# Why does tiny Australia kick ass at the Olympics, while giant India flounders?



## Sebastian Ashputtle (Aug 23, 2004)

Just a thought: why does Australia, a tiny country of 18 million (or so) kick ass every summer games, while India, with over one BILLION people, scrape by with 1 or 2 medals?

I haven't checked the standings today, but ever since the games at Athens have started, Australia has been in the top five, easily competing with the USA and China, both Olympic powerhouses.

India has ONE medal thus far.  I remember last Olympics they finished the entire games with a bronze medal in men's tennis.

Don't even mention MY country, Canada.  We've got a population of 30 million (bigger than Australia, dammit!) and we do *nothing* at the summer games. We suck. 

Now I know it isn't a simple population = medals correlation (obviously).  But is it as simple as "Governments that spend more money on athletes do better at the games"??? 

Perhaps a better question is, why do I care?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 23, 2004)

Size Matters Not.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 24, 2004)

How much government money is spent by the US on its atheletes? I'm pretty sure its close to $0. It's almost all spent by the atheletes themselves and sponsors. The USOC, I'm pretty sure, gets no funds from the federal government. They sell rights to sponsors to put little "US Olympic Sponsor" logos on their products, and get big money for it too. Still, many local governments have gone out and built facilities to lure olympic athletes to come and train in their towns, but those towns get dual use of those facilities.

But the far more interesting difference between population and medal counts is tiny Norway's medals in winter olympics. Norway has, what, 5 or 6 million people?

Still, I'm not minimizing Australia's accomplishments. They deserve all the recognition they earn. Speaking from an American's point of view, I was cheering for the Aussies to beat our basketball team. Our team is made up of a bunch of prima donna street thug wannabees. Seeing our team humbled twice, by Puerto Rico and Lithuania was AWESOME! Frankly, I hope that the US's other basketball team (Puerto Rico!) goes all the way. 

*ahem* sorry for that detour...


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

Figure that a country's success at the Olympics generally (excluding the occasional uniquely talented individual) is going to be a function of interest in the sports contested, population, and resources available. So if you want to own the medal count you better have a lot of people who are nutty about a lot of different sports and have the resources to train and compete internationally. At least, that's why the US always wins the most medals in the summer games now. 

You can also get some success by taking athletically talented kids and throwing government resources at them, especially in developing sports (the Chinese women in many team sports are almost certainly examples of this -- there just aren't thousands of softball diamonds and hockey rinks in the suburbs of Beijing -- and that's probably the most benevelonet form of this kind of activity; the malevolent varieties involve Uday Hussein or the East German chemists), but that's not really sustainable. Witness the Chinese women's soccer team falling apart over the last couple of years (played for the gold in 1996, didn't medal in 2000, didn't make it out of the prelims in 2004).

So the Indians don't win many medals, despite a huge population. There's not much interest in the sports being contested (and high standings in the summer games medal count are about success in track and swimming/diving; that's where the bulk of the medals come from), and they don't have resources (the government is unwilling and private industry unable) to develop the athletes they've got. So except for a rare, uniquely talented individual or team (like the Indian doubles tennis team), India doesn't win many medals.

Canada does far better than it's population would indicate at the winter games (so do the Scandanavian countries, and the Netherlands), for the same reason that Australia does in the summer games. The sports that are really popular in Canada are contested at the winter games; the sports that are really popular in Australia are contested in the summer.


----------



## 1upus (Aug 24, 2004)

Speaking as an Aussie on the board, its great to see our country do so well in the Olympics. As to why, probably a number of factors tie into this. Firstly, our country is sports crazy. In fact, it would be safe to say the average Aussie reveres sportsman above all other professions. With a large interest in many forms of sport, it is no surpise that there would be a good representation at the games. 

Unfortunately, this sports madness extends to government policy, where it almost seems that the government spends more on sportsmen than they do on science and research. Great, we have a great medal tally in sports events like the olympics. But wait, we get left behind in R&D and progression through world developments and business opportunities. Go figure!

Lupus


----------



## talinthas (Aug 24, 2004)

it's hard to be a good athlete when you're starving.


----------



## Sebastian Ashputtle (Aug 24, 2004)

talinthas said:
			
		

> it's hard to be a good athlete when you're starving.




What a ridiculous stereotype.

We're talking about India here, not Haiti or Afghanistan. India isn't a third world country, not even close.  India has a vibrant economy, with world-class engineering and computer science industries, the world's largest film industy, and a developing aerospace industry.  India's people enjoy a wide range of consumer products, including cellular phones and internet access, and India is one of the world's military powers, with a huge, modern army and navy, a sophisticated air force, as well as an arsenal of nuclear weapons. There *is* poverty, but if you actually look at the figures, you will find that no more than 30% of India's 1.013 billion population live in serious poverty. Obviously that is a lot of people--far, far too many--but to suggest that India lacks Olympic success because of starvation is just stupidity. 

Sheeesh, you Americans.  Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Figure that a country's success at the Olympics generally (excluding the occasional uniquely talented individual) is going to be a function of interest in the sports contested, population, and resources available.
> 
> ...
> 
> Canada does far better than it's population would indicate at the winter games (so do the Scandanavian countries, and the Netherlands), for the same reason that Australia does in the summer games. The sports that are really popular in Canada are contested at the winter games; the sports that are really popular in Australia are contested in the summer.




This is, for the most part, true.  (Especially the part about Canada punching above its weight in the Winter Olympics.  These games don't count for us Canuks, eh!    )

But it is worth noting that in 1976 -- the Montreal Olympics -- Australia's performance was DREADFUL.  I think they won something like 3 or 4 medals.  It was their worst performance ever.  In the aftermath of those Olympics, there was a conscious government decision to strategically invest in certain sports and facilities, and improve its success in future games.  And this strategy has paid off in spades.

