Wednesday, August 15, 2012

London 2012 Olympics: An Analysis

For maybe the first time in my life, the Olympics have been on and I haven't had a whole lot going on, and I've had the Internet. While I have spelling bee classes going on at both the high school and elementary school, I'm not doing very much work with either of my teachers (although I'm more than willing to do so). So, even dropping by either the elementary school or high school every day, I still have had plenty of time over the past two weeks to watch the 30th Olympiad. If you're connected with me on the Facebook social network, you're well aware of this. I love the Olympics because I thoroughly enjoy many of the sports it displays, sports like running and swimming, which otherwise have a low profile, but are some of the truest tests of athleticism. Additionally, it feels good to be a winner, or at least from the same country as the winners, and for an American, the Olympics offers up this feeling in boatloads. 

The purpose of the Olympics is to me two-fold: to showcase the athletic talents of various countries via competition and to encourage international friendship and awareness. There's always plenty of controversy surrounding the Olympics because these two purposes are almost at odds with each other-stiff competition can encourage friendship and unity, but is also quite likely to produce acrimony, bitterness, and malfeasance. I'd highly encourage reading the following three articles to get a sense of the awareness and progress that the Olympics can bring about back in the countries that participate. (First and second and third.) Sadly, the Olympics also can be a place where oppressive dictators seek legitimacy, because, well, pretty much everyone takes the Olympics seriously. But, nothing's perfect. I've taken to analyzing the medal tallies from these games to give a bit of a deeper look behind the first purpose of the Olympics-the country competition. 

The way that the Medals Table was always presented was simply by most gold medals. I'm not a fan of this, because, first of all, they award silver and bronze medals too. Secondly, I had more than a few discussions arriving in China the day after the Beijing Olympics of Chinese people explaining how they had won the Olympics (as they had won 51 golds to America's 36) and me fighting back that America had won more total medals (110 to 100). But, to get the tables started, below are the top ten countries according to the typical way the table is presented. Also, here I'll mention that 203 countries participated in the Olympics, and only 85 of those countries earned any medal of any kind. 
*note-I don't know why some fields are white in the tables...it probably won't get fixed unless it's an easy solution

COUNTRY
Gold
Silver
Bronze
TOTAL
1
United States
46
29
29
104
2
China
38
27
22
87
3
Great Britain
29
17
19
65
4
Russia
24
25
33
82
5
South Korea
13
8
7
28
6
Germany
11
19
14
44
7
France
11
11
12
34
8
Italy
8
9
11
28
9
Hungary
8
4
5
17
10
Australia
7
16
12
35

Instead of using this method, I prefer to tweak it a little bit to give credit for each medal earned. My method is to assign three points for gold, two points for silver, and one for bronze. Perhaps this scale doesn't correctly represent the effort and winning margin between the different medals, but it seems pretty logical to me. In case you're wondering, by this method, China did win the 29th Olympiad, with 223 medal points to the United States of America's 220. So, below are the top ten countries from London 2012, using this method, with their total medal points. 


COUNTRY
Medal Points
1
United States
225
2
China
190
3
Russia
155
4
Great Britain
140
5
Germany
85
6
France
67
7
Japan
66
8
Australia
65
9
South Korea
62
10
Italy
53

Using this method, you'll see that South Korea falls from fifth to ninth, and that Hungary disappears from the top ten, replaced by Japan-which was 11th but jumped all the way to seventh. This method also almost exactly follows the total medals order, with only France slipping ahead of Japan and Australia, due to those two countries being heavily weighted towards silver and bronze medals. The table below shows the top 15 according to the medal points scheme, as well as the individual and total medals won by each of these countries. 


