13 Aug 12
46 gold to China's 38 and 104 medals to 87. Impressive showing by the US.
The other big winner is host Great Britain with the 3rd most golds at 29 and the 4th most medals at 65.
Biggest disappointment has to be Australia with only seven gold medals, only one of which came in the pool where Australia was once thought to be a threat to the US for swimming supremacy.
Originally posted by sh76The U.K. would win out of these three according to a per capita basis calculation. China would come a distant third.
46 gold to China's 38 and 104 medals to 87. Impressive showing by the US.
The other big winner is host Great Britain with the 3rd most golds at 29 and the 4th most medals at 65.
13 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFno it's not daft I'll make this as easy for you as I can, if 90% of the world's population needed to come up with 500 olympians and the other 10% come up with 500 olympians also One would expect team90% to win more medals Because there's so much more to choose from,
Only if you compare the number of medals to the population size, which is daft.
That's why in all olympics the high population countries dominate the medal tally
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by tim88In "...all olympics the high population countries dominate the medal tally"? You mean countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Japan, which constitute 7 out of the 10 "high population countries" in the world?
That's why in all olympics the high population countries dominate the medal tally
Here are the next 10 "high population countries": Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Germany, Iran, Turkey, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Thailand. Germany got 11 Golds, I see; does Germany's medal tally that substantiate your point, do you think?
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFlook and see how many athletes some of the countries you talk about For example Bangladesh 5 athletes , Indonesia 22 , Nigeria 52
In "...all olympics the high population countries dominate the medal tally"? You mean countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Japan, which constitute 7 out of the 10 "high population countries" in the world?
Here are the next 10 "high population countries": Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Germany, Iran, Tu ...[text shortened]... t 11 Golds, I see; does Germany's medal tally that substantiate your point, do you think?
13 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFcountrys that can afford to train and send their athletes to the olympics, The countries you talk about can't do that must i paint you a picture
So how does this back your "in all olympics the high population countries dominate the medal tally" theory?
13 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tim88You claimed the the medal tally of all Olympics is dominated by "the high population countries". But now you are suggesting that it is dominated by "countries that can afford to train and send their athletes to the Olympics". You seem to have kind of changed the subject. Do you think you've changed the subject?
countrys that can afford to train and send their athletes to the olympics, The countries you talk about can't do that must i paint you a picture
The countries you talk about can't do that must i paint you a picture
The countries I talked about are "the high population countries"; isn't that what we are talking about? You brought it up.
13 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF
The U.K. would win out of these three according to a per capita basis calculation. China would come a distant third.
Originally posted by FMF
Only if you compare the number of medals to the population size, which is daft.
Dude, please never leave RHP. What would my life be life without this high quality entertainment? 😉
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFyes high population countries that can afford to train and send, Why would countries that can't afford to send and train their athletes dominant the medal tally? It's common sense and should go without saying Like i said before do i need to paint you a picture
You claimed the the medal tally of all Olympics is dominated by "the high population countries". But now you are suggesting that it is dominated by "countries that can afford to train and send their athletes to the Olympics". You seem to have kind of changed the subject. Do you think you've changed the subject?
[b]The countries you talk about can't do that mu ...[text shortened]... he high population countries"; isn't that what we are talking about? You brought it up.
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by tim88The problem with your theory about "high population countries" dominating the medal tally is that most "high population countries" cannot afford to train and send athletes. This is one reason why, contrary to what you claimed, "high population countries" do not dominate the medal tally. Indeed, most "high population countries" are nowhere near dominating it.
yes high population countries that can afford to train and send, Why would countries that can't afford to send and train their athletes dominant the medal tally? It's common sense and should go without saying Like i said before do i need to paint you a picture
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFamerica and china have always dominated the medal tally, that and your always need to be right even though you know you wrong syndrome, i'm done talking to babies
The problem with your theory about "high population countries" dominating the medal tally is that most "high population countries" cannot afford to train and send athletes. This is one reason why, contrary to what you claimed, "high population countries" [b]do not dominate the medal tally. Indeed, most "high population countries" are nowhere near dominating it.[/b]
