Olympics watched so far

[jinx]

I disagree, the favorite doesn't win every time. Especially in sports where a few thousandths of a second determine who wins and who comes in 4th.

Originally Posted by glatt

There wouldn't be much of a difference if the US fielded 50 teams or 1 team. Only the best of the best make it onto that one team, so they are the ones who have a shot at the gold. If there are another 49 average athletes from other states who don't make it onto the field, it doesn't matter. They would have lost anyway.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

if we had 50 teams, we obviously would have won more medals.

I'll agree with both you and jinx, but I still don't think it would be a huge difference overall. We wouldn't have 50 times the medals if we had 50 teams instead of 1. We might have 5% more medals, but that's about the extent of it. The favored athlete usually wins. Overall, the results would be about the same.

[lookout123]

this really isn't a subject worthy of grand debate... but - do you think the individual nations of the EU have a greater proportion of superior athletes than our individual states. because that is what it boils down to. i don't believe we would have 50 times the medals. i do believe that the 50 US teams + the EU nations would take most of the medals by knocking out most of the countries that have small athletic programs and as people pointed out earlier they lack the money to pay for the best coaches. i would say that each of our states can put together a team worthy of competition on an international level and just from the number of opportunities to compete they would vastly increase the number of medals won by americans.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

do you think the individual nations of the EU have a greater proportion of superior athletes than our individual states. because that is what it boils down to.

I honestly have no idea. I'm just arguing the numbers.

Look at it this way, you can weed out the athletes during the Olympics games themselves, or you can weed them out before they get on the teams for each country. Either way, the best are usually going to make it to the end. If all 6 billion humans on the planet compete in the Olympics, it's still going to boil down to a race between Thorp and Phelps.

[russotto]

Glatt, your argument only works if the medal winners are completely deterministic -- that is, the #1 runner in the world will always beat everyone else he runs against. If it depends partially on random factors, having more athletes in the olympics means a better chance of winning.

[Tomas Rueda]

Who was the dude that pushed the brazilian marathoner to the side? what did he wanted? and where did he bought those clothes at?

[elSicomoro]

You mean, that wasn't you?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by russotto

Glatt, your argument only works if the medal winners are completely deterministic -- that is, the #1 runner in the world will always beat everyone else he runs against. If it depends partially on random factors, having more athletes in the olympics means a better chance of winning.

Plus it's as much mental as physical. Athletes have mood swings, good & bad days like everyone else.