[Divine Hedgehog]

Just because a country has more medals per capita doesnt mean it that it has the same sports programs, coaching and facilities of those higher up the table. But if you insist on using the population excuse as to why we cant compete with USA and China then take a look at the gold medals per capita table. We are currently 9th and were 15th in Beijing. Not as good as some of you might have thought huh? So are all those higher than us per capita but lower in the total gold medals table are only there because of their low population? If they had a population of 60 million they would be higher and so much better than us right?

Why cant people just accept that we just cant compete with the USA and Chinas sporting programs and use our lower population as an excuse? We have definitely gotten 3rd place and thats still great!

[g36c]

you can train as much as you want but genetics >>> everything else

more people = greater chance of best genetics

[Jack93o]

(Original post by g36c)
you can train as much as you want but genetics >>> everything else

more people = greater chance of best genetics

don't mention this to Indians, 1.2bn in population but 0 gold medals

[Pandabär]

(Original post by Jack93o)
don't mention this to Indians, 1.2bn in population but 0 gold medals

Out of interest, do they spend a lot on training facilities? Are sports big in schools etc etc?

[kirino1]

(Original post by Pandabär)
Out of interest, do they spend a lot on training facilities? Are sports big in schools etc etc?

My uncles always telling me how corrupt Indias government is.. There's a lot of talent in India.

[Cephalus]

While sporting programs play a part, I think it's a bit stupid not to consider the populations.

Obviously, a country with a billion people is more likely to get more medals

[Tabris]

(Original post by Jack93o)
don't mention this to Indians, 1.2bn in population but 0 gold medals

They also have next to no funding or infrastructure. You can have the best genetics in the world it means nothing if you don't have the coaching and support to maximise it.

Genetics alone doesn't make an athlete great. Nor does training and support. Combine the two and you can get something very special.

Anyway, I agree with the OP that medals per capita is weak. It certainly is a factor when you're picking athletes in giving your Olympic team strength and depth. But I think when it comes down to something outside of team sports, it shouldn't be hard to find one talented swimmer, sprinter or whatever from a population of 60-million. The real problem is the lack of infrastructure to find and support that talented individual.

Take a look at British rowing. They had enough money to start the of the Sporting Giants initiative a few years ago to identify potential rowers for the international squads, which is how they found Helen Glover and Mo Sbihi. I don't think any other sports really had such a programme.

While per capita may be a smaller population may be a factor, I think the infrastructure to identify such individuals is more important.

[FrescoDiMorte]

You guys should be happy that you're third and have actually won anything. Michael Phelps has the same amount of medals in total (22) as my country has ever got since the 1912 olympics, now that's ridiculous.

[PurpleMonkeyDishwasher]

(Original post by onda)
Genetics only plays a small part IMO

Hard work and dedication is the difference between failure and success

Disagree entirely.

[TimHuak]

(Original post by onda)
Genetics only plays a small part IMO

Hard work and dedication is the difference between failure and success

It depends on the sport but in most cases genetics are probably the most important thing. Even more if you want to place in the medals.

[Captainmal]

(Original post by Pandabär)
Out of interest, do they spend a lot on training facilities? Are sports big in schools etc etc?

India is unlucky in the sense that the sport that both receives the largest investment and is most popular with the population (cricket) is not a part of the games. As a result its large (not necessarily a good thing) population isn't an advantage while kids in school play cricket almost exclusively and are guaranteed to never even compete at the olympics. Conversely in Jamaica the population is tiny but short distance running is massively popular with kids and sprinters above all others are idolised.

Michael Johnson, the American sprinter, made a compelling case for the role of genetics in sporting success in his recent documentary on the role of slavery in genetic conditioning for African Americans and Carribean Islanders of African decent but it would be mad to suggest genetics alone can make a champion. In the cycling, for example, there is no genetic reason white britons should dominate as they have. Rather it is the huge investment in this sport that allows the successful athletes to train and have access to the technology that allows them to excel. Population and genetics are not the be all and end all but combined with culture can have an impact.