COUNTRY
Gold
Silver
Bronze
TOTAL
Medal Points
1
United States
46
29
29
104
225
2
China
38
27
22
87
190
3
Russia
24
25
33
82
155
4
Great Britain
29
17
19
65
140
5
Germany
11
19
14
44
85
6
France
11
11
12
34
67
7
Japan
7
14
17
38
66
8
Australia
7
16
12
35
65
9
South Korea
13
8
7
28
62
10
Italy
8
9
11
28
53
11
Netherlands
6
6
8
20
38
12
Hungary
8
4
5
17
37
13
Ukraine
6
5
9
20
37
14
Spain
3
10
4
17
33
15
Kazakhstan
7
1
5
13
28


A short analysis of this table shows many similarities among these countries. The majority are western countries, with all of the major Western European countries represented (we'll call The Netherlands major) as well as the United States and Australia, western countries established on other continents-owing the majority of their culture and ethnicity to Western Europe. Additionally, China and Russia, two giant, populous, countries with heavy central control. The two most economically developed East Asian countries (excluding city states Hong Kong and Singapore), Japan and South Korea, which although possessing very distinct cultures, have been heavily influenced by the west in the past half century. Two giant, somewhat populous former Soviet Republics, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as well as Hungary (a country very much in between the West and Russia) round out the list. Note that the only southern hemisphere country is Australia, which, if one's willing to offend a bit, can be seen as a British outpost that's developed a bit of its own culture. 

This analysis proves what I think is true to most Olympic observers, having lots of people helps you win medals. Hungary is the only country on the list with less than 15 million people. While a huge population doesn't guarantee medal success, see below, it's simple logic that having a larger pool makes it more likely you'll have some standout athletes in it. Culture and ethnicity obviously play a giant role, but, especially with team sports, countries with tiny populations most likely won't have enough interested, talented people to compete. The other great indicator of medal success is money. Not necessarily per capita wealth, but just simple wealth. You'll note that despite being Western European, super rich countries like Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, or Monaco aren't on the table. That's because the wealth needed to build a diving training center, or velodrome cycling track, or support a national basketball, volleyball, field hockey, or handball league isn't per capita wealth exactly, but a large economy that can support these things. Thus, the top ten medals winner table looks a lot like a G8 summit. Countries like China or Ukraine are lower or middle income countries per capita, but their economies are so big that collectively, there's enough cash left over to train some cyclists, weightlifters, kayakers, fencers, etc. (If there's a will-in China there is most definitely a will.) 

When one thinks about it, this doesn't seem all that fair. Evaluating countries with less than half a million people against China's 1.35 billion. Or evaluating a country like Mongolia, winner of five medals, who's entire GDP is just 6.192 billion dollars, against the United States and its 14.4 trillion dollar economy. These differences are on a scale of greater than 1,000. Check out the medal table, you can see that no country is anywhere close to winning 1,000 medals. In fact, only 962 medals were awarded in London (well more than that-but team medals only count as one in the medal table). Curiously, there were 52 more bronze awarded than silver (due to two bronze medals being awarded in judo, taekwando, and wrestling) and two more silver than gold (due to a tie for silver). On the other hand, to be fair, Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian ever, did win more medals than 165 of the countries that competed in London. So, in the spirit of looking a bit deeper at the medal table, I've prepared a table of the countries that earned the most medals based on population and based on wealth (nominal GDP). 

Top 10 countries based on population
1
Grenada
28.5714
2
Jamaica
8.8697
3
Bahamas
8.4828
4
New Zealand
5.8631
5
Trinidad and Tobago
4.5533
6
Hungary
3.7141
7
Slovenia
3.4014
8
Montenegro
3.2257
9
Lithuania
3.1371
10
Denmark
3.0440
*The metric used for this graph is medal points earned for each million residents.

Grenada, with Kirani James' 400m dash gold, and only having about 110,000 people, blows away the rest of the field in this category. You'll note that four of the top five countries are all Caribbean island countries that earned their medals in track and field. Why the fastest people in the world seem to come from the Caribbean or the US, I would love to learn more about. New Zealand won lots of medals in rowing and Hungary in canoeing, while Slovenia, Lithuania, and Denmark had very well balanced winnings. Montenegro is much like Grenada, it won but one silver medal, but due to its small population, makes the list. In case you're wondering, based on the population metric, America fared 46th among the 85 medal winning countries, just behind Canada and just ahead of Spain. 

