GREAT BRITAIN superior to USA: OVERALL Olympic Performance

nofacetimber wrote:

. . .

The United States performance at the Olympic games is impressive by any standards. By the same token Great Britain's performance is as well.

Should the US take pride in their Olympic performance? Yes! It's quite a feat for a country to perform so well over such a large variety of disciplines.

It's short sighted to point to Population Adjusted data as a way demean US's achievements. Because that data clearly doesn't tell the whole story.

Now to address your conclusions:

1) No, the US performance is not impressive. I would (rightfully) rank it as 21st among nations winning 10 or more medals. Not terrible. Basically middle of the pack.

2) Should the US take pride in their OG performance? Individuals should probably take pride in their performance - even non medal winners. Other Americans? I for one am happy for all Olympians but I do not take pride in the achievement of others. But to each his own.

3) It is true that the data clearly does not tell the whole story. I never claimed that it did. I only claimed that medals per population was a vastly superior method to look at this than the proposed alternatives.

4) Finally, demean US's acheivements? Nope. Others may be interested in demeaning the achievements of individuals or nations. I'm not. Hats off to all of them.

Your Logic = Medals by population adjusted basis = Countries Performance

By that same logic you believe Jamaica to be the most dominant country in the Olympics.

But there are definitely flaws in that argument as demonstrated.

Run007xx wrote:

U2RA Moron wrote:

Nope, not my logic. When you can represent your views coherently get back to me. In the meantime, try to avoid representing other people.

You can split hairs all you want... But on a size adjusted basis, the USA under-performed other western countries... most notably team GB... by a lot.

And yes you can point out pockets of highly concentrated talent (e.g., East African distance running, Chinese ping-pong (table tennis), Jamaican sprinting, etc. But those examples are ancillary to the point that the USA was out-performed by Team GB.

You and I are not on the same page. Among other things, I could not possibly care less which country outperformed which other country at these Games.

I do, however, care about sound logic.

nofacetimber wrote:

Your Logic = Medals by population adjusted basis = Countries Performance

By that same logic you believe Jamaica to be the most dominant country in the Olympics.

But there are definitely flaws in that argument as demonstrated.

Nope. Wrong again.

Why do so many people insist on being wrong so many times about so many things? Seems odd to me.

"I only call out the completely moronic ideas that absolute medal count or medals per entrant are ANYWHERE NEAR as reasonable indicators as medals per population - which is CLEARLY the most reasonable relatively simple indicator to look at."

"3) It is true that the data clearly does not tell the whole story. I never claimed that it did. I only claimed that medals per population was a vastly superior method to look at this than the proposed alternatives."

Do you have problems with the English language? If you are not a native English speaker, that's cool. I applaud your efforts to learn a second language. You should be proud of yourself.

Run007xx wrote:

I, on the other hand, don't care about any other country's performance other than the USA and GB. And clearly team GB out performed the USA.

Mic drop.

Good for you!

:-)

I know this isn't fashionable around these parts, but I am a Brit and am very happy seeing USA at the top and GB second. That's a lot to be proud of.

In the (not so) distant future it will be China then India.

Proud to be British, very happy to see our friends on top. GB punch above their weight, but there is a lot to do to displace the US.

You have no idea where I'm from.

If not a troll:

1) Bittertown, non-USA

If troll:

1) Mom's Basement.

Your welcome.

Run007xx wrote:

Americans are so arrogant about their performance, but they were actually beaten by Great Britain, Russia, Germany, and France on a population adjusted basis!! (Same story whether you compare golds or overall medals).

Suck it USA.

G S B T Pop Medals per Millions

United States 46 37 38 121 324.1 0.37

Great Britain 27 23 17 67 65.1 1.03

China 26 18 26 70 1,382.3 0.05

Russia 19 18 19 56 143.4 0.39

Germany 17 10 15 42 80.7 0.52

Japan 12 8 21 41 126.3 0.32

France 10 18 14 42 64.7 0.65

You forgot Canada at .75 24 medals and 35 million = .69

Good point..excepts they would have needed 10 in the 5000 and 10000 to block Farah

No one cares about Canada.

Melissa For Gold wrote:

Run007xx wrote:

Americans are so arrogant about their performance, but they were actually beaten by Great Britain, Russia, Germany, and France on a population adjusted basis!! (Same story whether you compare golds or overall medals).

Suck it USA.

