[alexs2602]

And if you're on about how we're doing so far, as Spaz man and maybe others have said, our best events haven't really started yet. You obviously haven't been keeping track of where our nation's talents lie in. You seem to be under the misapprehension that our projected medals should be distributed evenly throughout the entirety of the Olympics.

[iamthestig]

As for the US, I think the simple answer is Michael Phelps

As for China, sheer size, a massive pool to pick talent from - but when you consider they have over a billion people, we're not doing badly at all.

[special1ne]

(Original post by alexs2602)
And if you're on about how we're doing so far, as Spaz man and maybe others have said, our best events haven't really started yet. You obviously haven't been keeping track of where our nation's talents lie in. You seem to be under the misapprehension that our projected medals should be distributed evenly throughout the entirety of the Olympics.

I'm talking about in general, regardless of where we're currently sitting on the Olympic medals table. The misapprehension you speak of is me assuming (quite naively, I'll admit) that British Olympians always have a realistic chance of gaining gold medals in all the events they've qualified in.

Perhaps I should accept that in some sports, those chances aren't there, and it's not Britain's fault (e.g. the men's 100m finals). In those instances, all the funding in world won't change the course of things, and the natural talent lies elsewhere, not with Britain (or the USA, or China, or whoever). And in those instances, where funding isn't there, you just need to produce more athletes.

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by special1ne)
Perhaps I should accept that in some sports, those chances aren't there, and it's not Britain's fault (e.g. the men's 100m finals). In those instances, all the funding in world won't change the course of things, and the natural talent lies elsewhere, not with Britain (or the USA, or China, or whoever). And in those instances, where funding is there, you just need to produce more athletes.

Even in the 100m, its not like Britain doesn't have people with the genetic make up required, Dwain Chambers for example both is parents are Jamican, Colin Jackson (held the WR) has Jamican heritage. There is talent, but you need to encourage people to get into sports and give them the funding to focus full time. The country in which sprinting is a nation obsession is Jamaica, thats the difference. Our three greatest Olympians have come from either cycling or rowing. Rowing in this country has always been big and well funded with Universities and such having good funding, facilities and support. Cycling isn't something we have suddenly become amazing at out of the blue, there have been a whole host of features on the BBC about how much technology is responsible and how GB have been well ahead of the curve in that aspect.

You need a large pool as you are more likely to have talented people, you need to inspire people and that means funding in school to get these people from being talents to athletes, and then you need the funding to turn them into world beaters. We can't compete with China or the US in terms of population or outspend them in all events.

[khaiser turian]

Have we ever topped the tables?

[cucumber+lettuce]

Because Great Britain isn't so great ..

[Arekkusu]

America and Russia always win because they're big countries, end of.

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
America and Russia always win because they're big countries, end of.

China are top of the tables and were last Olympics too, even then India for example are no where to be seen. Size is a factor but not the only one.

[special1ne]

It's been stated that funding and population size are 2 major factors in whether a country tops the Olympic medal tables. But that means the implication is, where population size is relatively small (e.g. Great Britain, with 60m), funding = (gold) medals. It doesn't make sense.
However, I accept that American or Chinese funding, for example, of certain Olympic sports is greater than that of the British. But like I said above, it means to say, if you've got a small population, you can make up for it if you fund an Olympic sport enough.

[amirlad]

http://molotovcollective.wordpress.com/
if anyone at all is interested, this is a blog containing articles by me and my friends
the latest article is about china's attitudes to the olympics
check it out if you can x

[Naarim]

(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.

It's not ranking just the population, it's ranking the population in regards to medals won.

[Hood_Man]

Look at Great Britain, now back to the USA, now back at Great Britain, now back to the USA. Sadly, we're not the USA, but if we stopped dominating sports such as cycling and rowing and switched to swimming and Gymnastics we could dominate the tables like the USA.

I'm on a Bicycle.

[Malevolent]

(Original post by 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.

The Americans dont have that, the British however have. Team GB has the largest olympic squad followed by USA and Russia.

[sarahsmith]

4th isn't bad

[special1ne]

If Team GB had the "4th isn't bad" attitude, they wouldn't try so hard to win every Olympic sport they've qualified in, would they?
Or perhaps they DON'T try to win every sport, but each athlete aims to do their best. That old "it's the taking part that counts" chestnut. I personally don't buy it.

[limetang]

If you removed swimming as an event we'd be pretty much on a par for second place right now so....

[Arteta]

Well China are topping the medals because they farm young citizens for people with natural talent then decide their lives will be dedicated to that sport, whatever the cost. Although the individuals may deserve their respective medal I don't think you can really compare us to China because we won't sacrifice human rights to get golds.

The US have more people to choose from and they are just talented. I think their culture inspires them to have a greater drive for this sort of thing, where physical dominance is awarded. Not to mention they have the money and the background support for this sort of thing. I think that the UK lacks those aforementioned points.

I can't speak on Russia because I don't know, but what I can say is that they obviously have a greater population.

EDIT: Also let's compare UK teenagers to the US. As far as I understand our culture revolves more around going out and getting drunk and generally trying to be cool, whereas theirs seems to be about doing other activities and the whole jock/cheerleader stereotype revolves a lot around physical dominance. UK teens want to be footballers, but not much else. Football doesn't requires the same physical domination; it's more about skill.

[Hooj]

It's because we don't dope like China and the USA.

[AbuAK]

Because it doesn't have the worlds largest GDP.

[Kallisto]

Why so interest in medals? be honest! were you interest in olympic events before olympia begun? I guess most of them are boring for you, if there is no olympia. Am I right? If I'm not interest in most of events why I should be interest in medals? that is a silly patriotism, not more.