In contrast to the U.S., then, the success of Australia's Olympic Team is a triumph of deliberate government planning.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

talinthas said:
			
		

> it's hard to be a good athlete when you're starving.



Some appallingly poor countries have strong athletic traditions in a few sports, like east African distance runners (Ethiopia and Kenya), Iranian wrestling, or Indonesia in badmitton.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 24, 2004)

A lot has to do with high school athletics, I think. In the US, most schools have track teams and the like.  And then they have county, regional and state competitions. Beyond wanting to compete in this for fun, they can also win scholarships and such to college, not to mention, impress members of the opposite sex.

So basically, this helps find the best athletes in the country at a variety of sports. I don't think most teams have high schools like that.  Canada and Australia probably do, but have vastly different climates.

Canada tends to focus on different sports, winter sports, since the climate tends to be colder.  Canada usually does very well in the winter Olympics.

Australia has a warm climate. So they concentrate on warm weather sports.  When was the last time they won a medal in Curling?


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Uhh, India isn't a third world country with rampant starvation.  India has world-class engineering and computer science industries, the world's largest film industy, and a huge, modern army and navy, as well as a sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenal. There is, of course wide-spread poverty, but no more than you'd find in your average American ghetto.
> 
> Sheeesh, you Americans.  Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.




Umm ... incorrect, mon ami.

India has a GDP per head of $470.  Literacy is 58 percent.  It has 0.6 computers per 100 people.  It is hardly the high-tech mecha you are suggesting.  And there is MUCH more poverty per capita in India than there is in the U.S.

U.S. has a GDP per head of $35,500.  Literacy is 99 percent.  It has 62.3 computers per 100 people.

As one Canadian to another -- know your facts!


----------



## Krieg (Aug 24, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Sheeesh, you Americans. Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.



Having actually been to India, I can state with absolute certainty that if you believe the poverty level in India is in any way comparable to that of western industrialized nations....your hold on reality is tenous...at best.

India has made great strides in the past 20 years, but they still have a long way to go.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 24, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Uhh, India isn't a third world country with rampant starvation.  India has world-class engineering and computer science industries, the world's largest film industy, and a huge, modern army and navy, as well as a sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenal. There is, of course wide-spread poverty, but no more than you'd find in your average American ghetto.
> 
> Sheeesh, you Americans.  Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.




Uh, no offense, but you might actually want to visit the US before making a statement like that. Or India.  

While India's economy is improving, and they will no doubt be one of the major countries of the 21st century, they're still in transition. The vast majority of people still work in the agriculture industry, and the literacy rate is not especially high (about 50% for women, 70% for men).

I realize that on Canadian TV, the US is often portrayed as backward, with poor people everywhere. But the largest problem facing the poor in the US is obesity. (And our literacy rate is 97%)

India's GDP per capita - around $3000
The US's - $37,000
Canada's - $29,000


----------



## talinthas (Aug 24, 2004)

I'm an indian. I've been to india many many times.
 that said, India is hampered by a super crappy infrastructure, which means that people just don't have the time for training hardcore as demanded by the olympics. When cricket becomes an olympic sport, perhaps this will change.  Until then, most indian athletes will be hampered by bad nutrition, bad training facilities, and general problems with funding and time.  In school, they spend time learning things that will be able to put food on the table immediatly.  The culture on the whole is geared much more towards academics than leisure.  People spend their spare time learning english, not platform diving.   The sports India tends to excell at (cricket, field hockey) are sports that can be played in the streets with little more than a ball and a few sticks.  It is very hard to find the time and money to dedicate yourself to sports while your family depends on your income to survive.


 such is the reality of my mother country.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> ... I realize that on Canadian TV, the US is often portrayed as backward, with poor people everywhere.




Not true.  Most Canadian TV shows are American!    



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> India's GDP per capita - around $3000
> The US's - $37,000
> Canada's - $29,000




Close for U.S. and Canada -- no where near close for India.  Try $470 (at least according to the Economist's data).

India is improving.  But is is still a developing country.  A small well-educated elite should not be confused with the majority of Indian citizens.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Uh, no offense, but you might actually want to visit the US before making a statement like that. Or India.
> 
> While India's economy is improving, and they will no doubt be one of the major countries of the 21st century, they're still in transition. The vast majority of people still work in the agriculture industry, and the literacy rate is not especially high (about 50% for women, 70% for men).
> 
> ...



For a few more data points -- China is around $5000. Mexico is around $9000. Poland is around $11000. South Korea is around $17000. Most of western Europe (and Japan) are clustered pretty close to Canada's numbers.

India spends $14 billiion on its military, very nearly exactly what Australia spends. China spends $60 billion. For truly high-quality armed forces -- the US spends $400 billion (with a population of ~300 million), and the UK spends $40 billion (with a population of ~50 million). Australia's armed forces are quite good (probably behind only the US and UK in quality), but very small, even considering that Australia only has about 20 million people.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Aug 24, 2004)

talinthas said:
			
		

> I'm an indian.



I was just gonna say that.  

And ditto about the basketball team.  I hate Iverson in particular.  If that horse's ass ghetto thug could be bothered to PRACTICE once in a while, maybe the "Dream Team" (pshaww!) wouldn't suck.  I mean, really... when the rest of the world's _amateurs_ are beating our _professionals_, well, that tells you something.

