics before WW2 really be counted? Can any before computerised time tracking? Odd thing to think about.

Yeah it was.

Indeed things were a lot different then but if one was to start excluding certain years then where would the cut off point be? If WW2 is the cut-off pioint then you're including 1948, which wasn't exactly an even playing field. Or you can go up to 1986 (the year the Olympics shfited from amateur competition to professionalised sport). Or even 1992 (the most recent games that wasn't affected by a significant boycott of countries). That's the problem with arbitrary cut off points you - can make arguments for excluding any number of Olympics on any number of grounds.

The first modern Olympics was in 1896 and it should be treated as such imo, regardless of the fact the world and the Olympics have changed immensely since then.



Around the Network
pokoko said:

Not all that much, really, I don't think.  At least, where I live.  It's nothing at all like when it was the USA against the USSR and people were hanging onto every single contest where we had a chance at a medal.  I know in the last polls, interest had dipped a lot.

There is also an issue with representation, where almost half our team came from just five states.

Just 5 states is an odd thing as surely it's down to the schooling and effort put in by the state education system to develop talent, unless they are more concerned with the big US sports. You'd think interest would be high due to how well the USA always do.



Hmm, pie.

Really I think the USA exceeded expectations as well, even if they were high already. This was supposed to be a transitionary year for swimming and yet they dominated even in some races where it was totally unexpected (those golds for Simone Manuel and dirado for instance).

Otherwise, there was an enormous variety of success, including biking/wrestling/shooting/fencing/sprinting/triathlon/boxing/gymnastics/boating/shot put/decathlon.... Really, the only disappointment was the women's soccer team and solo being a sore loser.

The Fury said:
pokoko said:
I had no idea how the USA did until I read this thread. I knew we'd get at least a 100 so I didn't pay attention. The only gold medal winner I know of is Phelps because he was all over the news.

Kind of jealous of countries that only win a few, to be honest, because it seems like they mean a lot more.

I have a question to the USA folk, you and others if need be, as I always wondered something. Sure the USA are interested in the Olympics but how much? I ask this as one of your greatest ever competitors in the Olympics, Michael Johnson (whose 400m record was broken at these Olympics) is part of the BBC athletics team and has been for years. Infact he awesome at this job and I wonder why he doesn't do said job for an American company? (The BBC coverage would be so much better if they got rid of Denise Richards, she knows nothing and adds nothing to the analysis of events.

I watch a lot of sports and listen to some sports radio and the Olympics seems to be losing popularity. Most of the coverage I see is of the rah-rah, USA-USA mentality but otherwise there isn't nearly as much coverage of it as there is of the NFL or the NBA. We are by far an (American) football country first, and aside from Phelps, Ledecky, the women's gymnastics team and Bolt, the athletes don't tend to draw much interest. As Pokoko said,  the teams we send are so big that a lot of the medals don't seem to mean that much, save for those that have some historical significance (such as Simone Manuel's win in the pool). 

I'm generalizing here, and certainly can't speak for the entire country, but the olympics seems to have lost a bit of its popularity from when I was younger. I still enjoy the games as much as I used to, but few of my friends ever talk about it, and it seems that the World Cup is starting to capture more enthusiasm in the realms of patriotic sports events. The Olympics is still a big thing, but I think it is getting less popular. Maybe because, as pokoko said, there's no real rival to go against, both in the political and physical sense. 

The Olympics is pretty minor compared to the Super Bowl in this country, to be honest, with March Madness, the college football championship, and the NBA finals being very big as well. 



Barozi said:
Mike_L said:

There is a ranking with only gold medals but why is that better? Expectations are often based (and success measured) on the total number of medals.

This is the ranking with gold medals per capita.

Rank Country Gold Medals Population Population
per Gold Medal
1 Grenada 1 110,821 110,821
2 Bahamas 1 353,658 353,658
3 Jamaica 4 2,705,827 676,456
4 New Zealand 6 4,432,620 738,770
[...]        
17 Denmark 2 5,580,516 2,790,258
[...]        
28 United States 46 313,382,000 6,812,652

1: Well the list is already wrong though as the only medal Grenada won was silver and not gold.

2: The official ranking isn't sorted by total medals either, so why should this?

1: They must have overlooked that Grenada's medal was of silver. Tbh I didn't notice either.

2: Don't know their reasoning. You could ask them. It's just a different way to meaningfully compare performances of large and small countries. So... why shouldn't it?



Ariakon said:

I watch a lot of sports and listen to some sports radio and the Olympics seems to be losing popularity. Most of the coverage I see is of the rah-rah, USA-USA mentality but otherwise there isn't nearly as much coverage of it as there is of the NFL or the NBA. We are by far an (American) football country first, and aside from Phelps, Ledecky, the women's gymnastics team and Bolt, the athletes don't tend to draw much interest. As Pokoko said,  the teams we send are so big that a lot of the medals don't seem to mean that much, save for those that have some historical significance (such as Simone Manuel's win in the pool). 

I'm generalizing here, and certainly can't speak for the entire country, but the olympics seems to have lost a bit of its popularity from when I was younger. I still enjoy the games as much as I used to, but few of my friends ever talk about it, and it seems that the World Cup is starting to capture more enthusiasm in the realms of patriotic sports events. The Olympics is still a big thing, but I think it is getting less popular. Maybe because, as pokoko said, there's no real rival to go against, both in the political and physical sense. 

The Olympics is pretty minor compared to the Super Bowl in this country, to be honest, with March Madness, the college football championship, and the NBA finals being very big as well. 

I can understand the points both of you made. It's a shame as while in the UK the world cup and even football in general is bigger, we love a good sporting event like this. In a way I can see that in your education system that if a teenager can run fast, they won't be pushed to be a sprinter but a running back, if they are tall and jump well, they won't be trained to be a high jumper but a basketball player.

I would think the US would be somewhat interested as it is their chance to show the world how good they are at things and saying 'We're the best national in the world.' type deal. Oh well.



Hmm, pie.