You may only post in this thread if your country has won 10 or more medals at the 2016 Rio Olympics

You may only post in this thread if your country has won 10 or more medals at the 2016 Rio Olympics.

Not so fast, REST OF THE WORLD

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

Other urls found in this thread:

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1896
medalspercapita.com/#medals-per-capita:all-time
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1904
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1912
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1920
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1924
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1928
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1932
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1936
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1948
medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1952
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>3rd most populous country in the world
The only countries you can mock over being above are China and India

>le per capita meme

>Less golds than silvers or bronze
kek, thanks for the chuckle.

It's not a meme, America has over 300 million people while most major sporting countries have 20-60 million. How is it possible for America to not win?

Britain would fit into some states, yet we're top 5 in the all time medal table.

That's not how it works, you dense fuck.

MAD CAUSE BAD
MAD CAUSE BAD

KEEP MAKING EXCUSES
KEEP MAKING EXCUSES

Kill yourself faggot

>>Per capita is retarded to use for the Olympics because:
>>- The amount of athletes any one country can enter is capped.
>>- Law of diminishing returns. Growth won't remain linear.
>>- A small country with a million people only has to win 1 gold to have a per capita rate of 1 gold per 1 million. The US has to win 320 golds to equal that rate. There aren't even 320 golds to be won. China would have to win 1,600 Golds.
>>It unfairly punishes larger population countries and boosts smaller populated countries.
It's retarded.

Quoting another user because I'm lazy.

muh per capita.

We were kicking the shit out you when we had 71 million people to your 35 million.

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1896

>Greece

Yeah, they hosted and only got to field 169 athletes compared to our 14.

We always dominated this shit. Large pop or not.

Quit making excuses.

It is though. Is it even possible for a country of 20 million like Australia to finish above a country of over 300 million? It would be like Britain bragging over having more medals than Montserrat.

it's not

git gud

Why not judge on number of athletes sent to the olympics instead of total population?

Nice of you to cherrypick a single year.

Here is the all time per capita table.

medalspercapita.com/#medals-per-capita:all-time

>>Per capita is retarded to use for the Olympics because:
>>- The amount of athletes any one country can enter is capped.
>>- Law of diminishing returns. Growth won't remain linear.
>>- A small country with a million people only has to win 1 gold to have a per capita rate of 1 gold per 1 million. The US has to win 320 golds to equal that rate. There aren't even 320 golds to be won. China would have to win 1,600 Golds.
>>It unfairly punishes larger population countries and boosts smaller populated countries.

All these jealous Europoors and 3rd world countries LOL!!!!!! USA USA USA USA USA USA

Daily reminder that making excuses like a little bitch won't improve your olympic medal counts

Git gud, make no excuses

your weakness sickens me, britain

>Is it even possible for a country of 20 million like Australia to finish above a country of over 300 million?

Australia finishes ahead of India (1 billion), and countries with populations of over 200 million like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

New Zealand will finish above Mexico, despite having a 20th of the population.

>But those are 3rd world and unathletic countries!

So there is more to it than just population. Who would've thought?

Maybe give some credit instead of just making excuses because you foreigners hate losing to Americans.

It's like this every olympics.

buh-buh-buh muh capita!

Pathetic.

Just accept American superiority and stop making excuses.

That, or train your athletes better so you don't suck.

A country of over 300 million is going to have a far, far bigger pool to draw athletes from, though. Think of how kany you have to beat in qualification just in America before Olympic selection. And even then America sends the largest teams still.

Obviously anomalies and countries with 1 or 2 medals in the all time medal table medalspercapita.com/#medals-per-capita:all-time should be ignored. It is a good measure for proper countries, unlike Netherlands Antilles or whatever.

Probably an s-curve relationship between population and medal capability. Per-capita assumes a linear relationship

You dumb? Do you realize that all-time number just rates us at our current population level?

We didn't always have 320 million people.

