thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2008 11:14:13 GMT -5
When the U.S. Women's Soccer team won the gold medal, they won the 1,000 gold medal in the history of the Olympics (Summer and Winter) for the United States. The U.S. is the historical medal leader (though it's closer than it looks at times because of political changes). We've had some advantages, though. In early games we had more competitors than most countries, and Russia didn't compete until 1952. I've seen that list, it's not all that close, even if you combine USSR, Unified Team and Russia, we have well more golds. Did we really have more competitors and if so why? What goverened who qualified back then? All but two of the games were in Europe for the first half of the last century, I have to assume that was an advantage to the Europeans in every way.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 25, 2008 11:17:24 GMT -5
Russia/USSR didn't compete until 1952. That's a decent amount of Olympics they completely missed. Also, the US dominated early -- even a lot of the European games. But when it was in the U.S. -- like the 1904 St. Louis games -- over 80% of the competitors were American.
A state run system is always going to dominate. Per Olympics, the USSR was dominant. Like China will likely be.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2008 12:31:37 GMT -5
Are you assuming we had more competitors early because we dominated the medals early? I'm still not getting where we had "advantages." I see that we had success over others, but not advantages. Russia for the first half of the century was like India now. You can't say we had an "advantage" over Russia just because we had a far more developed sports culture at the time. It seems to reflect success rather than (implictly unfair) advantages that we enjoyed over other nations on the all time medals table.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 25, 2008 12:56:36 GMT -5
Are you assuming we had more competitors early because we dominated the medals early? I'm still not getting where we had "advantages." I see that we had success over others, but not advantages. Russia for the first half of the century was like India now. You can't say we had an "advantage" over Russia just because we had a far more developed sports culture at the time. It seems to reflect success rather than (implictly unfair) advantages that we enjoyed over other nations on the all time medals table. We had an advantage because we were at the Olympics and they weren't. You can't compare them to India because at least India sends athletes to the Games.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 25, 2008 13:16:09 GMT -5
Are you assuming we had more competitors early because we dominated the medals early? I'm still not getting where we had "advantages." I see that we had success over others, but not advantages. Russia for the first half of the century was like India now. You can't say we had an "advantage" over Russia just because we had a far more developed sports culture at the time. It seems to reflect success rather than (implictly unfair) advantages that we enjoyed over other nations on the all time medals table. The USSR originally refused to compete at the Olympics because it was capitalist decadence or some other thing like that (China did the same). Eventually, when they realized that they could pump up their athletes and keep them "amateurs" until age 40 and therefore confirm their superiority over the vile West, they changed their tune.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2008 13:58:09 GMT -5
Are you assuming we had more competitors early because we dominated the medals early? I'm still not getting where we had "advantages." I see that we had success over others, but not advantages. Russia for the first half of the century was like India now. You can't say we had an "advantage" over Russia just because we had a far more developed sports culture at the time. It seems to reflect success rather than (implictly unfair) advantages that we enjoyed over other nations on the all time medals table. We had an advantage because we were at the Olympics and they weren't. You can't compare them to India because at least India sends athletes to the Games. Well it may or may not be splitting hairs, but i would say one country put itself at a distinct disadvantage by not participating, rather than saying the US "had advantages" generally over the field. Point is, our primacy at the all time medals table is in no way tainted just because #2 didn't get their act together until half way into the game. That's their problem. Likewise, do I get to say the 2004 Athens games were tainted because I declined to take part because I hate the Greeks? Also note that the USSR didn't even exist for the first 5 or 6 games. Czarist Russia just didn't have much world class athletics interest/capability. Likewise, it's doubtful that the USSR had a world class sports machine instantly starting in 1917 and kept them out of the games for overly-idealogical reasons. So let's not get carried away with home many medals the russians "would have had" if they didn't fail to compete for a while. It probably isn't much of a number. As soon as they were in a position to be world class, they found an excuse to participate really quickly and do so with all sorts of real "advantages" over the west such as state imposed sports machines aimed at little children. Sounds familiar...oh...China. So who really enjoys "advantages" in the all time medals tables? The US? I don't think so.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 25, 2008 19:02:24 GMT -5
