|
Poll: Why are the USA so above everyone else in sports?
View Poll Results: Why?
|
The reality is, sometimes you win
|
|
60 |
53.57% |
Sacred and superior
|
|
25 |
22.32% |
Lil quick victories
|
|
16 |
14.29% |
Luck of the draw
|
|
11 |
9.82% |
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 40,803
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LionH3art
The EU slaying the US
|
I sure hope a group of 28 countries could slay 1!
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 20,050
|
Because the US is just simply better at everything we do
We have proved this since the first time we beat Britain's ass in our first ever war, and we still continue to be #1
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 3,396
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mezter
I sure hope a group of 28 countries could slay a group of 50 states!
|
Fixed.
I'm usually not the one to point at the alleged inferiority of the US, but the blatant nationalism here left me no other choice than to point at your delusion of superiority. Hell, why are we even discussing this when none of us ourselves are participating? Why are we proud of people we've never met and who are not related to us besides being born on the same territory, perhaps 4000km away?
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 4,721
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 40,803
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Swine
Fixed.
I'm usually not the one to point at the alleged inferiority of the US, but the blatant nationalism here left me no other choice than to point at your delusion of superiority. Hell, why are we even discussing this when none of us ourselves are participating? Why are we proud of people we've never met and who are not related to us besides being born on the same territory, perhaps 4000km away?
|
So you're telling me that a place like Kansas or Wyoming could go up against a well developed European country and that would be equal?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -brian
Hi! As evidenced by your condescending posts you don't really understand how the Olympics work! Countries are only allowed to send a certain number of athletes. That's why you have countries like China and Australia sending the same amount of athletes! This means while only two Americans can attempt to get a spot in an event final, 56 (28 * 2) European Union members can! Now if you combined all these European nations, you'd be removing a LOT of athletes... and their medals
When London hosted the Olympics and Great Britain were allowed to send many more athletes, they won a LOT more medals than normal! If there were no limits, the medal count would look a lot different. That is why you cannot account for population size
US athletes competing: 554 / Gold medals: 24
EU athletes competing: 3,607 / Gold medals: 52
Ouch
|
The number of athletes who can participate in Olympics doesnt make a difference at all, when all athletes must qualify for each event. In the end, it all comes down to just three medals and no country can have more than two athletes or one team in the final round, so all you need is to send two best athletes or the best team you have in each category. Big countries just need to make more local qualification events before Olympics to determine who will represent their country, thats all.
The stupidity in here
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2015
Posts: 3,112
|
This thread Yall should just stick to pop music discussions.
Anyway, the answer is obvious.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 3,396
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mezter
I sure hope a group of 28 countries could slay 1!
So you're telling me that a place like Kansas or Wyoming could go up against a well developed European country and that would be equal?
|
Isn't that how the olympics work? Countries like Vanuatu and China face up against eachother. Doesn't have to be equal. Just depends on the territory that thanks to history became a state or country or nation.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/23/2006
Posts: 20,355
|
winners attitude, 320 million citizens and lots of money
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 40,803
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Swine
Isn't that how the olympics work? Countries like Vanuatu and China face up against eachother. Doesn't have to be equal. Just depends on the territory that thanks to history became a state or country or nation.
|
Then why not divide other countries into separate parts too because they have states/territories?
The point is The USA is one country and the European Union is not and that's the way the cookie crumbles. The European nations can stay combining their medals while the USA just has one solid number
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nikolai.
Because the US is just simply better at everything we do
We have proved this since the first time we beat Britain's ass in our first ever war, and we still continue to be #1
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 745
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -brian
...But you are assuming that there is a definitive top two. You are talking about athletes that are hundreds of a second better than each other—races can go ANY way. Great Britain's athletes automatically qualified for every event in London, so they got to send about 200 athletes more than usual. And guess what? They won a lot more gold. More people, more chances for gold. Period.
And I've only spoken about individual events.. how about all the events with national teams? For example, if the U.S. could send more than one team for women's gymnastics, and more than two athletes for the all-around, they'd occupy the entire stand. You just cannot adjust for population size with these limits, sorry.