And no need to cherry pick. Beat you in "per capita" all of these years, too.

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1904

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1912


medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1920

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1924

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1928

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1932

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1936

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1948

medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:1952


I can keep going, and you'll notice we were beating all of those 30-60 million populated countries, as well.

We've always ruled the Olympics. 70 million people, 100 million people, 200 million people, 300 million people.

Doesn't matter.

There are of course other factors like wealth, not being third world, having your results skewed heavily by one particular sport or athelete (Bolt, Phelps), etc. So yeah per capita isn't the absolute best measure but I would say it's better than just reading the medal table as it is, because realistically no country of 50 million or so is gonna top countries in the hundreds of millions, it's just not feasible.

you would stop doping, it becomes obvious.

stop being so shit at soccer and you won't have to be a whimpering mess crying MUH PER CAPITA come olympics time.

It's still going to show the US drastically ahead in medal count.

Do you understand that for a country with 320 million people to equal the UK's per capita gold rate in the 2012 Olympics, they'd have to win 150 golds?

No country has ever broken 100 golds, even during boycotts.

The silly per capita logic places impossible expectations on larger countries while boosting up smaller countries.

I know you need to use it to make yourselves feel better, but it's a silly argument.

Would Australia and the like win more medals with 320 million people? Sure. But you can't just assume they would win as many as the USA or China because of their current per capita rate.

As said ITT, law of diminishing returns. We had many 30-40 gold medal winning Olympics when we had 100-150 million people. We didn't automatically double that total just because our pop doubled.

I'm not a whimpering, crying mess. I'm sat having breakfast and watching TV with a perfectly straight face and trying to actually have a discussion about whether per capita is a good measure to use for medals.

I'm completely unaffected by how much England FC are shit, because I grew up after the 1990 World Cup and all the teams have been poor after that anyway. So I don't know any different. Plus I care about my club team og we're talking about football. As for Team GB, I'm always immensely proud of them. Beijing and London were fantastic for us.

>per capita

It's the argument of losers, because they have nothing else to go on.

Yeah I know what you mean. The real answer is somewhere in the middle. If America consisted of 30 million people, would it be anywhere near topping the table? Probably not. But they would still do well per capita I would assume.

America is my second favourite country and I like it, I also think it's a great sporting country. I'm not trying to anger Americans, I just don't think Americans can brag as much as they are over the table.

>3rd largest population with a ton of diversity
>spends most money on sports/training/coaches etc
>as a result, high schools, colleges, and professional leagues competing against each other all across the nation producing much better trained athletes


It would be embarassing if you guys weren't 1st desu senpai

yo real, does anyone actually care who wins the olympics?

we just got gold in some shooting medal, i've already forgotten her name, a month from now i wont even remember what events who won

>about whether per capita is a good measure to use for medals.

It isn't.

Shoe on the other foot.

I'm a Hungarian bragging about beating you "per capita" in London.

And Hungary is not much of an outlier like the Bahamas. They have 10 million people.

No matter. They logic is still retarded because to beat Hungary per capita, the UK would have to win 55 golds.

No country has won that amount unless during a boycott or in the very early Olympic days.

Per capita will always "punish" the larger country in comparison.

imagine if we cared about footy

>America is my second favourite country and I like it
t. someone whos never left their island, not even a drive to france

you do, and you're bad :^]

Aww does the world cup loss still sting? :^)

Hi guys I'm new to sports. I thought Brazil was supposed to be good at soccer? Why couldn't they score against Iraq? Is Iraq really really good or something?

If population was such a big reason it wouldn't have taken Vietnam, a country of like 80 million, over 60 years to win their first Olympic gold, and they still only got that in a sport where you shoot a gun.

nope :^]

iraq's the bomb

That doesn't prove anything, it just proves that Vietnam are shit.

Olympic soccer doesn't mean shit. Many teams don't have their best players like they do during the world cup.

