Originally posted by tim88You made the assertion that the medal tally of the Olympics is always dominated by "the high population countries". When I demonstrated that this was wrong by taking a look at the 20 top "high population countries", you changed the subject by suggesting that it is in fact dominated by "countries that can afford to train and send their athletes to the Olympics".
america and china have always dominated the medal tally, that and your always need to be right even though you know you wrong syndrome, i'm done talking to babies
1 edit
Originally posted by tim88The U.S. has topped the medal tally many times. But even just a cursory look reveals that China, while 'winning' in Beijing and coming runner up to the U.S. in Athens, has not really dominated the Olympics for much of the last 30 years, often coming a very distant 4th, and not even making the top ten in 1988.
america and china have always dominated the medal tally,...
edit: if we go back a further 20 years [1956-76] China won only a single bronze medal [in 1968] in three Olympics and didn't even contest the games in 1960, 1964 and 1976.
Population is irrelevant since you can only send a certain number of athletes in each event. For example, China can only send two single men's table tennis players even though the top 4 players in the world are from China. Both Chinese participants in that event made the final.
There are numerous other examples involving other sports and countries.
Originally posted by damionhoneganWhile that limits the advantage of high population countries, it hardly negates the advantage entirely.
Population is irrelevant since you can only send a certain number of athletes in each event. For example, China can only send two single men's table tennis players even though the top 4 players in the world are from China. Both Chinese participants in that event made the final.
There are numerous other examples involving other sports and countries.
