How can a country of 23 Million people win so many medals at the olympics?
When population is taken into account, they have won:
5 * more medals than the USA
32 * more medals than China
Not trying to troll, just trying to figure out why they are so superior to every other country.
Australians are obsessed with sport and competition
What else can they do down there?
>PER CAPITA
>PROXY SHITPOSTING
>An American that doesn't like population statistics because it makes them look bad
Big shock
>he actually believes the per capita m3m3
Dear lord.
Being good at sports is the closest thing to a ""culture"" Ausfailians have.
That and sniffing petrol 2bh
What's wrong with population statistics?
If they're so great, why is their population so shit?
For 3 days this has been explained at length, so you can ask one of your kangaroo cuckbois to run you through it.
No one has really said anything about other than
>it makes us look bad
Absolute horse shit.
Not really, a country with 14 times less population than the US/China/Russia/EU having so many medals is exceptional. Not taking this into account is just stupid.
If you say so lad. You obviously know best
>mfw poo peeland is getting beaten by Kosovo and Vietnam
That's not my fucking flag.
m8, this flag is for a nation where beating your wife and cutting your children's sexual organs count as sports.
Countries are capped on the number of athletes they can send. As a result, athletes have to filter down to equivalent values to compete. The literal only argument you have is that we have better athletes filtering through our system into the games. At the end of the day, 5 of our gymnasts (for example) competed against 5 of your gymnasts, and so on so forth. And we won, 5 to 5.
and 3 less medals than hungary
Respect your superior elders, stop shitposting
The point still stands.
You have a population of ~330M to pick athletes from
Australia has to to the same from 23M.
Yet they still win a shit load of medals.
>"""french""" womens basketball team
>all BLACKED
now get off Sup Forums and prep your bulls
Wewlad Yanks that don't like (and/or don't understand) facts and reason who fucking knew.
MuRiCa Is thE GreAteSt SpoRterS EVER GUYS
Has anyone noticed that when faced with the words "per capita", Americans on this board always try to ignore or shrug it off?
Either by laughing, replying with something completely different or just flat out ignoring it (I suspect they hide and report the post because it offends them), they NEVER supply a counter-argument to the per-capita point in regards to these Olympics.
You know why? Because they know its true (or just don't know what per-capita means). Because Australia IS the best sporting country in the world right now as evident by the golds we've won.
Not only that, we've effectively dismantled the big superpowers in the last week.
Horton has anally ruptured the entire population (now there's some per-capita for you) of China.
The Australian Sup Forums posters have continuously roasted (and I hope, humbled) America.
And Great Britain? Well, we don't have to do anything. Just look at their medal tally
Our athletes compete in a near 1 to 1 ratio with countries like Australia. And countries like Australia lose. The per capita argument does not work, it never will work, and you should drop it. A better argument would be improved training facilities, better trainers, and doping abuse in cases like Lance Armstrong.
>too long, didn't ausfailia
>A better argument would be improved training facilities, better trainers
But larger population and more money means there are these things....
NZ, only decent at one sport.
Australia wins a gold medal for it before them
Eternally cucked.
because it's a lame """"argument"""" Aussies have to make to justify their mediocrity.
classic ignorant septic tank
Wew mediocrity is top ten in the olympic top 4
TwelveApplePiesInOneSitting.jpg
>country has 10x the population of another
>also has (approximately) 10x the athletic body of the other competing
>will have 1 - fiercer competition 2 - far larger pool of athletes to choose from 3 - will have more great athletes (and also average and mediocre athletes, but this is irrelevant as they're not going to the olympics)
It's quite simple mathematics, per capita is a good measurement of a countries pop / economy / sporting culture, I don't think it's a measurement of winning the Olympics though.
tbqh Australia seems like a very nice place. I could see myself moving there, especially given how severely underpopulated you are
Australia is just very athletic country. We were the same back in the day, but no longer.
USA and other big countries with poor medal/population ratio don't like the system, for obvious reasons.
And you could train to your heart's content and never surpass a gifted athlete training in a subpar facility with all of his effort, which makes the point valid, but still does not justify a difference of 2,681 medals (USA) to 481 medals (Australia).
But wouldn't that mean that Hungary has twice as many medals anyways?
But why is Australia's populations so shit?
