[special1ne]

Are the Americans and Russians, for example, just better at Olympic sports than the British? is it funding that keeps the Brits from topping it? Or is the issue not so black-and white?

It also looks weird that the Americans and Chinese win WAY more (gold) medals than everyone else. That can't just be down to having more competitors. they must be doing something right.

[SHUTUPMAN]

GB have never topped the medal tables

[KingMessi]

When have we ever topped the medal tables?

This is what happens when people watch sport once every four years then try to comment upon the basis of media hype.

EDIT: The last time we topped the medal tables was in 1908. Surely you understand the mitigating factors in that Olympics.

[Zerforax]

Think the population size might have an impact..

[laura1234]

China.

[boba]

anymore?
not sure if serious?

[Kevmeister]

104 years since GB topped the medals table.

Your 'anymore' is redundant.

[Top Banana]

Think we once topped the tables in the London Olympics of 1908 for those asking. In response to your question, the simple answer is that the countries topping the tables have much larger populations and therefore a much larger pool of talent than the UK.

[marcusfox]

It was awfully harsh of the IOC to exclude so many events that the British dominated in the London Olympics of 1908. That projected haul of 70 medals would have been in the bag already, were it not for the disgraceful decision to omit fine sports like polo, tug-of-war, jeu de paume and lacrosse.

Satire of course

Also, there are more athletes, 204 nations competing in these games. In earlier games, the competition wasn't as intense.

Which is why we get world records being broken every year.

[Agdsten]

Look at the population size of Great Britain. Then look at the population size of the USA. Then look at the population size of China.

I think we do remarkably well considering what a small country we are.

[doggyfizzel]

Two things which are a huge part of the medals table. Population and funding. We have a small population less than 60m so its not surprising we don't have a huge medal haul across the board. When it comes to funding we are very competitive in the sports we fund well, such as Rowing, Cycling, Swimming, Diving, and Track and Field events.

The US win as they have a big population of 300m and a **** load of funding. China do well as they have a massive population, loads of funding and are competing with the US.

The olympics is about more than just sports. A few decades ago it was always US vs USSR at the top of the tables. Two superpowers going head to head, now its the US vs China, the superpower and the emerging superpower. Its goes deeper than just sports.

[AYO]

i think its a lot of different factors that contribute to this.

the fact that america and china have loads of competitors does play a part i think, i mean if you have athletes competing in EVERY single event (as the americans do) then the odds of winning medals is higher.

but also, i'vve read a few articles about chinese athletes and basically how they train 24/7 for years and years for the olympics, like literally that's all they do, no school or social life or anything, i dont know how true that is, but if it is true then that would definitely contribute to their success, the asians generally have a very strong work ethic and aim for the best, like they dont like losing so they work extremely hard, whereas, i feel like british athletes also do other things aside from their sports (not saying this is negative in anyway as its always good to have a balance and to have other things going apart from sport) for example, Tom Daley was at school doing his a-levels as well as diving, and also lots of promotional things things too.

and also, in terms of finance, China and USA economically strong, so they have the funds to support all their athletes and provide top top facilities for them, not that GB doesnt but i think the USA and China concentrate more heavily on sports than GB. i mean the USA have been top of the medal table for many many olympics so im guessing they'd want to maintain that and it doesnt come cheap!

there's probably other factors but i these are the ones i can think of off the top of my head. GB has a lot of amazing athletes and i think a lot of them are in the best form ever, plus with home support they have the nation behing them and im rooting for them 100% at the Games! so hopefully as the days progress our number on the medal table goess up and up.

[123maz]

i know right come on GB, it seems that everyone else has just got better and better,

I hope we win but,,,

[bear54]

(Original post by nexttime)
A medals table adjusted for population and wealth... now that would be interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/data...eed=true#total

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by bear54)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/data...eed=true#total

Kind of a strange table. For population the UK's index is 20 with 60m people, South Korea gets 11 with just under 50m. Wheras China only gets 38 with a population of over 1bn people. Strange scaling system.

[rcummins1]

As well as population and funding, western countries put education as the priority of their children, whereas places like China and eastern Europe have kids doing nothing but training from the age of 3-4.

[special1ne]

I'll admit that the 'anymore' wasn't necessary, and to be honest, I've not checked the figures before 1960 (which I should), so it was a mistake. I thought that population wouldn't be so great a factor. Though it makes sense that you're more likely to have medal winners if you send off more athletes.

I may be missing something, but this doesn't explain why the relatively small number of British Olympians aren't funded as well as in the USA and China or wherever.

[Rainbow Stalin]

Foreigners

[Spaz Man]

Britain hasn't topped the medal table in over a century and our best sport events haven't even begun yet. Calm down.

[Xotol]

(Original post by bear54)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/data...eed=true#total

(Original post by doggyfizzel)
Kind of a strange table. For population the UK's index is 20 with 60m people, South Korea gets 11 with just under 50m. Wheras China only gets 38 with a population of over 1bn people. Strange scaling system.

There's another one here:

http://www.billmitchell.org/sport/medal_tally_2012.

Haven't analysed it fully, but it looks a bit more reliable tbh.