Conquer Club

Yeah we are sliding big time just 28 medals ahead of second place china. I hope we keep on sliding like this! Maybe we can make it a bigger gap. LOL

BIG_John wrote:

waauw wrote:
USA: 324 million citizens, 26 gold medals and 72 total medals
France, Germany, Italy and Netherlands: combined 221 million citizens, 29 gold medals and 77 total medals

Find it funny you have to add 4 countries medals to say you beat the one country of the United States. That is a freaking joke! lol If that makes you feel better about yourselves then so be it. Everyone else knows who is leading in the medal count.

You don't get the point do you? 4 countries with a combined population of about 100 million less than the US.

saxitoxin wrote:

waauw wrote: USA: 324 million citizens, 26 gold medals and 72 total medals
France, Germany, Italy and Netherlands: combined 221 million citizens, 29 gold medals and 77 total medals

IOW, FR-DE-IT-NE had 400% the opportunity to win gold medals, but they only won 10% more.

As pointed out by Betiko already:

• USA: 26 gold medals with 321 million citizens= 1 gold medal/12,3 million people
• France: 7 gold medals with 65 million citizens= 1 gold medal/9,3 million people
• Germany: 8 gold medals with 81 million citizens= 1 gold medal/10,1 million people
• Italy: 8 gold medals with 60 million citizens= 1 gold medal/7,5 million people
• Netherlands: 6 gold medals with 17 million citizens= 1 gold medal/2,8 million people

However you twist it, the US really is not THAT efficient with developing athletes.

WTF !!! What does the amount of citizens in a country have to do with it?? The United States not that efficient? We have more Gold. more silver, more bronze then any other country. You want to throw that BS citizen crap China as more population then anybody and we are beating them.All you from a different country are butt hurt because we are kicking all your asses and you guys can't keep up! Maybe its the other countries that are not efficient with developing athletes! It is!!! We will keep stacking the medals and you all can keep crying about it!

BIG_John wrote:WTF !!! What does the amount of citizens in a country have to do with it?? The United States not that efficient? We have more Gold. more silver, more bronze then any other country. You want to throw that BS citizen crap China as more population then anybody and we are beating them.All you from a different country are butt hurt because we are kicking all your asses and you guys can't keep up! Maybe its the other countries that are not efficient with developing athletes! It is!!! We will keep stacking the medals and you all can keep crying about it!

You don't understand the difference between effectivity and efficiency do you?

What does it matter?? We are producing more medals then any other country? SO WTF is your point! All it is sounding like is a bunch a Jealous people that we are collecting more medals then anybody else. Please explain what effectivity and efficiency have to do with it when we have the most medals? Isn't that what the Olympics is all about? Representing your country and getting medals? So we are collecting more medals then any other country and you want to throw population in there. All that matter is the 26 gold 23 silver, and 26 Bronze that we have. I am sorry that you guys are butt hurt because your country couldn't get that many maybe one day you will get there or maybe train your athletes better,

waauw wrote:
However you twist it, the US really is not THAT efficient with developing athletes.

Not a twist. The EU is allowed to field 27 teams in each Olympic sport, the U.S. is allowed to field 1 team in each Olympic sport. Given that, it's a shock the EU only has 10% more medals. When you give Competitor A 27 chances to run a race, and Competitor B one chance to run the same race, Competitor A will probably win more often.

waauw wrote:As pointed out by Betiko already:
[*]France: 7 gold medals with 65 million citizens= 1 gold medal/9,3 million people[/list]

By this logic, Kosovo and Puerto Rico are better at developing athletes than France.

• Fiji: 1 gold medal with 892,000 citizens = 1 gold medal/892,000 people
  Bahrain: 1 gold medal with 1,377,237 = 1 gold medal/1,377,237 people
  Kosovo: 1 gold medal with 1,859,203 = 1 gold medal / 1,859,203 people
  Puerto Rico: 1 gold medal with 3,474,182 = 1 gold medal / 3,474,182 people
  Kazahkstan: 2 gold medals with 17,544,126 = 1 gold medal / 8,772,063 people

Per capita measurements are largely statistically irrelevant when you have large population variances. If the U.S. won a medal in all 306 Olympic events it still wouldn't be in the Top 10 for per capita medal countries.

Athletic thresholds can't be negated by population once you get above a certain level. If, in a population of 100 people, you get one person who can run a 300-second mile it's not logical to then presume that in a population of 10,000 a larger talent pool means you'll find someone who can run a 3-second mile. Per capita measurements of medals are based on the idea that, the larger the talent pool, the greater chance rare athletic abilities will emerge - IOW, that the larger a country is the more likely it is to produce someone who can run a 3-second mile. That only works in Metsfanmax's NerdLand-USA.

THANK YOU SAXITOXIN!! What you said makes a whole lot more since then what he was saying. He just wanted to keep repeating what someone else said.