You could say "We've done all this with such a small population!", but then, it begs the question of why nobody wants to move there
you don't need a massive population to fund training for a handful of elite athletes. When you get to the level of competition at the Olympics the difference in coming in 1st and 8th are typically very small. You could offset your lower population by funding better development and training yet you don't and will always be a meme continent.
So you honestly think that population size (for decent sized countries ie 10M+) makes little difference to the medal count?
hello
who gives a fuck about countries
:^)
Sorry, meant to reply to this, too. You're correct, per capita is a terrible measurement for that very reason. The individuals still compete 1v1. The per capita argument would make sense if 5 USA olympians competed against 1 Australian olympian simultaneously, which (aside from qualifying rounds) does not happen.
More people leads to more likely hood of having a gifted person. A larger population leads to a larger chance a genetically gifted person actually trains for a sport.
A larger population gives you more rolls at the dice to have good athletes
except you have gifted athletes training in state of the art facilities, are you retarded?
BANTER
A
N
T
E
R
Fuck off, this Olympic season
Normally, I love Australia. They're our little brother who doesn't give a fuck and fights everyone. But right now, you're our rival, and that means that the gloves come off
Isn't like 3/4 of the country an arid desert?
It makes a difference in the quality of the olympian, but wouldn't that be the point? The olympians still compete 1 to 1, so the only argument for population is that we simply produce better athletes. Even that argument doesn't hold, given China and Russia's medal count in comparison to us (with even larger populations)
F U C K O F F W E R E F U L L
And every other cunt you meet will make fun of your accent.
It's not though, it still gives an indication of how the countries might compete with similar populations. The individuals compete 1v1, we just went through why the larger pop has the advantage in producing a better athlete.
You're the one trying to devalue one country's medals to make your own success seem like it's somehow better. If the US won as many medals as the Roos we would all be saying we failed instead of struggling to justify mediocrity on the world-stage.
So you're literally saying that we are better at the olympics? Because it sounds like you're saying our olympians come more prepared, more financed, better bred, and generally superior to all other countries.
Doesn't that make us superior?
I think the argument is pretty straightforward, greater numbers greater odds. I don't think it really matters though, it's just a game bro.
Because the largest portion of our country is red desert and dry salt flats.
Pic related is basically more less at least 70% of the cuntry looks like.
>we
>our
>us
lmao
yes, per capita is a measurement of if populations were equal, not as it stands, this is the whole point. Why are you reaching so hard to try and feel proud?
Can this meme die? Austrailia isn't even in the top 10 of Gold Medals/per million inhabitants, nor the top 10 in Medals/per million inhabitants.
You don't see Finnish autists shitposting here.
topendsports.com
This per capita argument is getting really fucking old really fucking fast.
Almost as lame as American neckbeard keyboard athletes boasting about muh medal count. Sort your shit out lads.
No what we are getting at with the "per capita" comments is that USA doesn't do as well as all their funding, facilities and huge number of athletes is that you should be winning more medals
What if I want to move to straya? I'll have a degree in horticulture in about 2 years too.
The per capita argument is convenient but is not equally indicative by medal count. As someone pointed out, going by the per capita argument, Michael Phelps is better than entire countries. It doesn't skew accurately between large countries and smaller nations. It's clearly the case when some countries of significantly greater population than your own fail to earn even one medal (India) while countries smaller than you earn more (Hungary). You're cherry picking reasons why the US isn't dominating the olympics, and you all are fully aware of it. Give up, move on, and tuck your tails.
Australia has pissed of China with Based Mack calling out purple piss Sun Yang.
Australia has made America butthurt with our P e r c a p i t A.
Who's fucking next?
see
sophistry in action, you've said nothing at all, this is futile, ciao nigga
> (You)
>you don't need a massive population to fund training for a handful of elite athletes.
How to get funding? How to bring up emerging talent?
>When you get to the level of competition at the Olympics the difference in coming in 1st and 8th are typically very small.
You have to get to that level first. But yes the best of the best are typically close in skill
>You could offset your lower population by funding better development and training yet you don't and will always be a meme continent.
Just stop being poor bro
You seem to live in a bit of a dreamland bro
I think it's fair to say someone like Phelps is a pretty fucking big outlier or does america have a bunch of long armed double ankle joint swimming apes stored in a warehouse somewhere.
>australia made america butthurt
>rekt on a global scale to the point of tragedy
You're trying too hard.
A better question would be: why are Americans so bad a sports?
