Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mongoose on August 23, 2008, 12:21:53 pm
-
Olympic metals by country (http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/medals)
:lol: @ The American Website ranking it on medals won instead of Golds like every other site.
Not to bring up a few-days-old line, but why is it strange to be counting the total number of medals? I don't even really give a damn who's winning what count, but considering the tally is supposed to be medals, not medal, why would silvers and bronzes be omitted? It's like you're saying, "Yes, yes, those silvers and bronzes are lovely and all, but y'see, they're just not shiny enough. Better luck next time." Being second-best in the world is a pretty damn good accomplishment in its own right. Or, at the very least, one could implement some sort of 3-for-gold, 2-for-silver, and 1-for-bronze scoring system; it's still scaled, but at least then you're not ignoring the accomplishments of 2/3 of the medaling athletes.
(And for anyone wondering if this is a temporary aberration, the media's been listing medal counts in this manner over here for as long as I've been watching the Olympics. And I've been watching the Olympics for a good 16 years or so.)
What I honestly find most interesting about the whole thing is the overall consistency of the medals. When you look at us or Russia or Britain or Australia, there's a pretty even spread across all three medals. But when it comes to China, it's an all-or-nothing distribution. Yes, winning 47 (at the moment) golds is very impressive, but it's tempered a bit by the fact that the rest of your athletes don't get on the other podium steps all that often.
All of that aside, Phelps was amazing, beach volleyball is awesome, and I'm still convinced that someone just made up handball on a street corner last week.
-
Not to bring up a few-days-old line, but why is it strange to be counting the total number of medals? I don't even really give a damn who's winning what count, but considering the tally is supposed to be medals, not medal, why would silvers and bronzes be omitted? It's like you're saying, "Yes, yes, those silvers and bronzes are lovely and all, but y'see, they're just not shiny enough. Better luck next time." Being second-best in the world is a pretty damn good accomplishment in its own right. Or, at the very least, one could implement some sort of 3-for-gold, 2-for-silver, and 1-for-bronze scoring system; it's still scaled, but at least then you're not ignoring the accomplishments of 2/3 of the medaling athletes.
Great idea. Except if you do that America are still second (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7576446.stm). Which is probably why they aren't using it.
The American websites have been using a system counting the total number of medals thereby meaning that a team which has 99 golds ranks below one that gets 100 bronzes. In other words a trumped up system which says that a bronze medal and a gold medal are equivalent and which can only have been designed to make America look cool at the expense of common sense.
The method of ranking gold medals says "This country is the best in the world at the most things" Silver and bronze medals are counted if there is a tie for gold which helps preserve that meaning. A system giving out points for each medal says "This country has the most people who are good at things or a few people who are the best at things"
The system American websites are using on the other hand says nothing of value. The best you can sum it up is as "It doesn't matter if you're best at the Olympics as long as you are amongst the best"
-
The American websites have been using a system counting the total number of medals thereby meaning that a team which has 99 golds ranks below one that gets 100 bronzes. In other words a trumped up system which says that a bronze medal and a gold medal are equivalent and which can only have been designed to make America look cool at the expense of common sense.
While that view works in theory, you and I both know that that's not a plausible scenario for medal totals the way the Games usually play out. The only way that that "equating" gets you into trouble is if you're talking about Podunk Country A with 1 gold and 1 silver vs. Podunk Country B with 3 bronzes...and who really cares about fighting it out for 25th place to begin with? I don't think anyone in the media over here has ever given the impression that a bronze medal somehow equates to a gold, and every single report I've seen on medal counts has noted that China has been running away with the golds since the start of the games. It's hardly making us "look cool." Besides, as I said above, I see no "common sense" whatsoever in any "medals count" listing that doesn't even count all of the medals in some form. Call it a "golds count" if you wish, but it's not a true medals delineation.
The method of ranking gold medals says "This country is the best in the world at the most things" Silver and bronze medals are counted if there is a tie for gold which helps preserve that meaning. A system giving out points for each medal says "This country has the most people who are good at things or a few people who are the best at things"
But that first bit further justifies my point. A system that relegates silvers and bronzes entirely to tiebreakers completely devalues them, when being second or third-best in the world at a particular event should be celebrated in its own right. For certain countries, even getting a bronze in a particular event is a near-mythic accomplishment. Like I said, I don't have anything personally invested in winning some medals count; hell, I'd welcome that points total being used whether or not we were leading it, because it's a system that makes sense and takes into account every medal.
The system American websites are using on the other hand says nothing of value. The best you can sum it up is as "It doesn't matter if you're best at the Olympics as long as you are amongst the best"
While I don't completely agree with that sentiment, I feel that there often is too much emphasis placed on just winning these events, as opposed to being one of the best two or three people on the entire planet at them. Let's face it...if you win silver in the 100m sprint, you're the second-fastest man in the world in a certain sense. While our media's method of counting medals is biased in a different sense, at least it manages to take that distinction into account.
-
I don't think anyone in the media over here has ever given the impression that a bronze medal somehow equates to a gold
By placing America at the top of a table which is calculated solely on number of medals won regardless of whether they are bronze, silver or gold that is exactly what they are doing. America is currently in the lead of that table with 100 points. If Phelps had come 3rd in all 8 races that wouldn't change in the slightest. If you can't see how ****ed up that is there is little point in me continuing this conversation. :p
But that first bit further justifies my point. A system that relegates silvers and bronzes entirely to tiebreakers completely devalues them, when being second or third-best in the world at a particular event should be celebrated in its own right.
I've got no real objection to either a count based on golds or a count based on points for all three medals. As I said in my previous post they both mean something. Both say something different about which country is the best. Interestingly regardless of which of the two you use you only get a difference once you get to fifth place anyway (where Germany and Australia are swapped).
I'm not actually arguing between the two methods as I feel that both have merit. My point is simply that both of those methods say something. You might not like that measuring on gold is basically a "No second prize" method of doing things but you can't argue that it does say something.
The one that places America top says nothing.
-
I think that any sensible American (myself included) can see right through a deceptive sorting method.
-
The one that places America top says nothing.
Have to disagree. While China has a comfortable lead over the US in gold medals, the US placing higher on the total count indicates:
A) China didn't earn medals in events where the US did
B) China didn't compete at all in those events where the US did
A isn't particularly true, because it just about every event where China and the US have both competed (which a few exceptions--swimming especially, and probably basketball once the men's finals are over) China has consistently beaten everybody with the US usually coming in second or third.
B is what is giving the US such a higher count, especially in the track and field events. While the US may be coming in second or third to Jamaica, it is still demonstrating considerable versatility compared to China.
Really, the standings are entirely a matter of opinion. Do you prefer the US team to be a jack of all trades, or to limit themselves to only events where they will clearly dominate?
-
Exactly. I do agree that going by a strict total medal count without weighting isn't that great of a system, but one fact it does take into account that a strictly-gold count doesn't is the diversity of talent on a particular team. It's all well and good to rack up the golds in disciplines where you're traditionally dominant (see: diving, table tennis, gymnastics, weightlifting for Chinese; swimming, basketball, beach volleyball, track and field [though not as much this time around] for Americans), but if you're able to win medals of any sort in a wide variety of disciplines, it implies that you've sent an overall very talented group of individuals to the Games. That was the whole focus of that much-touted "Project 119" that the Chinese Olympic team ran over the past several years; they were trying to go after all of the events where they're not traditionally top contenders. From everything I've been able to tell from medal counts and general coverage, it wasn't an incredibly successful program for them, though they obviously struck gold quite a bit.
And besides, this often-not-very-reasonable American likes gloating that we still have more bling than anyone else, no matter what color it is. :p
-
Clutching at straws. :lol:
Let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe you'd support this system if you were in China's position?
I think that any sensible American (myself included) can see right through a deceptive sorting method.
Evidently not.
-
I think that any sensible American [...] can see right through a deceptive sorting method.
:lol:
-
Clutching at straws. :lol:
Weren't you the one saying both systems have merits?
I'm not knocking on China having a lead, and by all means, they deserve the vast majority of golds they've earned (all I question is the women's gymnastics, but we've been over that).
I'm just saying the fact the US has more medals at all is some indicator that the US has some versatility compared to China (not necessarily dominance, I've stated that clearly, but versatility).
Which is this sentence mystifies me. I'm sure most of the American media understands we're trailing in golds, but we still have more total medals. We're not being desperate, we're taking pride in that we're actually competing in the vast majority of the Olympic games, unlike China.
-
Again, exactly. I'm proud of the fact that my country's athletes can win medals in a wide variety of sports; likewise, the Chinese should be proud that their athletes have come in first in a large number of events. Everyone wins, no matter how you're counting. The only reason I said anything in the first place is because I saw people calling out a particular means of tallying up medals (which is still a perfectly factual tally, subjective interpretations nonwithstanding) while ignoring the flaws in another method of doing so. So...yeah. Unless I'm currently in desperate need to sip a liquid through a small opening, I'm not seeing any straws here.
(And again, the implication that this is somehow a novel, biased way of tallying medals based on the fact that China has more golds than the US does is incorrect. I've seen the same system used during every Olympics I've witnessed, whether or not the US was in either the total or the gold medal lead.)
-
Weren't you the one saying both systems have merits?
Both sensible systems have merit. Not the 3rd stupid one the American media are using so that it looks like America are winning the Olympics.
Measuring who has the most gold shows which country can field athletes who are the best in the world. Giving points for each medal is a good overall view. Measuring the total medals though is the system which most devalues the gold as it is worth no more than silver or bronze under that system.
And quite frankly I've not heard a single American admit that they would continue to use that system if they were in China's position.
-
Wait, wait, it's hardly like we decide, and it's certainly not representative of the views of American citizens.
I would not continue using that system if I were in China's position! There, satisfied?
-
Quite frankly, unless it's a team sport, I don't think medals shouldn't be counted towards countries in any way. The Olympics are supposed to celebrate human accomplishments, will to struggle against adversity and to better ourselves. To see this polarized as "we've got more medals/gold medals/reinforced titanium medals than you have!" somewhat diminishes this feeling.
Can't we all just be happy, watching the Women Beach Volleyball matches and not think that the participants are from this country or that one, but that the matches are something worthy to preserve for future generations?
Also, this has no bearing on the fact that my country absolutely sucks at every single sport event they are allowed to participate.
-
And quite frankly I've not heard a single American admit that they would continue to use that system if they were in China's position.
Would I? No, probably not. But I'm not in their position, which is why I like this system, and the Chinese like the other, and we both feel like we're winrars. :p
-
Olympic metals by country (http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/medals)
:lol: @ The American Website ranking it on medals won instead of Golds like every other site.
Not to bring up a few-days-old line, but why is it strange to be counting the total number of medals? I don't even really give a damn who's winning what count, but considering the tally is supposed to be medals, not medal, why would silvers and bronzes be omitted? It's like you're saying, "Yes, yes, those silvers and bronzes are lovely and all, but y'see, they're just not shiny enough. Better luck next time." Being second-best in the world is a pretty damn good accomplishment in its own right. Or, at the very least, one could implement some sort of 3-for-gold, 2-for-silver, and 1-for-bronze scoring system; it's still scaled, but at least then you're not ignoring the accomplishments of 2/3 of the medaling athletes.
(And for anyone wondering if this is a temporary aberration, the media's been listing medal counts in this manner over here for as long as I've been watching the Olympics. And I've been watching the Olympics for a good 16 years or so.)
Every other website I've seen, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation one, has listed them by the amounts of Golds won, it seems rather odd that the country who have won the most medals overall is the only country who's broadcasters list it purely on medals won.
-
Perhaps they're want to make it clear to the Americans that, despite not having the most gold medals, they have the most medals on overall.
-
OK so if you do the gold medal system you are saying a country that has 50 gold medals and nothing else would be better than a country that has 49 gold, 25 silver and 10 bronze?
BTW that system has been in use since day one even before the Americans had more overall medals. China was on top more than once. Guess they should have cheated more.
BTW just hear a new report that 5 of the 6 Chinese gymnast were underage.
-
Where?
The investigation hasn't finished yet, so there's no possible way we know beyond rumors right now.
-
I was discussing about this with my mum just now over porridge. She thinks that the Americans are being sour-grapes. Of course, that's only her opinion.
-
Wait, wait, it's hardly like we decide, and it's certainly not representative of the views of American citizens.
I would not continue using that system if I were in China's position! There, satisfied?
Sorry, I should say a single American who thinks the table with America at the top makes sense. :D In general I seem to see two groups. Those who think it's silly and those who defend it but wouldn't if it placed them second.
OK so if you do the gold medal system you are saying a country that has 50 gold medals and nothing else would be better than a country that has 49 gold, 25 silver and 10 bronze?
Which is why I tend to think a system that gives 3 points for a gold going down to 1 for a bronze is the fairest.
But it depends on what you want to say about being the best. The system measuring golds says that the country with 50 golds is better at winning events. Which it is.
BTW that system has been in use since day one even before the Americans had more overall medals. China was on top more than once.
And you think that's a coincidence? The American media knew right from the start that their best hope was in winning more overall medals.
-
And you think that's a coincidence? The American media knew right from the start that their best hope was in winning more overall medals.
For at least the fourth or fifth time, this same tallying system has been used by American broadcasters during every single Olympics of at least the past 16 years, whether or not the United States was expected to be challenged in the medal count, or even win at all. I'm fairly certain I can remember at least one or two Winter Olympics where we weren't the top medals-winner by a significant margin...and yet we still used that same system. The particular circumstances of these specific games have no bearing on it whatsoever. It's simply a different system, one that's been used for a long time and which prioritizes a different data element.
-
Yeah. A ****ing stupid one that goes against the spirit of the entire Olympic Games (Here's a clue. Winning the gold is meant to mean something!).
But never mind. As long as you're happy with it, I'll chalk it up on the the very long list of things Americans think are sensible in defiance of logic and common sense.
-
The anti-Americanism gets a little old after a while kara.
-
Ah. Blame anti-Americanism. That way you don't have to admit that the ranking system is stupid.
-
Actually I was more referring to this:
As long as you're happy with it, I'll chalk it up on the the very long list of things Americans think are sensible in defiance of logic and common sense.
Fine, the ranking system is stupid. I really don't even care about it anymore, I more care that it seems every time there's a discussion about the way Americans handle things, you (and a fair amount of other HLPers) can't resist some comment about apparent American stupidity. Just gets old after a while.
-
If the rest of the world sees China as topping the medals tally, I'd be content to leave the Americans to their own rankings systems. It's not like anyone gives much attention to it other than the Americans themselves.
-
Sorry, but I'm with Karajorma here in one main factor. America (and China) has a vast population, therefore it can produce a lot more competitors than other smaller countries, and so therefore stands a higher chance statistically of getting more medals, and can produce world-class competitors for a lot more disciplines.
That's why I prefer the points system (or even the population per medal one), so that quality has an impact as well as sheer volume.
That's not knocking the US' achievements, individually, those athletes did great to get bronzes and silvers, I couldn't have done it, but Kara's right, to the athlete there is a world of difference between third place and first place, and the medal system should reflect that to a degree.
I don't doubt we will have our own set of controversies and claims/counter-claims when it comes here in 4 years though.
