Olympic Medals, adjusted for population size 4th August

Update from here.
The ranking of the top medal winners (all medals, bronze, silver and gold. Do the sums yourself it you want to sort out the Gold rankings). The medal numbers have been divided by the population in millions. The higher the number the better the national result.

Obviously, population is not the main factor, though it is arguably the main one. Facilities, level of development, motivation and other factors all play a part.

Anyway, congratulations to the plucky Kiwis and Ozzies who are still holding onto the top placement in this adjusted table of medal allocation just ahead of their colonial masters.

Et quel dommage aux mangeurs des jambes do grenouille :)

Country     Medals per Population Index

1. NZ               1.59 
2. Oz                0.739 
3. GB               0.419 
4. France          0.338 
5. S Kor           0.327 
6. Canada         0.257
7. Germany      0.243
8. Italy             0.217
9. N Korea       0.200 
10. Japan           0.171
11. Russia          0.163
12. USA             0.156
13. China            0.037

I have found a better, more comprehensive site giving this calculation here.
And the excellent Guy Dauncey has been doing this calculation for years.

Olympic Medals, adjusted for population size

Repeating the methodology shown here of dividing the number of medals gained by the country's population in millions, to get a Fair Olympic Medal Quotient, here is the current position :

Country      Adjusted medal/pop figure 

1. Australia      0.43
2. Netherlands  0.29
3. S Korea       0.27
4. France         0.23
5. GBR           0.23
6. N Korea      0.2
7. Canada        0.2
8. Germany     0.18
9. Italy            0.167 
10. Japan          0.133
11. Ukraine       0.13
12. USA           0.099
13. Russia         0.09
14. China          0.024
15. Brazil          0.02

So there you go.
Per capita, the Ozzies are well fit, and the Big Three, USA Russia and China, are just also-rans.

Historic Olympic Gold Medals related to country size

Following on from the post below, where we relate Olympic medals to size of country, I have found another resource on the excellent FranceTV site which gives all Olympic medals ever won.

Having more to play with, I now choose the gold medals, and divide them by the countries' population figures to derive the Fair Medal (MpMPop) Quotient.

Obviously the population will have varied over the years, as indeed have the countries, (e.g. Germany was 2 countries once, and now is reunited). We are not doing science here, this is for fun.

The Fair Gold Medal Quotient for all time runs as follows:

1. Hungary 16
2. Sweden 15
3. Australia 5.9
4. Germany 4.3
5. UK (GB) 3.37
6. Italy   3.21
7. Russia (+USSR as was) 3.07
8. France 3.01
9. USA 3.0
10. S Korea 1.5
11. Japan 0.98
12. China 0.13

I have stopped at 12, and you may wish to re-check my calculations, but it does show some interesting results. 

The Fair Olympic Medal Quotient : MpMPop

OK, everyone is interested in how many Olympic medals their country gets.

But it is clear that big countries are going to get more medals than small countries because they have a bigger pool to draw on, so the number of medals is not a good indicator.

There are of course many factors that feed in to success, like adequate food and water, facilities, motivation and so on, but the main factor that we can measure easily is population.

So I am getting the number of medals won from the Wall Street Journal, and dividing them by the number of millions in their population, so that we get a quotient of medals per million population, MpMPop,  which is a fairer indication of which is the most athletic nation in the world.

So Australia has 4 medals for a pop of 23 million, giving a MpMPop of 0.173.
China has 17 medals for a pop of 1347 millions, so its MpMPop is 0.012.

And so, as of today, very early in the proceedings,  the ranking of countries that have 3 or more medals, is:

1. Australia
2. North Korea
3. Italy
4. South Korea
5. France
6. Japan
7. USA
8. UK
9. Russia
10. China
11. Brazil

So well done to the Aussies, who are leading the field at this stage.

I will update this list from time to time, as the spirit moves me.

British Olympics 2012

I have been worried sick about the Olympics 2012 in London. Not just the Lisa Simpson logo, embarrassing though that is. (I see they are still using it, I suppose because they paid £40 million to the design consultants for it, but even so, I could do a better one for £40.)

The real worry is, how do we, a little country with a struggling economy, cap the effort that China made this year? Isn't anything we do going to look naff? Ken Livingstone admitted candidly on telly that they had accepted absurdly low estimates for the costs, and now the Tories (or is it the NuLabour? I get confused) say that no way will any increase in costs be allowed. So we are going to have the Olympics on a shoestring. One shoestring per athlete. Tied together. That kind of thing.

Then I heard Boris Johnson speaking today, and my worries disappeared in a flash. The London mayor told BBC2’s Newsnight: "These have been an absolutely fantastic games and there’s no doubt that in terms of performance and theatre the Chinese have set the bar pretty high.

"But I think with British ingenuity, wit and all the rest of it, resourcefulness, we are going to produce a games - an opening ceremony, a closing ceremony and all the stuff in between - that is going to be, in our own sweet way, just as fantastic."

There you have it - "British ingenuity, wit and all the rest of it, resourcefulness,"
I had an immediate vision of an opening ceremony using the Queen; in a carriage, with the Household cavalry, followed by a procession of judges in wigs and stockings (symbolising the Olympic judges). Then the Household Cavalry could have a quick game of polo; or they could draw their swords and attack the crowd in an exciting re-enactment of the Peterloo Massacre.

Do you get the point? We can put on our own display "in our own sweet way", a uniquely British display that sets out our historic values, and it need not cost a penny. Because we already have all the gear. Yet we can say "That opening display is worth £1 billion (because of the Crown jewels).

So. We are saved. There is no need for us to open secret negotiations with Paris to try to get them to take on the Games 2012 because we are going to look shambolic after the Beijing games.

Hurrah for the Queen. Hip-hip...

[more on this]