Why is the US so far ahead in Olympiad medals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If NBC focused more on other nations, I'd definitely watch more. Phelps winning more medals was kind of a snore. Great personal accomplishment, but definitely didn't make the Games more interesting.

I am getting a bit tired of the Usain Bolt show too. NBC didn't even mention who won the other medals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you did research, you would find that many countries give their athletes who win gold a lot more than the US does. I read that the US comes in 9th in that regard. OP, I strongly encourage you to research things before making generalizations. The US has 300 million people. So the odds are we will have more winners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much dis-information here. If you fools had to live on the budgets of most US athletes, you would starve to death. Don't mistake a few stars for the majority of the pack.

And, don't forget the winter Olympics. The US never has the most medals in that.

Pp here. I didn't mean that the athletes have money. But they do have access to facilities and coaches etc. and those gymnastics classes for little girls are expensive. Someone has to drive to those classes and go to meets etc. it's not that athletes are living like kings. They are working very hard yes, but with far better equipment and support than other countries for the most part.

The US Also has one of the most diverse gene pools of all of the Olympic countries.

Yup; that combined with resources and a sports focused culture means success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doping.

Sadly I think this is far more common than we think.

There's no way the US dopes significantly MORE than other nations; it probably dopes less than most. Jamaican runners are doped to the gills (http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/24900565) and China and Russia are as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doping.

Sadly I think this is far more common than we think.

From what I've read it's nearly universal. There are sports that take great efforts to uncover and punish dopers (e.g. cycling), but most sport governing bodies do not. Ironically the sports that actively pursue dopers are the ones with the worst reputations. Doping is endemic in pretty much every sport that has an endurance or strength component.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doping.

Sadly I think this is far more common than we think.

There's no way the US dopes significantly MORE than other nations; it probably dopes less than most. Jamaican runners are doped to the gills (http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/24900565) and China and Russia are as well.

Not sure where your evidence comes from, but I'd imagine the US dopes as much as other nations. The main difference is that a well-funded doping program will be more effective and more difficult to detect. And there's a lot of money in US sport. Also, some national anti-doping bodies are more stringent than the US (e.g. Germany or France). On the whole, I'd expect US athletes to have more advanced doping programs, but probably somewhere in the middle as far as enforcement goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doping.

Sadly I think this is far more common than we think.

There's no way the US dopes significantly MORE than other nations; it probably dopes less than most. Jamaican runners are doped to the gills (http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/24900565) and China and Russia are as well.

Also, it's pretty hilarious for the British to be pointing their fingers at anyone when it comes to doping, given Sky, British Cycling in general, Mo Farah, etc, etc...

I don't know what the answer is, but I feel for the one top-level doper in a thousand who gets caught and gets their life destroyed while nearly everyone else is doing the same thing, and pretending sport is clean. It's literally endemic to nearly all sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doping.

Sadly I think this is far more common than we think.

There's no way the US dopes significantly MORE than other nations; it probably dopes less than most. Jamaican runners are doped to the gills (http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/24900565) and China and Russia are as well.

Also, it's pretty hilarious for the British to be pointing their fingers at anyone when it comes to doping, given Sky, British Cycling in general, Mo Farah, etc, etc...

I don't know what the answer is, but I feel for the one top-level doper in a thousand who gets caught and gets their life destroyed while nearly everyone else is doing the same thing, and pretending sport is clean. It's literally endemic to nearly all sports.

Actually, it's pretty hilarious for you to insinuate doping at Team GB, as none of their Olympians at Rio has ever tested positive. Sure, the finger was pointed at Mo Farah's (American) coach. But Farah has never tested positive, and he must be one of the most scrutinised athletes around. Pity the likes of Team USA's Justin Gatlin can't make that clean claim.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are the best country in the world. We have the most resources and we want to win the most. We also have a large population of athletes and a diverse genetic makeup which helps a lot.

No reason to be ashamed by it - it's a great thing.

Op here, I might agree with everything you said, except the "we want to win the most." Also, not ashamed, mostly bored with the media coverage we have. It is not broad or deep.


You are all missing the fact that we have 3,000 colleges and universities that act as training grounds for athletes in almost every sport. No other country has that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sad that our AA men can't learn to pass a damn baton and run at the same time. Fast legs can't compensate for no brains.

Just had to get that dig in there, huh? How many sprint relays have you participated in? I'm going to go with none.

[Anonymous]

No one here has pointed out the obvious answer: because Maryland. Maryland is athletically superior to most countries on earth, and this helps the US vanquish our "competition" at the Olympics.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/08/21/maryland-ranks-higher-on-the-olympic-gold-list-than-all-but-five-countries/?client=safari

[Anonymous]

Yes, the US did well, but not as well as GB for example. Google the population and medal count for the US and GB and tell me which one is better at the Olympics.
I think Hungary is also very good at Olympics. Hungary wouldn't probably even mind if another 20 distances were added in swimming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you did research, you would find that many countries give their athletes who win gold a lot more than the US does. I read that the US comes in 9th in that regard. OP, I strongly encourage you to research things before making generalizations. The US has 300 million people. So the odds are we will have more winners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much dis-information here. If you fools had to live on the budgets of most US athletes, you would starve to death. Don't mistake a few stars for the majority of the pack.