I'll ditto what Jimmy Kimmel said about Puerto Rico - as soon as they beat us, we should have made them a state right then and there.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Not true. Most Canadian TV shows are American!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you use purchasing power parity numbers (which the CIA world factbook does, and so does this http://www.economist.com/countries/India/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data at the Economist's web site, the ~$3000 number seems to be correct. Purchasing power parity numbers are generally considered more accurate than strict currency conversions.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> For a few more data points -- China is around $5000. Mexico is around $9000. Poland is around $11000. South Korea is around $17000. Most of western Europe (and Japan) are clustered pretty close to Canada's numbers.
> ....




I know this is a complete thread-jack...    ... but I'd be curious to know where people are getting these numbers.

According to the Economist, China has $900 GDP per head, Mexico $6,150, Poland $4,570, and South Korea $8,970.

The U.S. has $ 35,000, Canada $22,390, and Australia $19,070.  Most EU countries are around Canada's level.  Norway, outside the EU, kicks all kind of arse with $ 37,020.  (Switzerland also does better than the EU.)

The Economist is the gold standard for this kind of info.  I'd be curious to know where this other data is coming from.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> If you use purchasing power parity numbers (which the CIA world factbook does, and so does this http://www.economist.com/countries/India/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data at the Economist's web site, the ~$3000 number seems to be correct. Purchasing power parity numbers are generally considered more accurate than strict currency conversions.




Good point!


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

Andrew D. Gable said:
			
		

> And ditto about the basketball team. I hate Iverson in particular. If that horse's ass ghetto thug could be bothered to PRACTICE once in a while, maybe the "Dream Team" (pshaww!) wouldn't suck. I mean, really... when the rest of the world's _amateurs_ are beating our _professionals_, well, that tells you something.



It would, but that's not happening. The rest of the world's professionals are beating our professionals. They mostly play in Europe, not in the NBA, but that doesn't mean they're amatuers by any stretch. The Puerto Rican guard that lit up team USA is the starting point guard for the Utah Jazz. Serbia's sucking without Peja and Vlade. Spain's been riding Pau Gasol. China would be a joke without Yao.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I know this is a complete thread-jack...  ... but I'd be curious to know where people are getting these numbers.
> 
> According to the Economist, China has $900 GDP per head, Mexico $6,150, Poland $4,570, and South Korea $8,970.
> 
> ...



I've been using the CIA world factbook at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ . As I said up-thread, it's very important to note the difference between purchasing power parity numbers and strict currency conversions; the latter are pretty much meaningless because of exchange rate fluctuations and because some things are just much cheaper in poor countries.


----------



## Umbra (Aug 24, 2004)

G'day,

As has been said, Aussie's are sports mad.  There is also the Australian Institute of Sport, a government funded body.  A lot of money goes into training our athletes although few get the sponsorship deals or high paid positions some other country athletes do (the Dream Team  )

To quote from their website:



> The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) is Australia’s internationally acclaimed national centre of sports excellence for the training and development of elite athletes and teams.
> 
> Opened in 1981 in response to disappointing results from the Australian team at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, the AIS originally offered scholarships in eight sports, all based in Canberra.
> 
> Today, the AIS offers scholarships to 700 athletes each year in 35 separate programs covering 26 sports. We employ about 75 coaches to help these athletes achieve their goals. We also have scholarship programs for athletes with disabilities in athletics, skiing and swimming.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> .... As I said up-thread, it's very important to note the difference between purchasing power parity numbers and strict currency conversions ....




Yes, and as *I* said up-thread, GOOD POINT!  How many times must I say it?


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

Umbra said:
			
		

> G'day,
> 
> As has been said, Aussie's are sports mad.  There is also the Australian Institute of Sport, a government funded body.  A lot of money goes into training our athletes although few get the sponsorship deals or high paid positions some other country athletes do (the Dream Team  )
> 
> To quote from their website:




Yup, as I mentioned earlier in this thread Umbra, the Australian government made a deliberate policy decision to improve its performance after 1976.

It is interesting that two radically different strategies -- the U.S. vs. Oz -- both produce such good results.

We Canadians bemoan the fact that we did not follow the Australian example.  (But hey, we kick arse in the Olympics THAT MATTER    )


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

talinthas said:
			
		

> I'm an indian. I've been to india many many times.
> that said, India is hampered by a super crappy infrastructure, which means that people just don't have the time for training hardcore as demanded by the olympics. When cricket becomes an olympic sport, perhaps this will change. Until then, most indian athletes will be hampered by bad nutrition, bad training facilities, and general problems with funding and time. In school, they spend time learning things that will be able to put food on the table immediatly. The culture on the whole is geared much more towards academics than leisure. People spend their spare time learning english, not platform diving.



While I think a lot of the Chinese success at the Olympics is manufactured (there's no way China even fields a women's softball, soccer, or hockey team without government intervention, and I suspect there are other sports like that, I just don't know enough about them), China's not that much richer than India. And there are a lot of very poor countries that have had success at a few sports. So I suspect that if there were a few Olympic sports that Indians really loved, they'd win a few medals.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why cricket isn't in the Olympics. It seems as popular in ex-UK colonies as baseball is in the heavily-US-influenced parts of the world (the Caribean nations, most of central America, Canada, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipenes, and Taiwan). So if baseball gets in (and I think it should, even if I think the qualifying rules are a bit screwed up -- it's okay to have one team from Europe, five from the Americas, and two from Asia if they're the best eight teams), I'm not sure why cricket isn't in.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> It is interesting that two radically different strategies -- the U.S. vs. Oz -- both produce such good results.
> 
> We Canadians bemoan the fact that we did not follow the Australian example. (But hey, we kick arse in the Olympics THAT MATTER  )



It's probably also worth noting that college athletics is pretty much an American thing, and that in quite a few sports, top-division NCAA athletics tend to be the development programs. Most of the US teams in track, swimming, volleyball, rowing, soccer, basketball, and softball (and a good chunk of the rest of the world's, too) got athletic scholarships (and since most of the top schools are state schools, they're indirectly government-funded).


