Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:02:17 PM
Also, it would be a much better showing if you based a chart not on the population of a particular country, but of the ammount of applicants they had representing them in the games.
That would be biased in a different way, that's all. 100 olympic-grade atheletes from a population of 500M isn`t the same as 100 olympic-grade athletes from a population of 5M.
I can`t think of a fair way to make a comparison. As you point out, this method is heavily biased in favour of small populations. For example, if the USA had won *every* gold medal they still wouldn`t have had a gold medals per capita figure as high as the quite of few of the countries on this list.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:11:32 AM
Also, look at regions. Did New Hampshire do better than South Dakota? Yorkshire seems to have done very well, but some have suggested that was because they all had Brian Glover as PE teacher.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:01:26 AM
If we can get 'Jumping Off Ridiculously High Things Without Sane Precautions While Smashed On Vodka` to be an Olympic event the Russians could make a major come back.