Olympic Medal Count: Grand-Unified Theorem for measuring a nation’s strength?

Posted on Updated on

I think that the Olympic medal count is an adequate and simple way to measure the general strength of a nation.  At least that’s my un-provable hypothesis.

A look at the historical data shows that the countries considered the most advanced have dominated the Olympics.  Consider: It doesn’t only require genetic athletic ability for a nation to do well in the Olympics.  It requires national will to focus, advanced scientific knowledge on new training methods and nutrition, a healthy population so as to maximize the number of potential athletes, a robust birth rate.

Since 1920, there have been only two countries besides the Soviet Union and the United States to win the most medals in a summer Olympics: Germany in 1936 and China in 2008.  The Soviet Union was dominant right up until 1988, after which its collapse decimated national identity and shaved a significant number of the population away.  My hypothesis may be attacked in the case of the USSR, since the Olympic medal count in 1988 did not prevent the USSR from collapsing only five years later.  But some experts like Niall Ferguson point out that when things go south for great nations, collapse can occur in a short amount of time.

While not perfect, the medal count seems a reliable and easy way to judge the spirit and strength of a nation.  Many consider China to be the next superpower.  Its performance in recent Olympics, including the 2012 summer games, show that China has indeed focused its national will and intellect.  Still, when we consider the population of China compared to the US (or any country but India for that matter) we must conclude that America is still a very great nation.

We can only hope that recent indicators do not prove to us the warnings of Niall Ferguson.


2 thoughts on “Olympic Medal Count: Grand-Unified Theorem for measuring a nation’s strength?

    Bill said:
    August 3, 2012 at 6:34 am

    I had never really thought about the Olympics as a metric but your post certainly makes sense. The only thing that seems a little iffy is related to the Niall Ferguson reference. in the past, great nations could fall quickly (and rise for that matter. Just think of how frequently things shifted Dramatically throughout the 20 century). B/c seasons can change so fast, the Olympics seems to be a bit of a lagging indicator. I’m thinking it’s a fully 8-12 years to really cycle through a group of athletes which an eternity. 2000 years ago, if you were the ruling superpower, intertia alone could keep you moving for quite a while and shield you. But as technology shifted, the time to greatly rise and fall shrunk faster and faster. While things are pretty screwed up here, the same things plague pretty much everyone else and they’re worse. I guess though even at 8-12 years (assuming it’s correct) that’s still in the ballpark. So yah, all in all it’s not an atomic scale but the inaccuracies work out in the wash – it’s probably a better metric than those that many ‘experts’ could come up with

    […] Foreign Policy Magazine article on Olympic medals and national power Will Inboden, of FP Magazine’s, Shadow Government, wrote an article about some of my point in my own article, “Olympic Medal Count: Grand-Unified Theorem for measuring a nation’s strength?” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s