By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

USA, pretty good I think.



Around the Network

Two nations.

 

One not so well....l0l - but the one I'm living in did numbah one!

 




    

Basil's YouTube Channel


                    

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.



Mike_L said:
NobleTeam360 said:
United Staes, were predicted to get 108 medals and wound up with 121. So pretty good, Nobody was near our team in terms of total medals or even Gold medals. So I would say our team pretty much dominated.

Yeah, US and particularly UK did great. Congrats!

Looking at medals per capita my country (Denmark) dominated the US though

Rank Country Medals Population Population
per Medal
1 Grenada 1 106,825 106,825
2 Bahamas 2 388,019 194,009
3 Jamaica 11 2,725,941 247,812
4 New Zealand 18 4,595,700 255,316
5 Denmark 15 5,676,002 378,400
[...]        
43 United States 121 321,418,820 2,656,353

I saw that ranking and I like the idea behind it, but why use all medals? They should remove the silver and bronze and do a population per gold medal instead



Britain did amazing for such a small country



Around the Network
Barozi said:
Mike_L said:

Yeah, US and particularly UK did great. Congrats!

Looking at medals per capita my country (Denmark) dominated the US though

Rank Country Medals Population Population
per Medal
1 Grenada 1 106,825 106,825
2 Bahamas 2 388,019 194,009
3 Jamaica 11 2,725,941 247,812
4 New Zealand 18 4,595,700 255,316
5 Denmark 15 5,676,002 378,400
[...]        
43 United States 121 321,418,820 2,656,353

I saw that ranking and I like the idea behind it, but why use all medals? They should remove the silver and bronze and do a population per gold medal instead

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


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.



Hmm, pie.

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.



Hmm, pie.

Mike_L said:
Barozi said:

I saw that ranking and I like the idea behind it, but why use all medals? They should remove the silver and bronze and do a population per gold medal instead

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

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

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



nanarchy said:
Australia, worst performance in decades, seems to be serious attitude problems with a lot of athletes, fame has gone to their head so much they have forgotten why they were actually there.

they go their for a root or 100 so roots mate.