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.

I'm sure you could do better.

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.

Nope they got robbed (unlike Lochte). It was passed in the lane. Japan, however, should have been disqualified.

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.

DIVERSITY!!

Some body types are just better for some sports. It helps when you have a population with a diverse gene and talent pool.

Swimming offers a disproportionate number of medals, compared with other sports, and here is where Team USA dominates.
But US has won gold in 11 sports (as opposed to events) while Team GB has won gold in 14 sports.
So, US's concentration on swimming gives it depth, as opposed to breadth when it comes to winning.

Depends on how you want to measure medal success.
US counts total medals - which ranks as US, China, GB. The GB ranks by Gold medals won, then number of Silver etc, which ranks as US, GB, China.

But maybe New Zealand has a point on which country the real winner? It counts medals won per head of population. The US doesn't even make the top 20 in that table

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/olympics/83276962/rio-olympics-new-zealand-flying-high-on-medals-per-capita-table

Anonymous wrote:Doping.

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

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.

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.

. At least for me.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is it really fair to call so and so the best in the world if they have a bigger budget? Has there ever been an attempt to level the playing field? I remedy the 80s Winter Olympics and loved that the US used amateurs against professional Russians and won, but the olympics have really gotten stale. It was cool to attend in '96 but there wasnt as much thrill seeing the US win, and it continues to slide especially with 24/7/365 sports TV. There are a few individual stories that are somewhat interesting, but NBC continues to focus primarily on the US. The CBC always seemed better at covering a broader range of countries not just their own.

According to NBC, there are only a few Olympic sports:

Beach volleyball, swimming, basketball, soccer, and the 100-meter dash.

And women's gymnastics.

Not really, considering they always show it last. Or it's some kind of marketing ploy to get people to watch until the end. Past this old fogey's bedtime, though, so I never see it

They put it last because it's the most popular. They want people to stay up and watch the whole show.

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.

The Singaporean swimmer who beat Phelps gets nearly $1 million for his gold, while Phelps gets $25,000. Phelps obviously gets some of his commercial power back after he was dropped by a few sponsors after his DUI. But Schooling may do well in endorsements as well.

That's post Olympic money. Did that athlete have phelps money pre-olympics?

Um, I don't think Joseph Schooling (the Singaporean swimmer) is a good example. He went to boarding school in Jacksonville, FL and attends the University of TX, Austin, where he's on the swim team with several of our Olympic swimmers (e.g., Townley Haas, Jack Conger). UT has won the NCAA title for the past two years, I believe. In other words, Schooling has been trained like all the Americans...

As for why we have more medals, swimming is a big part of it. USA Swimming has 400,000 members. There are more kids swimming in the U.S. than some of these countries have in total. We are a big country and we care a lot about sports. People think (usually, wrongly) that having their kids play sports will help them get a college scholarship. In other countries, where college is free, they don't have that motivator. Plus, as a PP said, we emphasize sports for our girls more than in some other parts of the world. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by the number of medals we've won.

But, let's not forget how hard our athletes work (as I'm sure athletes from other parts of the world do too). Katie Ledecky is the most dominant swimmer in the world for several reasons. But one big reason is because she trains 30 hours/week. While she may have access to great coaches, etc., she also works her butt off, and I don't think we should diminish that in any way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is it really fair to call so and so the best in the world if they have a bigger budget? Has there ever been an attempt to level the playing field? I remedy the 80s Winter Olympics and loved that the US used amateurs against professional Russians and won, but the olympics have really gotten stale. It was cool to attend in '96 but there wasnt as much thrill seeing the US win, and it continues to slide especially with 24/7/365 sports TV. There are a few individual stories that are somewhat interesting, but NBC continues to focus primarily on the US. The CBC always seemed better at covering a broader range of countries not just their own.

According to NBC, there are only a few Olympic sports:

Beach volleyball, swimming, basketball, soccer, and the 100-meter dash.

And women's gymnastics.

Not really, considering they always show it last. Or it's some kind of marketing ploy to get people to watch until the end. Past this old fogey's bedtime, though, so I never see it

The US has a culture that holds a high regard for athletics, a very pro-athletics attitude toward women, the wealth to pursue athletics (leisure, as opposed to other work), as well as the university system with scholarships for amateur athletes. Add that to a large population and a diverse populace of above average height, and it kind of makes sense.

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 Singaporean swimmer who beat Phelps gets nearly $1 million for his gold, while Phelps gets $25,000. Phelps obviously gets some of his commercial power back after he was dropped by a few sponsors after his DUI. But Schooling may do well in endorsements as well.

That's post Olympic money. Did that athlete have phelps money pre-olympics?