The Cellar
Page 5 of 5 1234 5
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Sports (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Olympics watched so far (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=6557)

jinx 09-02-2004 01:13 PM
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.

Quote:
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 09-02-2004 02:25 PM
Quote:
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 09-02-2004 02:31 PM
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 09-02-2004 02:56 PM
Quote:
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 09-02-2004 07:33 PM
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 09-03-2004 01:13 PM
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 09-03-2004 08:16 PM
You mean, that wasn't you?

xoxoxoBruce 09-04-2004 12:17 PM
Quote:
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. :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.
Page 5 of 5 1234 5
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.