-
Fine, the ranking system is stupid. I really don't even care about it anymore, I more care that it seems every time there's a discussion about the way Americans handle things, you (and a fair amount of other HLPers) can't resist some comment about apparent American stupidity. Just gets old after a while.
If anti-Americanism gets old so does the silly view certain Americans have that your country can do no wrong even when what it's doing is patently absurd. Stop making your country a laughing stock. You could have simply admitted it was stupid and blamed the media. :p
Instead we got a long defence of the ranking system you use just because it's the one you use. Had that been a British system I doubt you would have seen any Brits defending it cause we would have agreed it was stupid long ago.
-
It's not really the first time that the American media has spread the inaccurate. I remember a few olympics ago, when Canadian Donovan Bailey won the 100m sprint the Americans were saying that their guy, some 200m runner was "the fastest in the world" or whatever. The two runners ended up having some 150m head to head run where Bailey kicked the american's ass (who incidentally, also pretended to pull a muscle and dropped back when defeat was imminent). But whatever, that's why I avoid American newscasts like the plague.
A few years ago someone also commented that the Canadian CBC differed from the American broadcaster in that they showed many events that didn't feature their own countries athletes.
Just wait til 2010! Canada won't be slanting the ranking system, because no matter how it's weighted we'll still be getting our asses kicked.
-
i think we will have to accept that the americans will always use different measuring systems to aid boost there national pride, wether the system is based on medals ,crop production , oil etc ,
all nations tend to read information differently if they didnt then being a history rechearcher would be aan easy job..
the only true way to work out ( if you really need to for some unknown abstract reason i.e national pride) who has done the best in the olympic competition is to use the points system divided by the number of events then by the number of inhabitants this will give the truest result ,
but then againif you do this the spirit olympic is dead and buried
if it isnt already....................................................... ............................
and the winner is
addidas
-
The ranking system is stupid, however, don't you think that if China were in our place, they'd do exactly the same thing? And lets face it, John Doe doesn't really care about the Olympics, he's probably just going to glance at a stats site like that and see that the US is on top.
Does that make him stupid? I don't think so, it just means he doesn't care enough to carefully analyse the method of ranking.
If anti-Americanism gets old so does the silly view certain Americans have that your country can do no wrong even when what it's doing is patently absurd. Stop making your country a laughing stock. You could have simply admitted it was stupid and blamed the media. :p
Instead we got a long defence of the ranking system you use just because it's the one you use. Had that been a British system I doubt you would have seen any Brits defending it cause we would have agreed it was stupid long ago.
Yes I agree it was a stupid discussion to begin with, but it's mostly a case of people feeling like they need to go on the defensive. While I'd love to get in a huddle with the other 305,000,000 Americans and tell them to not take things so personally, it's not going to happen.
IMHO, any country out there will try to arrange the data in a way that makes them look better, it's human nature. It's why you can't just take information as objective, because it never is.
-
The ranking system is stupid, however, don't you think that if China were in our place, they'd do exactly the same thing?
Probably. Does it make it any less stupid? Don't you want your country to be better than China? :D Do you really need to massage the truth to feel good about yourselves?
And lets face it, John Doe doesn't really care about the Olympics, he's probably just going to glance at a stats site like that and see that the US is on top.
Does that make him stupid? I don't think so, it just means he doesn't care enough to carefully analyse the method of ranking.
That doesn't make him stupid. He's just reading what was put in front of him. However if someone points out that the system is stupid and he does care enough to analyse the ranking method and then still says it's not stupid I'd have to question his objectivity.
Yes I agree it was a stupid discussion to begin with, but it's mostly a case of people feeling like they need to go on the defensive. While I'd love to get in a huddle with the other 305,000,000 Americans and tell them to not take things so personally, it's not going to happen.
So don't get defensive then. We're all friends here. Mongoose reignited this discussion to propose a better system and then went back to defending the current American one after I pointed out that his better system still wouldn't put America at the top.
