Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Is it that the US produces superior athletes, or the fact the US is so large the percent of good athletes are a given?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26879points) September 10th, 2016

Last I even bothered to look; the US outpaced the rest of the world in gold metals. That got me to thinking if the US was the same size as the UK or Australia if the gold count would be the same? Playing Devil’s advocate, I had to examine nations that match the US in size or is larger, like Canada, and Russia, and that they hardly got on the leaderboard if at all, China was the 2nd place metal hauler and I wonder if it is because they have such a dense population. Which look me back to the US being so large and having such a large population if that was the reason (for lack of a better term) that the US seemed to be blessed with a high among of top athletes?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I think it is the later, also the US has one of the highest obesity rates of the industrialized world whats your take on that?

Lightlyseared's avatar

Money. There US spends a load of it on Olympic atheletes.

Sadly the US Paralympic team isn’t doing anywhere near as well.

Kropotkin's avatar

For gold medals per capita, the USA was ranked a mere 30th in Rio. Russia 31st.. China was 54th. India was 86th.

Canada’s population is about a tenth of the USA’s. Russia’s is half. Not sure why you think mere size of land mass should correlate to sporting success. China doesn’t have a dense population either—it’s 84th in the world for population density.

From the major industrialised nations—The UK, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, and South Korea all outperformed the USA for gold medals per capita.

Lightlyseared's avatar

Although for Australia that’s not hard given the US probably has cities with more people than the whole of the Australia.

kritiper's avatar

We love our sports! There are so many people who would like to earn the big money from being professional athletes that creates the many there are to pick from.

BellaB's avatar

http://www.medalspercapita.com

43 United States 121 321,418,820 2,656,353

it looks a bit better when you look at only gold medals

http://www.medalspercapita.com/#golds-per-capita:2016

1 Bahamas 1 388,019 388,019
2 Jamaica 6 2,725,941 454,323
3 Croatia 5 4,224,404 844,880
4 Fiji 1 892,145 892,145
5 New Zealand 4 4,595,700 1,148,925
6 Hungary 8 9,844,686 1,230,585
7 Bahrain 1 1,377,237 1,377,237
8 Georgia 2 3,679,000 1,839,500
9 Kosovo 1 1,859,203 1,859,203
10 Slovenia 1 2,063,768 2,063,768


...

27 Kazakhstan 3 17,544,126 5,848,042
28 Spain 7 46,418,269 6,631,181
29 France 10 66,808,385 6,680,838
30 United States 46 321,418,820 6,987,365

stanleybmanly's avatar

we are large and like the other nations on @Kropotkin very astute and pertinent list, we are comparatively rich.

BellaB's avatar

The top countries on the per capita lists aren’t particularly wealthy.

Jamaica/Croatia/Hungary/Georgia/Kosovo/Slovenia from the top ten.

Definitely not on the world money lists.

Must be something else that creates populations that are medal rich.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Lightlyseared Money. There US spends a load of it on Olympic atheletes.
So, money is the lowest denominator in turning a mediocre athlete into a world class athlete? Simply plying tons of money to a person that has no heart for a certain sport will make them world class?

@Kropotkin Canada’s population is about a tenth of the USA’s. Russia’s is half. Not sure why you think mere size of land mass should correlate to sporting success.
Not so much land mass, but more mass lends to more population just for the fact of having more land for people to thrive on.

From the major industrialised nations—The UK, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, and South Korea all outperformed the USA for gold medals per capita.
I guess if that was a commonly known fact, not merely a hunch by some, it would tend to add more value to those nations that acquire a gold medal but sadly for the most part, it comes down to who gets more, and somehow that shows the value or worth of the nation that did.

Lightlyseared's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central money allows people to concentrate on their sport full time as opposed to let’s say getting a job and worrying about where you’re gonna sleep and where the next meals coming from. Money gives you access to better equipment, better training facilities better trainers. Money pays for the flights and accommodation to allow you to compete in all the competitions needed to qualify for the olympics in the first place.
Don’t matter how good you are if you’re working a full time job you’re going to find it hard to find time to train to the same level as someone who can afford to to compete full time. Simple economics.

Money also makes it easier to pay for the ridiculous tax on importing gold medals. I mean really what the fuck is the deal with that?

ragingloli's avatar

It also pays for better performance enhancing chemicals.

rojo's avatar

I think, and I have no proof, that is it a combination of a large gene pool from which to choose, better nutrition, better training equipment and facilities.

rojo's avatar

Hey, @Lightlyseared I heard that seven US wheelchair athletes have been banned from the Paralympics after they tested positive for WD40..

cazzie's avatar

Anyone want to bring up the medal count per capita for the Winter Olympics? *smiles and blinks.

ibstubro's avatar

If size matters most, wouldn’t China and India dominate the Olympics?

tranquilsea's avatar

We only very recently debated a national funding strategy for Olympic athletes. And that was because we were hosting the Winter Games.

@Lightlyseared nailed it

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther