3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

[Half Miler]

Yes, 29 overall medals (M&W) is not bad.

But I'm wondering if 3 golds for the US men is the lowest total in the history of the OG. As I see it, it's not that our guys underperformed so much, but rather that the rest of the world has caught up.

At the beginning of this year, if you would have told me the US would not win a single sprint race, nor a single relay, and have no finalists in the 400...

On the other hand, we did set a record for the most 4th place finishes.

[ATK]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Looks like a thread on the 3 golds was started already.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47839

[Half Miler]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Thanks. Scanned the headlines, but that subject title didn't indicate the topic very well.

[Half Miler]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Ok, I read through the thread. I'd still like to know if this is the lowest gold medal tally in history, which I think it is.

[ATK]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Ok, I read through the thread. I'd still like to know if this is the lowest gold medal tally in history, which I think it is.

It is. 2008 we won 4, which is next lowest.
The farther back you go the more gold we have. Capping of with the 23 in 1904.

[Half Miler]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Thanks for the details. That's what I was thinking.

[dukehjsteve]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Ok, I read through the thread. I'd still like to know if this is the lowest gold medal tally in history, which I think it is.

It is. 2008 we won 4, which is next lowest.
The farther back you go the more gold we have. Capping of with the 23 in 1904.

That 1904 total of 23 is a bit of an anomaly due to poor participation, geography etc.

More compelling in the "modern" era is 1952's 14 and 1956's 15. Then when we won "only" 9 in 1960 it was considered catastrophically bad.

[ATK]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Ok, I read through the thread. I'd still like to know if this is the lowest gold medal tally in history, which I think it is.

It is. 2008 we won 4, which is next lowest.
The farther back you go the more gold we have. Capping of with the 23 in 1904.

That 1904 total of 23 is a bit of an anomaly due to poor participation, geography etc.

More compelling in the "modern" era is 1952's 14 and 1956's 15. Then when we won "only" 9 in 1960 it was considered catastrophically bad.

Yea, I just threw it out there for giggles. I would never consider it for real comparison purposes.

[j-a-m]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

Hardee in the Dec and Claye in the TJ got silver behind their own teammate. While technically not a gold, they finished ahead of all athletes from other countries.

[tm71]

Re: 3 golds for the US men - poorest showing ever?

It is indeed the lowest ever with Beijing being one more. In daegu and berlin the us men won six events and the projection was for 5-6 this time. But injuries to Merritt before the meet and Phillips before the trials limited that to 3-4. Conversely the women got 6 golds here which is twice as many as Beijing and two more than Berlin and the same as in
Daegu.