If that isn't worthy of some gentle mocking I don't know what is. :p
-
Counting total medals is stupid and so is exclusively counting golds. You all are stupid. Everybody wins. Or loses. :D
-
All your ranking systems are stupid. :p
They give preference to the country that has the most ability to field the largest number of trained athletes. All they prove is that countries with lots of people have a better chance of having more people with extraordinary talents, countries with more money have the luxury of paying their athletes to do nothing but train, and who can send lots of athletes because their country isn't getting invaded by some other country or facing internal strife.
So are the Olympics supposed to be a measure of how successful a country is at suppression, imperialism, and domination?
Uzbekistan, North Korea, and the Bahamas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7576446.stm) are the real winners of this year's Olympics. :p
-
im just happy iran got a single gold medal, makes watching the games more worthwhile not to say i dont watch all 2 weeks worth.
afghanistan isreal and eygpt got bronze which is also good. however i was very happy to hear togo got 1 medal, and the first medal in the games ever.
-
I couldn't care less about the medal thing. All I know is that America has the most medals, while China has the most gold medals.
-
Uzbekistan, North Korea, and the Bahamas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7576446.stm) are the real winners of this year's Olympics. :p
Those stats still appear to be per medal and thus suffer from the same flaw the American system does. They should give points for each type and THEN divide by GDP, population, or size of the team. :p
-
I like spewing anti-American bull****. People might think it's old but I still find it fun.
-
I like spewing anti-American bull****. People might think it's old but I still find it fun.
Jeremy Clarkson seems to do that a lot too.
-
He insults everyone though.
-
Jeremy Clarkson seems to do that a lot too.
jeremy clarkson would be god if he wasnt a tory
but then again maybe god is a tory
-
Certainly from me it's not Anti-Americanism, I just noticed something ridiculous and commented on it, spawning this discussion. The fact it's America is incidental.
-
Certainly from me it's not Anti-Americanism, I just noticed something ridiculous and commented on it, spawning this discussion. The fact it's America is incidental.
That's basically how most of us feel. But some Americans are rather thin-skinned. I'll quite happily take the mickey out of any country* including my own.
*Except Belgium. There is absolutely nothing funny about Belgium. :p
-
hehe, 1. belgians have a knack for being more or less invisible to europe or anything really.
2. (usa) americans are very prideful about their country and a few that take it too far and make something out of nothing, generally very nice people however i hate the government which the americans have to live under.
3. Great Britain, putting too much blind love and failth into a monach of germans and greeks who stole their land in the 1200's consequently i hate their national anthem.
4. japanese crack me up laughing everytime they do a game show, everytime its completely different. probably one of the best people in the world.
i have opinions on every country including israel.
that said. Russia isn't as strong as i would of predicted, i would of expected them to of taking it to china and the United States, strange thing though seeing Great Britain and south korea so high up that list.
-
wat
watwatwat
watwat
(http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6128/1219585872601og5.jpg)
****ty shoop from 4chan is ****ty but true.
Well, I didn't really count em myself, nor do I care, but it looks damn good to me.
-
A pun on those inspirational posters again? :lol:
-
??? i dont get what you are saying.
-
If the BBC did that, it'd be an equivalent to what ESPN et al are doing.
-
So don't get defensive then. We're all friends here. Mongoose reignited this discussion to propose a better system and then went back to defending the current American one after I pointed out that his better system still wouldn't put America at the top.
To be perfectly honest, I did have the numbers switched around when I did the math for the points-based system initially, but I've already iterated and reiterated that I'd gladly take that system over either of the alternatives, no matter if we're in the lead or not. What gets me from a mathematical and OCD standpoint is seeing a table labeled "Medals Count" on the official Olympics website that has its final, summation column out-of-order numerically. The perfectionist side of my brain pulls something like, "But...gah...*broken*" Now, if they were to label that same table "Gold Medal Count," I wouldn't have any problem with it whatsoever, and this whole split need not have happened in the beginning. I'll fully agree that a silver or bronze medal doesn't equal a gold, but even so, at least the table we label "Medal Count" delivers what it promises, even if that statistic is rather non-informing.