Though Puerto Rico is due congrats for winning their first gold medal in history and officially becoming a more successful country than France (per capita). I saw this picture on Buzzfeed of San Juan -



- but not sure if they were celebrating the medal or they'd all gone insane from the Zika Virus.

saxitoxin wrote:

waauw wrote:As pointed out by Betiko already:

• USA: 26 gold medals with 321 million citizens= 1 gold medal/12,3 million people
• France: 7 gold medals with 65 million citizens= 1 gold medal/9,3 million people

By this logic, Kosovo and Puerto Rico are better at developing athletes than France.

• Fiji: 1 gold medal with 892,000 citizens = 1 gold medal/892,000 people
  Bahrain: 1 gold medal with 1,377,237 = 1 gold medal/1,377,237 people
  Kosovo: 1 gold medal with 1,859,203 = 1 gold medal / 1,859,203 people
  Puerto Rico: 1 gold medal with 3,474,182 = 1 gold medal / 3,474,182 people
  Kazahkstan: 2 gold medals with 17,544,126 = 1 gold medal / 8,772,063 people

.

By that logic, Fiji is not only better at developing athletes than France, it is also 14 times better than the U.S.

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

waauw wrote:As pointed out by Betiko already:

• USA: 26 gold medals with 321 million citizens= 1 gold medal/12,3 million people
• France: 7 gold medals with 65 million citizens= 1 gold medal/9,3 million people

By this logic, Kosovo and Puerto Rico are better at developing athletes than France.

• Fiji: 1 gold medal with 892,000 citizens = 1 gold medal/892,000 people
  Bahrain: 1 gold medal with 1,377,237 = 1 gold medal/1,377,237 people
  Kosovo: 1 gold medal with 1,859,203 = 1 gold medal / 1,859,203 people
  Puerto Rico: 1 gold medal with 3,474,182 = 1 gold medal / 3,474,182 people
  Kazahkstan: 2 gold medals with 17,544,126 = 1 gold medal / 8,772,063 people

.

By that logic, Fiji is not only better at developing athletes than France, it is also 14 times better than the U.S.

Puerto Rico > France
Puerto Rico > U.S.
Puerto Rico = U.S.
Puerto Rico ≠ France
∴
U.S. > France

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

waauw wrote:As pointed out by Betiko already:

• USA: 26 gold medals with 321 million citizens= 1 gold medal/12,3 million people
• France: 7 gold medals with 65 million citizens= 1 gold medal/9,3 million people

By this logic, Kosovo and Puerto Rico are better at developing athletes than France.

• Fiji: 1 gold medal with 892,000 citizens = 1 gold medal/892,000 people
  Bahrain: 1 gold medal with 1,377,237 = 1 gold medal/1,377,237 people
  Kosovo: 1 gold medal with 1,859,203 = 1 gold medal / 1,859,203 people
  Puerto Rico: 1 gold medal with 3,474,182 = 1 gold medal / 3,474,182 people
  Kazahkstan: 2 gold medals with 17,544,126 = 1 gold medal / 8,772,063 people

.

By that logic, Fiji is not only better at developing athletes than France, it is also 14 times better than the U.S.

Puerto Rico > France
Puerto Rico > U.S.
Puerto Rico = U.S.
Puerto Rico ≠ France
∴
U.S. > France

God spare us from sophomoric interpretations of algebra.

I still think they are just using this bs mathematical crap to make themselves feel better and make them think they truly did better then the United States!

Take away swimming (Micheal Phelps) and the USA aren't really that good at all. 33 medals in the pool.

Europeans like to claim that nationalism is dead in Europe, because saying that makes them feel all clever and superior, but betiko and waauw are doing a solid job of showing that the foam-mouthed nationalism of the Weimar is still alive and well.

Keefie wrote:Take away swimming (Micheal Phelps) and the USA aren't really that good at all. 33 medals in the pool.

You forgot to mention the part where he won those medals over four different Olympics, and most of them are for team relay (not individual events) and so the US would probably have won with or without him.

mrswdk wrote:

Keefie wrote:Take away swimming (Micheal Phelps) and the USA aren't really that good at all. 33 medals in the pool.

You forgot to mention the part where he won those medals over four different Olympics, and most of them are for team relay (not individual events) and so the US would probably have won with or without him.

Those 33 medals are the total for USA in the pool this Olympics.

Take the Pool away and the table would look like this

Team GB - G 15 S 12 B 8
China - G 14 S 12 B 14
USA - G 10 S 15 B 17

Good point. If you let a country compete in all events and then ignore the results of the events that country succeeds in, you can draw the conclusion that that country didn't actually do very well.

For example, if you take away World Cups and Euro Cups you can see that Spain and Germany actually have pretty average football teams.

mrswdk wrote:Good point. If you let a country compete in all events and then ignore the results of the events that country succeeds in, you can draw the conclusion that that country didn't actually do very well.

For example, if you take away World Cups and Euro Cups you can see that Spain and Germany actually have pretty average football teams.

No, the point is that apart from Swimming the USA is performing pretty poorly.

