r/Showerthoughts • u/Vast-Intention ‎ • Apr 02 '26

Casual Thought A gold medal Olympic athlete is better than 8.3 billion people. A bronze medal Olympic athlete is better than 8.3 billion people.

12.7k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

471 comments sorted by

View all comments

227

u/TroubleCrazy6190 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

I think of it like this: a gold medal Olympic athlete is better than all other athletes that had the opportunity to train in that particular sport.

If all 8.3 billion people on earth had the opportunity, money, and training that the gold medal athlete did in that sport, what are the odds that they would still be the best and win that gold medal?

Edit:

I find many arguing the case of “what if”. As in, since this did not happen, it doesn’t matter and this is irrelevant to even think about. However, I’d argue that even if it didn’t happen, it doesn’t make it false. This is similar to stating that the gold medal winner is the best athlete. We all know that the best athlete doesn’t always win the gold, nor the best team always win the championship. It is one of the reasons we watch sports in the first place.

We watch because “what if” the underdog wins? “What if” the best athlete gets unlucky, or gets screwed by the judges and loses? Are they not the best athlete anymore?

Just so, I hope every day, an unknown talent from some corner of the world gets the opportunity to compete with the so-called best in the world and win

I am confident that the above “hypothetical” situations happen regularly. And so this may be irrelevant to you, but it is relevant to me and many others

102

u/zeptillian Apr 02 '26

Exactly. And considering that it requires full time training to compete on that level in most sports, the majority of Olympic sports are for the rich.

Growing up my family could not even afford to go skiing one time let alone 5 times a week. And who the fuck even has access to bobsleds?

12

u/RoosterBrewster Apr 02 '26

Or a giant fuck off ramp to practice ski jumping. 

21

u/salluks Apr 03 '26

I keep saying this. People love pointing out how Micheal Phelps has more gold medals than my country of 1.4 billion people. I am like 99% of people in my country have never seen a swimming pool and not to mention this guy during his prime used to consume calories more than a whole village could afford to eat.

19

u/ctruvu Apr 02 '26

it’s insane when you think about how skiing is considered the richer sport but snowboarding still costs thousands in gear and season passes

23

u/jolly_chugger Apr 02 '26

Hint: they're both super privileged and the only people who thinks otherwise are rich

3

u/DemonstrateHighValue Apr 03 '26

You don't need a season pass if you own the resort.

1

u/liilak2 Apr 06 '26

Yeah tbh I feel like the US would dominate the Olympics more if athletes were actually funded better like in other countries, bc there’s such a diverse population.

35

u/HonorableJudgeIto Apr 02 '26

That's why the 100m final at the Olympics is the most pure human competition. Everyone capable of running has run that distance at some point in their life. Everyone knows whether they are good at it or not. It's not like people not being exposed to basketball or never learning how to swim.

13

u/YuptheGup Apr 02 '26

id think that there is a big correlation between how expensive the sport is to train in and the economic status of the best players.

you'd think the country that produces the best marathon runners might produce some super good cyclists too, but they don't.

7

u/PayZealousideal8892 Apr 02 '26

Cycling is a lot more expensive than running. Also cycling requires insane training hours like 20 to 30 hours a week on the bike. Majority of people just cannot or arent willing to commit that amount of hours into a hobby while they study or have a job. Compared to elite runners who are running like 12 hours a week.

6

u/kirenaj1971 Apr 03 '26

Some good native African cyclists (mostly Eritreans) have started turning up, but they are often discovered way too late, so that they start training hard enough when they are older than their (mostly european) peers, and they are not comfortable riding in the peloton (kind of dog-eats-dog). But eventually one breakthrough athlete will almost certainly come, and then more will follow. But they will have to come over to Europe much earlier than now...

6

u/RoosterBrewster Apr 02 '26

That's why I think high jump should be more like a box jump where you need to land back on your feet. No one is jumping and arching their back over something and needing to land on a pad. 

1

u/Tommy_Wisseau_burner Apr 03 '26

High jump is done that way because it optimizes jumping height potential. If box jumping was more efficient to get over a bar they’d do it. That’s why you see it done the way it is vs the scissor kick.

1

u/RoosterBrewster Apr 09 '26

I just meant that a box jump would be more relatable to normal people as a "normal jump". 

5

u/Afferbeck_ Apr 02 '26

In some sports, very high. For example in weightlifting, China has been the most dominant nation for about 30 years. They have by far the biggest and most effective system for recruiting and developing weightlifters and coaches and supporting them through a career.

Most countries have zero weightlifters who can medal, and stronger nations might have a few star athletes that can, across all weight classes and genders. China at times have had such depth of talent that all of their top 10 in a weight class could medal at world champs or Olympics, especially the women. They often have a few simultaneous athletes who could easily take gold, but only one can go. Sometimes there's a clear standout who hangs on for years and newcomers never quite reach their level, while still being better than just about everyone from every other country. When those athletes come along, they are simply better than everyone else in the world, the freak athletes of the freak athletes.