Really? The number of athletes who can participate doesn't make a difference? When London hosted the Olympics, Great Britain automatically qualified for every event. They had over 500 athletes when usually they send less than 300. This means athletes who wouldn't have qualified were still sent to the events. And guess what? GB won a lot more gold than normal! Because in the REAL WORLD, there are no definitive two best athletes who consistently perform the best. They're all the top athletes in the world, hundredths of a second apart from each other, all reacting differently to the Olympic environment.. so that comes with a lot of surprises. The "first best" American qualified for the final, but the "second best" didn't. The "third best" American COULD HAVE, but he wasn't allowed to try. Get it? And once again, there are so many national events that three US teams could occupy the entire medal stand... but they can't. You are stupid
|
Problem solved.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2011
Posts: 7,176
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qudron
No I didn't. If i did I'd post this
oh would you look at that?
|
!!!!
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 745
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -brian
Hi! As evidenced by your condescending posts you don't really understand how the Olympics work! Countries are only allowed to send a certain number of athletes. That's why you have countries like China and Australia sending the same amount of athletes! This means while only two Americans can attempt to get a spot in an event final, 56 (28 * 2) European Union members can! Now if you combined all these European nations, you'd be removing a LOT of athletes... and their medals
When London hosted the Olympics and Great Britain were allowed to send many more athletes, they won a LOT more medals than normal! If there were no limits, the medal count would look a lot different. That is why you cannot account for population size
US athletes competing: 554 / Gold medals: 24
EU athletes competing: 3,607 / Gold medals: 52
Ouch
|
oops
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 2,479
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -brian
Hi! As evidenced by your condescending posts you don't really understand how the Olympics work! Countries are only allowed to send a certain number of athletes. That's why you have countries like China and Australia sending the same amount of athletes! This means while only two Americans can attempt to get a spot in an event final, 56 (28 * 2) European Union members can! Now if you combined all these European nations, you'd be removing a LOT of athletes... and their medals
When London hosted the Olympics and Great Britain were allowed to send many more athletes, they won a LOT more medals than normal! If there were no limits, the medal count would look a lot different. That is why you cannot account for population size
US athletes competing: 554 / Gold medals: 24
EU athletes competing: 3,607 / Gold medals: 52
Ouch
|
Medals per capita is the correct measure:
1 New Zealand 8 4,595,700 574,462
2 Slovenia 3 2,063,768 687,922
3 Fiji 1 892,145 892,145
4 Hungary 11 9,844,686 894,971
5 Denmark 6 5,676,002 946,000
6 Lithuania 3 2,910,199 970,066
7 Australia 22 23,781,169 1,080,962
8 Estonia 1 1,311,998 1,311,998
9 Jamaica 2 2,725,941 1,362,970
10 Croatia 3 4,224,404 1,408,134
...
...
34 North Korea 5 25,155,317 5,031,063
35 Germany 16 81,413,145 5,088,321
36 United States 61 321,418,820 5,269,160
Ouch
http://www.medalspercapita.com/
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 2,479
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -brian
Wtf? Did you even read the post you replied to
I'll try to help you understand. If there were no limits, three American women would occupy the women's gymnastics stand. If there were no limits, three American teams would get gold, silver, and bronze in basketball... but they can only get one medal.
Per capita is a faulty measurement here... like why is this so hard to understand? I'm the first to say Europe has great education, healthcare, etc... But it's just so hard for some of you to admit America is great at sports, like
|
Yes, I read the post and it full of garbage like "When London hosted the Olympics and Great Britain were allowed to send many more athletes, they won a LOT more medals than normal! If there were no limits...".
Were you really expecting people to believe that there were no limit to the number of people that Great Britain could send?
Edit: if you don't like medals per capita, please feel free to count gold medals per capita.
I hope we can agree that even in the USA sent more teams, they still would have won a maximum of one gold medal per event?
