First of all, we have a population base of over 300 million to draw on. This year, we're sending a record 550+ athletes to Rio (that works out to 1 out of every 20 athletes being from the US). Our training facilities are state-of-the-art, when other countries have facilities that would embarrass a typical US high school. So *of course* we're going to win ALL TEH MEDALS.
But do we really deserve to?
Fozzy
No. Overrated would indicate that they are given more credit than they deserve. Bottom line is this - they will get credit for ever single medal they win, as they should. w, if everybody thinks they'll, as you say , "win ALL TEH MEDALS" and they don't (which they won't) THEN you could say they are overrated.
One other note -while our nation may have great training facilities, the federal government does not give a single penny to our Olympic athletes. Other nations pay their athletes - even in the "amateur" days a good number of nations had their athletes listed as being in the military or working government jobs (USSR in particular)
SO should the USA dominate? Yep. But unless they don't do so, you can't call them "overrated".
Starlight 1
Richard, we won't- and indeed, we haven't- won all the medals, either at the Rio games or in past Olympics. Take Eventing, for example. That's one of the 3 equestrian or horse sports which have been part of every Olympics since 1912. This year, the team gold was won by France, and the individual gold medal went to Michael Jung of Germany. Only one member of the US team in that sport- Phillip Dutton- managed to make it onto the medal platform, when he took a bronze. And the situation is not expected to be much better for the sport of dressage, either. US athletes will compete, yes, but since that sport has been dominated by the Dutch and German teams for decades ( and more lately, by the British team, which swept all the medals in ALL the horse sports in 2012) the US has a shot, but no more than that.
I might also point out that most of the equestrian athletes from the US are professionals who earn their living in their respective disciplines. They train horses, they teach, they compete as professionals, and many of them spend large amounts of time doing fundraising for sponsors. And they don't necessarily have access to, as you put it, the best facilities in the world, at least not all of the time. There are also other countries that have better facilities than the US does, at least when it comes to training horses and riders. Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and most of the Middle Eastern nations have facilities that are on a par with American ones. Indeed, countries like Dubai and Qatar have very well known world class facilities for training and competition, and have invested MILLIONS of dollars in these sports. So your argument doesn't wash, at least not in this case.
Bobbin
You're asuming that any schmuck could become an outstanding cardiac surgeon or concert violinist with the proper training. I'm not disputing your premise, just putting it in perspective.
Do note that China has a billion possible candidates and unlimited resources for training from birth, and the USA's Final Five kicked their tiny butts in Gymnastics.
Anonymous
What the hell does "deserve" mean in that context? The country who spends the most, wins. Always has, always will. The athletes are extremely highly trained have been given everything they need to allow them to win, and mostly deliver under pressure. Yes, they "deserve" to win. If you mean is it FAIR? Well no, but neither is life.
Anonymous
@Anonymous- But Usain Bolt is the fastest man on earth. Money doesn't explain that.