Alternative medal table

mp3duck · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:16

I wondered what the current Olympic medal ranking would look like, if adjusted to take into account the number of people in each country...and so I did this...!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq-ys2685NiUdHJVRnBqeGcyU0VyRWlCaE5yZjg4T2c

It's based on the the medal table as it was around 09:30 Saturday, so will not be fully up-to-date for long.

Population figures taken from Google searches ("Population of xxxx")

TheCenturion · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:19

This is an interesting idea, but it assumes that having more people in the country increases the chances of medals being won. I would argue that this is not true.

One · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:20

That's quite interesting, however, you should re-jig it so it works out the average gold/million, silver/million, bronze/million as this is how they rank the table, a country could have 50 medals but only 2 gold and so if a country only has 3 golds they would still rank higher.

One · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:22

TheCenturion said:
This is an interesting idea, but it assumes that having more people in the country increases the chances of medals being won. I would argue that this is not true.

It does give them a bigger pool of genes to choose from, however money plays a bigger factor than population I would assume.

I'm almost certain there will be a proper study in a journal somewhere going over the stats for exactly these questions.

mp3duck · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:22

TheCenturion said:
This is an interesting idea, but it assumes that having more people in the country increases the chances of medals being won. I would argue that this is not true.

I agree, but still shows another view of the table

mp3duck · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:23

desires said:
That's quite interesting, however, you should re-jig it so it works out the average gold/million, silver/million, bronze/million as this is how they rank the table, a country could have 50 medals but only 2 gold and so if a country only has 3 golds they would still rank higher.

Good idea, will adjust now

mp3duck · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:36

desires said:
That's quite interesting, however, you should re-jig it so it works out the average gold/million, silver/million, bronze/million as this is how they rank the table, a country could have 50 medals but only 2 gold and so if a country only has 3 golds they would still rank higher.

Actually, would you not just sort it by Gold/Million THEN Silver/Million THEN Bronze/Million? That's the say they rank the medal table. So, if you're equal on Golds, it then ranks to Silver, and then to Bronze.

In this case, I should only rank against Gold, as there won't be 2 countries who will be equal on the gold/million.

Updated for Golds/Million

Amp34 · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:41

I'll gatecrash this as well with another alternative. It was something we were discussing in our office yesterday because just a straight "number of medals" makes no sense. Instead have a system with points for colour, so:

Gold - 3 points
Silver - 2 Points
Bronze - 1 Point

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akpv2GdE6qyEdDZKVnFTek5Ia0F2NVN0LUFBY2kyVmc

And then compared to the population

I think other than just straight gold medals it's more accurate to do it that way as well a Bronze shouldn't be worth the same as a Gold!

Obviously the next place to go would be to look at the spending on sport/athletes in each country and compare to the received medals.

EDIT mp3duch has rejigged his spreadsheet since I posted, hence the difference in what I describe and what is in the OP's post!

One · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:44

Amp34 said:
a Bronze shouldn't be worth the same as a Gold!

It's not

The table is ranked first by gold medals, if gold is tied ranked by silver, if those are tied then by bronze, if those are tied then the country is tied.

As said if country x has 24 medals, only 2 are gold, then country y would rank above country x even if y only had 3 medals, but all 3 were gold.

mp3duck · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:48

Interesting alternative approach, but as desires said, the ranking gives more weight to Golds than the other medals.

philip2009 · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:53

mp3duck said:
I wondered what the current Olympic medal ranking would look like, if adjusted to take into account the number of people in each country...and so I did this...!

You were beaten to it -

http://www.medalspercapita.com/#medals-per-capita:2012

mp3duck · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:54

philip2009 said:
You were beaten to it -

http://www.medalspercapita.com/#medals-per-capita:2012

Not on this forum

(I hope!)

Amp34 · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:55

desires said:
It's not The table is ranked first by gold medals, if gold is tied ranked by silver, if those are tied then by bronze, if those are tied then the country is tied.

As said if country x has 24 medals, only 2 are gold, then country y would rank above country x even if y only had 3 medals, but all 3 were gold.

Depends which one you use. The standard one is what you describe (as I mention in my post!

) but a lot of people (Apparently in north America especially) use the total number of medals, not accounting for colour (same with mp3ducks first calculations). That's what I was getting at.

Basically the second image is mp3duck's table with weight added to the different medals.

Bearing in mind I started making those tables before there was any replies, and before he changed his spreadsheet.

EDIT: beaten to it from the link!

http://www.medalspercapita.com/#weighted-per-capita:2012 Although mine was 3,2,1 not 4,2,1.

One · 4 Aug 2012 at 10:58

This looks like it could be a very interesting listen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l1g64

One · 4 Aug 2012 at 11:04

Perhaps the number of stadiums in a country has an effect on medals recieved?

There is so many factors you could look at. I have a feeling it's not GDP but rather than money directly invested into athletes.

You only have to look at our cycling team for evidence. The cycling boss made a very contraversial decision to give out large chunks to specific riders rather than tiny amounts to everyone, this meant that the cyclists could quit their day jobs and make cycling their life. It's why we've been so good on the track for a decade

Skeeter · 4 Aug 2012 at 11:23

I agree investment is more of a factor than population as a generalisation, but then you only have to look at the African nations and distance running to see that it isnt a hard and fast rule.

Also there is the consideration of the number of athletes they enter into the games. More athletes means more chances of medals.

It's all very complicated and subject to opinion, which is why the official table just takes the simplest way or ranking on gold medals.

Amp34 · 4 Aug 2012 at 11:27

I agree, spending on sport and the way it has been spent has increased massively after out poor showing at Atlanta 96, it's that, far more than the increase in GDP that has given us all those gold medals.*

*Discounting the organisation etc.

RobSmith · 4 Aug 2012 at 11:31

Surely looking at how well India is doing would completely debunk any theory of how population size impacts on Olympic success..

mp3duck · 4 Aug 2012 at 11:40

I think the reason why China are doing so well now is investment in individual athletes. They spot them at a VERY young age, and from that point onwards, they are moulded into a Gold medal winning athlete. Money is no object there, but some of the training methods are a bit suspect.

One recent example is a Chinese diver who was not told about a grand parents death, and mothers cancer

philip2009 · 4 Aug 2012 at 11:57

RobSmith said:
Surely looking at how well India is doing would completely debunk any theory of how population size impacts on Olympic success..

Mihir Bose was saying that the Indians just aren't bothered by poor Olympic performance in the way that GB or Australia would be. My belief is that the two crucial ingredients to producing a world class athlete are mum and dad - so I obviously believe population size is important. Whether a country has the framework to select gifted individuals is another matter.