And Farah pounded Rupp in the 10,000. So go suck it USA.
And Farah pounded Rupp in the 10,000. So go suck it USA.
Farah is an import. Britain needs to produce their own runners. You can't defeat the mighty high flying American eagle. The eagle soars over the British bulldog.
At the end of the day the army that wins the battle is the champion regardless of size.
Now go out into your backyard and start singing at the top of your lungs God Bless America.
nofacetimber wrote:
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 are wrong. If you have 200 people competing for 20 medals with 150 of the people wearing blue and 50 wearing red one would expect team blue to win about 15 medals to 5 for team red. Simple as that.
If team blue only won 11 while team red won 9 then it would not be team blue that should be slapping themselves on the back.
Of course it is not perfect but the imperfections are not much more than noise in the overall picture.
Mighty American Eagle. wrote:
Farah is an import. Britain needs to produce their own runners. You can't defeat the mighty high flying American eagle. The eagle soars over the British bulldog.
At the end of the day the army that wins the battle is the champion regardless of size.
Now go out into your backyard and start singing at the top of your lungs God Bless America.
Bingo! You are exactly correct.
ALL the Brits think some war for Independence is still going on here.
It is weird. (It is also kind of cute.) I have had to experience the Brit annoyance all year…until the Brit Ban™ was established.
https://www.facebook.com/hypo2/photos/a.181731141864880.32731.154386924599302/999936883377631/?type=3&theaterDo they really have to put up the Brit flag everywhere?
All Brits also run on the wrong side of the running trails.
They are an annoyance.
They are from Not-So-Great-Britain:
http://online.fliphtml5.com/rmkd/yjxj/#p=2Athletes come from all over the planet to join the Flagstaff Olympic Teamâ„¢.
The Flagstaff Olympic Teamâ„¢ is really good.
https://www.facebook.com/hypo2/photos/a.181731141864880.32731.154386924599302/1056106101094042/?type=3&theaterOh yea.
GO CENTRO!!!
rjm33 wrote:
Mighty American Eagle. wrote:Farah is an import. Britain needs to produce their own runners. You can't defeat the mighty high flying American eagle. The eagle soars over the British bulldog.
At the end of the day the army that wins the battle is the champion regardless of size.
Now go out into your backyard and start singing at the top of your lungs God Bless America.
Bingo! You are exactly correct.
ALL the Brits think some war for Independence is still going on here.
It is weird. (It is also kind of cute.) I have had to experience the Brit annoyance all year…until the Brit Ban™ was established.
https://www.facebook.com/hypo2/photos/a.181731141864880.32731.154386924599302/999936883377631/?type=3&theaterDo they really have to put up the Brit flag everywhere?
All Brits also run on the wrong side of the running trails.
They are an annoyance.
They are from Not-So-Great-Britain:
http://online.fliphtml5.com/rmkd/yjxj/#p=2Athletes come from all over the planet to join the Flagstaff Olympic Teamâ„¢.
The Flagstaff Olympic Teamâ„¢ is really good.
https://www.facebook.com/hypo2/photos/a.181731141864880.32731.154386924599302/1056106101094042/?type=3&theaterOh yea.
GO CENTRO!!!
Again, my point is that overall in the Olympics, GB > USA on a per capita basis. The USA's performance is a shameful embarrassment.
If you want to debate the broader USA versus GB, then let's talk about all the 10,000/year dead Americans as a result of the precious 2nd amendment, or the abysmal performance of American students in school, or the abortion of a healthcare system in the US, or the fact that all of America's successes are the result of immigrants, or the idiot in the White House that invaded the wrong country resulting in a $1T war that wasted countless American lives (not to mention 100x wasted innocent lives in the middle east), or the spawn of ISIS, or that dolt Trump that's running for office.
Be proud America!
Nearly page 4! 8/10 to OP for clickbait.
GB did well in Rio, as you would expect if you throw money at the team (thanks Lottery). It's China I was really surprised by. I would have thought that, by this time, they would be solidly 2nd just behind USA. Sports being big on jingoism, I assume unlimited resources in China, but they have to be bummed. No one cares about ping pong and diving. Theories?
Finally someone on here with some sense. Yes, GB outperformed because they put financial resources into it. Team USA also has vast financial resources, but pitifully underperformed. More money but fewer medals per capita. An embarrassment.
Run007xx wrote:
Finally someone on here with some sense. Yes, GB outperformed because they put financial resources into it. Team USA also has vast financial resources, but pitifully underperformed. More money but fewer medals per capita. An embarrassment.