Most populous countries not earning a medal
Country
Population
 Pakistan 
180.364
 Nigeria 
166.629
 Bangladesh
152.518
 Philippines 
92.338
 Vietnam 
87.840
 D.R. Congo 
69.575
 Burma (Myanmar)
48.724
 Tanzania
43.188
 Iraq 
33.330
 Sudan 
30.894

Also worth looking at (in the table above) are the countries with the largest populations that did not medal at all. All of them did send a delegation-but earned no medals. Often mentioned Bangladesh is there; much discussion is made of the lack of Olympic medal earning by South Asian countries, especially Bangladesh and India. Pakistan appears to need to be added to the list, as it is the most populated country to not have medaled in London. Nigeria is probably the biggest surprise of the list, as it had a large delegation and certainly has a large enough economy to support aspiring Olympians. I would think that as it continues to develop and more of its population climbs out of extreme poverty, it will be an Olympic contender. Countries like Congo, Myanmar, Tanzania, Iraq, and Sudan make sense simply because of the incredible poverty or poverty and instability seen in those countries. 

Top 10 countries based on GDP
1
Grenada
3.8660
2
Jamaica
1.7873
3
North Korea
1.1403
4
Mongolia
1.1305
5
Georgia
1.0287
6
Kenya
0.5849
7
Ethiopia
0.5199
8
Montenegro
0.4865
9
Belarus
0.4387
10
Armenia
0.4268
*The metric for this graph is medal points earned per billion dollars in nominal GDP (2011)

Grenada, with its lone gold medal, again tops this graph and Jamaica gets second place again, just like the population comparison. The only other repeat is Montenegro, which is a medium income country, but with just about 600,000 people, has a small economy. The other nations on the list tend to be poor or medium income countries, with relatively small populations-exactly the countries you expect to be on the list-the small population with low/medium income means a small economy. The more telling fact is all the smaller, poorer countries that send Olympians but failed to earn any medals at all (think almost all of West Africa). As the Olympics tend to be somewhat of a rich club hangout (the winter olympics much more so) it makes sense that incredibly poor countries both don't have a culture or infrastructure capable of producing good rowers, they also don't have the money to send very big delegations. You do see the dictatorial regimes popping up on this list; as countries put Olympic medals way ahead of citizen well being on their priority list. Notable is North Korea's state run machine, using its money immorally to train weightlifters and wrestlers instead of feed its starving citizens. Belarus also could probably invest its limited resources in a few more constructive ways. The United States ranked 68th among the 85 countries, just behind Thailand and just ahead of Turkey. 

Largest economies without a medal
Country
GDP
 Austria 
379,047
 United Arab Emirates
297,648
 Israel
217,445
 Chile
203,443
 Philippines
199,591
 Nigeria
196,410
 Pakistan
174,150
 Peru
157,324
 Vietnam
103,902
 Bangladesh
99,689


Continuing the comparison to GDP, the ten countries listed above are those with the largest economies that failed to win even a bronze medal at the 2012 Games. A number of countries are repeated from the population list (Phillipines, Nigeria, Pakistan, Vietnam, Bangladesh). The three countries that stand out the most are Austria, Israel, and Chile-three countries with the culture and wealth that should be supporting at least some medal winning Olympians. The UAE certainly has a giant economy, but with its fairly small population, and Muslim religious traits keeping many women out of certain sports, it's not much of a surprise that it failed to medal. 


Another way to test a country's effectiveness is to measure the medals it earns against the size of its delegation. Of course, the big and rich countries can field bigger delegations for the reasons discussed above. But, this is a good rubric for evaluating how much bang for the buck any particular olympic committee got. In figuring these numbers, just like the others, I used my medal points system instead of just total medals. 