G S B T Pop Medals per Millions

United States 46 37 38 121 324.1 0.37

Great Britain 27 23 17 67 65.1 1.03

China 26 18 26 70 1,382.3 0.05

Russia 19 18 19 56 143.4 0.39

Germany 17 10 15 42 80.7 0.52

Japan 12 8 21 41 126.3 0.32

France 10 18 14 42 64.7 0.65

You forgot Canada at .75 24 medals and 35 million = .69

Still couldn't beat Farah even with 10 guys trying to trip him.

Melissa For Gold wrote:

Good point..excepts they would have needed 10 in the 5000 and 10000 to block Farah

Well I guess I won this argument. Next?

U2RA Moron wrote:

You are also a moron. Just a complete imbecile.

For your logic to make ANY sense whatsoever you would have to think that a bunch of 4th place finishers at the US trials would have somehow medaled at the Olympics?

I don't have the time to go through each event, but I'm sure there were at least 5 individuals who were OLY medal contenders that were eliminated at the USA trials.

5 additional medals wouldn't make any difference. Even if we spot you 5 golds, the USA still underperformed team GB.Nice try though.

macdaddy wrote:

U2RA Moron wrote:

You are also a moron. Just a complete imbecile.

For your logic to make ANY sense whatsoever you would have to think that a bunch of 4th place finishers at the US trials would have somehow medaled at the Olympics?

I don't have the time to go through each event, but I'm sure there were at least 5 individuals who were OLY medal contenders that were eliminated at the USA trials.

True Brits are not ones to boast, you must fall in the Plastic-Brit category

Run007xx wrote:

Americans are so arrogant about their performance, but they were actually beaten by Great Britain, Russia, Germany, and France on a population adjusted basis!! (Same story whether you compare golds or overall medals).

Suck it USA.

G S B T Pop Medals per Millions

United States 46 37 38 121 324.1 0.37

Great Britain 27 23 17 67 65.1 1.03

China 26 18 26 70 1,382.3 0.05

Russia 19 18 19 56 143.4 0.39

Germany 17 10 15 42 80.7 0.52

Japan 12 8 21 41 126.3 0.32

France 10 18 14 42 64.7 0.65

Just realized hitting reply didn't automatically add the quotes for me so I wasn't indicating who I was replying to in my previous posts.

U2RA Moron wrote:

"I only call out the completely moronic ideas that absolute medal count or medals per entrant are ANYWHERE NEAR as reasonable indicators as medals per population - which is CLEARLY the most reasonable relatively simple indicator to look at."

I respectfully disagree, just like my example with Jamaica, you can't conclude that if the population of Great Britain were doubled their Olympic medal count would Balloon to 134 as well. A number of disciplines where Great Britain is already dominating would see little benefit. Great Britain would have to start dominating in other areas to keep up.

What population would Great Britain need to be expected to contend for a medal in Men's and Women's basketball? Population would be irrelevant if the opportunity and systems were not in place to develop such a team.

I think a much clearer indicator for success among large countries would be the opportunity and exposure the country provides it's people in a wide variety of sports. Which can be measured nicely via the Overall medal count.

As population increases the benefit to Olympic performance is disproportionate.

In my opinion Great Britain had the most impressive showing in the Olympic games, followed by the US.

This idea that because the US has such a high population their performance is mediocre compared to other countries is wrong.

By that same metric, even if China would have to hauled in roughly 400 medals one might consider it a mediocre showing.

You haven't met many Brits then have you??

inthepdx wrote:

True Brits are not ones to boast, you must fall in the Plastic-Brit category

Run007xx wrote:

Americans are so arrogant about their performance, but they were actually beaten by Great Britain, Russia, Germany, and France on a population adjusted basis!! (Same story whether you compare golds or overall medals).

Suck it USA.

G S B T Pop Medals per Millions

United States 46 37 38 121 324.1 0.37

Great Britain 27 23 17 67 65.1 1.03

China 26 18 26 70 1,382.3 0.05

Russia 19 18 19 56 143.4 0.39

Germany 17 10 15 42 80.7 0.52

Japan 12 8 21 41 126.3 0.32

France 10 18 14 42 64.7 0.65

Blah blah blah... You guys are all clouding the point. GB > USA.End of discussion.

America rules Britain in the men's 1500!! The new Coe and Cram are Americans. America rules the Earth..................