ForumGarden

Just to massage the ego's of the British, and for a bit of fun, can somebody work out the percentage of Olympic medals to population of the countries winning them.

I have tried, but I am numerically challenged, or my calc doesn't have enough decimal places.

The USA has 90 medals with a population of 314,127,000

China has 80 with 1,347,350,000 population

UK has 54 with 62,262,000 population

Russia has 57 with 143,117,000 population

Jamaica has 9 with 2,705,827 population

There was some stats about Yorkshires total medal tally, so feel free to add your own slant, bigging up your neck of the woods.

Surely It should be the percentage taken from medals gained to amount of entrants per country? Population has nowt to do with It.

EG.... Team GB has 541 Entrants. Total medal count to date = 56 = 9.6

There's a stack of countries have no medals at all.

Of those that have won something, the fewest medals per million population is India (4 per 1103371000).

The only countries top of the list with more than one medal per million population are

Belarus 9755000 1.03

Netherlands 16299000 1.04

Mongolia 2646000 1.13

Cyprus 835000 1.20

Hungary 10098000 1.49

Australia 20155000 1.49

Estonia 1330000 1.50

Denmark 5431000 1.66

Slovenia 1967000 2.03

Qatar 813000 2.46

New Zealand 4028000 2.73

Jamaica 2651000 3.39

Grenada 103000 9.71

Well done New Zealand, Jamaica and Grenada!

Other positions of interest are

People's Republic of China (Mainland) 1307593000 0.06

United States of America 298213000 0.30

Russia 143202000 0.40

Canada 32268000 0.53

Cuba 11269000 0.80

United Kingdom 59668000 0.91

So I determine from that, that the UK as a multi medal winning Nation is pretty good percentagewise.

Bruv;1400212 wrote: So I determine from that, that the UK as a multi medal winning Nation is pretty good percentagewise.


Not 'Arf, as they say round those parts. If oscar gets her finger out and produces the table she prefers she might find Jamaica and Grenada both near the very top of the table for medals per entrant and medals per GDP as well as medals per population, they've had a triumph. And I suspect medals per entrant ranks Iran in the top three, so be warned.

Bruv;1400212 wrote: So I determine from that, that the UK as a multi medal winning Nation is pretty good percentagewise.


It's pretty good but not compared to percentage of entrants from the USA and China

USA = 530 Entrants = 94 medals = 5.6

China = 396 Entrants = 81 medals = 4.8

Any old country can have a one off super sportsman or woman drawn from a small population, or excel at a national sport and clean up in one discipline.

Or draw from a population equivalent to a fifth of the total world population......like China.

But considering the UK have high count over a wide spread of sports, according to the statistics................we are the champions

oscar;1400218 wrote: It's pretty good but not compared to percentage of entrants from the USA and China

USA = 530 Entrants = 94 medals = 5.6

China = 396 Entrants = 81 medals = 4.8


China have a fifth of the worlds population to choose from, compared to them we are supreme.

oscar;1400218 wrote: USA = 530 Entrants = 94 medals = 5.6
Where are you getting your "Entrants" figures from? The official Olympics website says 539, for instance - http://www.london2012.com/country/united-states/

For the Iran figure, Iran = 53 Entrants = 10 medals = 5.3. I'm not sure you'll please the Americans by using the formula you're so keen on, since lower is better.

spot;1400226 wrote: Where are you getting your "Entrants" figures from? The official Olympics website says 539, for instance - http://www.london2012.com/country/united-states/

For the Iran figure, Iran = 53 Entrants = 10 medals = 5.3. I'm not sure you'll please the Americans by using the formula you're so keen on, since lower is better. Go away. I do not wish to engage with you.

Bruv;1400225 wrote: China have a fifth of the worlds population to choose from, compared to them we are supreme.We've not had such a clean sweep since the Eighth Army landed at Salerno and marched on Rome. I bet they don't talk much about that in Italy.

spot;1400229 wrote: We've not had such a clean sweep since the Eighth Army landed at Salerno and marched on Rome. I bet they don't talk much about that in Italy.


Virtually ripped their face off.....statistically speaking......................didn't we ?

Bruv;1400230 wrote: Virtually ripped their face off.....statistically speaking......................didn't we ?


Within 13.53%, but there's still two days' play before we tot up the whatsits.

spot;1400229 wrote: We've not had such a clean sweep since the Eighth Army landed at Salerno and marched on Rome. I bet they don't talk much about that in Italy.


Rather a bad example don't you think? It wasn't just the british that landed and there was the salerno mutiny so clean sweep by the British at salerno is a rather dubious claim to make.

Are you saying Spot might be a little partisan?

It was a poor attempt at humour, since the whole idiocy of the Italian landings is that the Eighth Army went in protesting 300 miles south of Salerno and had to play catch-up for the entire campaign. The mutineers at Salerno weren't under Montgomery's command.

spot;1400248 wrote: It was a poor attempt at humour.......


Many of your posts give me a chuckle, some make me squirm embarrassed, have been known to giggle hysterically.

Quite a lot go right over my head.

Sure it's my problem though.

