Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's clearly unfair for America (the USA) to be considered an individual sporting nation against countries like GB, the size of two U.S. states in population in competitions. So what happens when Europe with approximately the same number of people as North America including Canada has a combined medal tally.... Do Europeans come out on top?

Like with pretty much everything, of course Europe wins easily.

http://www.medaltracker.eu/

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
It's clearly unfair for America (the USA) to be considered an individual sporting nation against countries like GB, the size of two U.S. states in population in competitions. So what happens when Europe with approximately the same number of people as North America including Canada has a combined medal tally.... Do Europeans come out on top?

Like with pretty much everything, of course Europe wins easily.

http://www.medaltracker.eu/

Well... If we really measure everything by population then we should also punish countries that have more population than the US. Or maybe we should go even further and use the variety of genetics in each athletic team, obviously the size of the population is mooth if there aren't enough competing athletes with the right genes to enter the contest.

So before we can ever talk about fair we need to do extensive genetic research for each Olympic team, then we average that out with the expected genetic average of each country according to it's population.

Or we can man up and accept unfairness

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
It's clearly unfair for America (the USA) to be considered an individual sporting nation against countries like GB, the size of two U.S. states in population in competitions. So what happens when Europe with approximately the same number of people as North America including Canada has a combined medal tally.... Do Europeans come out on top?

Like with pretty much everything, of course Europe wins easily.

http://www.medaltracker.eu/
How is it unfair for America to be considered a single sporting nation when it's a single nation?

Do you also think it unfair that China is considered a single nation?

Why the heck is that table stuck on the Winter Olympics? I was trying to work out at first why Canada was so high.

Anyway, do remember that, basically due to human psychology in groups, 10 small countries will produce more athletes than one country ten times the size. Each nation has its own motivations, its own pride, its own internal structure, its own champions etc. That produces a larger talent pool.

That said, GB is punching WAY above its population weight on the Olympics lately, and that's because of a dedicated drive after we were really slumping in the late 20th/early 21st century. The US doesn't make an effort as much- frankly the US doesn't care THAT much about international athletics.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why the heck is that table stuck on the Winter Olympics? I was trying to work out at first why Canada was so high.

Anyway, do remember that, basically due to human psychology in groups, 10 small countries will produce more athletes than one country ten times the size. Each nation has its own motivations, its own pride, its own internal structure, its own champions etc. That produces a larger talent pool.

That said, GB is punching WAY above its population weight on the Olympics lately, and that's because of a dedicated drive after we were really slumping in the late 20th/early 21st century. The US doesn't make an effort as much- frankly the US doesn't care THAT much about international athletics.

So the individual states of the United States have no statewide pride? The U.S. have things like all state etc. These are supposed to be almost like national champions in the strange sports they play amongst themselves.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The US doesn't make an effort as much- frankly the US doesn't care THAT much about international athletics.

yup. the US tends to be isolationist when it comes to sports.

world series baseball game every year, yet we never even think to allow japan to participate.

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
So the individual states of the United States have no statewide pride?
No. Not in terms of international competition. The sports that the USA mainly cares about and which foment cross-state rivalries are sports like American football that aren't played in the Olympics.

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
So the individual states of the United States have no statewide pride? The U.S. have things like all state etc. These are supposed to be almost like national champions in the strange sports they play amongst themselves.

But the smaller countries have their regional competitions as well. Basically, it's just much less efficient to be big with these things.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But the smaller countries have their regional competitions as well. Basically, it's just much less efficient to be big with these things.

They do but American states have populations the size of Holland on average.

We don't even care about international basketball which is like a rec league.

Originally posted by psmith81992
We don't even care about international basketball which is like a rec league.

True but then no one else cares about International Basketball either because in most countries it's a minority sport, somewhere behind field hockey but ahead of lacrosse.

I get the feeling this is whirly's veiled attempt in saying "Americans are fat and lazy as a people".

Well duh, everyone already knows that!

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
They do but American states have populations the size of Holland on average.

That's kinda irrelevant to what I said though- it goes back exactly to my point. The US does not have any more stages to find athletes than the other countries, it just has a bigger pool in each stage- but as we constantly see, big pools are inefficient.

Really, just read my first reply again.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's kinda irrelevant to what I said though- it goes back exactly to my point. The US does not have any more stages to find athletes than the other countries, it just has a bigger pool in each stage- but as we constantly see, big pools are inefficient.

Really, just read my first reply again.

It actually does, it has collegiate sports... and scholarships in track etc.

Since every country is allowed to provide a limited number of athletes, counting the European Union together is unfair.

So if the US is allowed to provide 2 sprinters, and the 28 countries of the EU are allowed to provide 56 that is a significant advantage for the EU.

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
It actually does, it has collegiate sports... and scholarships in track etc.