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Aug 24, 2004)

Check out this site for figures on Medal tally versus population:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...be9f47591541e29eca256ef40004f25a!OpenDocument

It's accessible from www.abs.gov.au, the website for the Australian Government's Bureau of Statistics.

It's interesting to note that on Gold Medals vs Population basis the USA is 27th, behind countries such as Zimbabwe, Cuba and Georgia.

So maybe the USA isn't really doing that well 

Oh, and as for cricket - the world cup has less than twenty countries enter teams.  I don't think that's really Olympic levels.

Duncan


----------



## Chaos Drake (Aug 24, 2004)

This article in Time magazine sheds some light.



> Indian friends offer several explanations. One says parents steer their children toward respectable, cerebral, indoor activities, such as studying to become a doctor or engineer, and away from the frivolity of playing outdoors. Another says facilities are inadequate and the country lacks a nationwide professional league in any sport. A third avers that athletics simply aren't in the Indian genes. Whatever the reason, this inertia is apparently here to stay.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Aug 24, 2004)

Yup, Australians are sports mad and our wiley politicians understand the Australian psyche sufficiently to invest a large percentage of our GDP into identifying and training our elite sportsmen and -women while being rather stingy when it comes to scientific and technological endeavours.  Which is kinda odd, considering the significant contribution of individual Australians to such endeavours.  Frankly, some of us would prefer our taxes were invested in winning Nobel prizes, not Olympic gold medals, but we're sadly in a minority.

Now for the typical Aussie cheek...

Australians win gold medals in the only _real_Olympics.  Y'think the ancient Greeks would've celebrated the majesty of the naked human form engaged in physical exercise stuck up the precipitous side of a friggin' fjord in the friggin' snow?  Medals would've been awarded to the most "shrinkage-resistant" (you guys know what I'm talking about).  The Winter Olympics were invented so all you idiots who live in countries where you can't go outside for half the friggin' year could feel good about having two hours of daylight a day in which to practice looking good in thermal underwear.  Don't tell me you wouldn't prefer to be watchin' the women's beach volleyball finals.

P.S.  With all the off-topic discussion about average wealth per capita, I reckon it'd be interesting to compare wealth distribution.  I suspect (without having done the research) that while the US may have higher per capita GDP than countries like Australia and Canda, Australia and Canada may well have flatter wealth distribution curves.  I bet northern European countries kick ass on both the per capita GDP and equal wealth distribution fronts.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It's probably also worth noting that college athletics is pretty much an American thing, and that in quite a few sports, top-division NCAA athletics tend to be the development programs. Most of the US teams in track, swimming, volleyball, rowing, soccer, basketball, and softball (and a good chunk of the rest of the world's, too) got athletic scholarships (and since most of the top schools are state schools, they're indirectly government-funded).




Drothgery, you are simply making too many good points tonight.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 24, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It would, but that's not happening. The rest of the world's professionals are beating our professionals. They mostly play in Europe, not in the NBA, but that doesn't mean they're amatuers by any stretch. The Puerto Rican guard that lit up team USA is the starting point guard for the Utah Jazz. Serbia's sucking without Peja and Vlade. Spain's been riding Pau Gasol. China would be a joke without Yao.



International rules are also a major factor. Most of the non-American NBA players have experience playing under those rules, the American players have none. The shorter 3 point line and the wider lane are important issues that were not taken into account by the US selection commitee. 



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> I've been using the CIA world factbook at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ . As I said up-thread, it's very important to note the difference between purchasing power parity numbers and strict currency conversions; the latter are pretty much meaningless because of exchange rate fluctuations and because some things are just much cheaper in poor countries.



It is also likely that the various sources are using information that was collected at different times. A mere 5 years can make a huge difference.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> We Canadians bemoan the fact that we did not follow the Australian example. (But hey, we kick arse in the Olympics THAT MATTER  )



That being the "special" ones? 



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> It's probably also worth noting that college athletics is pretty much an American thing, and that in quite a few sports, top-division NCAA athletics tend to be the development programs. Most of the US teams in track, swimming, volleyball, rowing, soccer, basketball, and softball (and a good chunk of the rest of the world's, too) got athletic scholarships (and since most of the top schools are state schools, they're indirectly government-funded).



Look at where most of those foreign athletes attended College sometime. Most of them went to school (and completed in intercollegiate athletics) in the US.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> ... Medals would've been awarded to the most "shrinkage-resistant" (you guys know what I'm talking about). ...




Strange.  The Canadians would still clean up!    



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> ...  Don't tell me you wouldn't prefer to be watchin' the women's beach volleyball finals.




Okay that was just plain mean.  Go away, you mean Aussie!



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> ...  I bet northern European countries kick ass on both the per capita GDP and equal wealth distribution fronts.




Only Norway kicks major arese.  And that's because ... [okay, treading into politics here] ...


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> ...
> Look at where most of those foreign athletes attended College sometime. Most of them went to school (and completed in intercollegiate athletics) in the US.




I am not sure about this.  You might be right, but I'm very sceptical until I see some hard stats.

The place where I teach (Stanford) has lots of Olympic-level atheletes.  And SOME of them are non-American.  But I  very much doubt that the MAJORITY of foreign athletes who achieve Olympic medals benefited from athletic scholarships at U.S. schools.  

