Olympic Medals "Race"
Aug. 27th, 2004 08:39 amCountry | Gold | Silver | Bronze | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Soviet Union (former) | 30 | 35 | 46 | 111 |
United States of America | 28 | 31 | 24 | 83 |
China | 25 | 17 | 12 | 54 |
Australia | 16 | 11 | 16 | 43 |
Japan | 15 | 9 | 10 | 34 |
East + West Germany | 10 | 12 | 14 | 36 |
France | 10 | 7 | 10 | 27 |
Italy | 9 | 6 | 8 | 23 |
Romania | 8 | 5 | 4 | 17 |
South Korea | 7 | 10 | 5 | 22 |
Great Britain | 7 | 8 | 10 | 25 |
Greece | 6 | 4 | 3 | 13 |
India | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Notes:
Holland, Spain, and Cuba each have slightly more total medals than Greece, just fewer golds and this list is sorted by golds.
I just really find this list much more interesting this way.
Like duh the 900 pound gorilla has lots of medals.
China is the only one who can come close. They will pass us eventually, perhaps even next time if there is any sort of home town advantage.
But we used to count Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, and Uzbekistan as one for this. Are we "winning" just because we "won" the Cold War?
I'm not so sure that this "win" has done well for Germany.
If anything the shockingly high scoring country is Japan. For a tiny group of islands they really hold their own in the world. No wonder 60 years ago they thought they could take it over.
India with its huge population has only one medal. As we send more work there and their middle class grows this will probably go up. A lot of this IS about money.
Is this nationalism really the point of the Olympics or is it individual acheivement? Which should it be? Is Olympics as nationalistic display meaningful in a lopsided world?