NationStates Jolt Archive

Any one have any Ideas why every olympics the US seems to dominate?

for the same reason that russia and china do too. we're the world powers. not quite sure how that factors into it but it does somehow.

Money.

Money, population and history (a person does well, encourages all the kiddies to take up their sport etc)

LOTS of money.
And a big population (3rd largest in the world) and a high discretionary income so you can indulge yourselves in leisure activities.
Anyway, when you check the medals per capita, the US is ranked only 39th (China 70th). Aussie is ranked 2nd, behind the Bahamas. But I don't think we can include the Bahamas because their small population makes them a statistical abberation.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/5f1e01afb32859f9ca25697500217f48/be9f47591541e29eca256ef40004f25a!OpenDocument

BTW the figures above I was doing all medals (G,S,B) not just Gold. The table focuses on Golds. But the stats are still similar.

Well its all of that, plus I think its the diversity of the US's people. For example, the US women's indoor volleyball team's coach looked to be of Asian decent. The US men's ping pong team was from Asia. So basically our little 'melting pot' has given us some of the best athletes in the world.

Large populations make the most impact, since there are simply more people to choose from, and also to a degree racial diversity since there are minute biological diffrences. Cacausians and Negros (sorry, i have to use that, it differentiates them from Bantu, a similar looking but nonetheless quite diffrent race with notabley less athletic capacity and significantly diffrent cultural history,) as well as some of the asiatic and east european mongoloids have had over history significantly better atheletic capability than many other races. I hate the fact that this is true as in my political view all races are equal but this fact stands in spite of that. Genetics and family lines can also be a factor. Some mutations like higher red blood cell counts could figure into stamina for example, and be almost exclusive to the descendants of some austrian bloodline. So can chemical enhancement, which is not available in all countries. Also, being in a country with curropt judges or referees could help (i think at least one Chinese judge was "suspended" over something similar.) Then there is also the element of tradition in a certain sporting event. South Korea did very well at Tae Kwon Do and the USA Women's Softball team crushed all others.

Also, there is the issue of how many athletes the country enters, obviously. If for example 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place all go to one country, you would have significant increase in total medal count.

Anyway, good job USA! South Africa too.

Money, copious amounts of african people (not trying to be racist or anything, they just happen to be very good at running fast), more money, good training facilities (paid for with money), great coaches (paid for with stacks of cash) plus there is the fact that unlike the rest of us they dont waste their time playing dumb games like cricket and rugby (more fool them)

You'll note NZ is way up there to in the per-capita.

it's a matter of how sports-orientated the nations are. both NZ and Australia have a LOT of their population playing compeditive sports.

Any one have any Ideas why every olympics the US seems to dominate?

Because we have a very large population, and therefore a greater pool of people from which to choose the fastest/strongest, etc.
We also have the money to train them properly unlike, say Nigeria, whose population is almost the same as Japan's, yet Japan has many medals, while Nigeria has few.

i think it has something to do with high competiveness in the US forces the people here to excell more. I definantly agree with better training facilities. A lot of the good foriegners live and train in the US. Inge de Bruijn (or w/e) the girl swimmer from Denmark who won 3 or 4 medals trains in a pool five minutes from my house up here in Portland OR.

Large populations make the most impact, since there are simply more people to choose from, and also to a degree racial diversity since there are minute biological diffrences. Cacausians and Negros, as well as some of the asiatic and east european mongoloids have had over history significantly better atheletic capability than many other races. I hate the fact that this is true as in my political view all races are equal but this fact stands in spite of that. Genetics and family lines can also be a factor. Some mutations like higher red blood cell counts could figure into stamina for example, and be almost exclusive to the descendants of some austrian bloodline.

Well, to put your mind at rest so you don't feel like you're expousing racist views, there really isn't anything in the idea of some races make better types of athletes. The only case is the Kenyans who live 5000ft+ above sea level so have a natural adaption to altitude training. That said genetics plays only a part-role in their success. Running is their national sport/pasttime. They run everywhere, because mostly it's the only way to get around. I remember seeing a documentary about one of their greatest runners. He used run to and from school everyday. It was 6 km each way. This was from the age of 6 onwards. I think if you got any kid to do this, they grow up to be a pretty damn fine runner.
Why are blacks thought of as being great sprinters? It's from long ago when we used genetics to put people down. Their success wasn't from hard work, it was from their genes. How often have you heard ppl say Norwegian athletes are genetically better at sliding down mountains with two barrel staves lashed to their feet? None. If you ask anyone why the Scandavians are better at Winter Olympic sports than anyone else, they'll tell you it's because of their climate and that it's their national pasttime. Yet ask the same about a black athlete, and they'll most likely say it's their genes.
As way of example, if you looked at the ideal physiology of a sprinter vs a weightlifter it's pretty much identical. 90% fast-twitch muscle fibers. So a weight-lifter could make a really good sprinter and vice versa.
Yet does anyone ever say that East-Europeans are genetically better at lifting big heavy weights over their heads?
So we come to the most plausible reason why blacks are always in the sprinting teams:
It's a combination of three things: economics, identification and stereotyping.