And on firmer ground I can confidently say that this is NOT true of the Winter Olympics.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> International rules are also a major factor. Most of the non-American NBA players have experience playing under those rules, the American players have none. The shorter 3 point line and the wider lane are important issues that were not taken into account by the US selection commitee.
> ....




Well the same complaint is made by NHL players about Olympic hockey rules (larger rink, different rules, etc.).  

But that didn't stop Canada from getting the Gold, and the U.S. getting the Silver, last time!


----------



## Krieg (Aug 24, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I am not sure about this. You might be right, but I'm very sceptical until I see some hard stats.



"Most" is probably an exageration, but look at the top level competitors in quite a few of the events. Track & Field, Swimming/Diving, Volleyball, Womens Softball & Basketball are probably the sports in which it is most prevelant.

Using the 2004 NCAA Track & Field championships as an example:

http://www.texassports.com/mainpages/tk_pages/2003_04/ncaa/052704_10.html



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> Well the same complaint is made by NHL players about Olympic hockey rules (larger rink, different rules, etc.).
> 
> But that didn't stop Canada from getting the Gold, and the U.S. getting the Silver, last time!



And in 1998?


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2004)

Duncan Haldane said:
			
		

> Check out this site for figures on Medal tally versus
> [...]
> 
> It's interesting to note that on Gold Medals vs Population basis the USA is 27th, behind countries such as Zimbabwe, Cuba and Georgia.
> ...



That's only through nine days. Australia's not going to win many more medals, and the US is going to win quite a few more; swimming's done, but track's just getting started.



			
				Duncan Haldane said:
			
		

> Oh, and as for cricket - the world cup has less than twenty countries enter teams. I don't think that's really Olympic levels.



I think baseball's probably a the relevant comprable here. There's not a baseball world cup (though MLB and the Japanese pro leagues are trying to set one up), but if we assume every country that's produced an MLB player in the last ten years would compete, you'd still only have about twenty teams.


----------



## Turanil (Aug 24, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Just a thought: why does Australia, a tiny country of 18 million (or so) kick ass every summer games, while India, with over one BILLION people, scrape by with 1 or 2 medals?




Australia is of western culture, not India. I think that India at large don't care for the Olympic games, which just are a westerners' stupidity. When you are an Indian you know better: life is short, lets practive yoga quickly and be able to reach the divine before death, and leave those puny nonsensical olympic concerns for materialistic people who have lost their brains.

Don't take my insults against the loympics too seriously   However, know that I really don't care for the games, and think that Indian culture has much more interesting things to propose than a handful of olympic champions.


----------



## Ferret (Aug 24, 2004)

How many austrailians have time to do sports? How much free room do they have to build things? How many have good jobs that let them spend money on memberships to get them into athletics clubs or expensive bikes(Damn you Austrailians)? Quite a few looking a the  medals table.

I'd guess (although probably poorly) that as a lot of canada is cold, if not snowy. Cold isn't the best conditions for sprinters etc. .


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Aug 25, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> That's only through nine days. Australia's not going to win many more medals, and the US is going to win quite a few more; swimming's done, but track's just getting started.




After ELEVEN days Australia is 2nd to the Bahamas, who have only 1 medal, a gold.

THE USA has slipped to 29th place.

Go to www.abs.gov.au and follow the link from there.

Duncan


----------



## Connorsrpg (Aug 25, 2004)

As an Aussie, I say "yay, go Aussies!"

We do do well and I think climate and being sports mad does contirbute.  BUT, you cannot put our success to just the dollars being spent by our Govt!!!

Much of the money in Australia goes to sports NOT in the Olympics, just like other countries mentioned.  Another Aussie, said our sports funding is crazy (I don't see it as so), but even with inflated spending on sports, it DOES NOT go into the sports that we see at the Olympics.  We have a well-funded AIS, yes, but a lot of money is spent in communites playing traditional sports that are NOT at Olympics.

Ask how well the Aussie baseballers do.  Even the well celbrated swimmers do not see the piles of money, until AFTER their success, when, like in US and other places SPONSORS chip in.  Jodie Henry won 3 gold.  Ask her how much she earnt to get to Olympics and I bet you will be stunned.

Yes, we are sports mad 
But $, especially from our Govt doen't cut it, especially when you see the sports that we are winning in.

Connors


----------



## TimSmith (Aug 25, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Only Norway kicks major arese.  And that's because ... [okay, treading into politics here] ...




I thought Norway had a high GDP because of its North Sea Oil and low population? Wealth distribution is another story of course....


----------



## johnsemlak (Aug 25, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> If you use purchasing power parity numbers (which the CIA world factbook does, and so does this http://www.economist.com/countries/India/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data at the Economist's web site, the ~$3000 number seems to be correct. Purchasing power parity numbers are generally considered more accurate than strict currency conversions.



 I rely on the Big Mac Index for all my comparative economics needs.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 25, 2004)

Duncan Haldane said:
			
		

> After ELEVEN days Australia is 2nd to the Bahamas, who have only 1 medal, a gold.
> 
> THE USA has slipped to 29th place.
> 
> ...



What I should have said was that the absolute numbers (medals per capita) for the US were going to go up a lot in the second week, while Australia's going to stay pretty level. The position on the chart, though, might drop, because the more events that are contested, the more likely it is that a small country will win a medal or two. I'd suggest the authors include minimum medal threshold in their rankings if they want it to be at all meaningful though, or small countries that win a medal or three really distort the results.

