2008 and future Olympic Games.

Originally Posted by ABC78

It looks like a good win for the Chinese team. But considering that the US is involved in multiple conflicts they might not have fielded the best team they could have. All their best snipers might be busy on a real stalk and no time for an exhibition.

Same can be said to Chinese side or any of the nations competing. It to me just sounds like another excuse for loosing. You loose you loose no excuse in the military. They should stop making excuses for every time the loose something, kind of reminds me of the Beijing Olympics now.

Originally Posted by HKSDU

kind of reminds me of the Beijing Olympics now.

Their media sorted the wins by total medals won rather than by the color of medals. In some competitions, it is the small nations, particularly the east European nations that surprise the major powers. In archery, the South Koreans are king.

Originally Posted by t2contra

Their media sorted the wins by total medals won rather than by the color of medals.

Not to be off-topic, but I do believe there is logic in counting the total metals, instead of counting only the gold. On the level of Olympics, any metal is world class. The athletes who win any kind of metal put in the same amount of time and dedication to put themselves in position to win a metal. Except a few extraordinarily talented ones like Mike Phelps, most of these athletes are on the same level. A lot of times, it's only luck that decides who wins gold and who wins the silver. Is it fair to only consider the gold as if only gold counts and silver metal doesn't mean anything? I think it is only fair to also recognize all those who win metals.

Also, I believe counting only gold can be misleading sometimes. Part of the reason of participating in Olympics is to showcase a nation's athletic abilities. Let's say we have two nations, nation A wins 40 gold, 40 silver and 40 bronze while nation B wins 50 gold, 10 silver and 5 bronze. When counting only gold, nation B is definitely superior, but does that mean nation B has superior athletic programs? Its athletic programs are not balanced. If they are good at something, they are really good. However, if they are not good at something, they suck so bad that they can't win anything. This compares with nation A where their athletic programs are well balanced and they have world class athletes in majority of the fields.

However, counting all metals as the same is also not a good way. I am thinking doing it like GPA in schools. Gold metal counts as 4 points, silver counts as 3 points and bronze counts as 2 points. So at the end, we add them all up and see who has the highest point total. This way, all metals are counted and recognized and at the same time the elite status of gold is also considered.

P.S. I actually calculated the point totals for both the US and China in Beijing Olympics using my GPA method. The US has slightly higher point totals.

Originally Posted by vesicles

P.S. I actually calculated the point totals for both the US and China in Beijing Olympics using my GPA method. The US has slightly higher point totals.

most use the 5, 3, 1 scale.

Originally Posted by tanlixiang28776

most use the 5, 3, 1 scale.

SO I am not the first one proposing this? Bummer...

Originally Posted by vesicles

Not to be off-topic, but I do believe there is logic in counting the total metals, instead of counting only the gold.

That's irrelevant to the issue here. Before the Beijing Olympics when China got the lion's share of the gold medals, the US media never used your kind of maths in drawing up the medals table. But after that, they behaved like sore losers like probably the shooter who griped about the competition.

Originally Posted by vesicles

Not to be off-topic, but I do believe there is logic in counting the total metals, instead of counting only the gold. On the level of Olympics, any metal is world class. The athletes who win any kind of metal put in the same amount of time and dedication to put themselves in position to win a metal. Except a few extraordinarily talented ones like Mike Phelps, most of these athletes are on the same level. A lot of times, it's only luck that decides who wins gold and who wins the silver. Is it fair to only consider the gold as if only gold counts and silver metal doesn't mean anything? I think it is only fair to also recognize all those who win metals.

Also, I believe counting only gold can be misleading sometimes. Part of the reason of participating in Olympics is to showcase a nation's athletic abilities. Let's say we have two nations, nation A wins 40 gold, 40 silver and 40 bronze while nation B wins 50 gold, 10 silver and 5 bronze. When counting only gold, nation B is definitely superior, but does that mean nation B has superior athletic programs? Its athletic programs are not balanced. If they are good at something, they are really good. However, if they are not good at something, they suck so bad that they can't win anything. This compares with nation A where their athletic programs are well balanced and they have world class athletes in majority of the fields.

However, counting all metals as the same is also not a good way. I am thinking doing it like GPA in schools. Gold metal counts as 4 points, silver counts as 3 points and bronze counts as 2 points. So at the end, we add them all up and see who has the highest point total. This way, all metals are counted and recognized and at the same time the elite status of gold is also considered.

P.S. I actually calculated the point totals for both the US and China in Beijing Olympics using my GPA method. The US has slightly higher point totals.

I could be wrong, but if we use 3,2,1 or 5,3,1 scale then China had the slightly higher "point" total? 4,3,2 doesn't seem very logical to me.

Originally Posted by t2contra

That's irrelevant to the issue here. Before the Beijing Olympics when China got the lion's share of the gold medals, the US media never used your kind of maths in drawing up the medals table. But after that, they behaved like sore losers like probably the shooter who griped about the competition.

Ignoring the motivation of US media, I think a high gold count (at the detriment of a total medal count) reflects a specialization in a few disciplines, while a high overall medal count reflects a more general achievement.

Post all discussions of past and future Olympic games here. Do not start another thread.

Originally Posted by t2contra

That's irrelevant to the issue here. Before the Beijing Olympics when China got the lion's share of the gold medals, the US media never used your kind of maths in drawing up the medals table. But after that, they behaved like sore losers like probably the shooter who griped about the competition.

