<p>
Thanks for letting me know - I assumed they must have been involved somehow but didn’t recall seeing them on any event I watched. Of course, NBC didn’t show any shooting that I recall, hardly any badminton, I didn’t watch any boxing which seemed to consume one of the obscure NBC channels (MSNBC or something) with endless matches. I did see some men’s wrestling but didn’t notice India - I did notice Iran (but a friend is from Iran so I was rooting for the Iranian on his behalf).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Which makes India, by far, the least efficient country on a per capita basis among countries that won at least one medal. That works out to about 1 medal for every 207 million people in India. The US performed about 69-fold better per capita. And Grenada performed about 1971-fold better.</p>
<p>There’s a huge difference between India and China; the latter has more centralized planning where once a decision is made to excel in some area, for prestige or some other strategic reasons, there is a huge infrastructure that is built where children are coached for an early age, with the main priority being to become #1.
[How</a> China trains its children to win gold - standing on a girl’s legs as young boys hang from bars | Mail Online](<a href=“How China trains its children to win gold - standing on a girl's legs as young boys hang from bars | Daily Mail Online”>How China trains its children to win gold - standing on a girl's legs as young boys hang from bars | Daily Mail Online)</p>
<p>In India, other than in Cricket, and to a lesser extent tennis, soccer, and field hockey, there is little public support for most sports, and the government involvement is heavily tainted by cronyism and bribery. The biggest priority is not victory but passing favors to ones’ constituency. Of the billion plus population, the overwhelming majority have little access to what we would consider are the necessities like basic education and a wholesome diet, that access to sports facilities is such a low priority that few think of competitive sports at this level. Even for the middle class and well off, the culture of local competitive sports is very limited, so there isn’t enough critical mass even if there’re a few who are motivated and talented. If students are asked to work their butts off, it’ll be to secure admission to a top school or something similar, and not to improve their triple jump performance. Even here, the priorities for many FOB Indians are far more geared towards children going to prestigious schools/med school than to pursue wrestling or track or some other athletic endeavor as anything more than a hobby. (And I don’t see too many demanding a URM boost in the college athletic programs to make their representation match the school’s racial breakdown either) </p>
<p>India may have come out as least efficient in comparison to the rest of the world with 6 medals, but if you look at the rest of the subcontinent - Pakistan and Bangladesh, each with populations of about half the US, and smaller ones like Sri Lanka, Nepal etc., their total medal haul was zero.</p>
<p>^ 119 nations won zero medals.</p>
<p>Team sports skew any kind of per-capita calculation. Relays award 4-6 medals, even though only one counts in the standing. Soccer is, what, 22 medals?</p>
<p>I suspect medal count also reflects the power relationship among nations. Certain sports are more readily included in the Olympic movement; certain sports award more medals; and certain sports allow more participants per country. As a result, I cannot take the medal count too seriously.</p>
<p>
??? 6 medals are awarded in soccer … Men = G, S, B and Women = G, S, B … each member of team receives a medal but it only counts as 1 in the standings</p>
<p>
I agree … the communist block countries were great at targeting minor sports with multiple sports and cleaning up in those sports. In addition, the sports added and dropped is pretty political and far from driven by world-wide participation rates.</p>
<p>While I agree the overall medal rankings are squishy at best I’d hope the USOC cares. Over the last 20 years or so the USOC has done a much better job guiding the minor sports governing bodies to success … however, we could learn some things from countries like Australia. (just as anyone in charge of an enterprise should be doing research into best practices)</p>
<p>Breaking news on the Gabby Douglas hair front! Hair stylist to the stars Ted Gibson (he’s on What Not to Wear) is going to work with her. On TV, he always seems like one of the nicest guys in the world.</p>
<p>Saw the girls on Letterman last night, and, I think, it was an odd interview. For the most part, they didn’t come off as particularly charming. But they did all take turns doing the McKayla disgusted face, and that was funny.</p>
<p>I saw Gabby on the Tonight Show by herself and thought she was pretty personable and fairly poised for a teenager. She was with the other girls on the Today Show and I felt she came off the best.</p>
<p>sevmom, I saw her with Leno as well, and she was much better alone. She wasn’t that bad last night. Really, it was a couple of others who came across as snarky and bratty. Not humble.</p>
<p>I didn’t think the girls came off too poorly on Letterman. I just keep wondering how my own 16 year old would come off if suddenly thrust into the national spotlight. Her diction isn’t always that great. </p>