It's also likely that Russia will pass China for the #2 spot in the overall medal count.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 25, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I rely on the Big Mac Index for all my comparative economics needs.



 Its kind of sad that its almost the best way to compare economies.


----------



## Welverin (Aug 25, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> India has a GDP per head of $470.  Literacy is 58 percent.
> 
> U.S. has a GDP per head of $35,500.  Literacy is 99 percent.




Where do you get the literacy numbers for, and what is the current rate for the world as a whole?



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Still, I'm not minimizing Australia's accomplishments. They deserve all the recognition they earn. Speaking from an American's point of view, I was cheering for the Aussies to beat our basketball team. Our team is made up of a bunch of prima donna street thug wannabees. Seeing our team humbled twice, by Puerto Rico and Lithuania was AWESOME! Frankly, I hope that the US's other basketball team (Puerto Rico!) goes all the way.
> 
> *ahem* sorry for that detour...




You should be, it's wrong and inaccurate. I also don't think the fact none of them are members excludes them from the prohibition on personal attacks.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 25, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Where do you get the literacy numbers for, and what is the current rate for the world as a whole?



I'm not sure where he got them, but they're in the CIA world factbook as well; you can get global data by looking up the country "World". Apparently the world's literacy rate is about 77% (1995 est).


----------



## Gary Johnson (Aug 26, 2004)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Australia is of western culture, not India. I think that India at large don't care for the Olympic games, which just are a westerners' stupidity. When you are an Indian you know better: life is short, lets practive yoga quickly and be able to reach the divine before death, and leave those puny nonsensical olympic concerns for materialistic people who have lost their brains.
> 
> Don't take my insults against the loympics too seriously   However, know that I really don't care for the games, and think that Indian culture has much more interesting things to propose than a handful of olympic champions.




Like cricket, for instance.  I'm sure India would be much more interested in the Olympics if Tendulkar, Laxman, Dravid, Ganguly, Kumble and teammates were taking part.

Australia's fascination with sport and sporting success has already been mentioned. As an Australian, the thing I find most interesting about the Olympics is how well we do considering our major team sports aren't represented: cricket (the premiere summer sport), Australian Rules football, rugby league, rugby union (all bigger than soccer), netball ... we do pretty well considering so many of our team sports aren't included in the Olympics. Still, on the plus side, if rugby union and netball were in the Olympics, New Zealand would have a chance to win something, and we can't have that.  

Cheers,

Gary Johnson
-- 
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://members.optusnet.com.au/xmen_campaign
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 26, 2004)

Gary Johnson said:
			
		

> Still, on the plus side, if rugby union and netball were in the Olympics, New Zealand would have a chance to win something, and we can't have that.




Well, we won women's double sculls in rowing, and women's individual pursuit in cycling.

As we cannot possibly fail to be reminded of, any time we go anywhere near a newspaper, television, or radio.

It's as bad as 1996, with Danyon Loader winning the 200 and 400 freestyle.  We saw the last few seconds of those two damned races a thousand times.  More.  Aargh.

-Hyp.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 26, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, we won women's double sculls in rowing, and women's individual pursuit in cycling.
> 
> As we cannot possibly fail to be reminded of, any time we go anywhere near a newspaper, television, or radio.



... whereas here in the states, you have to be a freakishly good athlete who wins multiple medals (ala Michael Phelps), be really hot (ala Kerri Walsh & Misty May), play a popular team sport (basketball, women's soccer, softball), or be a medal contender with a great story to even get noticed.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 26, 2004)

TimSmith said:
			
		

> I thought Norway had a high GDP because of its North Sea Oil and low population? Wealth distribution is another story of course....




It's got some other good things going for it, many of which are organizational.

The economist had a review of a book that came out recently on the Scandanavian model.  Pretty fascinating stuff if it's in any way correct.

Basicly claims that Norway and similar nations have put together incredibly effecient and sustainable tax codes, but that while they are much better for creating good funding for social services and supporting working environments they actually don't do that much for wealth redistribution.

Pretty interesting stuff.

What's even more interesting is how much the Economist has been mentioned in this thread already, Lord how I do love that magazine.

That and, to make things relevant, I think Australia also deserves a nod for hosting a very fine Olympiad.  Athens has had its charms but Sydney was truly impressive.


----------



## johnsemlak (Aug 26, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, we won women's double sculls in rowing, and women's individual pursuit in cycling.



  Add to that the 1-2 spots in teh Men's Triathelon.  Bravo


----------



## johnsemlak (Aug 26, 2004)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> What's even more interesting is how much the Economist has been mentioned in this thread already, Lord how I do love that magazine.




My favorite magazine as well (excluding RPG stuff of course)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 26, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Add to that the 1-2 spots in teh Men's Triathelon.  Bravo




Well, huh.  I haven't had the television on tonight - I didn't even know until you mentioned it 

-Hyp.


----------



## green slime (Aug 26, 2004)

Part of Australia's success is also due to the "post-olympic" effect. When a country hosts the olympic games there is more effort put in to creating a large olympic team. Because of the "home turf" more athletes are allowed to compete for the home country than would ordinarily be sent away. This provides encouragement and inspiration. The benefit of this carries on over the olympiad.

However, why the kiwis aren't doing any better, I have no clue. I guess their equestrians were put out to pasture, and their boatsmen sailed into the sunset. 

An olympic sport I'd like to see is adventure racing similar to the Discovery Eco-challenge. Would be a great opportunity for the host nation to show off their nature. (and Kiwis are good at it too!)


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 26, 2004)

Great... now I have this mental image of giant India flounders... darned fine eatin', I'd wager.