Half the posts on here are from you. You're basically arguing with (or trolling?) yourself. Give it a rest, go do something else for a while.
I agree. I'm getting tired. But DAAAM this is satisfying. Okay, okay, I'll stop now.
GB > USA
Second mic drop.
G'nite.
Yes, but if it was Olympic Medals per millions of horrible teeth, Great Britain's ratio would be close to 0.
Go back, read your post again, and think really hard about it. I'm guessing you're from Alabama.
therealanswer wrote:
Yes, but if it was Olympic Medals per millions of horrible teeth, Great Britain's ratio would be close to 0.
The US set a medal record for the Olympics. What the heck are you talking about.
Mighty American Eagle. wrote:
The US set a medal record for the Olympics. What the heck are you talking about.
What the heck are you talking about? The US did not come anywhere near a record medal count for this Olympics.
therealanswer wrote:
Yes, but if it was Olympic Medals per millions of horrible teeth, Great Britain's ratio would be close to 0.
Sorry loser, but Brits have the best teeth according to the OECD, and 92% of US adults have fillings compared to 30% of Brits! You guys are rotten!
We smash you at sports and teeth!
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2009-en/01/10/index.html;jsessionid=7no46ne7cfmnu.x-oecd-live-02?itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-12-en&_csp_=73419db2d8639c2c6d43934472010be1
One of the best insights in this forum ever. No sarcasm.
nofacetimber wrote:
Your Analysis is flawed.
Comparing medal count performance by population is interesting, I'll give you that you that. And one can learn a lot from the data.
But measuring a countries overall Olympic performance based on population alone is not one of them.
Let's take Jamaica for instance. With a population of roughly 3 million they took home an astounding 11 Olympic medals. Look further and you will see that all those medals came from Track and field, look again and see that all the medals came in the sprints (400 and below).
By your logic we could assume that if Jamaica had a population of 6 million they could take home 22 Olympic medals double it again and the number goes to 44 Olympic medals. But the potential for 33 more medals in the sprints alone is just not there.
In order to keep up the same pace, Jamaica would have to start earning medals in different disciplines (distance, field events etc..)
Areas where they don't currently have the systems in place to train and get Jamaican athletes to compete at elite levels in these disciplines, not to mention the whole breadth of other summer sports which make up the Olympics.
For a country to maximize their potential at the Olympics, they need to have systems in place to train and allow athletes to develop in a wide variety of disciplines.
For example: It doesn't matter how big the U.S. population is, if they didn't have an education system that provided scholarships for athletes. Out of necessity, sports would take a back seat and you wouldn't see as many world class athletes.
Of note: Over time, a large number of athletes competing and winning medals for their respective countries all around the world have taken advantage of education/athletic training systems in the United States and other countries with similar opportunities.
Should the countries who created these opportunities to help develop these athletes get some credit for their medals? Just a thought...
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.
Iceland 2
England 1
America is now better than England at soccer.
So true..........
Suomiperkele wrote:
One of the best insights in this forum ever. No sarcasm.
nofacetimber wrote:Your Analysis is flawed.
Comparing medal count performance by population is interesting, I'll give you that you that. And one can learn a lot from the data.
...
Seriously? Do you have the IQ of a newt?
Successful and born in America
Thomas Edison
Wright Brothers
Glen Curtis (inventor of plane aileron. First man to break 100mph on land)
Steve Jobs
Bill Gates
Larry Ellison
Burt Rutan (aviation designer)
Kelly Johnson (SR-71, U2 designer, founded shunk works)
Walt Disney
Orson Wells
Alexander Graham Bell (telephone)
Thomas J. Kelly (inventor of Apollo lunar module.)
Brendan Eich (Created Javascript, basically helped make webpages inactive)
Jack Northrop (flying wing and founder of Northrop aviation. His ideas help produce the B-2 bomber)
John Alan Lasseter - CGI pioneer. Toy Story
The list could go on forever. England had their days of glory in the 19th century. The truth is in the last 100 years America has been the king of innovation. You would be surprised how many native born American's played a key role in America been the most innovative nation on Earth.
Great accomplishment by GB. You miss the point of the Olympics, however, with a per capita measure of success. Size isn't something you adjust for when assessing world domination. Size is the prize. Vastness is as important as efficiency.
I agree with you by the way, about U.S. misdeeds. But the Olympics are for warriors, and war isn't pretty.