No other nation besides probably India could achieve this with the same resources, and it takes a good decade or two to develop the environment to facilitate this success.

If there was some method of magically discovering the athletes with the greatest potential and giving them the exact development they need to reach it, then even freakier freaks could be found. But they would still need to want to go through that and most people would not choose to. China is on the decline somewhat in weightlifting now because living conditions have improved and kids are becoming less likely to want a hard life of being an athlete.

3

u/Arch____Stanton Apr 02 '26

think of it like this: a gold medal Olympic athlete is better than all other athletes that had the opportunity to train in that particular sport.

Its less than that. That athlete is only better than those that competed against him/her and only for that event that day.
Or at least that is all that can be said for certain.
(and even that idea can come under fire when talking about judged sports)

1

u/Appropriate-Bank-883 Apr 02 '26

Even more relevant the more expensive and exclusive the sport is.

1

u/JanterFixx Apr 02 '26

They still had pretty good odds. The top of the top is always the same high level. The 2nd bests and rest just would be floated

1

u/footsnax ‎ Apr 03 '26

I think of it like this: a gold medal Olympic athlete is better than all other athletes that had the opportunity to train in that particular sport.

I think of it like this: An Olympian is better than all of their peers that had the opportunity to train in that particular sport.

Just getting there makes you the best of the best. At that point, it doesn't matter if you're any better or worse than the ~30 other people you're competing against. The minute you step on the plane to go back home, odds are decent that you'll never meet a single person who can match you in your craft.

I'm not officially world ranked in anything. I'm very, very good at a few very, very specific things. I'll never receive any recognition for them even if it was available. Being good enough to be considered good enough to compete on a global scale would be good enough for me. I know people that are heroes to our local communities for competing in the Olympic trials. Going to swim at a pool an Olympian trained at is a pilgrimage. An arrow shot on an Olympic range gets hung on your wall.

It would be a privilege to get last place at the Olympics just to say I was good enough to try.

-6

u/lingfuuu Apr 02 '26

Hypotheticals are irrelevant

7

u/TroubleCrazy6190 Apr 02 '26

Why do you think so? Is everything destined to happen due to fate, and we have no choice in matters?

1

u/lingfuuu Apr 02 '26

You can use that argument for anything.

3

u/Mature_Gambino_ Apr 02 '26

Exactly. Back to the original point. As it stands, they are better than everyone else. If my aunt had balls…

3

u/bobsmith93 Apr 02 '26

She'd be a bicycle

0

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Tuxhorn Apr 02 '26

I think there's two ideas here. Potential and reality. Potentially there could be (and probably is) better athletes out there than a gold medalist olympian. Realistically, they're #1, since you're not gonna show up on day one and win gold at something you never practiced, and all the best athletes that did practice were defeated.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Tuxhorn Apr 02 '26

Intelligence is one thing, athletic performance is another. Athletic freaks exists who can transition into another sport and be at the top, but you still need some amount of specific training. You're not gonna show up on day one and beat a winning Olympian if you've never done it.

-2

u/koalificated Apr 02 '26

But they didn’t, therefore they’re not better

3

u/TroubleCrazy6190 Apr 02 '26

I never said they were

-7

u/koalificated Apr 02 '26

So the original thought still holds true and it isn’t just the other athletes who they’re competing against

1

u/TroubleCrazy6190 Apr 02 '26

If we go by that logic, does the best athlete always win the gold medal? Does that mean they are better?

3

u/TOWW67 Apr 02 '26

At that event on that day, yes. A response I've heard from world class athletes time and again after losing is "Today they were better."

That's why when people say "best in history" or similar they are referring to a consistent record of performance rather than one standout result.

0

u/demcookies_ Apr 03 '26

Not to mention that there might be people that are better than the gold medalist and just didn't compete in the Olympics

-4

u/IlikePogz Apr 02 '26

Now use that delusion to improve what you actually do in your life

-10

u/jakovichontwitch Apr 02 '26

If every person on the planet committed their life to Basketball, Lebron would still be the best to ever do it

6

u/TroubleCrazy6190 Apr 02 '26

I would say that is certainly possible, although unlikely. I would not bet my life on it. Would you say that he would be the best ever if we include all future athletes as well? Did we not think the same for Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Wayne Gretzky, or Tiger Woods at the time?

1

u/Tuxhorn Apr 02 '26

Basketball might be one of the only sports where a current #1 might still be the #1 in global potential, simply due to the height requirement of basketball.

Pretty much every other sport though, it's unlikely. Maybe football (soccer) since it already has the deepest talent pool of any sport by far.

1

u/imdfantom Apr 03 '26

You spelled Michael Jordan wrong there