(Ooh, can I throw in random asides about typical European inferiority complexes or something else nonsensically off-topic too? :p)
-
Does Great Britain usually do that well? Or are they throwing money at their athletes in preparation for 2012?
-
Where?
The investigation hasn't finished yet, so there's no possible way we know beyond rumors right now.
It was on the Olympic coverage last night. I was posting as one of those briefs in between events popped up.
-
Does Great Britain usually do that well? Or are they throwing money at their athletes in preparation for 2012?
They're throwing money at it. We were 10th last time IIRC.
-
as i recalled a handful of gold medals Great Britain got in Athens compared to Beijing.
-
I don't care if someone hates America. I do care if they hate me because I'm from America.
Although, I do want to point out that I've been told that my country is stupid quite a lot, and I kind of get the point now. While complaining about anti-americanism is not particularly meaningful in-of-itself, complaining about having anti-american stuff being shoved in your face every other time someone mentions the name "america" has some merit in it. It doesn't matter that it *is* anti-americanism, or anti-semantism, or anti-nazis, or anti-everything.
Things.
Get.
Old.
-
I guess people want to talk **** about America more than they want to click "Gold" on the ESPN website to rank the medals that way.
-
anti-semantism
I make no apologies for this; those conniving semantics can take their wily sophistry elsewhere.
-
:lol:
-
Well, the Olympics is over. Amazing how little attention I pay to sports... :blah:
-
I didn't even watch
Why you probably don't ask
well 1 because i don't care
and 2 because where i was i had no TV
and well i'm on the topic of the olympics Vancouver 2010 is gonna be awesome although i predict a serious lack of ass kickery by the Canadians (remember calgary?)
-
I guess people want to talk **** about America more than they want to click "Gold" on the ESPN website to rank the medals that way.
It's not about America, it's about an American website being Biased, and the fact the number of medals is the default.
-
That's right, you want to talk **** about America. I'm sure that every country that participated in the Olympics devoted a disproportionate amount of time and attention to their athletes and the number of medals won. Yet I don't see you or karajorma complaining about that.
If everybody were to follow your standards, every news station would be showing the same thing, talking about all the athletes from first-world nations who had the luxury of sending a lot of athletes who won a lot of medals. That would be unreasonable and inconsiderate to those countries who only sent a few athletes, but still managed to win a medal or even just break some records. Or hell, maybe just the big deal is that they were able to participate this year at all.
Let me ask you this. Did you care enough, in your crusade against bias, to actually check the websites of Mauritius, Togo, and Moldova? Or did you just kind of skip over those because you didn't care?
And in case you ask, I didn't bother to look either, but neither am I going to complain if they decide to list themselves first.
-
That's right, you want to talk **** about America. I'm sure that every country that participated in the Olympics devoted a disproportionate amount of time and attention to their athletes and the number of medals won. Yet I don't see you or karajorma complaining about that.
And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm sure Why are you assuming I should be outraged by that? I'm sure Uzbekistan spent a disproportionate amount of time on their medals and medal hopes too. Good on them. The people watching the Olympics are always going to be disproportionately interested in their own countries progress. If Moldova wants to devote half their Olympics airtime to athletes from Moldova and the population like that then so be it.
If everybody were to follow your standards, every news station would be showing the same thing, talking about all the athletes from first-world nations who had the luxury of sending a lot of athletes who won a lot of medals.
What standard? No was talking about airtime devoted to each country until you just brought it up.
Let me ask you this. Did you care enough, in your crusade against bias, to actually check the websites of Mauritius, Togo, and Moldova? Or did you just kind of skip over those because you didn't care?
