• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

London 2012 Summer Olympics |OT2|

Status
Not open for further replies.
Juicy Bob said:
Who cares how many medals other nations get or how they get them?

Why can't we just enjoy our successes on their own merits alone? We've had an amazing Games and an amazing night. How many Golds the US/China/Russia/Best Korea/Kazakhstan/Dominican Republic/Palau have is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Incredible performances tonight.
 
Amir0x said:
population doesn't really matter once you're past a certain level. South Korea has nearly 50 million people, that's more than enough to compete with the top countries. The rules of the IOC make it so
Click to expand...
Their medal count is insane even compared to countries with larger populations twice and triple of their size.

This is what boggles my mind.
 
nny said:
If medals from N. Ireland count towards GB total's why not just call it UK? N Ireland + GB = UK, right? Or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

Britain is the name of the Kingdom.

'The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland' is the full title but Britain is the name of the country. I think.

Edit: So yeah, I guess just calling it the UK could be easier, and it sounds cooler.
 
One of the things I like about Gabby Logan's roundup is it basically consists of all the Awesome BBC Montages that their Awesome Montage People have been working on throughout the day.
 
Juicy Bob said:
Who cares how many medals other nations get or how they get them?

Why can't we just enjoy our successes on their own merits alone? We've had an amazing Games and an amazing night. How many Golds the US/China/Russia/Best Korea/Kazakhstan/Dominican Republic/Palau have is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

A lot of people.

You can. Those tallies are irrelevant to you.

These are great games, though. Fun seeing the best in the world at so many niche sports that cover a variety of talents.
 
fizzelopeguss said:
United Korea would be an impressive force in the olympics, fuck i wouldn't be surprised if that's where union happens first.
Click to expand...
It's not unlikely. There were tentative plans for a United Korea team in 2008 that never came to anything, and that followed them entering the Parade of Nations in 2000 and 2004 as one team.

sy2lR.jpg
 
Soyongdori said:
Their medal count is insane even compared to countries with larger populations twice and triple of their size.

This is what boggles my mind.
Click to expand...

No you don't understand. After a certain population level, any country past say 30 million individuals will be able to compete on a theoretically equal level as one with a billion people. You can only send so many competitors to the games.

Population doesn't matter past a point
 
Juicy Bob said:
Who cares how many medals other nations get or how they get them?

Why can't we just enjoy our successes on their own merits alone? We've had an amazing Games and an amazing night. How many Golds the US/China/Russia/Best Korea/Kazakhstan/Dominican Republic/Palau have is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Yep not bothered by anybody else.

This was our night at our home games and it couldn't have been any better.

All the doubters and cynics about these games, well in my mind they'd already been proved wrong but tonight would have gone further than that and made them big fans. Incredible moment for our country!
 
Great day for team GB.

3 Golds in ONE day in ATHLETICS? Glad to see we have improved in that department.

Oh, what's that? We lost on penalties. Glad to see we haven't improved their ;-)
 
Nolan. said:
GB could probably be giving China and the USA a run for their money if they actually encouraged and had better sports programmes outside of football in state schools and local boroughs. I'm sure there are lots of Archers, swimmers etc that could be world standard. If GB really wanted to represent the entire population they really should work on something beyond what they've had for the past decade, they have made some in roads though.
Click to expand...

We just need to apply the cycling model to our other sports.

Get Sky to sponsor other sports. I believe they sponsor cycling for £30m. We need Team Sky Archery, Team Sky Volleyball etc.
 
PaulLFC said:
Nice generalisation there...
Click to expand...

??? I didn't make any generalizations.

The medal table talk is just so pointless.

I understand why Brits would care about their position because it's their Olympics and you always want to have a good showing (especially after Beijing).

But anyone jizzing over some chart like it's the only thing that matters seems pretty stupid.
 
One could say that you would still have a larger pool of talent to pick from and be more likely to win a medal with the athletes you do send.
 
I'll admit, before the Olympics, I wouldn't say I wasn't bothered about it, but I didn't have a huge amount of excitement for it, it was just something I thought I'd be a bit interested in.

Since day 1 though it's just got better and better, and I'm glued to it. It's fantastic. I'm at the point now where I'm gutted I didn't get a ticket and actually see any of it live.
 
I didn't realize that the triathlon has emerged as a team game. I don't know how I feel about that. It is such a test of will that it fucking sucks that one person does all the heavy lifting to lead out the medal favorite.
 