<p>The one gymnast on the US national team with whom we are acquainted comes off in competition as having zero “personality”, which isn’t far from the truth. Being extraordinarily hard working and talented at a physical activity is a very different thing from being great on TV. Shawn Johnson, as “only” the silver AA medal winner, would have faded into semi-obscurity had she not had a good TV persona.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That plus Mother Nature had drenched her with a huge bucketful of Cute.</p>
<p>
That’s the point. Trying to use medals/population as a measuring stick is not accurate because even though soccer counts as 1 medal there are 22 (or however many) world-class athletes on the team.</p>
<p>Maybe a better measure would be to count how many athletes received medals per capita.</p>
<p>Lots of countries don’t try lots of sports either. For example, only 12 countries participate in handball. (Why is this even in the Olympics with such low participation? That’s a different discussion…) Suppose just for fun the US took twelve NBA players and made a handball team out of them? I think they would do pretty well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Same with Mary Lou Retton and that electric smile. A girl who was touted as the “next big thing” a few years back (pre-injury) didn’t seem to have even a thimbleful of Cute. The media got lucky with Gabby’s terrific smile. - great for magazine covers and cereal boxes.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Oh please, that would be slicing the baloney pretty thin. Medals are never counted up on this basis because they are not awarded on this basis. They are awarded on a per event basis. Three medals per event (or four in the case of boxing). The number members on a team for a team sport is driven by the rules of that sport, not the number of talented athletes in the country of origin.</p>
<p>A basketball team consists of 12 players. Often only about 7 or 8 of them actually get to play in any games in the tournament. The far end of the bench could be really lousy players and it wouldn’t matter. Yet if the team wins the gold medal all 25 will be given their own version of the medal. But it does not mean that the country of origin then somehow scored a gold medal victory in 12 separate events. 1 event = 1 gold medal, not 12.</p>
<p>The biggest reason why counting medals by any method does not properly estimate the number or percentage of talented athletes in the countries of origin is not team vs individual events but the arbitrary limits on the number of entrants allowed. One team per country for team events and two or three individuals per country for individual events. For large sports powerhouse nations such as China and the US, the number of really great athletes who don’t even get to go far exceed the number who do. For tiny nations that produce one great champion or one great team, that may be more or less all they’ve got.</p>
<p>
Michael Phelps wins 8 medals and gets counted 8 times in a medals per capita calculation, but he is one athlete. Why should he get counted 8 times?</p>
<p>The bottom of the roster on national teams are not lousy players. The bottom four of the US basketball team would start on any other national team with maybe one exception.</p>
<p>
I assume this comment was made in jest. But seriously, what if the US went to a bunch of guys who are not quite good enough to play in the NBA and said give us 1-2 years and we’ll get you into the Olympics. I’d think it would be easy to find 15 takers (or however many people we need for a national team). The US could probably do much better in some of the minor sports if it was a focal point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that the norm on Letterman? He’d make the Pope look bad!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Because the count is not medal-winning athletes per capita but medals per capita - with each event awarding three medals. So if someone wins multiple events they get counted multiple times.</p>
<p>And Phelps as such didn’t get counted eight times. Three of his victories in Beijing were by the US relay teams, not by Phelps as an individual. So the per capita count for the US in that instance was eight gold medals for the US, three of which were won by US relay teams (of which Phelps was a member) and five of which were won by Phelps as an individual. It’s simple really.</p>
<p>It wasn’t in jest. Only 12 NBA’ers make the team. Take the next 12… Look at the skills involved - running, lots of quick cutting, jumping, ball handling, dribbling, defense, play-running. I watched some handball on TV, it seems to me basketball skills would translate extremely well.</p>
<p>Imagine LeBron coming over the middle, jumping three feet up in the air and firing on goal. Who could stop that?</p>
<p>Goalie might be hard, but if you put a guard in there who has a really fast reaction times I think he’d be decent.</p>
<p>Give them a month to practice… it would be interesting. Probably I am underestimating the complexities of the sport since I know almost nothing about it, but hitting a 6’x10’ target from 15 feet away seems a lot easier than putting a ball through a 2’ hoop from 20+ feet.</p>