Comments on: Olympic Medal Count by Population and GDP http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/ Obstinately objective Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:56:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle | A Stubborn Mule's Perspective http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-4117 Reduce, Re-use, Recycle | A Stubborn Mule's Perspective Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:34:07 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-4117 [...] popular post, this was actually a follow up to another post which looked at the Beijing 2008 medal tally on a per capita basis and by the size of each [...] [...] popular post, this was actually a follow up to another post which looked at the Beijing 2008 medal tally on a per capita basis and by the size of each [...]

]]> By: stubbornmule http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1394 stubbornmule Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:20:10 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1394 I have now started tracking the <a href="http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/09/paralympics-medals/" rel="nofollow">Paralympics medal tally</a> in the same way (with apologies to Jack!). I have now started tracking the Paralympics medal tally in the same way (with apologies to Jack!).

]]> By: Paralympics Medal Tallies | A Stubborn Mule's Perspective http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1384 Paralympics Medal Tallies | A Stubborn Mule's Perspective Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:02:07 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1384 [...] which I will be updating regularly. One of the topics I touched on during the Olympics was the influence of the size of a country’s population and economy on their performance at the Games. This topic did prove controversial with at least one reader and [...] [...] which I will be updating regularly. One of the topics I touched on during the Olympics was the influence of the size of a country’s population and economy on their performance at the Games. This topic did prove controversial with at least one reader and [...]

]]> By: Jack http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1339 Jack Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:41:13 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1339 Stubbornmule: according to your last point, it sounds like money talk, not the population talk. What really annoying me is that many people really believe the number of gold medals a country has should be directly proportion to its population. They believe, taking Australia as an example which has 14 gold medals, is equivalent to 14 multiplied by the Chinese population, divided by the Australia population, ends up around 900 gold medals. This kind of calculation method is really ignorant. Of course, population is a factor, money is also a factor. But how do they correlate to the number of gold medals, should be ax^(1/n)+b or exp(1/n), or log(n^a+...) or something else…., no one really knows. As I said, there are a lot of factors and variables. It is not a simple solution. It is not a linear equation. It can be more than one solution. Without sophisticated modeling and research, talking something like this is just to fool people around and misleading (Please forgive what I said). Stubbornmule: according to your last point, it sounds like money talk, not the population talk. What really annoying me is that many people really believe the number of gold medals a country has should be directly proportion to its population. They believe, taking Australia as an example which has 14 gold medals, is equivalent to 14 multiplied by the Chinese population, divided by the Australia population, ends up around 900 gold medals. This kind of calculation method is really ignorant. Of course, population is a factor, money is also a factor. But how do they correlate to the number of gold medals, should be ax^(1/n)+b or exp(1/n), or log(n^a+…) or something else…., no one really knows. As I said, there are a lot of factors and variables. It is not a simple solution. It is not a linear equation. It can be more than one solution. Without sophisticated modeling and research, talking something like this is just to fool people around and misleading (Please forgive what I said).

]]> By: stubbornmule http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1331 stubbornmule Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:25:24 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1331 One further point I should add is that when a country does spend money on sport, there are still budgeting decisions to be made as to how to spend that money to best effect, It is likely that different countries will focus on different sports. It should come as no surprise, for example, that a country like Australia with its beaches and strong swimming culture would concentrate more on swimming than other countries. Similarly, China has had a traditional focus on gymnastics. So while GDP can be expected to provide some predictive power for medals won, I would not expect those medals to be evenly distributed across events. Rather, I would expect to see clumping. One further point I should add is that when a country does spend money on sport, there are still budgeting decisions to be made as to how to spend that money to best effect, It is likely that different countries will focus on different sports. It should come as no surprise, for example, that a country like Australia with its beaches and strong swimming culture would concentrate more on swimming than other countries. Similarly, China has had a traditional focus on gymnastics. So while GDP can be expected to provide some predictive power for medals won, I would not expect those medals to be evenly distributed across events. Rather, I would expect to see clumping.

