[DesmondZai]

Things change from time to time mate, there wont be an absolute winner for forever. Just look at the amount of Chinese athletes has come out all these years, and the way they train their athletes. I would say that they trained their athletes in a very insane manner. They probably need a Kechara healing Chakras just to ensure that they recover fast in those trainings.

[Kallisto]

I have just look at the medal table. Why some of British people are so dissatisfied? Great Britain is a deal better compared to Germany...

[Future_Dr]

Well to be honest with your.. the events which everyone was so eager about that GB will win a gold medal such as Tom Daley and Becky Adlington did not deliver for these medals at least becky settled for bronze but still this wasn't her best. So these events were first ones that britain should have won. And USA and China have been very consistent throughout. But as we progress the number of medals and thankfully Gold ones are increasing. But in all fairness now, it's highly unlikely that GB will top in the tables as the events are running out to get the medals.

[sucess]

(Original post by 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.

65 million is a huge population

most countries excluding asia and europe have an average population of 15 million

[RowingGoose]

I think it's great we're doing so well with just a tiny population to be honest but I don't think we should just base our performance on our population i.e. population doesn't necessarily mean a great olympic performance. Some sports just aren't big in certain country because of their culture and history.

Compare us and America - they're big on swimming and you can see that in the number of Golds they've won. Whereas we're big on rowing (there's a rowing club within 15 miles of most people) and our performance in rowing shows that. Obviously China will be high on the tables because of their rigorous selection process and training and their culture focuses highly on learning/doing well in school and not being distracted by other things.

Looking at sport in general, we're big on football too if a kid was to get involved in sports they'd probably choose that over fencing or judo for example! Hopefully after the Olympics more people will get into sports and I hope the Government cut backs on sports funding and less emphasis on sport don't impact future achievements!

[Arbolus]

(Original post by sucess)
65 million is a huge population

most countries excluding asia and europe have an average population of 15 million

And most of those small countries never do very well. If you look at the figures for medals per capita we're still among the best performing countries ever.

[Dukeofwembley]

because we dont have some1 who can win 8 gold medals

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Future_Dr)
Well to be honest with your.. the events which everyone was so eager about that GB will win a gold medal such as Tom Daley and Becky Adlington did not deliver for these medals at least becky settled for bronze but still this wasn't her best. So these events were first ones that britain should have won. And USA and China have been very consistent throughout. But as we progress the number of medals and thankfully Gold ones are increasing. But in all fairness now, it's highly unlikely that GB will top in the tables as the events are running out to get the medals.

We were never going to top the medal tables. Why do people not realise this? Third is our first; it's the best that any country bar the USA and China are going to achieve for a good couple of decades.

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by Kallisto)
I have just look at the medal table. Why some of British people are so dissatisfied? Great Britain is a deal better compared to Germany...

Because no matter how good we do, some people will always moan and/or try to belittle the achievements of our athletes when they couldn't even dream of being in the same position.

[mc1000]

(Original post by 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.

Look at the population size of the USA.

Look at the obese population size of the USA.

Subtract the latter from the former.

Suddenly our achievements don't seem so remarkable.

[Agdsten]

(Original post by mc1000)
Look at the population size of the USA.

Look at the obese population size of the USA.

Subtract the latter from the former.

Suddenly our achievements don't seem so remarkable.

Haha you got me there. Undeniably though, there are more potential athletes.

[special1ne]

(Original post by 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.

No, I wasn't interested in the events preceding the Olympics. To be honest, I am only ever watching to see if world records get beaten. But I disagree with your ending comment.

I understand that you meant that both my interest in the medals table and this thread reflect a silly patriotism of mine. I'm interested in how a country with so much funding and participation for Olympic sports (£264m for the 2012 Games, according to UK Sport http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19144983) performs on the Olympic tables. Not because it's Britain, but because there are many athletes involved and a lot of funding has been put into the Olympics in the last decade or so. If France, with a similar population to the UK, funded that much too, I'd ask the same of them.
(Looking back, I've worded my thread title wrongly, it doesn't show what I just said. Replace "Great Britain" with "a country with huge funding for Olympic sports, other than the USA or China or whoever").

