Behold - The only Olympics medal table that really counts: PER CAPITA

[Concrete Whale]

NZ population is growing at a record rate over the last couple of years. Sex is the national sport.

Still #1. Deal with it.

Third World immigration is an international sport.

 

[RR]

 

[jeremyemilio]

Lmao you wrote a huge essay and completely missed that guys point.

Each country is only allowed to submit a certain number of participants to each event no matter the population.

This means even though the US could probably win all 3 medals in Basketball with 3 separate teams they aren't allowed and only get to send one team. The US has enough talent to make 3 teams as good as any other country's best team but are forced to condense to only 1.

This is why comparing population to medals is retarded. It would make sense if you were allowed to send as many competitors you wanted for each event as long as they qualify.

This hinders other countries like Russia too in wrestling because they have guys in the same weight class who are 1/2 in the world but are only allowed to send 1, when in reality if both were allowed to compete they'd probably both earn medals.

Think of it like this in terms of MMA here are the current top-10 at Light-Heavyweight.

1 - Jon Jones - USA
2 - Daniel Cormier - USA
3 - Anthony Johnson - USA
4 - Alexander Gustafson - SWE
5 - Ryan Bader - USA
6 - Ovince St. Preux - USA
7 - Shogun Rua - BRA
8 - Rashad Evans - USA
9 - Lil Nog - BRA
10 - Nikita Krylov - UKR

So if we wanted to have a mini-tournament with the four best LHW in a perfect world 3 would be from the US and one from Sweden.

But, in the Olympics only one person is allowed from each country, so even though the US has the top-3 LHW the tournament would instead be Jon Jones from US, Alexander from Sweden, Shogun from Brazil, and Krylov from Ukraine.

Thus the people winning silver and bronze, would likely lose to the US guys who didn't get an oppurtonity despite being better because of the per-country limit.

This is why comparing population to medal count makes no sense.

Of course this doesn't even get into the fact the best American athletes go into the NFL, NBA, MLB.

I mean fuck an Oregon football player who runs track in his off time almost won a medal this Olympics lmao.

Ummmm... yeah... so that's why I only used Gold medals?

Talk about writing a long essay and entirely missing the point...

 

[jeremyemilio]

The main problem with per capita isn't even that you can only send so many people, it's that there's only so many medals you can win. What are there, 300 gold medals available? So a country like the UK could rack up 25 golds, many of them in sports that aren't big in the US and all of a sudden the US needs 125 gold medals in order to stay with them on the per capita standings. China could win every gold medal the UK didn't win and would still lose out to the UK.

Well... but they should?

That's how per capita works. If there are 300 gold medals (using your number, can't be bothered to find the true amount), and the UK wins 50 of those golds and China wins 250 golds, then, yes, the UK out performed China on a per capita basis. In what way is that skewed?

You telling me that a country with 30 million people should be expected to gather as many golds as a country with 300 million? What are you high on right now?

 

[FootstompShonie]

Ummmm... yeah... so that's why I only used Gold medals?

Talk about writing a long essay and entirely missing the point...

The point still stands dummy because if you have 3/8 Americans instead of 1/8 you also have a way higher chance of winning a gold medal

That's why I gave the example of a mini-tournament, on one hand you have 3/4 competitors being American and a very high chance an American will win. When it's down to 1/4 it becomes a lot less likely.

Do you even math bro?

 

[Concrete Whale]

Imagine I get some people to stand along one end of a football pitch and line up some cans of coke along the far end, then blow a whistle and they race to grab them.

Imagine there are companies entering teams of different sizes.

(1) The more people there are in your team the more of your people are competing against each other so their achievements can not be represented.
(2) The more people there are in your company, the more can't even get into your company's team because there isn't room so their achievements can not be represented.
(3) If someone from a company of 10 people and someone from a company of 100 people get a coke can, the person from the company of 10 is not ten times as good as the person from the company of 100 but according to this system he is.

 

[Concrete Whale]

On reflection there's no way people on Sherdog are intelligent enough or have enough integrity or self discipline to handle this thread so I'm bailing.

