Europe's athletic superiority
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.
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.
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 👆
Re: Europe's athletic superiority
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.
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 Ol' Shellhead
So the individual states of the United States have no statewide pride?
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 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.
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.
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?