Again, that response makes no sense against what I said. Go back and take a look again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Since every country is allowed to provide a limited number of athletes, counting the European Union together is unfair.

So if the US is allowed to provide 2 sprinters, and the 28 countries of the EU are allowed to provide 56 that is a significant advantage for the EU.

There's a bit of that which might limit large countries sending their entire talent pool but generally speaking many small countries struggle to find three athletes (the general number you send to an athletics event) that qualify.

And in the end, you can't win by flooding with numbers anyway. If you enter three people that only just qualify they will still be thrashed in the early rounds by a large country second three much better people. It the US sent twice as many people, they would probably not do much better than they do already.

So it's not the amount Europe sends, it's the more efficient quality control advantage that a host of smaller nations get compared to one big one.

One other factor worth considering is that Europe is very culturally diverse and simply enters athletes into more sports than the US does.

Jamaica was the most successful nation at the 2012 Olympics if you look at gold medals per million citizens. 3 gold medals for a country of 3 million people.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Jamaica was the most successful nation at the 2012 Olympics if you look at gold medals per million citizens. 3 gold medals for a country of 3 million people.

That's to do with eugenics and the healthiest slaves. However, you are not wrong.


I must be missing what Ushgarak means as America has a far higher percentage of people with Jamaican blood than European nations. Therefore why doesn't this translate into success? Poverty, not a good answer as Jamaica itself has higher levels of poverty...... Could it be diet and the American mind set, that's mind set as two words, not the American poster.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yup. the US tends to be isolationist when it comes to sports.

world series baseball game every year, yet we never even think to allow japan to participate.

I would find it hard to believe if Japan doesn't have their own version of a "World Series". Have they invited us?

Your're missing my efficiency angle- it's not that the people aren't there, it's just large nations are not as good at small nations at finding them.

Plus, as I mention, Europeans enter into more events.

Despite not having a full-blooded cultural interest in athletics, the US still dominates that sport by a wide margin. Try adding up the athletics medals in the 2012 Olympics and see how Europe does then- you'll see the US wins that pretty well.

But take Equestrianism. GB won 5 medals in that in 2012. The US won 0. Is this because of some innate inferiority of the US? No, it's because the US doesn't give a damn about equestrian sports. There's no culture there about being good at it. There are several sports like that in the Olympics which various European cultures go for and the US likely never will.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your're missing my efficiency angle- it's not that the people aren't there, it's just large nations are not as good at small nations at finding them.

Plus, as I mention, Europeans enter into more events.

Despite not having a full-blooded cultural interest in athletics, the US still dominates that sport by a wide margin. Try adding up the athletics medals in the 2012 Olympics and see how Europe does then- you'll see the US wins that pretty well.

But take Equestrianism. GB won 5 medals in that in 2012. The US won 0. Is this because of some innate inferiority of the US? No, it's because the US doesn't give a damn about equestrian sports. There's no culture there about being good at it. There are several sports like that in the Olympics which various European cultures go for and the US likely never will.
We're big on racing, but that's for betting more than the sport itself. We don't give a shit about dressage.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your're missing my efficiency angle- it's not that the people aren't there, it's just large nations are not as good at small nations at finding them.

Plus, as I mention, Europeans enter into more events.

Despite not having a full-blooded cultural interest in athletics, the US still dominates that sport by a wide margin. Try adding up the athletics medals in the 2012 Olympics and see how Europe does then- you'll see the US wins that pretty well.

But take Equestrianism. GB won 5 medals in that in 2012. The US won 0. Is this because of some innate inferiority of the US? No, it's because the US doesn't give a damn about equestrian sports. There's no culture there about being good at it. There are several sports like that in the Olympics which various European cultures go for and the US likely never will.


I thing the Europeans enter into more events is an interesting one, particularly in relation to the U.K. medal tally which is mainly in horsey events etc. only other countries with an elite which practices them participates in.

I think the more athletes entering an event therefore more chance of winning is a red herring, a time did exist when Americans had a dream team of sprinters. If you have the fastest men alive, having 30 others compete against them makes no difference.

Agreed, the U.S. also has events which it goes for in a way other nations don't; like Basketball, which it always wins.

The Olympics are only one measure of athletic success. There are others, if we were truly going for thorough analysis.

I'd hesitate to make any sweeping generalizations. Sociological, cultural, genetic, and demographic variables play into any question like this, as other have mentioned. To come to any conclusion that resembles an authoritative opinion, we'd need a novel's worth of statistics and research, not an internet thread and one link.

Also, as an American, I can tell you the country only pretends to care when the Olympics come around. And we're usually happy to pick 1-2 athletes or stories as representative and ignore the rest. Obviously there's a ton of interest and passion about sports. Just not most Olympic sports. Our sporting interests lie decidedly elsewhere.