We have been consistently the best, for decades. I always knew it in my heart but I had to quantify it and even I was surprised by how good we are.

Just look at this, we would still be ahead with other countries combing their scores.

>no ball
>sport

pick one

You just had to grab the low-hanging fruit, didn't you?

If fucking North Korea can develop Gold Medalists then at least one Vietkong should have won a gold before now.

>ameridoops and dopes
at least we are bad and clean

Yes it does. I can feel it.

sure it doesn't, my black beaner friend

we'll pick both because there's plenty of sports with no balls you idiot

your nigger is showing, argies

I suppose you're used to getting balls to the face but that doesn't make it the defining factor of a sport.

Britain has a third of the medals America has, despite being about 250 million less in terms of population. How exactly is America the best again?

most medals=best country

I know you bongs are stupid, but I didn't expect to have to explain it like I would a 2 year old

Come on son, get with the program

>If America consisted of 30 million people, would it be anywhere near topping the table? Probably not. But they would still do well per capita I would assume.

Probably not. But you also can't assume the reverse. "If the UK had 320 million people, they would top the medal table."

Bigger population might produce a bigger talent pool, but it also produces more infrastructure and social challenges.

As I said, we've remained pretty much constant at the 35-45 gold medal mark since the 20's.

Just because our population tripled, doesn't mean our medal count automatically did.

we beat you when we don't have a decided advantage too though

See We've always slapped you around in per capita. Our population grew by 250 million while your pop only grew by 15 million since the 1st Olympics.

But when our respective populations were 2 to 1 or 3 to 1, we still had no problem beating you in per capita.

My favorite thing about that chart is how the Soviet Union and Russia are listed separately, same thing with the two Germanys

>you idiot

This is literally the dumbest logic, most medals do not equal the best country. Most golds do. Of course USA is always going to win because they enter every event. Ameridoops on this board are seriously trying to be flaunt over something that someone else, who they've never met before, won.

IT DONT MEAN A THING WITHOUT DAT GOLD

The IOC begs to differ.

Talk about a lie, due to the fall out of your own national team

>Indianapolis 2002
>Atenas 2004

>The amount of athletes any one country can enter is capped.

True, but a country with a population of 300 million will have a greater chance of producing an elite athlete than a country with 23 million people.

If Country A) has 50,000 elite swimmers, while Country B) has 200,000, which do you reckon will produce the better swimmers? It doesn't matter if either country can only enter a maximum of __ athletes, because their top 5% of athletes will be more exclusive.

Considering this population handicap, do you still think it's unimpressive that Country A) (for example) invariably places in the Top 10 in each Olympics?

We are 1 tenth of the way there

Soon...

I think you're treading dangerously close to admitting that the United States breeds super-athletes and as such always wins.

Nah, think about the implications for Country A) -- a significantly lower population, yet still able to play amongst Country B) and the likes.

But that's elevating country B to some higher status than country A. No matter how you look at it, you're inferior in some regards. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we win more frequently because we have superior athletes, or you are competing on equal grounds and losing.

lol we're all fat and diabetic but we still manage to pump out more medals than you.

Bumping this for the devastation.

Nope. Keeping it up.

sorry was having tea
hows this thread going?

>we're top 5
Hahaha what a faggot

You were saying?

we are still in the top 10, not sure what your point is.

>best Korea is #1
as to be expected

SWEDEN

Y E S
E
S

>Nah, think about the implications for Country A) -- a significantly lower population, yet still able to play amongst Country B) and the likes.

>But that's elevating B) above A).

What? Is this some kind of persecution complex?

Point was Best Korea

muh cabidus :-:DDDD

Coming from the faggot whose country of 64 million couldn't beat Iceland with 330,000. How is it possible for England not to win? I mean, Iceland fits at least twice into all but one state?
Oh I know.
Cause you're a bunch of pansy princess who are only good at showing with your dads.

Great relevant bants lad

>Counting non-gold medals

Americans are women