And, don't forget the winter Olympics. The US never has the most medals in that.

Pp here. I didn't mean that the athletes have money. But they do have access to facilities and coaches etc. and those gymnastics classes for little girls are expensive. Someone has to drive to those classes and go to meets etc. it's not that athletes are living like kings. They are working very hard yes, but with far better equipment and support than other countries for the most part.

So you're assertion is that it's just due to numbers? China has a larger population, fewer medals. I am just asking the question about the source of the US success, PP.

Does China have more young people who are their athletic peak, though? I'd have to look it up, but due to the one-child policy China had in place from 1980-2015, they may not have as many teens & 20/30-somethings as we do & may have a lot less females in that age group than we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you did research, you would find that many countries give their athletes who win gold a lot more than the US does. I read that the US comes in 9th in that regard. OP, I strongly encourage you to research things before making generalizations. The US has 300 million people. So the odds are we will have more winners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much dis-information here. If you fools had to live on the budgets of most US athletes, you would starve to death. Don't mistake a few stars for the majority of the pack.

And, don't forget the winter Olympics. The US never has the most medals in that.

Pp here. I didn't mean that the athletes have money. But they do have access to facilities and coaches etc. and those gymnastics classes for little girls are expensive. Someone has to drive to those classes and go to meets etc. it's not that athletes are living like kings. They are working very hard yes, but with far better equipment and support than other countries for the most part.

So you're assertion is that it's just due to numbers? China has a larger population, fewer medals. I am just asking the question about the source of the US success, PP.

Does China have more young people who are their athletic peak, though? I'd have to look it up, but due to the one-child policy China had in place from 1980-2015, they may not have as many teens & 20/30-somethings as we do & may have a lot less females in that age group than we do.

China should be beating the US by now. They pull kids out at an early age if they show promise, and ship them off to athletic training camps, while compensating their parents well also. The Chinese government focused on which olympic sports were "easiest" to get a gold in (hint: not swimming) like little competition or not well-noticed, and they targeted those sports to dominate.

Meanwhile in the US, Olympics is NOT supported by the US taxpayer at all. It's all private money. Sure, they'll get a meet 'n greet at the White House after they win, but the US gov't is largely hands-off when it comes to olympians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are the best country in the world. We have the most resources and we want to win the most. We also have a large population of athletes and a diverse genetic makeup which helps a lot.

No reason to be ashamed by it - it's a great thing.

Op here, I might agree with everything you said, except the "we want to win the most." Also, not ashamed, mostly bored with the media coverage we have. It is not broad or deep.

You are all missing the fact that we have 3,000 colleges and universities that act as training grounds for athletes in almost every sport. No other country has that.

OP again. Interesting point. Are there no places in China, Russia, Great Britain, etc. that pool athletes in equivalent numbers, say in the area of swimming or gymnastics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you did research, you would find that many countries give their athletes who win gold a lot more than the US does. I read that the US comes in 9th in that regard. OP, I strongly encourage you to research things before making generalizations. The US has 300 million people. So the odds are we will have more winners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much dis-information here. If you fools had to live on the budgets of most US athletes, you would starve to death. Don't mistake a few stars for the majority of the pack.

And, don't forget the winter Olympics. The US never has the most medals in that.

Pp here. I didn't mean that the athletes have money. But they do have access to facilities and coaches etc. and those gymnastics classes for little girls are expensive. Someone has to drive to those classes and go to meets etc. it's not that athletes are living like kings. They are working very hard yes, but with far better equipment and support than other countries for the most part.

So you're assertion is that it's just due to numbers? China has a larger population, fewer medals. I am just asking the question about the source of the US success, PP.

Does China have more young people who are their athletic peak, though? I'd have to look it up, but due to the one-child policy China had in place from 1980-2015, they may not have as many teens & 20/30-somethings as we do & may have a lot less females in that age group than we do.

China should be beating the US by now. They pull kids out at an early age if they show promise, and ship them off to athletic training camps, while compensating their parents well also. The Chinese government focused on which olympic sports were "easiest" to get a gold in (hint: not swimming) like little competition or not well-noticed, and they targeted those sports to dominate.

Meanwhile in the US, Olympics is NOT supported by the US taxpayer at all. It's all private money. Sure, they'll get a meet 'n greet at the White House after they win, but the US gov't is largely hands-off when it comes to olympians.

So is it the personal motivation that's key, and as another suggested the US athletes just have more of it?