TOMO 29,234 Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 theres actualy a few london clubs,,, wasps, halaquins, london irish, london welsh even saracens are ony from watford,, and there all in the premireship apart from london welsh.... so theres some good clubs from london,,, its pianfull to admit in fact 4 out of the 12 premirship teams from there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ossie n Arch 1,683 Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 theres actualy a few london clubs,,, wasps, halaquins, london irish, london welsh even saracens are ony from watford,, and there all in the premireship apart from london welsh.... so theres some good clubs from london,,, its pianfull to admit in fact 4 out of the 12 premirship teams from there. Correct, although like Carlsberg, probably the best team plays very near me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ossie n Arch 1,683 Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 And good as Murray is didn't he have to go abroad to realise that potential? Your local leisure centre will want around 12 pound per hour for the hire of a tennis court. It costs virtually nothing to play football.....it costs virtually nothing to box........pretty self explannatory really if your 2 young 12 year old boys out for an aftenoon of sport......but potentially they could well have a talent for playing tennis. All sport should be easily accessible to all kids in any area in my opinion. spot on.... i seem to remember reading somwere that our kids in secondry school do about 2 hours of sport a week excluding after school clubs,,, i think im right in saying they do double that in oz...... I hated school, but i would have played sport all day given the chance. Something missed off of the Teachers thread, was how much time they used to give up for after school matches against other schools. Not sure if things like that still go on ?? Competition in schools has gone IMO. You've only to look at exam results to see that, everyone passes nowadays. If they put more emphasis on playing more sport in schools, maybe we would produce "World beaters" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
undisputed 1,664 Posted July 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 And good as Murray is didn't he have to go abroad to realise that potential? Your local leisure centre will want around 12 pound per hour for the hire of a tennis court. It costs virtually nothing to play football.....it costs virtually nothing to box........pretty self explannatory really if your 2 young 12 year old boys out for an aftenoon of sport......but potentially they could well have a talent for playing tennis. All sport should be easily accessible to all kids in any area in my opinion. spot on.... i seem to remember reading somwere that our kids in secondry school do about 2 hours of sport a week excluding after school clubs,,, i think im right in saying they do double that in oz...... I hated school, but i would have played sport all day given the chance. Something missed off of the Teachers thread, was how much time they used to give up for after school matches against other schools. Not sure if things like that still go on ?? Competition in schools has gone IMO. You've only to look at exam results to see that, everyone passes nowadays. If they put more emphasis on playing more sport in schools, maybe we would produce "World beaters" Good point Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 29,234 Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 theres actualy a few london clubs,,, wasps, halaquins, london irish, london welsh even saracens are ony from watford,, and there all in the premireship apart from london welsh.... so theres some good clubs from london,,, its pianfull to admit in fact 4 out of the 12 premirship teams from there. Correct, although like Carlsberg, probably the best team plays very near me. YEP the tigers,, welford road, not that far from me either, never been out the top 6 in the premiership Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blooded 62 Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Rounders...erm mean baseball...until a few yr ago tennis they have some good boxers Infact id go as far as to say Mexico probably have double the amount of world champions America have at this moment,and good old Britain are probably only a few behind them Mexico currently have 20 world champions. USA 14 GB 4? Nathan Cleverly, Carl Froch, Amir Khan, and Ricky Burns. Thats counting only WBC, IBF, WBA and WBO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scalesntails 118 Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Done some maths about the last Olympics. China earned 1 medal per 13,391,900 people USA earned 1 medal per 2,817,954 Russia earned 1 medal per 1,971,212 and the UK beat them all with medals per population with 1 medal for every 1,320,036 people so we actually do really well if you look at the bigger picture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 31,602 Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Mexico currently have 20 world champions. USA 14 GB 4? Nathan Cleverly, Carl Froch, Amir Khan, and Ricky Burns. Thats counting only WBC, IBF, WBA and WBO. Mine was just a guess But having looked....im not sure where you get 14 for the Yanks from i counted 10.......also 6 for the Japanese Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 31,602 Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Done some maths about the last Olympics. China earned 1 medal per 13,391,900 people USA earned 1 medal per 2,817,954 Russia earned 1 medal per 1,971,212 and the UK beat them all with medals per population with 1 medal for every 1,320,036 people so we actually do really well if you look at the bigger picture. My word....if they are facts,thats a fantastic contribution to this whole debate.......well done sir Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scalesntails 118 Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Done some maths about the last Olympics. China earned 1 medal per 13,391,900 people USA earned 1 medal per 2,817,954 Russia earned 1 medal per 1,971,212 and the UK beat them all with medals per population with 1 medal for every 1,320,036 people so we actually do really well if you look at the bigger picture. My word....if they are facts,thats a fantastic contribution to this whole debate.......well done sir 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. Edited July 4, 2011 by scalesntails Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blooded 62 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Mexico currently have 20 world champions. USA 14 GB 4? Nathan Cleverly, Carl Froch, Amir Khan, and Ricky Burns. Thats counting only WBC, IBF, WBA and WBO. Mine was just a guess But having looked....im not sure where you get 14 for the Yanks from i counted 10.......also 6 for the Japanese Weren't sure if to count the so-called "super champions" and "regular" champions that they have now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 31,602 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) 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 Edited July 5, 2011 by gnasher16 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 31,602 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) 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. 30 British Heavyweight World Champions since the war ...we wished ...or is that 30 at any weight,sounds more feasible. And dont the yanks have around 300 million population compared to our 65ish ?...meaning on the whole they would need around 6 times as many champions as us........dont matter how long they held a title just as long as they won it. Its a real hard one to work out,the tough part comes with ethnicity...a fighter like Lennox Lewis...did he win a World title as a Brit or a Canadian.....Calzaghe,Welsh or Italian etc etc Id love to have some solid facts i just dont have the patience to find out for definate Edited July 5, 2011 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 And dont the yanks have around 300 million population compared to our 65ish ?...meaning on the whole they would need around 6 times as many champions as us........dont matter how long they held a title just as long as they won it. Yanks - 308,745,538 at their last census GB - 62,262,000 last estimate. Source: Wikipedia 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.