I concede that population is perhaps determinant factor, despite the £264m funding - again, if we assume funding = (gold) medals - and that if the medal winning athletes happen not to be British, sometimes it's no reflection on anything Britain's done, just that the talented ones happen to represent elsewhere. Maybe Olympic sports is sometimes luck of the draw.

[Kallisto]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
Because no matter how good we do, some people will always moan and/or try to belittle the achievements of our athletes when they couldn't even dream of being in the same position.

Sounds like in Germany. If the expected achievements of German athletes come not true, then German people are disappointed. I take it easy: the most important thing is not to win, but take part!

[DanB1991]

Basically there's two tactics used by the superpowers in Olympics.

USA have a massive scholarship programme that means if students are good enough at sports they given places at university (or college as they like to call it) places. This means at high school level they train very hard to try and secure those scholarship places as it means they won't be required to get as high grades or come with the full fee's that they would not normally be able to achieve.

Also at high school they are very competitive at sports and max out on money given to sport teams. Just look at some of their american football stadiums they have at some high schools! Larger and better equipped than some in our stadiums for our lower tear football. This eventually means you have a lot of college students who are very skilled at sport, its seen as a kind of way to get the qualifications you want that they would not normally be able to achieve, and obviously if they are good enough they will be encouraged to go on to the Olympics if they haven't done already.

Most countries have similar systems but the UK for example pretty much leaves it for kids to do it all on their own effort and leave it to them to join clubs without much reward offered by countries such as america.


In china they copied the old soviet style of training athletes (there was a USA v soviet USSR in the cold war) where they get the most talented people, cram them into heavily funded schools where pretty much all they do is train in that specific sport. Most will be a slight mix of sports but for example they would usually have specialist diving or gymnastic schools. They are taught to try their best for their country with rewards such as money, status and pretty much a hero's welcome if they do well. They do "normally" receive slightly better education than most other individuals in the country but there's always the draw back of the possibility of them getting kicked out and little less than abandoned if they do not perform well. Russia still has the remains of this system but on nowhere as near the same scale or with the funding it had in its cold war heyday, while china has used this system and now replaced Russia as one of the main competitors in the Olympics.

As i said earlier in the UK we generally just leave people to do it themselves with little funding, most British athletes will still have full time jobs which would be pretty unheard of in places such as Russia and china. So if you take that into perspective we do pretty damn well!

[Rarrgh]

The country and most schools idolize football too much that to ever get interested in another sport properly it has to be done in your own time with your own money and you have to rely on the child or it's parent's to find a club that does any of those sports.

[Chocothunder]

(Original post by 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?

The issue is perfectly black and white; we don't have nearly as large an ex-slave population as the USA does, as so can't rely on their innate physical superiority to carry us through most track and field events.

[A7d8i6l]

Great Britain are in third place and that by itself deserves around of applause. You've got to look at it in the perspective of we're a small country and we've got more gold medals then Russia, brazil, India, Japan, Australia and the list goes on. As far as I'm aware were doing much better in terms of population to medal ratio.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[zippyRN]

(Original post by 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.

the Chinese are a nation of a billion + people and still run 'old style' Olympic sports as ideological warfare system... as the eastern bloc did during the cold war

the US throw money at sports and are a nation of 300 or so million with a wide range of backgrounds giving the advantage s of being able to find Citizens of every ethnicity and background to take advantage of the quirks of genetics and evolution that have made certain populations suited to certain events...

the bigger question is why is India a relative 'under performer' in the olympics - perhpas it;s just down to cricket and kabaddi not being olympic sports ...

[drummer]

Do you think Great Britain will do as well in the Rio games?

[zippyRN]

(Original post by DanB1991)
<snip>

Also at high school they are very competitive at sports and max out on money given to sport teams. Just look at some of their american football stadiums they have at some high schools! Larger and better equipped than some in our stadiums for our lower tear football. This eventually means you have a lot of college students who are very skilled at sport, its seen as a kind of way to get the qualifications you want that they would not normally be able to achieve, and obviously if they are good enough they will be encouraged to go on to the Olympics if they haven't done already.

the issue there is the second and third tiers of the sports that attract the scholarship funding are the Univerisity and high school games , there is not the profusion of lower league professional teams that there are in the Uk or Europe ...