I'm a serious-minded chap to whom comic turns do not come naturally. The trouble is my normal mode of existence induces catatonia in all who hear me. Perhaps if I acquire a swazzle I can change my image.

hmmm... or maybe not, I just browsed an early Punch and Judy script. Powerful stuff.

spot;1400252 wrote: I'm a serious-minded chap to whom comic turns do not come naturally. Like Mr Bean do you mean? Unintentionally hilarious ? The trouble is my normal mode of existence induces catatonia in all who hear me. The glazed eye look do you mean ? Suspect you see a lot of glazed eyes Perhaps if I acquire a swazzle I can change my image.I wouldn't bother to be honest. Too long in the tooth to affect any change now.

oscar;1400182 wrote: Surely It should be the percentage taken from medals gained to amount of entrants per country? Population has nowt to do with It.

EG.... Team GB has 541 Entrants. Total medal count to date = 56 = 9.6Perhaps one's culture has the most to do with winning medals in the olympics but I wouldn't say "nowt to do with it".

After considering a sports minded culture, more people ultimately means more of a chance to produce an athlete capable of winning

I was thinking about this today and I came up with medals per GDP.

Firstly, the more people a country has then the more likely they are to find a gifted athlete - medals are proportional to population.

Secondly, the higher the GDP per head of population the more money they have to spend of each athlete's training.

Putting the two together the population disappears just leaving the GDP as the determinant.

What think you?

Bryn Mawr;1400385 wrote: I was thinking about this today and I came up with medals per GDP.

Firstly, the more people a country has then the more likely they are to find a gifted athlete - medals are proportional to population.

Secondly, the higher the GDP per head of population the more money they have to spend of each athlete's training.

Putting the two together the population disappears just leaving the GDP as the determinant.

What think you?


You can experiment with GDP - and Team Size, come to that - with IOC standard medal weighting at Olympics 2012: the alternative medal table interactive visualised | Sport | guardian.co.uk

spot;1400386 wrote: You can experiment with GDP - and Team Size, come to that - with IOC standard medal weighting at Olympics 2012: the alternative medal table interactive visualised | Sport | guardian.co.uk


So the UK forty first - just ahead of Afghanistan and just behind Australia (damn).

I have just played about with that interactive table................and my head hurts.

Bryn Mawr;1400389 wrote: So the UK forty first - just ahead of Afghanistan and just behind Australia (damn).


Go on - Jamaica and Grenada are 1 and 2, as they are when ordered by Population and they come in 5 and 6 sorted by Team Size. I reckon that's conclusively impressive.

Humour me please.......what is the starting point for working out the results shown according to GDP ?



I know as soon as I hear........ it will all click into place

Click the pull-down list next to "Sort table by: ".

spot;1400391 wrote: Go on - Jamaica and Grenada are 1 and 2, as they are when ordered by Population and they come in 5 and 6 sorted by Team Size. I reckon that's conclusively impressive.


Totally agree - the clean sweep in the sprint was awesome.

spot;1400395 wrote: Click the pull-down list next to "Sort table by: ".


I am not THAT silly.

Grenada having 122.7 Golds and USA having 0.8 overall medals, needs some light thrown on it for the unfortunate amongst us.....namely me.







I have been told never be afraid of asking if you don't understand something......and I am not afraid of asking, because I don't get it.

Sure enough I will as soon as it is spelled out.

Bruv;1400402 wrote: I have been told never be afraid of asking if you don't understand something......and I am not afraid of asking, because I don't get it.

Sure enough I will as soon as it is spelled out.


Let's do population or Team Size. GDP is harder to follow.

All the medals won so far are totalled by gold, silver and bronze. The total population or team size of those winning countries are totalled. The number shown on the pull-down display is the number of medals the country would have won if their population had been the mean average among the winning countries, or their team size had been the mean average among the winning countries, assuming that a larger population or team size would win a proportionate increase in medals.

The table then ranks the countries by weighting these hypothetical golds as 3, silvers as 2 and bronzes as 1.

spot;1400412 wrote: Let's do population or Team Size. GDP is harder to follow.




For you too ?

Thank heavens, I thought it was me.

The flaw in all the projected statistics is they are based on the real results from isolated exceptional athletes that may or may not be based and their training nurtured in their home country.

Kirani James the Grenadian is based in Alabama, I suspect a high proportion of top track athletes are based in the US.

I wonder what USA based athlete results would show ?

Bruv;1400434 wrote: I wonder what USA based athlete results would show ?
The superficial attraction of capitalism, I presume.

spot;1400435 wrote: The superficial attraction of capitalism, I presume.


And of course the prospect of using the best facilities and coaching and a free/sponsored education thrown in.

Bruv;1400446 wrote: And of course the prospect of using the best facilities and coaching and a free/sponsored education thrown in.


In exchange for the demeaning commercial exploitation.

spot;1400456 wrote: In exchange for the demeaning commercial exploitation.


Why should becoming rich beyond your wildest dreams be demeaning ?

Taking into account the options from their country of origin.

Any wage earner is exploited anyway...............that's the way it works.........until the revolution.