Irregardless of distribution, a country's media will almost always emphasize the factor that plays into that country's favour. For the US, in the summer olympics, it has long been total medal count, as they have usually lost gold in most sports to China or the SU. I know that for Nordic countries, one usually tallies the golds in the winter olympics, because they usually come out on top in certain sports (as their teams are not big enough to dominate many different sports). The US has the strength in a big, relatively good team, which earns them a lot of medals, though relatively few golds, while China and some other countries focus on brilliance in a "few" sports (not really few), while the average team-member might be outclassed by Americans.

In the end, it will always be bickering on how to count medals. Again, it all comes down to what plays into each country's favour.

For the US, in the summer olympics, it has long been total medal count, as they have usually lost gold in most sports to China or the SU.

Since the '88 games the USA has won 225 gold Medals. China has won 148. To China's credit in 1988 China won only 5 gold medals. China topped the ladder in 2008 with 51 Gold medals. Since 1988 RU/SU have won 209 Gold medals.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Since the '88 games the USA has won 225 gold Medals. China has won 148. To China's credit in 1988 China won only 5 gold medals. China topped the ladder in 2008 with 51 Gold medals. Since 1988 RU/SU have won 209 Gold medals.

Boss, China has ONLY "re-enter" the Olympic Games, after the culture revolution, starting from 1984. There is no point to sum-up all the history figure to show some claims.

Like, if we say, "sum-up all the enemy killed by Chinese troops across the history, it shows Chinese army has doing a far more better job than USA armed forces, which only founded from 1776..." of which there is no point to such comparison. (nor is it true, USA armed forces rocks, today)

Rational people in China, already starts talking that "One game's (2008 game) good result (in respect to total gold) do not means China have a better social health (Sports builds health) system than america." - which I agree. - But the west media of "sum all the medal togather, and uncle sam wins again..." it's just simply a waste of time to read. (Nobody in China, saying USA has doing a bad job anyway, why so defensive?)

STOP referring to me as Boss!

Originally Posted by vesicles

Not to be off-topic, but I do believe there is logic in counting the total metals, instead of counting only the gold. On the level of Olympics, any metal is world class. The athletes who win any kind of metal put in the same amount of time and dedication to put themselves in position to win a metal. Except a few extraordinarily talented ones like Mike Phelps, most of these athletes are on the same level. A lot of times, it's only luck that decides who wins gold and who wins the silver. Is it fair to only consider the gold as if only gold counts and silver metal doesn't mean anything? I think it is only fair to also recognize all those who win metals.

Also, I believe counting only gold can be misleading sometimes. Part of the reason of participating in Olympics is to showcase a nation's athletic abilities. Let's say we have two nations, nation A wins 40 gold, 40 silver and 40 bronze while nation B wins 50 gold, 10 silver and 5 bronze. When counting only gold, nation B is definitely superior, but does that mean nation B has superior athletic programs? Its athletic programs are not balanced. If they are good at something, they are really good. However, if they are not good at something, they suck so bad that they can't win anything. This compares with nation A where their athletic programs are well balanced and they have world class athletes in majority of the fields.

However, counting all metals as the same is also not a good way. I am thinking doing it like GPA in schools. Gold metal counts as 4 points, silver counts as 3 points and bronze counts as 2 points. So at the end, we add them all up and see who has the highest point total. This way, all metals are counted and recognized and at the same time the elite status of gold is also considered.

P.S. I actually calculated the point totals for both the US and China in Beijing Olympics using my GPA method. The US has slightly higher point totals.

So all that hard effort only gets you 1 point better than the runner up?? For sporting prize money and points the runner up gets only half of what the winner gets, and 3rd gets half of what second gets. So I better scale is 4/2/1.

America thrive on swimming, most of their medal comes from there, so they have more medals does that mean they have a well balance athletic program? If you look at China there gold medals are kind of all over the place.

Since when has 2nd, 3rd ever been equal in anything? Winners get all the sponsorship, fame, fortune....that's the benefit of being a winner. Runner up hardly get notice in most competition, rarely do you hear people in the history talking about the person who got 3rd or 2nd, they usually talk about the winner.

My theory is winning is winning, there is no excuse. You either win or loose. Which athlete only strive to get second or third? They strive for the gold. The winner always gets way more credit than runner up.

Your method:
China:
Gold:51
Silver:21
Bronze:28

(51x3)+(21x2)+(28x1)=223
following the 3/2/1 method, which i feel isn't equally balanced.

4/2/1 = used in basically most sports in championship points and prize money. 100%/50%/25%

=274

USA:
Gold:36
Silver:38
Bronze:36

(36x3)+(38x2)+(36x1)=220

USA are 3 points lower.

4/2/1 method

=256

So I don't know how you passed your high school maths buddy, with your calculations.

the balance way it ends up being
China 274 vs USA 256

Originally Posted by vesicles

On the level of Olympics, any metal is world class. The athletes who win any kind of metal put in the same amount of time and dedication to put themselves in position to win a metal. Except a few extraordinarily talented ones like Mike Phelps, most of these athletes are on the same level. A lot of times, it's only luck that decides who wins gold and who wins the silver.

China's disproportionate amount of gold compared to total medal count shows that it's not just luck. In many areas, Chinese gold medalist winners *are* a head above the runner-ups.

By your logic, you could say that silver and bronze medalists differ from 4th place winners (who doesn't get any medal) only on luck.