Skip Navigation

Which country will top the Olympics 2008 medal tally?

Travel Forums Off Topic Which country will top the Olympics 2008 medal tally?

Page

Last Post

11. Posted by opospa (Travel Guru 1836 posts) 8y

Quoting arif_kool

India( second most populous country) was 66th in Athens Olympics with just one silver medal, lets hope they improve on that and at least win a Gold medal!!!

In Silambattam

12. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5595 posts) 8y

Isn't cricket an olympic sport
And darts and biljarts should be

13. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 8y

Canada will top the podium! Just like every other year!

Unfortunately, it'll be the podium set up for tourists to take pictures, but still!!!!

14. Posted by opospa (Travel Guru 1836 posts) 8y

Quoting tway

Unfortunately, it'll be the podium set up for tourists to take pictures, but still!!!!

Canadian Tourists huh

15. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 8y

Quoting opospa

Quoting tway

Unfortunately, it'll be the podium set up for tourists to take pictures, but still!!!!

Canadian Tourists huh

Technically, it's "Canadian tourists, eh?".

When my boyfriend's parents came to visit from Belfast last year, we took them down to the Olympic Stadium (a big leftover from 1976) and took pictures on the tourist podium there. Dang... why did Montreal have to have its heyday when cement was in?

[ Edit: Edited on Aug 5, 2008, at 6:29 AM by tway ]

16. Posted by magykal1 (Travel Guru 2026 posts) 8y

Shame the official medal tally isn't relative eh Norway?

'Team GB' are predicted to finish a spectacular 4th this year. I personally think an underachieving 8th is more realistic.

China will 'win' (it's the taking part that counts, of course), but in a few years we'll find out that they've spent the past 5 years developing undetectable steroids.

17. Posted by spongehead (Full Member 119 posts) 8y

Quoting Sam I Am

Quoting spongehead

Ok, I have just checked, Norway was ranked 16th in Athens with 5 Golds, 0 Silver and 1 Bronze. I say it's rather impressive for a country with a relatively small population.

And that'd be based on total golds. Now look at population divided by gold medals. Probably top 3... actually, just found someone who has done the math. Norway was second! Over 1 gold medal per million inhabitants. Bahamas were first based on both Gold metal tally per population and all medals per population. Australia did really really well there too!

I used to like this kind of alternative ranking but recently, I came to realise that it's actually somewhat skewed.

Here's why: A gold-medal-per-million population ranking is not very accurate because there is a limit on how many athletes a country can send. So assuming that Norway with a population of 7(?) million sends 200 athletes and Russia also sends 200 athletes (but with a population of 130 million), the smaller country stands a far more outstanding probability of increasing its ranking simply by winning 1 gold medal. That's why tiny countries like Bahamas jump straight to 1st place based on this alternative ranking.

18. Posted by spongehead (Full Member 119 posts) 8y

Quoting arif_kool

India( second most populous country) was 66th in Athens Olympics with just one silver medal, lets hope they improve on that and at least win a Gold medal!!!

I can't believe how you're saying that with such conviction.

Note the words in bold.

19. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 8y

Quoting spongehead

Here's why: A gold-medal-per-million population ranking is not very accurate because there is a limit on how many athletes a country can send. So assuming that Norway with a population of 7(?) million sends 200 athletes and Russia also sends 200 athletes (but with a population of 130 million), the smaller country stands a far more outstanding probability of increasing its ranking simply by winning 1 gold medal. That's why tiny countries like Bahamas jump straight to 1st place based on this alternative ranking.

Yes, that's partly going to affect these standings, but isn't that 'maximum' different for each country? Even if it isn't, the top 200 athletes in Russia should be better than the top 200 athletes in Norway, since Russia has a pool to pick from that is about x times the size. Of course there'll be exceptions, but in theory that should mean Russia's 200 athletes will be better overall.

On top of that, although there is a maximum per country, there is also a minimum requirement that each athlete needs to pass in their respective sports to even be allowed to attend. For the 100m sprint for example it's probably somewhere around 11 seconds. That means that smaller countries have a harder time finding the athletes that can actually crack those minimum limits and be considered to begin with. So although the Bahamas might be allowed the same maximum number of athletes, in reality they could probably only send 20 that match the minimum criteria.

Lastly, there's economy. I remember back in the Solomons they could hardly even afford to get gear, let alone fly athletes to the Olympics. For some countries this means they are out by default, regardless of the fact that, against all odds of not having money for training, shoes, track courses etc., someone has become the fastest man on earth.

Either way, it'll be interesting to see how the games turn out in China! I think Norway is meeting the US in female soccer today already actually!

20. Posted by spongehead (Full Member 119 posts) 8y

Quoting Sam I Am

there is also a minimum requirement that each athlete needs to pass in their respective sports to even be allowed to attend.

Ceteris paribus, assuming that the quality of athletes from both countries X (small) and Y (big) are equal (because they have qualified based on merit for their individual disciplines), there is also an equal chance that athletes from either country are fully capable of clinching a gold medal. If and when that happens, Country Y is bound to lose out in the gold medal-per-million population ranking.

Nonetheless, I must give Sam a standing ovation for his analysis!