Top 10 most effective countries at winning medals
Country
Points/Athlete
Botswana 
0.5000
China 
0.5000
Jamaica 
0.4800
Iran 
0.4717
United States 
0.4245
Kenya 
0.4043
Ethiopia 
0.4000
Russia 
0.3555
Georgia 
0.3429
  Azerbaijan
0.3019
The chart above shows the top ten countries in medal points per athlete. There is huge variety in the size of the delegations among the countries with the most effective delegations. Botswana sent only four athletes, but one gained silver while China was just as effective-but sent 380 athletes. The USA and Russia sent over 500 and 400 athletes, respectively, while the rest of the countries on the list had delegations of 30-60 athletes.
  
Five least effective countries at winning medals (but still won something)
Country
Points/Athlete
Morocco 
0.0149
Greece 
0.0192
Hong Kong 
0.0238
Portugal 
0.0260
Belgium 
0.0348

All of these countries had medium to large delegations, with Hong Kong the smallest among them with 42 athletes. Both Greece and Belgium brought over 100 athletes to London. For comparison, Iran and Jamaica both earned over ten times as many medal points as Greece or Belgium, but with less than half as many athletes. The one important thing to take into account whether or not countries are participating in team sports. A country will bring 12 players for basketball, 18 for soccer, 13 for water polo, and so on. Each team only has the chance at one medal, whereas a country strong in swimming or running might bring a number of athletes that will medal more than once. While both LeBron James and Michael Phelps are amazing athletes (and I mean amazing) it's Phelps who helps out a score like this-as he scored 10 medal points (1/4 fraction for relays), but is just one athlete. On the other hand, because the Dream Team gold counts as one medal, LeBron earned .083 of a medal point. Don't in any way consider this criticism of LeBron James-that I don't do. 

The chart above shows the absolute 11 least effective countries. This is figured by the countries with the largest delegations in London that didn't win a single medal. The big shocker is the top one on the list, Austria. It has almost the characteristics of a medal winning country: it's Western, has a large economy, and additionally is extremely wealthy per capita. Its population of 8.4 million people isn't big, but it isn't that small either. What's more, it wasn't hurt by having teams competing, as all of its athletes, minus beach volleyball players, competed in individual events-including a number of swimmers, who are very likely to compete in multiple events. 


Country
Athletes
 Austria
70
 Nigeria 
55
 Israel 
37
 Ecuador 
36
 Chile 
35
 Angola 
34
 Cameroon 
33
 Senegal 
31
 Uruguay 
29
 Honduras 
27
 Iceland 
27

I'll share a few more statistics that I find fairly amazing from the 2012 London Olympics. First is that the United States men's 4x400 meter relay team was .33 seconds away from winning gold, despite not having a single runner on the team that qualified for the 400 meter dash final. It's pretty crazy to be less than half a second away from the gold medal without a single one of the 8 fastest runners in the event. Additionally, Manteo Mitchell BROKE HIS LEG (fibula) while running in the qualifying heat-and ran 200 meters on a broken leg to help the United States qualify for the final. 

The last statistic is meant, with no ill will towards Indians, to show just how amazing Michael Phelps is, and well, why India gets the short straw because cricket isn't in the Olympics. In 23 Olympiads, dating back to 1900 in Paris, India has won 26 medals. This is a country that currently has 1.24 billion residents. Michael Phelps, the GREATEST Olympian of all time, has earned 22 medals in three Olympiads. 

*GDP, population, delegation size, and medal information from Wikipedia and www.london2012.com. 
*Photos from: http://nevada-outback-gems.com/prospect/gold_specimen/Natural_gold2.htmhttp://www.fluid-forms.com/design-your-own/Earth-Brooch-Silver,http://hudsonvalleygeologist.blogspot.com/2010/12/bronze.htmlhttp://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20612225_20617008,00.html

No comments:

Post a Comment