London Olympics 2012

[Azrael]

My only regret is that Russia beat us in Bronze medals. We should have come in first in third place also. USA USA USA ;p

We did very well. My regrets are that we didn't win the Mens 400m sprint, that Morgan Uceny didn't win the 1500m and that Lolo Jones didn't win the 100m hurdles. We have some fantastic athletes in those events; but they didn't have a good day. Other than that, very pleased.

[Typhoon]

Guardian | Olympics 2012: the alternative medals table

How do you measure a team's performance in the Olympics?
The traditional way is to just count up the number of medals won. And the result? The biggest countries always come top: the Olympic 'superpowers' of the US, China, Russia, UK, Australia and Germany.

But what if the totals took account of factors that must have an influence, such as the size of a country's population or its economic power, or compared it to the size of the athletic team in London?

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Guardian | Olympics 2012: the alternative medals table

How do you measure a team's performance in the Olympics?
The traditional way is to just count up the number of medals won. And the result? The biggest countries always come top: the Olympic 'superpowers' of the US, China, Russia, UK, Australia and Germany.

But what if the totals took account of factors that must have an influence, such as the size of a country's population or its economic power, or compared it to the size of the athletic team in London?

Or in other words, what if we just took different factors to play with statistics that tells us as much about who "won" as the medal count does? Then we can have a whole week's worth of nonsense articles to go with this nonsense competition.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The History of the Marathon as an Olympic Event or: How the Brits Tried to Steal a Medal for Some Italian Schlub .

[Typhoon]

Guardian | Olympics 2012: the alternative medals table

How do you measure a team's performance in the Olympics?
The traditional way is to just count up the number of medals won. And the result? The biggest countries always come top: the Olympic 'superpowers' of the US, China, Russia, UK, Australia and Germany.

But what if the totals took account of factors that must have an influence, such as the size of a country's population or its economic power, or compared it to the size of the athletic team in London?

Or in other words, what if we just took different factors to play with statistics that tells us as much about who "won" as the medal count does? Then we can have a whole week's worth of nonsense articles to go with this nonsense competition.

I think it's an interesting exercise to find which nations are outliers.

One expects nations with large populations to do better as they have a large pool to draw from. So, for example, the large nation of India is an interesting case when contrasted with it's population rival China..

One expects wealthy nations with large populations fielding large teams to do well. The obvious example is the US.
Yet Jamaica, a relatively poor nation with less than 1/00th the population, dominated the three premiere track events that have historically been won by the US:
the men's 100m, the 200m, and the 4 x 100m relay.
The three top men's marathon runners are from Africa with the winner a surprise upset from Uganda.

Why nonsense competition?

The athletes train for years for moments like this:



Joking aside, the Olympics is the only sporting event that I do watch.
It's a chance to see top-level competition in the lesser known sports that interest me and in sports that I'm completely unfamiliar with.

Everyone has their own concept of nonsense. For me it's identifying with a pro-sports team.
Whenever I hear a fan yelling "We won." I think to myself, "You won? Were you competing in the event?"

[noddy]

my only "issue" with this olympics, which to my casual observance went very well, was that timezone differences and available viewing hours around work reduced it to repeats of highlights during dinner.

in a parochial country with an infantile free to air media this means lots of watching australians in heats and only getting to see "the best" on the premier events or things that had australians in it.... then lots and lots of repeats of the events we did win.

im sure if had pay-per-view and more time i would have watched alot more.

re: the african heritage dominance of the running events, it has always been that way, the only difference is that they dont get american passports now

[Typhoon]

my only "issue" with this olympics, which to my casual observance went very well, was that timezone differences and available viewing hours around work reduced it to repeats of highlights during dinner.

in a parochial country with an infantile free to air media this means lots of watching australians in heats and only getting to see "the best" on the premier events or things that had australians in it.... then lots and lots of repeats of the events we did win.

I don't think that this is unique to Australia

re: the african heritage dominance of the running events, it has always been that way, the only difference is that they dont get american passports now

True. Still one has to wonder about the training and facilities available to US versus, say, Jamaican runners.

[noddy]

I don't think that this is unique to Australia

true enough - shame for me it means lots of swimming, which i dont find particularly interesting

re: the african heritage dominance of the running events, it has always been that way, the only difference is that they dont get american passports now

True. Still one has to wonder about the training and facilities available to US versus, say, Jamaican runners.

i was under the impression that many of them had spent plenty of time training in america and/or being trained by americans and its actually just a sign in caribbean confidence that they no longer get the american passports and now wish to compete as their own countries...