This makes no sense??

[KoLdArKnEsS]

I have always wondered about what country actually "wins" the olympics..if indeed some country is actually nominated as a winner so to speak. Is it the country with the most medals, the most gold medals, a combination of both? I was wondereing the other day that medal tallies alone would be a bit unfair for countries with smaller populations...is a smaller pool of potentially great athletes to grow..if hypothetically 1 in 1,000,000 persons is an extremely talented athlete to gold medal level, then a country with a population of 100 million versus a country with a population of 50 million has a decided advantage..as a handicap system would not be feasible..the only fair way to judge the winner would be a ratio of gold medals to population. So just mucking around I looked at the current gold medal tally.

US 25
China 24
Japan 15
Australia 14
Russia 9

Estimated populations for those countries;

China 1.25 billion
US 300 million
Russia 145 million
Japan 125 million
Australia 20 million

Gold medal per head of population ratio;

US 1 per 12 million
China 1 per 45 million
Japan 1 per 8 million
Australia 1 per 1.3 million
Russia 1 per 16 million

Rough results;

Australia 1.3 :kickass:
Japan 8
US 12
Russia 16
China 45 etc etc

I guess this system could never work though as you could have a tiny island country of 200,000 people with the worlds best white water canoe guy winning 1 gold and hence the Olympics for his country etc...

(those of you who know me well know about my maths ability, or lack there of...so bag my maths if you must..but Im already aware that Im clueless )

 

[armstrong]

You have a point. However, there are other country-specific advantages that can result in good Olympics odds. How about factoring in the number of people above the poverty level (only healthy people even think of sports, after all), or the number of sports facilities/gymnasiums (some backwater parts don't even have swimming pools or tracks), or maybe the country's Gross National Product (GNP; wealthier countries have more money to spend on sports programs) or per capita income? There are all sorts of things you can come up with to handicap the Olympic results, so each country can pick a method that will make his or her country come out #1, just as you chose population so OZ comes out ahead. :p

Hence the logic of the current system, where the plain medal counts are posted and sorted in decreasing order.

 

[KoLdArKnEsS]

Thats right Armstrong, my point exactly, there are so many considerations its basically impossible...perhaps at the post Olympics party there should be an eqaul number, say 6 persons chosen at random, 3 females, 3 males, from each country who compete in a street rules cage match, last man left standing wins ultimate glory for his/her country..ie bragging rights. I did not chose population just to show OZ as #1 Armstrong lol...it was just an example I plucked out to illustrate the point. I could never be so one eyed.
I mean the US only has 280 million more people than us to be beating us by 10 gold? I dont think there is anything in those numbers that can be read into mate...... :hehe:

 

[armstrong]

Oops - sorry if Iassumed. Still, there's nothing wrong with your method, sports analysts do it all the time! Also, I have to concede that OZ does kick serious Olympic butt. :tu:

 

[KoLdArKnEsS]

ha..no need for sorry Im just pullin your leg mate lol...I was lucky enough to do some Police work up at the Olympics at Sydney in 2000..I had that much fun I wouldnt know where to begin. Im sad it could not be held here again any time soon. I would volunteer again quick as a flash. The city was choked full of strange peaple, food and music from all corners of the world. I have been a massive fan of multi culturalism ever since, I wish they would all come back so I can find some good turkish pizza again.