 

[jeremyemilio]

The point still stands dummy because if you have 3/8 Americans instead of 1/8 you also have a way higher chance of winning a gold medal

That's why I gave the example of a mini-tournament, on one hand you have 3/4 competitors being American and a very high chance an American will win. When it's down to 1/4 it becomes a lot less likely.

Do you even math bro?

I math just fine.

Most sports allow you to qualify multiple athletes. If you can't pick up a gold with your top three runners in the country, chances are your number 4 or 5 guy wasn't going to pick up the gold. There are upsets in Olympic sport, sure, but not enough to skew those numbers significantly.

This isn't a lottery here. You don't double your odds just by adding twice as many athletes.

The US could have qualified 100 guys for the 100 meters. Bolt was still going home with gold.

The UK, with 60 million people, has won 26 gold medals.

The US, with 300 million people, has won 40 gold medals.

Prorated for population the UK has won 3.25 gold medals for every gold medal the US has won.

You're going to try to tell me that's because the US wasn't allowed to send a greater number of their lesser athletes?

Please, enlighten me on how the US picks up 80 frickin' extra gold medals by sending a boatload of athletes who didn't make the cut but would have finished ahead of American athletes who DID make the cut.

If that's true, then sorry but there's something desperately wrong with your Olympic trials.

 

[FootstompShonie]

I math just fine.

Most sports allow you to qualify multiple athletes. If you can't pick up a gold with your top three runners in the country, chances are your number 4 or 5 guy wasn't going to pick up the gold. There are upsets in Olympic sport, sure, but not enough to skew those numbers significantly.

This isn't a lottery here. You don't double your odds just by adding twice as many athletes.

The US could have qualified 100 guys for the 100 meters. Bolt was still going home with gold.

The UK, with 60 million people, has won 26 gold medals.

The US, with 300 million people, has won 40 gold medals.

Prorated for population the UK has won 3.25 gold medals for every gold medal the US has won.

You're going to try to tell me that's because the US wasn't allowed to send a greater number of their lesser athletes?

Please, enlighten me on how the US picks up 80 frickin' extra gold medals by sending a boatload of athletes who didn't make the cut but would have finished ahead of American athletes who DID make the cut.

If that's true, then sorry but there's something desperately wrong with your Olympic trials.

You're acting like an underdog has never won...I'd say most Olympic events are not won by the betting favorite seeing as you have to go through multiple rounds, heats, etc.

Just look at wrestler Jordan Borroughs, was 132-2 in international competition then lost 2 straight at the Olympic Games. favorites don't always win, in fact most of the time they don't. Yhe guy behind Jordan who wasn't allowed to compete is very good and likely could have medaled but he wasn't allowed because only 1 per country.

No USA wouldn't win 80 more gold medals but that shows exactly why per capita is flawed, China has such a high population they'd have to win like every single gold to match Fiji winning one. There's no logic in that to conclude Fiji is better than China lmao.

How can you expect one country to win 100% of the golds in a wide variety of sports some of which are completely unknown or unpopular in said country?

I'm not exaggerating either, there's about 300 gold medals avaliable so far, China has a population of 1.4 billion. That means even if they when EVERY SINGLE gold medal it's still only one for every 4.4 million people.

Meaning New Zealand and any country smaller than them can win 1 gold medal and China can win every other gold and they'd still be ranked lower than New Zealand. Do you see any logic in that? Honestly?

 

[jeremyemilio]

Imagine I get some people to stand along one end of a football pitch and line up some cans of coke along the far end, then blow a whistle and they race to grab them.

Imagine there are companies entering teams of different sizes.

(1) The more people there are in your team the more of your people are competing against each other so their achievements can not be represented.
(2) The more people there are in your company, the more can't even get into your company's team because there isn't room so their achievements can not be represented.
(3) If someone from a company of 10 people and someone from a company of 100 people get a coke can, the person from the company of 10 is not ten times as good as the person from the company of 100 but according to this system he is.

You make fair points.

But what if it's just ONE coke can? The bigger company has the better chance of having a faster person to send.

