Sir, Joseph Stephen Adams (letters, Aug 15 and 16) makes a valid point in drawing attention to the unfairness towards small nations inherent in the otherwise excellent proposed Watson system for Olympic medals points — in which a gold scores three points, a silver two and a bronze one — but a simple answer lies in following more closely the example of the Norrington Table, from which Mr Watson took his inspiration. We should simply normalise the Watson medals points score with respect to the population of each country. If this is done, then we find that the table (as of noon, August 16) is dominated by Australia, with Georgia towering over Russia, Zimbabwe inflated to the top fifteen, Great Britain placed higher than the United States, North Korea with twice the points of South Korea, neither Russia nor the USA in the top 25, and humble Togo with twenty times the points score of China, which languishes near the bottom.

Personal glory is, of course, a vital motivator in all sporting endeavours and, with that in mind, I suggest that this normalised table be known as the Watson-Adams-Macdonald table, or WAM for short. The WAM table provides a useful motivator for the achievements of athletes from smaller countries and a chastening reminder to large countries that everything is relative.

John Macdonald
Reading

Sir, Matthew Syed believes that, in the Olympics, success is driven by wealth (Opinion, Aug 16) and that that is the reason for the disproporionate success of rich Western countries over the third world. But the facts are not that simple. The oil-producing countries — Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Nigeria and one of the East Indies — are enormously wealthy and are not disproportionately winners in the Olympics. Money alone does not lead to Olympic success; public safety, encouragement, organisation, determination and the belief that taking part in sport is worthwhile all play a very large part as well.

Malcolm G. Lyall
malcolmlyall@btinternet.com

Sir, Matthew Syed (“Claim that American will become greatest of all time is diminished by IOC excess”, Aug 14) argues that Sir Steve Redgrave could not be considered a great Olympian because of the IOC’s “outrageously patrician bias by allocating 14 medals to the sport”. He goes on to state that “rowing is so elitist that it attracts only the rich or those who are subsidised . . . by rich governments”.

Clearly Mr Syed has not stepped into a rowing club in the last 15 to 20 years, because if he had he would have observed a totally non-elitist sport that draws from a hugely wide variety of backgrounds and whose crumbling boathouses are supported not by “rich governments” but by a mix of local and club membership fundraising and Heritage Lottery funding, the latter funded by everyone who plays the lottery — hardly elitist.

Hugh Millington
Wetherby, Yorks







Sir, Hats off to Michael Phelps, but what is the point of the breast stroke, back stroke and the butterfly stroke? These are all slower and require more effort than the free style crawl. To give running athletes a chance of accumulating a similar haul of medals to Phelps, more events could be introduced. I suggest individual events of hopping, walking and running backwards over 100, 200 and 400 metres, plus, of course, the medleys and relays.


Simon Bevan
Brixworth, Northampton

Explore Letters

• Feedback