Gold medals per capita:
1 Fiji 1 892,145 892,145
2 Kosovo 1 1,859,203 1,859,203
3 Hungary 5 9,844,686 1,968,937
4 Slovenia 1 2,063,768 2,063,768
5 Croatia 2 4,224,404 2,112,202
6 New Zealand 2 4,595,700 2,297,850
7 Jamaica 1 2,725,941 2,725,941
8 Puerto Rico 1 3,474,182 3,474,182
9 Australia 6 23,781,169 3,963,528
10 Switzerland 2 8,286,976 4,143,488
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 27,856
|
It's a combination of population (and the diversity of the said population), money and sporting resources.
America is the third biggest nation and arguably the richest (not sure where China stands compared to them on that one now) so naturally, they're able to invest much more money into high performance sport than pretty much any other nation on the planet. But more importantly in my opinion, the USA also has a long history of those first two two factors meaning they have generations of sporting knowledge, expertise and facilities to draw upon that many other nations such as my own simply don't (and probably never will) have across such a large range of disciplines.
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 2,479
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -brian
Full of garbage he says I didn't say there was no limit, so clearly you did NOT read. When a nation hosts the Olympics, they automatically qualify for every event. In that year, GB got to send more athletes than usual, and they won more gold. So clearly it does make a difference—which I was using to say it's unfair to compare the US to 28 countries that can send 56 athletes... Duh.
|
I still doesn't make any significant difference.
If the country gets to send more athletes, the extra ones aren't going to be better than the medal winners. In London the mens 10,000m (athletics) was won by Mo Farah. The same guy won in Rio. Whether the USA or UK gets to send more makes no difference.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -brian
Really? The number of athletes who can participate doesn't make a difference? When London hosted the Olympics, Great Britain automatically qualified for every event. They had over 500 athletes when usually they send less than 300. This means athletes who wouldn't have qualified were still sent to the events. And guess what? GB won a lot more gold than normal! Because in the REAL WORLD, there are no definitive two best athletes who consistently perform the best. They're all the top athletes in the world, hundredths of a second apart from each other, all reacting differently to the Olympic environment.. so that comes with a lot of surprises. The "first best" American qualified for the final, but the "second best" didn't. The "third best" American COULD HAVE, but he wasn't allowed to try. Get it? And once again, there are so many national events that three US teams could occupy the entire medal stand... but they can't. You are stupid
|
Have you ever heard of something called the home ground advantage - its psychological effect on athletes?
The pressure to not disappoint in front of home audience and the pressure and expectations of government have a significant role in this. Each host country invests billions into Olympic games and they want to present themselves in the best possible way, thats why in each host country rapidly grows financial support for sports in the 5 years before olympics, and all of this affects the performance. Its not really about the number of athletes, but the pressure on these athletes even in the years before olympics and the always increased support of government for sports.
And in fact, there are the definitive top athletes in each sport. Not two, but a very small group of athletes who are able to achieve the best results thanks to years of intense training and preparations, and these athletes know that to make their personal times better just for the hundredth of second requires a lot of hard work. Noone just wins because he was allowed to participate, because the times, points and skills the olympic finalists and champions display are untouchable for most athletes in the world.
And once again, no country can have more than two individual athletes or one team in the finals, including the host country, thats why there are many qualification events held. No country can occupy the entire stand. This rule affects all countries. Got it?
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,332
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
—
|
Okay, I don't know why we brought the topic here. The London thing was just an extra sentence I added, not thinking much of it. Sorry for using stupid, I just got offended that it was used towards me. Read my original comment—I was talking about the limit to say it's unfair to compare America to a group of countries that can in total send 56 athletes, or 28 nations, to an event. I don't think that's bizarre. The third best athlete who couldn't represent their country could have medalled. And if the EU was a country, someone who medalled might have come third in trials and not had to chance to compete at all. And EU can get two of three medals while America only one. I know what you mean, Phelps will always be the best regardless of other competitors. But there are many other events where it really could be anyone's game. I think these are legitimate reasons why it's unfair to compare the US to the EU.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
And once again, no country can have more than two individual athletes or one team in the finals, including the host country, thats why there are many qualification events held. No country can occupy the entire stand. This rule affects all countries. Got it?
|
Yes clearly! That's why the per capita thing hurts big countries and also why I think it's silly to compare the US to the EU.
|
|
|
|
|