The Olympic Bragging Competition

As my title says, it's no longer the Games. The Olympics are mostly about showing off. It's an environment for the western world, primarily, to show off.

The playing field isn't level.

The competition can hardly be called fair. The amateur component having been taken off a long time ago, and now, like any professional business, the Olympics is an environment for the wealthier countries to show off.

But I still believe that the games should be held. It's the only place that the world gathers together to meet and compete. Even if the playing field isn't fair, the interaction is worth the effort, even for some of the countries without the means to train and prepare. It's a place for them to come and enjoy the brotherhood and sisterhood of participating in something that does not involve diplomatic muscle.

In that sense, I believe everyone's a winner.

Most of the medals are concentrated in sports that only some of the western world competes in. Or have the technology and wealth to afford.

Even when it comes to determining which place a country places, counting medals is done suspiciously differently by various countries.

For example, in the 2016 Olympics, it's clear that the U.S. won the entire games. They had the most gold medals of any nation, 46. They had the most silver medals of any nation, 37. And they had the most bronze medals of any nation, 38. They had the most medals of any nation, 121.

Then it gets tricky. China had the next highest total count of medals. 70 medals in total. However, Great Britain had more gold medals than China, so most media was reporting GB in second place.

But as you can see from the list above, Canada isn't listed.

Because here's how the Canadian media is reporting the standings.

To be fair, they give you the option to sort the list, but when you read the various reports on CBC's website, they refer to their position as 10th overall. At a press conference of the Canadian Olympic Committee, they also refer to this 10th place position as being a success given their 12th place overall target.

Similarly, GB's press are extremely excited about having beaten China in the standings.

But did they?

New Zealand has an interesting way to rank countries, which seems much fairer. A metal count per capita.

See http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/olympics-2016.aspx

It's hardly possible for a country with a million people to beat one that has three-hundred million in these competitions. Better to look at the events that they're competing in and determine who actually bested whom?

I personally don't like statistics that don't have an ultimate purpose. Something to help humanity. Statistics for statistics sake. Statistics that don't add value to any conversation. Statistics that don't add value to the welfare of humanity. Or provide insight to help us become better. Or give us warning signs.

If you take New Zealand's analysis a bit further you may come to the following interesting facts:

Based on the ratio of total medals won to the number of athletes the country sent, Azerbaijan wins. They sent 56 athletes and won a total of 18 medals. Ratio is 32.1%.

Contrast that with the announced winner, the U.S. They sent 558 athletes who won a combined total of 121 medals. Medals to athletes ratio is 21.7%. In this scenario, the U.S. is in 5th place. Not shabby given the number of athletes.

It gets a little interesting if you focus only on the gold medals to judge ranking. When you do that, the country that won the Rio Olympics is Tajikistan. They sent 7 athletes and won a single gold medal.

In this scenario, the U.S. is in 8th place.

You can see the camaraderie in the opening and closing ceremonies. When all the athletes are together.

Everyone's a winner.