If you take swimming medals away from all teams, and not just the USA, then the USA is still winning.

Taking away swimming medals from all teams would also mean the UK slips below China. I guess that means the UK is actually doing worse than China then.

Hooray, go China! ^0^

mrswdk wrote:If you take swimming medals away from all teams, and not just the USA, then the USA is still winning, and the UK slips below China. I guess that means the UK is actually doing worse than China then.

Hooray, go China! ^0^

I've already done that Go GB

Why stop at swimming? If you take away every single event in the summer Olympics, then the UK is performing pretty poorly -

U.S. - 282 all-time winter Olympic medals
UK - 26

saxitoxin wrote:Why stop at swimming? If you take away every single event in the summer Olympics, then the UK is performing pretty poorly -

U.S. - 282 all-time winter Olympic medals
UK - 26

Yeah, but if you take away every single event in the summer Olympics, and then take away every single country except the UK, Jamaica and Saudi Arabia, then the UK is actually an unbeatable colossus of the sporting world.

saxitoxin wrote:Why stop at swimming? If you take away every single event in the summer Olympics, then the UK is performing pretty poorly -

U.S. - 282 all-time winter Olympic medals
UK - 26

A lack of mountains and snow really is a problem for us

BIG_John wrote:What does it matter?? We are producing more medals then any other country? SO WTF is your point! All it is sounding like is a bunch a Jealous people that we are collecting more medals then anybody else. Please explain what effectivity and efficiency have to do with it when we have the most medals? Isn't that what the Olympics is all about? Representing your country and getting medals? So we are collecting more medals then any other country and you want to throw population in there. All that matter is the 26 gold 23 silver, and 26 Bronze that we have. I am sorry that you guys are butt hurt because your country couldn't get that many maybe one day you will get there or maybe train your athletes better,

Dude I'm not jealous. I don't even watch the olympics; they bore me. But assuming you're the best country in the world in terms of sports because you are capable of out performing tiny nations is ridiculous. The US has the third largest population in the world, statistically that gives the US a much higher chance of having talented individuals in their population. There are only a handful of nations that the US can be proud of beating as they approximate the US.

saxitoxin wrote:

waauw wrote:
However you twist it, the US really is not THAT efficient with developing athletes.

Not a twist. The EU is allowed to field 27 teams in each Olympic sport, the U.S. is allowed to field 1 team in each Olympic sport. Given that, it's a shock the EU only has 10% more medals. When you give Competitor A 27 chances to run a race, and Competitor B one chance to run the same race, Competitor A will probably win more often.

waauw wrote:As pointed out by Betiko already:
[*]France: 7 gold medals with 65 million citizens= 1 gold medal/9,3 million people[/list]

By this logic, Kosovo and Puerto Rico are better at developing athletes than France.

• Fiji: 1 gold medal with 892,000 citizens = 1 gold medal/892,000 people
  Bahrain: 1 gold medal with 1,377,237 = 1 gold medal/1,377,237 people
  Kosovo: 1 gold medal with 1,859,203 = 1 gold medal / 1,859,203 people
  Puerto Rico: 1 gold medal with 3,474,182 = 1 gold medal / 3,474,182 people
  Kazahkstan: 2 gold medals with 17,544,126 = 1 gold medal / 8,772,063 people

Per capita measurements are largely statistically irrelevant when you have large population variances. If the U.S. won a medal in all 306 Olympic events it still wouldn't be in the Top 10 for per capita medal countries.

Athletic thresholds can't be negated by population once you get above a certain level. If, in a population of 100 people, you get one person who can run a 300-second mile it's not logical to then presume that in a population of 10,000 a larger talent pool means you'll find someone who can run a 3-second mile. Per capita measurements of medals are based on the idea that, the larger the talent pool, the greater chance rare athletic abilities will emerge - IOW, that the larger a country is the more likely it is to produce someone who can run a 3-second mile. That only works in Metsfanmax's NerdLand-USA.

Ehm dude, you're the one who mentions tiny countries like Fiji, not me. I know very well the effect of outliers on the performance variance of tiny nations. But the only country that I mentioned that even comes close to being called tiny is the Netherlands, and they already have about 17 million citizens. As soon as you start comparing countries with large populations of professional athletes, you can start making that averaged benchmark.

Just look at the current olympic ranking. All the way to the rank 8, you find nothing but 50 million+ countries, only starting rank 9 do you start seeing countries of smaller size. On top of that you can notice 3 countries of 100 million+ citizens in the top 4. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's the only variable in effect, but population size seems like a pretty significant one.

mrswdk wrote:Europeans like to claim that nationalism is dead in Europe, because saying that makes them feel all clever and superior, but betiko and waauw are doing a solid job of showing that the foam-mouthed nationalism of the Weimar is still alive and well.

Dude, nobody is saying nationalism is dead in europe. On the contrary, the media have already been reporting rising nationalism for years, but I guess you must have been hiding your head in the sand whenever the multicultural debate came up.