Now what if there are 100 events? The bigger company has the better chance of having more people who are equipped to win more events.

Silver and Bronze are nice for the athletes, but you're right... they don't tell the whole story. There might very well be a guy sitting at home who should be holding silver and/or bronze but didn't make the cut because he got beaten out in the trials by the guy who won the gold.

But gold is gold. First is first. Either you're the best or you're not. And if you are a bigger nation you have a MUCH better chance to field a winner then if you are a smaller nation. Does it mean much over the course of just a single competition or two? Not really. The best in the world at a single event could come from anywhere. But spread over multiple events? Yeah. The country with the bigger population is going to have much better chances to win.

Or let's put it this way, looking at the US team only, California sent 124 Team USA members to the Olympics, while Maine only sent 1.

Does that surprise you? Because it SHOULDN'T... even though in a lot of sports California would have been limited in how many people they were allowed to send to the trials.

What SHOULD surprise you a little is that New York sent 1 fewer athlete than Pennsylvania, despite being significantly larger, and only 1 more athlete than New Jersey, despite New Jersey being ridiculously smaller.

Compared with the rest of the country, New York under performed, and New Jersey over-performed... even though New Jersey only sent 29 athletes and New York sent 30.

And that doesn't mean that having a larger population automatically makes it impossible to over perform, either. Remember California? 124 athletes. They're the biggest state you have... but they aren't THAT big. In fact, even measured per capita they STILL beat out New Jersey, and New Jersey, as we've seen, over-performed wildly.

California kicked ass in raw numbers AND proportionally.

The US is only kicking ass in raw numbers.

The UK is kicking ass proportionally. Which is more impressive.

 

[jeremyemilio]

You're acting like an underdog has never won...I'd say most Olympic events are not won by the betting favorite seeing as you have to go through multiple rounds, heats, etc.

Just look at wrestler Jordan Borroughs, was 132-2 in international competition then lost 2 straight at the Olympic Games. favorites don't always win, in fact most of the time they don't. Yhe guy behind Jordan who wasn't allowed to compete is very good and likely could have medaled but he wasn't allowed because only 1 per country.

No USA wouldn't win 80 more gold medals but that shows exactly why per capita is flawed, China has such a high population they'd have to win like every single gold to match Fiji winning one. There's no logic in that to conclude Fiji is better than China lmao.

How can you expect one country to win 100% of the golds in a wide variety of sports some of which are completely unknown or unpopular in said country?

I'm not exaggerating either, there's about 300 gold medals avaliable so far, China has a population of 1.4 billion. That means even if they when EVERY SINGLE gold medal it's still only one for every 4.4 million people.

Meaning New Zealand and any country smaller than them can win 1 gold medal and China can win every other gold and they'd still be ranked lower than New Zealand. Do you see any logic in that? Honestly?

Ugh... and THAT's why I didn't count the smaller nations. YES. If you are small enough, a single Gold medal creates an outlier that skews the proportional rankings.

So you throw out the outliers. We aren't TALKING about China and New Zealand. We're talking about the UK and the US.

Unless you think the US has 80 people at home who would have beaten out their own teamates for Gold...

OR...

You think the UK has picked up 18 flukey/upset gold medals...

OR...

Some combination of the 2 (40 woulda been Gold medalists sitting at home for the US and 9 flukey/upset gold medlas for the UK)...

Then, sorry, but the UK is outperforming the US. And quite handily.

 

[Selukrid612]

Well... but they should?

That's how per capita works. If there are 300 gold medals (using your number, can't be bothered to find the true amount), and the UK wins 50 of those golds and China wins 250 golds, then, yes, the UK out performed China on a per capita basis. In what way is that skewed?

You telling me that a country with 30 million people should be expected to gather as many golds as a country with 300 million? What are you high on right now?

I'm not saying they should win as many, I'm saying per capita is flawed in more than one way. Larger countries can't win, just like smaller countries can't win outright. The only thing we can say for sure is the US is sitting at the top baby.