[JJMick]

(Original post by onda)
Genetics only plays a small part IMO

Hard work and dedication is the difference between failure and success

Are you being incredibly stupid or just a troll?

You can work as hard as you like but, for example, if you don't have the right muscular composition (which is genetics alone - slow twitch/fast twitch) for the 100m, there's nothing more you can do to try and run under 10s or whatever.

Obviously you can do things to improve but genetics are paramount to success at Olympic level.

[Bonzo10]

(Original post by JJMick)
Are you being incredibly stupid or just a troll?

You can work as hard as you like but, for example, if you don't have the right muscular composition (which is genetics alone - slow twitch/fast twitch) for the 100m, there's nothing more you can do to try and run under 10s or whatever.

Obviously you can do things to improve but genetics are paramount to success at Olympic level.

I think what the person is saying is that you can have, say, the longest arms in the world but if you don't work hard and train in the pool, you will fail.

Your argument is true too, obviously. Genetics is important, even down to the very slim physiques and smaller statures of some gymnasts that make them great.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

It saddens me when people say genetics.... To think if I ever wanted to compete, that I'd have slim to no chance because my family tree doesn't consist of sports nuts....

While I have no interest in trying to compete, if I did, I would show you all! >:'(
Hypothetical **** will get real.. I need ash ketchums hat so I can turn it around...

Regarding population, It depends on those who would bother to compete if they knew they had what it takes. The number of people would usually be higher in larger countries though there are exceptions...

[HDBrowne]

If you seriously think Population isn't a contributing factor, you sir are a moron.

GB in 1908 we dominated those games! (34% of the people competing were British)

[HDBrowne]

http://www.medalspercapita.com/#meda...apita:all-time

Of all the it looks like Finland are the best :P

[drummer]

This is kinda how I see it.

This Olympics, at home GB has over 500 athletes. Countries such as USA China and Russia have less. We talk about 'talent pools' but the thing is it all boils down to selecting the best or the known best group of athletes in each country. You are still effectively having a small selected group regardless of population size. Let's take the USA population and compare it China, China is roughly four times larger than USA. But even USA have a colossal number of athletes to choose from with less than four times the size of China's population. You are still ending up with a group of 300-400 athletes.

As for the medals per capita, that is not an excuse for winning at all. We have 16 days of events and with a smaller population of around 63 million of course there's a larger medal to population ratio. If people want to think of it that way then the only way to make it fair is to add more events and opportunities for medals for the larger countries to catch up.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Captainmal)
Michael Johnson, the American sprinter, made a compelling case for the role of genetics in sporting success in his recent documentary on the role of slavery in genetic conditioning for African Americans and Carribean Islanders of African decent but it would be mad to suggest genetics alone can make a champion. In the cycling, for example, there is no genetic reason white britons should dominate as they have. Rather it is the huge investment in this sport that allows the successful athletes to train and have access to the technology that allows them to excel. Population and genetics are not the be all and end all but combined with culture can have an impact.

Not in general, no. But those selected and succeeding necessarily have excellent genetics for their event (and likely many others).

(Original post by Bonzo10)
I think what the person is saying is that you can have, say, the longest arms in the world but if you don't work hard and train in the pool, you will fail.

Your argument is true too, obviously. Genetics is important, even down to the very slim physiques and smaller statures of some gymnasts that make them great.

This could (and will) go back and forth for days, let's just stop. We all know that to acheive Olympic or other high-level success the athlete at the start of his career must have the right inherent physiological and psychological makeup and potential ("genetics") and must make the most of that through very clever "training" (encompassing a lot of stuff). Then there's the "technology" side of it, very important in some sports (cycling) and less so in others.

I think we all agree on that, so stop reiterating it.

[Casshern1456]

It's not about population size, it's about how much the country put away for sporting facilities and training ~ China is top of the table because they have the funding to train their athletes giving them all the best preparation to compete and get Medals.

[ConnorB]

Countries that seriously need to Improve are India and Brazil. At least Canada is like "**** you guys, wait until the winter Olympics!"