Well, hold your horses there (pun slightly intended). GB got 5 equestrian medals out of 65 total in 2012. It's not as if we cheated via horsiness. GB came 3rd overall, after all, beating Russia in Golds, which was good going.

But then compare the GB's performance in the Winter Olympics- we barely register. It's clearly not becaus we don't produce good athletes; it's just because we have absolutely no culture of winter sports.

Now compare Canada's woeful summer performance with their dominating winter one.

See how it works?

I honestly never saw the big deal over the Olympics. I found it to be mostly boring. But then I find watching most sports on tv boring. With the exception of basketball when the Bulls were in their prime..even then only during playoffs and championships.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We're big on racing, but that's for betting more than the sport itself. We don't give a shit about dressage.

What do you even mean by "dressage"? Tell me you mean the way the horse is dressed because I have always had some thoughts on horse attire.

Originally posted by Digi
The Olympics are only one measure of athletic success. There are others, if we were truly going for thorough analysis.

I'd hesitate to make any sweeping generalizations. Sociological, cultural, genetic, and demographic variables play into any question like this, as other have mentioned. To come to any conclusion that resembles an authoritative opinion, we'd need a novel's worth of statistics and research, not an internet thread and one link.

Also, as an American, I can tell you the country only pretends to care when the Olympics come around. And we're usually happy to pick 1-2 athletes or stories as representative and ignore the rest. Obviously there's a ton of interest and passion about sports. Just not most Olympic sports. Our sporting interests lie decidedly elsewhere.

As do most countries. The U.S. used to love heavyweight Boxing, but a combination of Lennox Lewis and the Klitschko brothers seem to have dulled that for the last 25 years

Originally posted by Surtur
I honestly never saw the big deal over the Olympics. I found it to be mostly boring. But then I find watching most sports on tv boring. With the exception of basketball when the Bulls were in their prime..even then only during playoffs and championships.



What do you even mean by "dressage"? Tell me you mean the way the horse is dressed because I have always had some thoughts on horse attire.

Dressage (pronounced dress-arrj, as in 'barge') is basically horsemanship- a series of challenges that show off your mastery of the horse. It has a VERY long lineage in Europe, dating back to chivalric times- tournaments etc.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, hold your horses there (pun slightly intended). GB got 5 equestrian medals out of 65 total in 2012. It's not as if we cheated via horsiness. GB came 3rd overall, after all, beating Russia in Golds, which was good going.

But then compare the GB's performance in the Winter Olympics- we barely register. It's clearly not becaus we don't produce good athletes; it's just because we have absolutely no culture of winter sports.

Now compare Canada's woeful summer performance with their dominating winter one.

See how it works?

Yes Rowing and the Velodrome helped. We got on our bikes.

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
As do most countries. The U.S. used to love heavyweight Boxing, but a combination of Lennox Lewis and the Klitschko brothers seem to have dulled that for the last 25 years

Actually, it has more to do with the increased popularity of MMA. Boxing fans are all 35+ these days. It hasn't attracted any new fans in a generation. The fighters you mentioned may have had some role in its decline, but they were hardly the biggest factor.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dressage (pronounced dress-arrj, as in 'barge') is basically horsemanship- a series of challenges that show off your mastery of the horse. It has a VERY long lineage in Europe, dating back to chivalric times- tournaments etc.

What does "mastery" of a horse mean? You mean when they have those people riding horses and jumping over obstacles?

Originally posted by Digi
Actually, it has more to do with the increased popularity of MMA. Boxing fans are all 35+ these days. It hasn't attracted any new fans in a generation. The fighters you mentioned may have had some role in its decline, but they were hardly the biggest factor.

Come on Digi, you don't think that if you had the champion the rise of MMA would never have happened. It's why Fedor was never given the contract he deserved by the UFC when he was at his peak. It would have killed the growth of MMA in the U.S.

Basically horse dancing/gymnastics.

A lot of it is actually rather static horse control/gymnastics, like getting the horse trotting in a neat manner, doing pirouettes etc.

I'm not trying to sell it as a great spectator sport though.

Jumping over obstacles is show jumping- different event.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Basically horse dancing/gymnastics.


It's basically a sport for those of a very exclusive class.

Yes I guess for me my class is different..I would prefer to watch those dog dancing competitions..you know where the people dance with dogs? There was an episode of "King of the Hill" about it.

It's only exclusive in that to be in a position to practise it you basically have to own a horse (unlike horse racing, which brings in so much betting money, and hence prize money, that the horse owners can afford to hire other people to ride the horses for them).

So once the talent pool is restricted to horse owners, it's kinda going to be exclusive by default.

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
I think the more athletes entering an event therefore more chance of winning is a red herring, a time did exist when Americans had a dream team of sprinters. If you have the fastest men alive, having 30 others compete against them makes no difference..