----------



## rgard (Aug 26, 2004)

The British and Australian militaries are just about the only ones in the work that can hang with (integrate command and control with similar quality material) the US Military.


----------



## green slime (Aug 26, 2004)

rgard said:
			
		

> The British and Australian militaries are just about the only ones in the work that can hang with (integrate command and control with similar quality material) the US Military.




Not if you believe the English press. I remember lots of stories regarding inadequacies in the British supply structure.

And as to the Australians... I have no real idea, but wasn't their only units in the Gulf area Naval or Special Forces? I could be very wrong of course.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 26, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> Not if you believe the English press. I remember lots of stories regarding inadequacies in the British supply structure.
> 
> And as to the Australians... I have no real idea, but wasn't their only units in the Gulf area Naval or Special Forces? I could be very wrong of course.



Generally speaking, the only armed force that's big and good (well-trained, modern equipment, able to project a non-trivial portion of its force out of area), by American standards, is the US; the UK is small and good; Australia is tiny and good.


----------



## green slime (Aug 26, 2004)

I dunno, but isn't this sort of dismissing Japan, which is only restricted by its constitution from oversea force projection, and other states which limit themselves politically, rather than militarily? France has a number of forces stationed overseas around the globe, and has a ready supply of expendibles in their Legionaires. No French mothers picketing the French presidency over those boys...


----------



## drothgery (Aug 26, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> I dunno, but isn't this sort of dismissing Japan, which is only restricted by its constitution from oversea force projection, and other states which limit themselves politically, rather than militarily? France has a number of forces stationed overseas around the globe, and has a ready supply of expendibles in their Legionaires. No French mothers picketing the French presidency over those boys...



Japan, like South Korea (and, to a much lesser extent, Germany) has a pretty good military with minimal ability to work out of area on its own.

France is something of a mystery. They should have a better armed force than they do; they've got fairly modern equipment, a decent-sized armed force, and they spend money on it. But they just don't do as well in action as they should; I suspect their weaknesses are in training, maintence, and logistics.


----------



## LizardWizard (Aug 26, 2004)

*You forgot about Russia!*

You'd better ask: why does Russia, the largest country of the world with a population of 140+ million and great sports achievements in the past, lag behind?
Fortunately, our wrestlers, athletes and rhythmic gymnasts are rectifying this situation. We already have more total medals than the Chinese, and should enough gold to beat them in the two closing days of the Games.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 26, 2004)

LizardWizard said:
			
		

> You'd better ask: why does Russia, the largest country of the world with a population of 140+ million and great sports achievements in the past, lag behind?
> Fortunately, our wrestlers, athletes and rhythmic gymnasts are rectifying this situation. We already have more total medals than the Chinese, and should enough gold to beat them in the two closing days of the Games.



Russia does pretty well; it's roughly similar to Japan in population, and considerably poorer, but wins far more medals. They don't do as well as they did in the Soviet era, because the Russian government no longer throws money (and steroids) at the team, and because half of their team plays for other countries now (Lithuania took the heart of Soviet men's basketball; many of the best divers and gymnasts are from Ukraine or Belarus).

[edit: deleted Germany comparison; I always think Germany has more people than it really does.]


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 27, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Just a thought: why does Australia, a tiny country of 18 million (or so) kick ass every summer games, while India, with over one BILLION people, scrape by with 1 or 2 medals?
> 
> I haven't checked the standings today, but ever since the games at Athens have started, Australia has been in the top five, easily competing with the USA and China, both Olympic powerhouses.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, the Canadian government doesn't really believe in supporting our athletes.  Artists looking to make sculptures out of dead pigs, yes.....athletes no..

On the interview with Mark Tewksbury, on Day 3 or 4, I remember him mentioning that official stance is that we Canada doesn't want to push participation, as that leads to drug scandals etc.  So they emphasize "personal bests" and "Canadian bests"...I think it's a bit of a cop-out myself.

Australia's doing awesome for such a small country because they support their athletes....but Australia also has one of the most physically fit/active populations of any of the 1st world nations....far ahead of the U.S. and Canada.

I was glad to see Canada end up fourth with our women's epee team though.  Not bad, given that we're not really considered to be "on the map" with regards to fencing..

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 27, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Uh, no offense, but you might actually want to visit the US before making a statement like that. Or India.
> 
> While India's economy is improving, and they will no doubt be one of the major countries of the 21st century, they're still in transition. The vast majority of people still work in the agriculture industry, and the literacy rate is not especially high (about 50% for women, 70% for men).
> 
> ...




I'm curious....are these figures in American dollars?  I'm pretty sure Canadians tend to have a higher standard of living in the U.S., even though our dollar isn't worth as much.

I don't think the U.S. is backward....it's just that there's a far larger gap between the rich and the poor, so the poor are more visible than in Canada.

Banshee


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 27, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> You should be, it's wrong and inaccurate. I also don't think the fact none of them are members excludes them from the prohibition on personal attacks.




Wow, the lack of clarity is dizzying.

What was wrong? What was inaccurate? None of _who_ are members of _what_? "Prohibition"? Practically a quadruple negative in that last sentence?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 27, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> None of _who_ are members of _what_? "Prohibition"?




The fact that none of the US Basketball team are members of EN World does not make them fair game for personal attacks; the general policy applies even though they're not reading this forum.

-Hyp.


----------



## TDRandall (Aug 27, 2004)

I saw an article just last night at either CNN.com or foxnews.com that asked a question similar to this thread.

It's conclusion was essentially that the countries with the most winning required the athletes to always (or at least very frequently) perform, compete, sell, prove themselves and their abilities to sponsors.  

