There are obviously a lot of ways to measure how well a country did at the Olympics. This post takes a view that we should look at how many people the country had to draw on in order to send the athletes to China to compete. There are a lot of problems with this including: ex-pats competing for their home country, vast disparity in wealth between countries and the relative interest in the Olympic games of the cultures. One of the things that jumps out immediately is that island nations that draw on a larger related population do very well in the games. They likely have inherited not only the interest in the competition but are also wealthy enough to train and compete in the games.
One of the things that was interesting in putting this together was that I eventually settled on PowerSet as the easiest way to lookup the population of a country. Both Yahoo and Google will give shortcuts to many of them, they don’t do it for all of them. Though PowerSet gets this population data through Freebase, Freebase itself doesn’t have a great search interface.
If I was going to declare an overall country winner for the games I would likely choose Australia. I’ve highlighted the top-10 total medal winners in the table in blue and they are far ahead of anyone else in the top-10 on a people / medal basis.
Gaurav wrote,
Why? Why would anyone do this? :)) You need to have one full america in India to win a medal. You should consider other parameters as well. Nagesh’ suggestion of using quality of life (per capita income?) would be interesting to see.
| Link | August 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
sam wrote,
As I mention in the blog, I agree that this is biased against countries that are either uninterested or unable to compete. Here is the original spreadsheet if you want to mess around with it:
http://sheet.zoho.com/public/spullara/olympic-medals-with-population
Ah, should have done a quick search before bothering. Fun exercise anyway:
http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/
| Link | August 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Sean Carmody wrote,
@sam: The more the merrier, I say! But, I’m glad you found my piece as well! In a follow-up post I actually decided to award the adjusted Olympic games to Jamaica. This is because they came second in the medals per capita and third by GDP. In fact, if you look at score (Gold = 3 points, Silver = 2 points, Bronze = 1 point), Jamaica actually came first per capita!
Note also that the Netherland Antilles place in the ranking was short-lived as their runner was disqualified and lost their medal!
I’ve popped all the data (including GDP results) over on Swivel and you can find everything here: http://www.swivel.com/users/show/1009803
| Link | August 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Sean Carmody wrote,
@Gaurav Why? Because it’s fun!
| Link | August 24th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Eugene wrote,
I am looking for some idea and stumble upon your posting
decide to wish you Thanks. Eugene
| Link | October 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am