Ireland Olympic Medal Count
Final Count: Gold 0; Silver 1; Bronze 2
In terms of the medal count for Ireland, the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing are shaping up to be one of the most successful in Olympic history.
UPDATE: [Ireland’s 1st bronze medal of the Beijing ‘08 Olympics is confirmed as Irish boxer Sutherland is well beaten in semi-final by Britain’s James DeGale 10-3].
UPDATE 2: [Ireland’s Paddy Barnes has lost to China’s Shiming Zou in the Olympic Light Flyweight semi-final, 10-3. A 2nd Irish bronze medal].
UPDATE 3: [Kenneth Egan wins his Olympic semi-final well against Tony Jeffries of England. 10-3 guaranteeing at least a silver medal for Ireland].
UPDATE 4: [Ken Egan wins an Olympic silver medal for Ireland. For my money he was a lot closer to a gold medal than his 11-7 defeat suggests.].
At least 3 medals are coming Ireland’s way, the colour of them yet to be decided.
Surpassing the tally in boxing of the Pocket Rocket and Carruth at the Barcelona Games back in 1992, are Paddy Barnes, Ken Egan and Darren Sutherland. Maybe.
Because Michael Carruth won gold, and Wayne McCullough won silver. In Beijing Barnes, Egan and Sutherland are still in the competition so Ireland could yet win 3 gold medals. Or any combination of gold, silver, and bronze. If they all lose their semi-finals then they each will get a bronze medal.
In boxing 2 bronze medals are awarded in each event, the losing semi-finalists, who may well have been beaten to a pulp when losing, not being asked to fight it off.
Anyway a medal count of 3 bronze for Ireland in Boxing would take the Beijing Games to just behind the Melbourne Games, the one where everyone talks about Ronnie Delaney’s gold medal (Did you bring it Ronnie?) and nobody mentions the silver and 3 bronze medals for Ireland at the same games - all of them in boxing.
The 5 medals Ireland won at the Melbourne Games of 1956 still represents Ireland’s greatest overall medal count at a single Olympic Games, and each by different people.
Nobody talks anymore about Ireland’s 2nd largest haul of Olympic medals - the 4 at the 1996 Atlanta Games, of which 3 were gold and the other bronze. Because they were all won by Michelle Smith. Or Michelle de Bruin if you prefer. Because nobody talks about Michelle anymore. Because of a 4-year ban. And because of Androstenedione.
Actually I talk about her. Because I swam in the same pool that she trained in. Well I can’t actually swim strictly speaking, but I did pay my 50p to go in each time. And my urine too smells of whiskey.
Anyway 2008 is looking good so far, even with the withdrawal of medal contender Dennis Lynch, and the chances are that Ireland’s Olympic medal winners of 2008 will be as fondly remembered as the likes of John Tracy (silver, 1984) and Sonia O’Sullivan (silver, 2000).
The mother asked me about this earlier this morning so I figured I’d share my answer.
More on Irish Sport:
• Photo Essay of Horse Racing in Clonmel, Tipperary
• Watching Ireland Lose at Home
• The Day I Met Maradona in Ireland
• Gaelic Football Memories of Dublin and Kerry Games
Eolaí gan Fhéile:
I came across this, Ireland appears to be just as successful as nations like Canada and France - if you take into account the population size: http://www.clearspring.com/widgets/48abc6bc903b61d0
Roger - The “success per population” thory is often used to say how great we are at football for such a small country, but the problem with taking Ireland’s population size into account is that it ignores the true population size from which the team is selected.
The Irish Olympic team is drawn from the population of the Republic plus the population of Northern Ireland that chooses Ireland instead of GB as its team (allowable under an agreement between the Olympic Council of Ireland and the British Olympic Association), plus that part of the diaspora that qualifies and opts to represent Ireland.
So the true population for comparison purposes isn’t the 4 and half million of the Republic, but is well, who knows, 40 or 50 million probably?
Come sunday, I think Ireland will see a Gold Medal in the boxing finals.
Great blog, keep up the good work & at least it didn’t rain today !
Regards,
Conor,
http://www.irishcoincufflinks.com
Eolai, I accept your point on defining the Irish population but wouldn’t that diaspora point apply to most countries?
I accept it’s larger than 4.5 million because in sports that are organised on an all-Ireland basis see NI competitors competing for Ireland*. However to say there are 40 to 50 million people to choose from is a stretch. I bet Carl Lewis or Michael Johnson could have run for some west african nation if they so chose. You would double-count millions of people if you were to rely on the diaspora for comparison of olympic performances across nations.
*By definition “Ireland” in the Olympics includes NI as there is no NI team and no UK team. Some competitors choose to opt for GB if their sport is not organsied on an all-Ireland basis
Seamus - the diaspora point would apply to most countries if those countries applied it in practice, but they don’t.
Not every country’s diaspora is the same in relative size or in the scope of its dispersion. Nor is every country’s diaspora treated the same by the home country in how they select those who represent it, regardless of the rules being the same regarding qualification for selection.
It’s more pronounced in the selection of the national soccer team than in the selection of the Irish Olympic team, but the point remains the same.
Ireland has a tradition of being more aggressive than most countries in tapping into its diaspora. And Ireland’s diaspora has exhibited a stronger inclination, than the diasporas of most other countries, in choosing to identify with its mother country. The recent amendment to Article 2 of the Irish Constitution recognizes this tradition when it states the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
It’s true that a significant number of the US Olympic team were born outside the US but they aren’t representative of a greater American diaspora beyond the US; they are individual cases of American naturalisation following immigration into the US and are included in the official US population.
Rather than double-counting if you include diasporas, you are ignoring whole sections of populations if you exclude them. There is a significant population in England, Scotland and America that, more than being eligble to represent Ireland would choose to do so by default. So yes for comparison purposes that also means the populations of some countries should be reduced by the number of its citizens that would choose to represent another country.
It might seem silly, but it’s a fairer picture of how a country is performing relative to its population. Of course I don’t know what the magic number is, and 40 to 50 million might well be a stretch, but I’d be very surprised if it was less than 20 million.