Europe's athletic superiority

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 [b]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. [/B]

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 [b]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. [/B]

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.