Are you assuming we had more competitors early because we dominated the medals early? I'm still not getting where we had "advantages." I see that we had success over others, but not advantages. Russia for the first half of the century was like India now. You can't say we had an "advantage" over Russia just because we had a far more developed sports culture at the time. It seems to reflect success rather than (implictly unfair) advantages that we enjoyed over other nations on the all time medals table. Russia actually held their own games for years. It wasn't necessarily that they were incapable. In the very early years, most countries wouldn't travel to compete. Like I said, in St. Louis, no one came but Americans. I'm not going to argue semantics -- my point is simply that some of our gigantic medal lead was due to other countries opting out, the fact that the Olympics were more popular here, etc. Nowadays, I'd say we're disadvantaged, with the limits on people in events, etc.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 25, 2008 19:15:57 GMT -5
Has anyone mentioned that Marvin Gaye/National Anthem/Team USA ad for Nike? that was very well done. I guess it had to be when you start with Marvin Gaye. His performance at that All Star game was quite a moment.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 26, 2008 9:57:39 GMT -5
Has anyone mentioned that Marvin Gaye/National Anthem/Team USA ad for Nike? that was very well done. I guess it had to be when you start with Marvin Gaye. His performance at that All Star game was quite a moment. Best ad I've seen in a few years.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 26, 2008 10:00:28 GMT -5
Are you assuming we had more competitors early because we dominated the medals early? I'm still not getting where we had "advantages." I see that we had success over others, but not advantages. Russia for the first half of the century was like India now. You can't say we had an "advantage" over Russia just because we had a far more developed sports culture at the time. It seems to reflect success rather than (implictly unfair) advantages that we enjoyed over other nations on the all time medals table. Russia actually held their own games for years. It wasn't necessarily that they were incapable. In the very early years, most countries wouldn't travel to compete. Like I said, in St. Louis, no one came but Americans. I'm not going to argue semantics -- my point is simply that some of our gigantic medal lead was due to other countries opting out, the fact that the Olympics were more popular here, etc. Nowadays, I'd say we're disadvantaged, with the limits on people in events, etc. There was one Games in the US between 1896 and 1932. If travelling affected Europeans for the St Louis games, it had to hit the US about as hard but far more often during the early modern era. If the US had an "advantage" it was not an unfair one (too bad for them they didn't care enough back then) and was more than balanced out in the second half of the century by the dodgy and fully funded state-driven machines of the Soviets (our closest rival), east germans, and now Chinese for the vast bulk of their medals. OK, i'm done.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 26, 2008 12:03:59 GMT -5
Who has the medal lead in the post-WWII era (i.e. 1952 to present)? That seems to be the easiest way to compare apples to apples.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 26, 2008 12:08:18 GMT -5
Who has the medal lead in the post-WWII era (i.e. 1952 to present)? That seems to be the easiest way to compare apples to apples. Basically what you are doing there is saying "let's remove the USA's most dominant years" just because it wasn't a priority for Russia or USSR at the time. I'm sorry but the Olmpics didnt' start at the begining of the cold war- and they continue now after the cold war. No arbitrary cut offs to eliminate those years where the USA (without a state program still) was kicking tail and taking names. What is this mixed doubles? Help them out with the total medal count (which emphatically counts ALL games) just to make it a fair fight? No thanks. They are big boys, they'll have to live with the fact that they decided to go after medals late in the game. It doesn't mean the US has an unfair advantage, it just means the Russians didn't matter much until about half time- again- their problem. Imperial Russia didn't specifically boycott any games did they? If they just didn't have their act together or give a damn, that's their problem. If you come to the party really late, you may lose out on party MVP. The bottom line is it's not some unfair advantage that the USA dominated the Olympics very early, no matter what reasons Russia/USSR stated for not competing. Tough cookies for them. We all know that as a dirt poor agrarian country of essentially serfs and overclass until the 1950s, they were not in a position to win medals no matter what excuse they may have used. Color me less than impressed that they held their own games- did they do well I hope?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 26, 2008 12:29:12 GMT -5
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 26, 2008 13:14:57 GMT -5
Does longevity make Pete Rose the greatest hitter of all time?