Well, your source disagrees:

"The comparison is of course not entirely fair. The 28 EU countries have much higher quota of starting positions than individual competing nations. The fictitious "EU team" has therefore a better chance to win medals than the other participating countries."

http://www.medaltracker.eu/index.php?article_id=4

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, your source disagrees:

"The comparison is of course not entirely fair. The 28 EU countries have much higher quota of starting positions than individual competing nations. The fictitious "EU team" has therefore a better chance to win medals than the other participating countries."

http://www.medaltracker.eu/index.php?article_id=4

Yes, that's my source, just because it has statistics it doesn't mean it has common sense. I could have 30 good sprinters on Winstrol against one Usain Bolt and he would still beat them.

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
Yes, that's my source, just because it has statistics it doesn't mean it has common sense. I could have 30 good sprinters on Winstrol against one Usain Bolt and he would still beat them.

Sure, unless Usain has an off-day and three of the 58 you got to send have a very good day....and that playing out over all disciplines.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, unless Usain has an off-day and three of the 58 you got to send have a very good day....and that playing out over all disciplines.

Would give a couple of events overall, nothing like the number needed to get the figures of superiority Europe has over Amerika.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your're missing my efficiency angle- it's not that the people aren't there, it's just large nations are not as good at small nations at finding them.

Plus, as I mention, Europeans enter into more events.

Despite not having a full-blooded cultural interest in athletics, the US still dominates that sport by a wide margin. Try adding up the athletics medals in the 2012 Olympics and see how Europe does then- you'll see the US wins that pretty well.

But take Equestrianism. GB won 5 medals in that in 2012. The US won 0. Is this because of some innate inferiority of the US? No, it's because the US doesn't give a damn about equestrian sports. There's no culture there about being good at it. There are several sports like that in the Olympics which various European cultures go for and the US likely never will.

Unless we make rodeo an Olympic sport. We have some good cowboy Bronco and bull riders.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Unless we make rodeo an Olympic sport. We have some good cowboy Bronco and bull riders.

Yes you do, it would be a good event as well.

Originally posted by Ol' Shellhead
Come on Digi, you don't think that if you had the champion the rise of MMA would never have happened. It's why Fedor was never given the contract he deserved by the UFC when he was at his peak. It would have killed the growth of MMA in the U.S.
The UFC tried to give Fedor a contract, but Fedor is managed by idiots who let his best years slip by him. It had nothing to do with xenophobia. Most people thought Fedor was cool.

Foreign fighters get popular here just like any others. GSP was huge, even after all the criticism he got for his shift to the "boring" fighting style.

How about we settle who has the best athletes by a nice little round of Global Guts? Screw Olympic medals, show me you can climb the Aggro Crag.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The UFC tried to give Fedor a contract, but Fedor is managed by idiots who let his best years slip by him. It had nothing to do with xenophobia.

Foreign fighters get popular here just like any others. GSP was huge, even after all the criticism he got for his shift to the "boring" fighting style.

They wouldn't pay Fedor what he was worth and most of the huge foreign fighters are from the American Continent. GSP is Canadian, Silva is South American....
Fedor, well Fedor was God.

Like with heavyweight boxing, Americans will lose interest in MMA when foreigners start to dominate. At the moment the rules in the UFC are Wrestler friendly and skewed towards Americans. That will change as better boxers enter it.

Fedor is still my all time favorite fighter.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Fedor is still my all time favorite fighter.

Mine too. Pride was so much better than the UFC the modern rules are shit.

Originally posted by Digi
The Olympics are only one measure of athletic success. There are others, if we were truly going for thorough analysis.

I'd hesitate to make any sweeping generalizations. Sociological, cultural, genetic, and demographic variables play into any question like this, as other have mentioned. To come to any conclusion that resembles an authoritative opinion, we'd need a novel's worth of statistics and research, not an internet thread and one link.

Also, as an American, I can tell you the country only pretends to care when the Olympics come around. And we're usually happy to pick 1-2 athletes or stories as representative and ignore the rest. Obviously there's a ton of interest and passion about sports. Just not most Olympic sports. Our sporting interests lie decidedly elsewhere.






Most Americans only care about football, baseball, and/or basketball though a lot like ice hockey too. Me? I couldn't care less about sports at all. I used to love football when I was younger especially SEC football but I lost interest.

https://youtu.be/o6YVEkl5pbs


Should be an Olympic sport

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
https://youtu.be/o6YVEkl5pbs


Should be an Olympic sport



LOL.

Originally posted by Star428



Most Americans only care about football, baseball, and/or basketball though a lot like ice hockey too. Me? I couldn't care less about sports at all. I used to love football when I was younger especially SEC football but I lost interest.




So, in conclusion, Europeans' "athletic ability" is only superior to Americans' in sports that Americans don't really give a shit about.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Basically horse dancing/gymnastics.

The only true sport.

So far only you have improved my original post OV, I did not originally consider horse populations and genetics for each country