What a BOLT!!

In relation to a topic brought up earlier in this discussion... This is a paper I came across on the relationship between medals and population and GDP.

While the simple population hypothesis does have explanatory power, it fails to adequately explain the distribution of medals across countries. We find significant evidence that other resources, national income in particular, are important for producing Olympic athletes. Interestingly, per capita income and population have very similar effects at the margin suggesting that total [Gross Domestic Product] GDP is the best predictor of national Olympic performance.
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/meghan/Papers/whowinsv30.pdf
 
In relation to a topic brought up earlier in this discussion... This is a paper I came across on the relationship between medals and population and GDP.


http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/meghan/Papers/whowinsv30.pdf

While the simple population hypothesis does have explanatory power, it fails to adequately explain the distribution of medals across countries. We find significant evidence that other resources, national income in particular, are important for producing Olympic athletes. Interestingly, per capita income and population have very similar effects at the margin suggesting that total [Gross Domestic Product] GDP is the best predictor of national Olympic performance.

First off I would like to congratulate the researchers for winning the "No **** Sherlock Award" this year. And then congratulate Zimbabwe for having better GDP figures than South Africa.

Oh hang on, thats not correct...
 
Dated pre-Sydney 2000 DJK.

The "no **** sherlock" award goes to people in this thread who believe that the olympics is about athletes and not drugs or money.
 
Thought we got past this point and you accepted you were wrong? :p :D (it is a joke)

Is that a sarcastic no **** sherlock award? Did you not mean to phrase that the other way round?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X