Economics: What do you need to learn to run? A street or field. What do you need to learn to row? A big lake & thousands of dollars of equipment. So if your poor which one would you choose? Another example: Boxing. Why are blacks dominating Boxing at present? Because of economics. Go back 40 years and it was the Italians and Irish, back another 40 years it was the Jews and Irish. Because at those times they were the poor working class. Now it's the Blacks. In another 30 years it''d probably be a different race (Hispanics, Asians who knows).

Identification: Who do you most identify with? Likely it'll be someone who has similar upbring and ideals to you. And of a similar race. So if you ask a black kid who they'd most like to be, are they going to choose Michael Jordan, or Steve Redgrave (Winner of 5 consecutive gold medals in rowing)? Yet the physique for a top rower is quite similar to a basketball player: 2m tall ad 105 kg, mostly fast-twitch but with excellent stamina. Black kids want to be Maurice Green because they can identify with him more. So the more black sprinters they see, the more this is reinforced that this is the sport for them.

Stereotyping: A coach when seeing a talented black kid is going to suggest sprinting or Basketball because everyone has the idea that blacks do better at these sports than anyone else. Yet the same coach wouldn't recomend these sports to an equally talented white kid. HE'll have it in his head that whites just don't make good sprinters. It also comes from the black community as well. Everyone has bought into the idea that there are certain sports that blacks do better in.

There, that's my rant.

It does come down to lots of money in the end. Did anyone see the Diving? A sport China traditionally dominates. The Aussies did well this time, and who were their coaches? Chinese. The Aussies went shopping over to China after the 2000 games and brought some of the top Chinese coaches back with them.
Look at the Chinese Basketball team - their coach is a Yank (from Houston I think).
It's obvious that if you can afford the best facilities and best coaches, you'll do well.

my impression, living in the u.s., and i don't give a flying
rat about athletics, olympics included, is, and i don't know
if other countries do this but i would immagine at least
some of them do, is that most of what gets air'd in the
media in the u.s. are the events in which the u.s. wins
something. i'm sure there are many events that we're not
even hearing about in the u.s. because the u.s. doesn't have
a strong team in them or possibly no entries in them at all.

so i think this impression of u.s. athletic dominance is, if
not totaly synthasized in this manor, at the very least
exagerated because of it.

just selective reporting. american journalism is, perhapse
naturaly, just more interested in u.s. teams, so that's
what they tell us about. and less interested in events
we're not in so those we don't hear about or at least not
so much. i really think that's all there is to it.

maybe and intended bias and maybe just an uninteded after
the fact sort of one. in the medea. not the olympics
themselves overall.

that's just my general impression of course. from not just
this olympics but over the past several. like i said it's
really not something i've been paying that much attention
to otherwise, and feel no particular compulsion to do so.

=^^=
.../\...

Money/Population/Nationalism

Money, copious amounts of african people (not trying to be racist or anything, they just happen to be very good at running fast), more money, good training facilities (paid for with money), great coaches (paid for with stacks of cash) plus there is the fact that unlike the rest of us they dont waste their time playing dumb games like cricket and rugby (more fool them)
If I wasn't so tired from coming back from training I probably get into a arguman over that statement.

my impression, living in the u.s., and i don't give a flying
rat about athletics, olympics included, is, and i don't know
if other countries do this but i would immagine at least
some of them do, is that most of what gets air'd in the
media in the u.s. are the events in which the u.s. wins
something. i'm sure there are many events that we're not
even hearing about in the u.s. because the u.s. doesn't have
a strong team in them or possibly no entries in them at all.

so i think this impression of u.s. athletic dominance is, if
not totaly synthasized in this manor, at the very least
exagerated because of it.

just selective reporting. american journalism is, perhapse
naturaly, just more interested in u.s. teams, so that's
what they tell us about. and less interested in events
we're not in so those we don't hear about or at least not
so much. i really think that's all there is to it.

maybe and intended bias and maybe just an uninteded after
the fact sort of one. in the medea. not the olympics
themselves overall.

that's just my general impression of course. from not just
this olympics but over the past several. like i said it's
really not something i've been paying that much attention
to otherwise, and feel no particular compulsion to do so.

=^^=
.../\...

Except you are totally wrong. NBC made a point of covering American games, win or lose, as well as quite a few other games. And the reason this topic popped up was the total medal count at the end of the games. Please read more carefully before posting! I take the olympics very seriously as a demonstration of some of our best physical specimins on Earth, and many of the rest of us also do! Thank you much!

Note to Trotterstan, i was a South African when both our cricket and rugby teams were 1337. Do not insult those games near South Africans, trust me on this. Even with massive degradation of the South African teams the fans are still rabid. Same probably goes for the Australians and the British. Better not mess with India and Pakistan when it comes to cricket either.

Any one have any Ideas why every olympics the US seems to dominate?

Well they're a huge country, with too many people, so you'd expect there'd be too many athletes in it as well.
And they're rich. So you'd expect they'd put some money in sports as well.
With this combination they'd obviously dominate.

If I wasn't so tired from coming back from training I probably get into a arguman over that statement.

i don't thing anyone calling Rugby "dumb" deserves anyone deigning to go into an argument with him anyways... 'twould be too much of an honour .