Amir0x said:
No you don't understand. After a certain population level, any country past say 30 million individuals will be able to compete on a theoretically equal level as one with a billion people. You can only send so many competitors to the games.

Population doesn't matter past a point
Click to expand...

Heh? It's not all about how many you send. Having a larger pool of people means more potential
 
SuperBonk said:
??? I didn't make any generalizations.

The medal table talk is just so pointless.

I understand why Brits would care about their position because it's their Olympics and you always want to have a good showing (especially after Beijing).

But anyone jizzing over some chart like it's the only thing that matters seems pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

You're right, but there's people from EVERY country that does this. I'm sure there are so many posts in this thread about the USA being at the top.
 
Amir0x said:
No you don't understand. After a certain population level, any country past say 30 million individuals will be able to compete on a theoretically equal level as one with a billion people. You can only send so many competitors to the games.

Population doesn't matter past a point
Click to expand...
It seems like you are the only one here who is misunderstanding what I'm saying.

More population means more potential from its people. South Korea has to choose which athletes to compete in the Olympics from their small population. Their option is not much greater than countries with larger population, where potential of finding athletes is much larger in scale.
 
Soyongdori said:
Their medal count is insane even compared to countries with larger populations twice and triple of their size.

This is what boggles my mind.
Click to expand...

They know what sport to focus on. And being surrounded by bigger countries and a cold war- like rival in north korea, they have a innate desire to appear bigger on stages like the Olympics. They are quite big on nationalism and just really really want to win.
 
Amir0x said:
No you don't understand. After a certain population level, any country past say 30 million individuals will be able to compete on a theoretically equal level as one with a billion people. You can only send so many competitors to the games.

Population doesn't matter past a point
Click to expand...

It does matter some. If you combined say France and Great Britain, so about double the population and facilities specializing in more disciplines, and they're not winning the same events, you'd get more wins. Would just double investment in sport in one country achieve the same result as combining two already strong countries into one team?
 
Timbuktu said:
They know what sport to focus on. And being surrounded by bigger countries and a cold war- like rival in north korea, they have a innate desire to appear bigger on stages like the Olympics. They are quite big on nationalism and just really really want to win.
Click to expand...
Isn't it pretty much same thing as any other countries? China's nationalism is not to be messed with, American's patriotism/nationalism is also in par with any other nations with great nationalism.
 
PaulLFC said:
I'll admit, before the Olympics, I wouldn't say I wasn't bothered about it, but I didn't have a huge amount of excitement for it, it was just something I thought I'd be a bit interested in.

Since day 1 though it's just got better and better, and I'm glued to it. It's fantastic. I'm at the point now where I'm gutted I didn't get a ticket and actually see any of it live.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same here. I think the quality of the coverage has played a big part in that.
 
Spiffy_1st said:
Britain is the name of the Kingdom.

'The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland' is the full title but Britain is the name of the country. I think.

Edit: So yeah, I guess just calling it the UK could be easier, and it sounds cooler.
Click to expand...

To be exact Britain is the name for England and wales, great Britain adds Scotland in to and you already know the name for the full country
 
Amir0x said:
No you don't understand. After a certain population level, any country past say 30 million individuals will be able to compete on a theoretically equal level as one with a billion people. You can only send so many competitors to the games.

Population doesn't matter past a point
Click to expand...

It matters a lot. You have a much better chance of finding elite 10-20 people in any discipline if your population is 1 billion, and you can justify throwing a lot of money to make sure one of them lives up to their potential and becomes an Olympic champion. Country like Spain or Poland just can't farm Olympic champions like China or USA and will never be able to.

So what South Korea and UK are achieving is phenomenal.
 
Amir0x said:
No you don't understand. After a certain population level, any country past say 30 million individuals will be able to compete on a theoretically equal level as one with a billion people. You can only send so many competitors to the games.

Population doesn't matter past a point
Click to expand...

Population does matter. Look where Canada is. Cut the US population down to Canada's size and you will not be seeing the overall medal count lead come from the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Winter Olympics 2026 [OT] - Milano Cortina
5 6 7 8 9
406
3K
Shifty1897 replied
From the LA Olympics in 2028, only biological females eligible for female events
2
71
161
jason10mm replied
Olympics 2024: Summer Games in Paris Official Thread
19 20 21 22 23
1K
61K
12Goblins replied
Summer '25 anime discussion
Social  2
97
4K
Durien replied
It's the 1st day of Summer!
2
68
2K
12Goblins replied
Top Bottom