]]> By: stubbornmule http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1330 stubbornmule Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:20:33 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1330 @Jack: I'd agree that there was nothing particularly scientific in my post: I simply presented the tallies without any analysis. However, there choice of population and GDP was not without some basis. In the post I included a link to <a href="http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug08/olympics/index.html" rel="nofollow">another blog post</a> in which the authors found that a regression based on both population and GDP at once provided a reasonable degree of explanatory power. They also pointed to <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w7998" rel="nofollow">another paper</a> which was able to improve the results by combining population, GDP and additional factors which capture host nation advantage, whether the country had previously been part of a the Soviet bloc and whether the country had a planned economy. My intuition behind that is that money spent on sport has explanatory power but the data is hard to obtain. GDP provides an initial proxy, but it can be improved. For example, while North Korea's GDP is fairly small, it would appear that they do spend a reasonable amount on sport. Including a factor for planned economies aims to capture this effect. Both of the pieces of analysis referred to here pre-date the Beijing Olympics, so I have been planning to update the analysis with the results of the latest Games. Your comments are a good catalyst to do so, and I aim to publish the results soon. @Jack: I’d agree that there was nothing particularly scientific in my post: I simply presented the tallies without any analysis. However, there choice of population and GDP was not without some basis. In the post I included a link to another blog post in which the authors found that a regression based on both population and GDP at once provided a reasonable degree of explanatory power. They also pointed to another paper which was able to improve the results by combining population, GDP and additional factors which capture host nation advantage, whether the country had previously been part of a the Soviet bloc and whether the country had a planned economy. My intuition behind that is that money spent on sport has explanatory power but the data is hard to obtain. GDP provides an initial proxy, but it can be improved. For example, while North Korea’s GDP is fairly small, it would appear that they do spend a reasonable amount on sport. Including a factor for planned economies aims to capture this effect.

Both of the pieces of analysis referred to here pre-date the Beijing Olympics, so I have been planning to update the analysis with the results of the latest Games. Your comments are a good catalyst to do so, and I aim to publish the results soon.

]]> By: Jack http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1328 Jack Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:26:41 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1328 Stubbornmule: If you think population is a major factor and China has larger pool of potential players, why China still has no achievement in track & field which hold largest amount of medals while Australia can gain so many gold medals in swim (even more in last game) which do not show any proportion to their population. I don't think Chinese sports authority doesn't pay attention or make no efforts on it. There are so many factors will affect a athlete to achieve good result such as training method, technology, coaches, management, psychology, mental, sprit, just name a few. Exaggerating certain factor does not seem to have any scientific evidence. Stubbornmule: If you think population is a major factor and China has larger pool of potential players, why China still has no achievement in track & field which hold largest amount of medals while Australia can gain so many gold medals in swim (even more in last game) which do not show any proportion to their population. I don’t think Chinese sports authority doesn’t pay attention or make no efforts on it. There are so many factors will affect a athlete to achieve good result such as training method, technology, coaches, management, psychology, mental, sprit, just name a few. Exaggerating certain factor does not seem to have any scientific evidence.

]]> By: stubbornmule http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1327 stubbornmule Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:53:14 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1327 @Jack: I agree that these limits do distort matters, but it doesn't necessarily make population a completely irrelevant consideration. Even if the only event of the Olympics was a basketball, and each country could only submit one team, a country with a larger population would have a larger pool of potential players to draw upon and therefore, all other things being equal, would have a better chance of fielding a better team. Of course, not all other things <em>are</em> equal, for example Australia can spend significantly more on training athletes than a poorer country of a comparable size, which is why I also took GDP into account as an (admittedly crude) proxy for spending power on sport. @Jack: I agree that these limits do distort matters, but it doesn’t necessarily make population a completely irrelevant consideration. Even if the only event of the Olympics was a basketball, and each country could only submit one team, a country with a larger population would have a larger pool of potential players to draw upon and therefore, all other things being equal, would have a better chance of fielding a better team. Of course, not all other things are equal, for example Australia can spend significantly more on training athletes than a poorer country of a comparable size, which is why I also took GDP into account as an (admittedly crude) proxy for spending power on sport.

]]> By: Jack http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1326 Jack Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:11:53 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1326 If you are talking about Olympic medal vs population, then the number of athletes representing their country should also be based on the population of the country. For example, China can have 3500 athletes but Australia can have only 50 since no matter how many people in a country, there is only one team can participate sports such as basketball, football, etc. There is no more than one gold medal of such sports can be awarded to the country. Therefore Olympic medal vs population is meaningless and ridiculous. Unfortunately many people don't have such basic common sense. If you are talking about Olympic medal vs population, then the number of athletes representing their country should also be based on the population of the country. For example, China can have 3500 athletes but Australia can have only 50 since no matter how many people in a country, there is only one team can participate sports such as basketball, football, etc. There is no more than one gold medal of such sports can be awarded to the country. Therefore Olympic medal vs population is meaningless and ridiculous. Unfortunately many people don’t have such basic common sense.

]]> By: Beijing (Revised) Medal Count « Bradley Simpson http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/08/olympics-by-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-1290 Beijing (Revised) Medal Count « Bradley Simpson Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:58:18 +0000 http://www.stubbornmule.net/?p=1024#comment-1290 [...] the AUS$40 million per gold Australia ‘paid’. This is the reason some people include a GDP factor [...] [...] the AUS$40 million per gold Australia ‘paid’. This is the reason some people include a GDP factor [...]

]]>