It's mainly the really identifiable accents that get you tagged. Kiwi, Pom, Yank etc.
you gave him the (You)
I have a very thick accent but most people can't figure out what it's supposed to be or just probably think I'm russian or something.
Literally seething
>i have no intelligent counter to this so ill just be an idiot and hope no one notices
Of course he's an outlier, but the point is that per capita, there are olympians like him and ledecky that are more successful than entire countries over a full decade of games. If we're suggesting that per capita is an accurate depiction of medal count, this would not be the case. It also cannot explain massive populations like india having 0 medals. Thus, it's a poor measurement of success. A far better measurement would be averaging the number of medals achieved, scaling them based on value, and determining the number of athletes that competed for each country. Then you could obtain a ratio of athletes to medals that would be a much more reasonable number.
simple.wikipedia.org
>235 out of 241
>less dense than places like Macau and South Ossetia, which aren't even countries
You're not full. You're just lazy and won't build aqueducts into the Outback
And I don't give a fuck if you jabronis make fun of my accent.
91% of the population live on 3% of the land.
Fuck the kangaroos increased in numbers after colonisation because of dams and other water supplies
I think a reasonable explanation is that the mixing of Aboriginal and British genes somehow ended up producing more athletic people.
So basically Abos are the reason Australia is doing so well.
>this wall of text
"Per capita" isn't an argument it's a measurement. Medals are a measure of performance, per capita and per gpd are measurements that if equal show what the results could have been. No one (thay i have seen) has sad that USA doesn't do well, they (from what I have seen) are criticising you saying you should do better. You SJW movement has made you (and other USA posters) too sensitive to criticism
No one is arguing that a larger, better funded, and generally superior population should expect to win all the golds, but your argument that our medals are less valuable than yours falls flat when you look at other countries like China or Finland.
What I find hilarious about all this is that most of our best athletes play two sports that are not even represented in the Olympics. I always hoped some of our talented NFL players joined the US rugby team for an Olympic run one year.
>begs for explanation on why the per capita argument is idiotic at best
>wall of text, couldn't read
>you're too sensitive
No, you're just wrong. I realize it hurts to know there are intelligent burgers out there, but you'll get over it I'm certain.
Like Lance Armstrong, and the rest of your team.
>China
China started taking the Olympics seriously for the last 20 years or so, and they've made huge progress in that time. In another 20 years they will be the dominant country by medal count and we'll be hearing the arguments in support of per capita from US posters.
>destroyed the per capita argument
>they have to move to doping
This is desperation, folks.
O'Grady won gold for Aussies in 2004 but also admitted to doping.
You won't, unless it's trolling. China will definitely overtake us unless the Olympics falls apart due to the IOC's piss-poor management.
Comparable to the American Southwest, where I live. I live in a metro area of a million people that gets 29cm of precipitation per year. Our water mostly comes from a river 541km away, thanks to an aqueduct system built in the 60s and 70s. It's really not that hard.
Nature isn't something you just accept. You bend it to your fucking will when you need it to do things
I agree to an extent but we've been hearing that for decades. I think there are some things we will never beat them at and visa versa.
this.
WE WUZ PER CAPITA N' SHIEET
>Our athletes compete in a near 1 to 1 ratio
Yeah but you have a bigger pool to draw from. What part of this are you not understanding?
If you have ten times as many people to pick from, you have ten times as much chance of finding the best at whatever you need them for.
Our population is less than half of China's yet we're beating them AND they're huge fucking cheaters.
China as a regional power won't even last til the end of the decade. Their economy has the same systemic issues that Japan had in the 80s, only much moreso
see
and
>this one embarrassing fat amerilard who is sitting in his parent's basement taking an argument on a nepalese claymation website EXTREMELY seriously
Pathetic.
Doesn't make the medals worth any less, which is the Roo's entire fucking argument.
>Per capita
See China.
Learn math
France is just buttering us up to take some of their refugees
>crying ausfags plead for per capita explanation
>someone takes the time to explain it
>they cannot figure out how to argue otherwise
>basement dwelling faggot hurr durr
Pathetic.
>humble America
umadbro.jpg
Those aren't proper arguments and avoids the point.
Bigger pool to draw athletes from is a huge advantage.
Tucson senpai?
>Every American I know fully expects us to beat the Chinese raw every olympics in total medals and gold medals despite a population differential
I don't think I could ever use the per capita meme to justify anything when we lose to the Chinese.