 

[FootstompShonie]

Ugh... and THAT's why I didn't count the smaller nations. YES. If you are small enough, a single Gold medal creates an outlier that skews the proportional rankings.

So you throw out the outliers. We aren't TALKING about China and New Zealand. We're talking about the UK and the US.

Unless you think the US has 80 people at home who would have beaten out their own teamates for Gold...

OR...

You think the UK has picked up 18 flukey/upset gold medals...

OR...

Some combination of the 2 (40 woulda been Gold medalists sitting at home for the US and 9 flukey/upset gold medlas for the UK)...

Then, sorry, but the UK is outperforming the US. And quite handily.

Lmao nah per capita is completely fucked dude. I just showed why. Sorry USA can't win ever single medal, we do what we can.

I'm using New Zealand because it's literally the entire fucking reason OP created this thread in the first place don't be dense.

And don't be mad your colony outperforms you bro.

 

[jeremyemilio]

I'm not saying they should win as many, I'm saying per capita is flawed in more than one way. Larger countries can't win, just like smaller countries can't win outright. The only thing we can say for sure is the US is sitting at the top baby.

Per capita is flawed... but if you count only gold medals, and throw out small nations that produce outliers, it's not that flawed. It'd pretty easy to see that there are a few countries out performing the US, and that the UK is outperforming everyone (except for those small, outlier creating nations).

There's no way to argue that the UK's 26 Golds, with a pop of 60 million, aren't more impressive than the US's 40 Golds, with a pop of 300 million.

Unless you count "'Merica!" as an argument.

 

[Selukrid612]

Per capita is flawed... but if you count only gold medals, and throw out small nations that produce outliers, it's not that flawed. It'd pretty easy to see that there are a few countries out performing the US, and that the UK is outperforming everyone (except for those small, outlier creating nations).

There's no way to argue that the UK's 26 Golds, with a pop of 60 million, aren't more impressive than the US's 40 Golds, with a pop of 300 million.

Unless you count "'Merica!" as an argument.

The UK is getting absolutely destroyed by countries like Hungary and Croatia in your example.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Lmao nah per capita is completely fucked dude. I just showed why. Sorry USA can't win ever single medal, we do what we can.

I'm using New Zealand because it's literally the entire fucking reason OP created this thread in the first place don't be dense.

And don't be mad your colony outperforms you bro.

I'm Canadian.

And this coversation between YOU and ME started with you replying to MY post in which I:

a. Only counted Gold medals, and,

b. Did not include small outlier nations.

And despite that your only real arguments AGAINST per capita rankings were:

a. Larger countries only get to send their very best Gold medal contenders, which decreases their chances of winning two medals in one sport, and,

b. Small outlier nations can skew the rankings with just a few medals.

Both arguments having been ALREADY anticipated and answered in my original post.

Leading me to believe that:

a. You either did not read my post, or,

b. You are stupid.

So 'b' it is. Thank you for clearing that up.

I will accept your tap-out with all of the grace I can muster.

 

[jeremyemilio]

The UK is getting absolutely destroyed by countries like Hungary and Croatia in your example.

No. As nations get smaller, they create outliers. Two or three athletes come along and win two or three Gold medals and the whole thing falls apart.

Hungary and Croatia and countries that size can skew the rankings with a few outstanding/unexpected performances. BUT AGAIN:

Unless you think the US has 80 people at home who would have beaten out their own teamates for Gold had they been allowed to compete...

OR...

You think the UK has picked up 18 flukey/upset gold medals...

OR...

Some combination of the 2 (40 "woulda been" Gold medalists sitting at home for the US and 9 flukey/upset gold medals for the UK)...

Then, sorry, but the UK is outperforming the US. And quite handily.

 

[Selukrid612]

Nope, sorry. Hungary has 10 million people, which was your cutoff earlier. And they've managed 8 golds. Hungary is destroying the UK and are clearly more impressive using your logic.

 

[Selukrid612]

The U.K. needs to win 50+ golds or they lose to Hungary.

 

[robmorpeth]

The U.K. needs to win 50+ golds or they lose to Hungary.

What, specifically, is wrong with losing to Hungary?