TOMO 26,638 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 As close to fact as I could get it. Population figures from here :- http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctypopls.htm Olympic medal tables from here :- http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_table/default.stm Just did population / total medals. EDIT: http://www.javarants.com/2008/08/24/2008-olympic-medal-counts-by-population/ Did it with more accurate population figures than I used. According to their table we were 28th in medals per population. We still beat the 3 above though. Every country above us has a far smaller population. Very interesting,good man Must say though i think its only of real significance to countries who have won a fair few medals( how they have done the top 10 )... by rights some remote island with 100 people could top the table if 1 man happened to be a gold medal winner. This has reminded me of a similar debate ive been having with a yank friend of mine for years now about who has had the most boxing world champions since the war per population Britain or America.....im convinced its us but dont have either the know how or statistics to prove it Tried to find the stats. Found there were 30 British heavyweights since the end of the war so as the US as roughly double our population they would need 60+. Problem is length of time holding on to belts would affect it. just checked on the web ,there are 311. 000,000 in the usa mate,, so there popuation is over 5 times as much as ours...but as gnasher said some great info you found,,,, intresting subject this Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 26,638 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 looks like we all went on wikidpidea at the same time Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 looks like we all went on wikidpidea at the same time Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scalesntails 118 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 As close to fact as I could get it. Population figures from here :- http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctypopls.htm Olympic medal tables from here :- http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_table/default.stm Just did population / total medals. EDIT: http://www.javarants.com/2008/08/24/2008-olympic-medal-counts-by-population/ Did it with more accurate population figures than I used. According to their table we were 28th in medals per population. We still beat the 3 above though. Every country above us has a far smaller population. Very interesting,good man Must say though i think its only of real significance to countries who have won a fair few medals( how they have done the top 10 )... by rights some remote island with 100 people could top the table if 1 man happened to be a gold medal winner. This has reminded me of a similar debate ive been having with a yank friend of mine for years now about who has had the most boxing world champions since the war per population Britain or America.....im convinced its us but dont have either the know how or statistics to prove it Tried to find the stats. Found there were 30 British heavyweights since the end of the war so as the US as roughly double our population they would need 60+. Problem is length of time holding on to belts would affect it. just checked on the web ,there are 311. 000,000 in the usa mate,, so there popuation is over 5 times as much as ours...but as gnasher said some great info you found,,,, intresting subject this True I should really avoid typing anything before my morning coffee :laugh: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Thinking back to my years at secondary school physical education/sports was a low priority. Football, cricket, tennis and some athletics was about it. Couple hours a week max! I went through the whole of my education having never thrown a javeline/shotput/discus, never played any contact sport, never so much as even taught about any combat sport (god forbid!). I f*****g hated cricket, enjoyed football and still do but was found lacking at any sort of serious level and tennis was only really for smashing the ball into your oponant . The sports that really interested me was track and field events and rugby after we were allowd to play 'touch' rugby once with an emphasis on non contact! But these were a rarity. I enjoyed them because I was marginally better than average at them so it actually encouraged my competitvness. And I think thats the point, schools should double if not triple time alloted for sports education and give student the option to follow their own interests as well as giving them wide ranging experiences. Why is it that schools shy away from combat/contact sports? Why is it that it is assumed all young lads like football and cricket and all young girls like hockey and rounders? More choice for the kids and more encouragement to do the things they want and are good at. Then encourage the competativeness, even if its just for PBs. JMO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
undisputed 1,664 Posted July 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 looks like we all went on wikidpidea at the same time THL not just a hunting site but very educational too Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rocket ronnie 243 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Really great topic fellas with some interesting facts an as said it's all about finding the sport you excel at which schools don't help with as not a big choice an you,s are right it does depend where you come from Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,382 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Thinking back to my years at secondary school physical education/sports was a low priority. Football, cricket, tennis and some athletics was about it. Couple hours a week max! I went through the whole of my education having never thrown a javeline/shotput/discus, never played any contact sport, never so much as even taught about any combat sport (god forbid!). I f*****g hated cricket, enjoyed football and still do but was found lacking at any sort of serious level and tennis was only really for smashing the ball into your oponant . The sports that really interested me was track and field events and rugby after we were allowd to play 'touch' rugby once with an emphasis on non contact! But these were a rarity. I enjoyed them because I was marginally better than average at them so it actually encouraged my competitvness. And I think thats the point, schools should double if not triple time alloted for sports education and give student the option to follow their own interests as well as giving them wide ranging experiences. Why is it that schools shy away from combat/contact sports? Why is it that it is assumed all young lads like football and cricket and all young girls like hockey and rounders? More choice for the kids and more encouragement to do the things they want and are good at. Then encourage the competativeness, even if its just for PBs. JMO Its an interesting point you make about schools....i dont know about sport in todays curriculums or whatever they are called.....but i know when i was at school many moons ago there were certain sports that were encouraged and others we just didnt do....i think it certainly is an area thing,well it was then at least. Every school in my local area had an intense rivalry when it came to football or boxing....i might be wrong but i dont think many areas of the country have ever had boxing as part of physical education in schools,they dont now obviously but back then because there were so many local boys clubs in the area schools pretty much had to go with whatever was popular.....infact if you got in a fight with another lad in the playground they would offer you the choice to get in the ring gloved up and sort it properly with the pe teacher as referee !....I dont ever remember playing rugby or cricket.....it was football/boxing in winter and athletics in summer,and it was all very serious and very competetive....our pe teacher was a great man who lived for sport,i think todays pe teachers actually teach another subject and take pe as a sideline whereas years ago a pe teacher was just that and lived in a tracksuit ! I think the choices of different sports and facilities kids have today is fantastic,its just a shame the intensity and competetiveness is not there....it seems what kids have gained in one thing they have lost in another. Edited July 6, 2011 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 26,638 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 no we never had boxing in our school gnasher perhaps it is a southern thing, as my old man boxed at school, but he went to a militry school in dover, and same as you any playground fight went to the ring at our school we had a good choise,, we were lucky to have a swiming pool at our school as well as track and field in the summer, all the usual footbal , rugby and cricket, in fact in our last year we had a choise of what we wanted to do, and like you we had a couple of great pe teachers, mr jackson was the head of pe and was built like bruce lee, a great teacher first time we did cricket with him at 11 year old , he stood us in a circle with him in the centre, give us all a piar of wicket keeper gloves, and proceded to throw a cricket ball at us at what seemed like 1000 mile an hour to us little kids,,, you soon lerned to catch or got hurt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,382 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) It was pretty decent of him to give you gloves though Back then i think schools just made the best of what was available rather than having to stick to some daft curriculum,we was in a piss poor area but it didnt cost nothing to run....and run we did ....we used to have what they called " the block run " as there was no proper athletics track for miles....the block run was the 4 streets that surrounded our school at a guess i suppose it was maybe 3/4 of a mile,throughout the generations the records of the fastest times were kept on the hall wall for years....if you held the record for the block run for your age you was almost a celebrity !! Our local field was the football pitch,athletics/javelin/long jump etc all rolled into one.....no sandpit to jump into either ! Swimming,blimey you was lucky...i never learned how to swim till my mid 30,s ..... I always remember the annual sportsweek every summer some of the biggest schools in London would be represented....it was always a chance for us rough east end boys to give it to the posh kids from Chelsea and Kensington ....happy days thinking back. Edited July 6, 2011 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.