Those countries that were not (this article posed) were generally those where the athletes were removed from "normal" lives and handed lives of entitlement (usually by the government) - at least while they were in the lime light and primes of their life.

I don't know if I agree with it 100%, but I figured I would toss that tidbit into the ring.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 27, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm curious....are these figures in American dollars? I'm pretty sure Canadians tend to have a higher standard of living in the U.S., even though our dollar isn't worth as much.
> 
> I don't think the U.S. is backward....it's just that there's a far larger gap between the rich and the poor, so the poor are more visible than in Canada.



The figures are in US dollars; in most cases in this thread they're adjusted by purchasing power parity. Any response to the rest would tread very definitely into lands that the moderators decrees of 'no politics on ENWorld' forbid.


----------



## Tim_Duncan (Aug 27, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> You should be, it's wrong and inaccurate. I also don't think the fact none of them are members excludes them from the prohibition on personal attacks.



 Ahem


----------



## green slime (Aug 27, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> France is something of a mystery. They should have a better armed force than they do; they've got fairly modern equipment, a decent-sized armed force, and they spend money on it. But they just don't do as well in action as they should; I suspect their weaknesses are in training, maintence, and logistics.




I would disagree with your generalistions. I think they do well at what they are train for: small scale brush wars in former colonies, mostly african. As they are quite reluctant to deploy the Army proper, as opposed to the Foreign Legion, which gets rushed off everywhere.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 27, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm curious....are these figures in American dollars?  I'm pretty sure Canadians tend to have a higher standard of living in the U.S., even though our dollar isn't worth as much.
> 
> I don't think the U.S. is backward....it's just that there's a far larger gap between the rich and the poor, so the poor are more visible than in Canada.
> 
> Banshee




Until a few years ago, Canada ranked 1st or 2nd -- alternating almost yearly with Norway -- in the United Nations' "quality of life" index (which incorporates factors like literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc., in addition to purchasing power and per capita GDP).  In recent years it has slipped -- down to 5th place, and then, most recently, 8th place (behind the U.S. btw) -- for various reasons, mainly changes in the way in which the index is compiled.

Claims about "overall quality of life" are incredibly vague and subjective, at least above a certain threshold (i.e. a threshold that all Western countries easily surpass).  E.g. if you consider decent public transportation an important ingredient, extremely well-off parts of the U.S. will suffer (I am amazed by how bad public transportation is down here, even in the 'progressive' Bay area).  On the other hand, if you consider lower taxes to be an important ingredient, the U.S. will tend to do better than most other Western countries.

The only "hard stat" that Canada consistently beats the U.S. is average life-expectancy (for some reason Canadians live longer).  The main "hard stat" that the U.S. consistently beats Canada is per capita GDP.

Finally, there are WAY MORE wealthy Americans, as a percentage of the U.S. population, than there are wealthy Canadians.  So the rich-poor gap between Americans is bound to be much greater than the rich-poor gap between Canadians.  Having a smaller rich-poor gap in a country does not necessarily mean that there are fewer poor people in that country; it can also mean that there are fewer rich people.

As a Canadian, I frequently get tired of the many "myths" that Canadians tell themselves about their country and the U.S. (e.g. that the U.S. is somehow awash in poor people)... 
 

Right, back to the Olympics ...


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 27, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Where do you get the literacy numbers ... QUOTE]
> 
> The data I have mentioned in my posts are from The Economist's "World in Figures."
> 
> Global literacy rate = 79 percent.  9 people in 100 own a computer.


----------



## LizardWizard (Aug 27, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Russia does pretty well; it's roughly similar to Japan in population, and considerably poorer, but wins far more medals. They don't do as well as they did in the Soviet era, because the Russian government no longer throws money (and steroids) at the team, and because half of their team plays for other countries now (Lithuania took the heart of Soviet men's basketball; many of the best divers and gymnasts are from Ukraine or Belarus).
> [edit: deleted Germany comparison; I always think Germany has more people than it really does.]



Yeah, that's mostly true, but the standard of doing "pretty well" is considerably lower than it used to be. 15 gold medals three days before the closing ceremony is certainly below the expectations; ironically, if you summed up all medals won by ex-USSR athletes (including those who moved to the US,Australia,Germany, and other countries), this virtual Team Soviet Union would be the winner of the Games. And if you include medals won by athletes who were by trained by Russian specialists working abroad (Ian Thorpe and Carly Patterson being the most colorful examples), you get a picture of complete Russian/Soviet domination in sports.
Which isn't such a bad thing after all .


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 27, 2004)

LizardWizard said:
			
		

> ..., ironically, if you summed up all medals won by ex-USSR athletes (including those who moved to the US, Australia, Germany, and other countries), this virtual Team Soviet Union would be the winner of the Games.




Alternatively, if you counted medals based on _where_ athletes live and train, the US's count would explode from where it is now.  For example, Felix Sanchez who ran for the Dominican Republic in the 400m hurdles and got gold. 

Sort of like how almost 90% of all of the worlds best golfers live, and have lived for decades, in Orlando, yet play for the country of birth in the Ryder Cup.


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Aug 31, 2004)

Gary Johnson said:
			
		

> Still, on the plus side, if rugby union and netball were in the Olympics, New Zealand would have a chance to win something, and we can't have that.




I dunno; although trans-Tasman rivalry is forever fierce, it seems to me that it's like competition between brothers.  You never want your brother to beat you, but you always want your brother to beat the other kid.  So when Australia's been knocked out in an international competition and New Zealand's still in there, I can't help but barrack for the little Black & White b.....ds from the Land of the Long White Clod, er, Cloud.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------