Rate counts, too -- and the reality is that state run systems have been better at generating total medal count on a per Olympic basis.
It all depends what you are trying to measure. The state run systems have a huge advantage as well.
You seem like the big thing for you is somehow assigning credit and blame. I don't really care -- use a different word than "advantage" if you like -- I'm just saying that our medal advantage is higher than it would have been if everyone competed in every Olympics. On the other hand, our medal count would be higher if every Olympics had the same number of events.
Let me put it another way:
It's not Babe Ruth's fault he didn't play against black players, but it was an advantage in terms of accumulating stats relative to other major leaguers.
It's not the current Heavyweight Champion's fault (who are they?) that the best athletes no longer go into boxing, but is an advantage for them -- you have to acknowledge that if the elite athletes still entered boxing, there's a good chance they wouldn't be champion.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 26, 2008 13:17:24 GMT -5
Or maybe another way:
If you're using medal count as a proxy for "American Athletes are this much better than other athletes" you have to acknowledge that for a time period, Russian athletes might have been very good, but they didn't compete for other reasons.
Just like you'd have to acknowledge that if you're using medal count, you are understating market-based economies/democracies and overstating government run systems as well as giving higher credit to more recent time periods.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 26, 2008 13:40:22 GMT -5
But the US Olympic record goes to 11......
I can see where you are coming from. I guess I think ultimately the advantage the US had of starting at begining is more than balanced out by the nature of the sports regimes that states like USSR and China ran and are running.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 26, 2008 13:50:04 GMT -5
Probably true.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 26, 2008 14:34:32 GMT -5
No real point of this post, other than that I thought the data were interesting. '08 Medal Rank | Nation | Medal Count | Population* (Rank) | Total GDP @ PPP** (Rank) | 1. | USA | 110 | 305 million (3) | 13.843 trillion (1) | 2. | CHN | 100 | 1,322 million (1) | 6.991 trillion (2) | 3. | RUS | 72 | 142 million (9) | 2.088 trillion (7) | 4. | GBR | 47 | 61 million (22) | 2.137 trillion (6) | 5. | AUS | 46 | 21 million (53) | 761 billion (17) |
NOTE: Somebody metioned India. India was 51st in medals with 6. Population 1,132 millon (2), GDP(PPP) $2.819 trillion (4) * Rounded projection from U.S. Census Bureau figures on census.gov popclock for USA; for all others, 2007 estimate ** IMF estimate, October 2007
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 26, 2008 14:56:45 GMT -5
It's not exactly a fresh sentiment, but Australia's performance is really hard to believe.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 27, 2008 15:42:43 GMT -5
Just got this interesting tidbit via Email. If Stanford University were a country, they would have tied CUBA for 12th in total medals with 24 and tied Italy for 9th in Gold Medals with 8 With the gold and silver-medal winning efforts of six Cardinal athletes in men's water polo and men's volleyball, Stanford athletes have now combined to win a school-record 25 medals in Beijing (eight gold, 12 silver and four bronze).
This phenomenal medal haul, won by 24 current and former Stanford athletes, is three better than the previous record of 21 medals accumulated by Stanford affiliates at the 1924 Olympics in Paris, France.
As the Beijing Games reached its penultimate day of competition, six Stanford athletes helped a pair of U.S. Teams reach heights unattained in 20 years. In the pool, the quartet of Tony Azevedo '05, Layne Beaubin, Peter Varellas '06 and Peter Hudnut '03 led an incredible run by the unheralded United States men's water polo team to a silver medal - its highest Olympic finish since 1988. On the volleyball court, Stanford grads Kevin Hansen '04 and Gabe Gardner '00 were part of a United States men's squad that culminated an emotional Olympics by bringing home gold for the first time since 1988.
All told, 23 current and former Stanford athletes have combined to win 24 medals - equalling the school record
|
|