Did anyone link one of those sites? Someone linked an American site. Had someone linked a Mauritian site which put them at the top we'd have laughed heartily at it too. But I've got better things to do than go looking for websites from Moldova on the off-chance that they might be funny.
-
And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm sure Why are you assuming I should be outraged by that? I'm sure Uzbekistan spent a disproportionate amount of time on their medals and medal hopes too. Good on them. The people watching the Olympics are always going to be disproportionately interested in their own countries progress. If Moldova wants to devote half their Olympics airtime to athletes from Moldova and the population like that then so be it.
I'm assuming you're "outraged"? That's funny, I don't remember accusing you of being outraged...probably because I didn't.
What standard? No was talking about airtime devoted to each country until you just brought it up.
Not your standard, Kie's standard - that being biased enough to simply put things in the order that puts the thing that your target audience is interested in to be in the most prominent position is wrong, even when the facts are correct.
Did anyone link one of those sites? Someone linked an American site. Had someone linked a Mauritian site which put them at the top we'd have laughed heartily at it too. But I've got better things to do than go looking for websites from Moldova on the off-chance that they might be funny.
They had the passion, raw talent, energy, and willingness to do what it takes and make whatever personal sacrifices are necessary to go to the Olympics, compete against the best athletes the world has to offer, and managed to achieve a medal. Maybe not the best medal, but still a medal. So their country decides to recognize them for representing their country at the Olympics, for choosing to believe in something greater than themselves, and having achieved something that both the athlete and their country can be proud of.
And you can't see anything in that but an excuse to laugh at a country? :wtf:
I'm not saying that equal treatment is right. I'm saying that this whole affair, that a country should treat its athletes impartially, is absurd. It goes against the spirit of the Olympics and against human nature. There's a reason that they don't have all the athletes strip down, shave their head, and slap a number on to their chest and demand that they give up all national affinity for the duration of the games, and it's got nothing to do with athletic performance.
-
you wouldn't be saying that to an athlete in any sport who competes for their country. that national affinity defiantly matters to each athlete.
an example of that was togo, that athlete went on that rapids knowing he could get his homes first medal and succeed and if you saw the end of that round after he just finished, he broke his paddle in half and celebrated and i imagined the people of togo really enjoyed that.
so what if these countries home website has then up top even with just one medal, they deserve to do so and express some pride in their work they put into it. on the other end of the scale if you got a country who just does it every time its probably one of these easy 'to find your country' results, it has absolutely anything to do with biased media. as for airtime, Uzbekistan and Moldova has only a dozen or two athletes and if they wish to devote their airtime to it, so be it. it's not up to you to decide that.
-
I'm assuming you're "outraged"? That's funny, I don't remember accusing you of being outraged...probably because I didn't.
You said i should be arguing against it.
I'm sure that every country that participated in the Olympics devoted a disproportionate amount of time and attention to their athletes and the number of medals won. Yet I don't see you or karajorma complaining about that.
So again. Why the hell do you feel I should be complaining about it? Cause I'm really not.
They had the passion, raw talent, energy, and willingness to do what it takes and make whatever personal sacrifices are necessary to go to the Olympics, compete against the best athletes the world has to offer, and managed to achieve a medal. Maybe not the best medal, but still a medal. So their country decides to recognize them for representing their country at the Olympics, for choosing to believe in something greater than themselves, and having achieved something that both the athlete and their country can be proud of.
And you can't see anything in that but an excuse to laugh at a country? :wtf:
What the hell are you arguing about now? You seem to having both sides of this argument in your head without any relation to what I'm actually posting.
I have absolutely no problem with countries being proud of their achievements. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. They can cheer their athletes when they come home. They can call them heroes and be rightfully proud that they did so well against countries which spend more money and time on the Olympics than they do. I don't find any of that funny.
However if a country which won one silver medal organises the Olympics table to put them at the top and say "WE WON THE OLYMPICS!" then yes I'm going to laugh at them cause it's delusional.
I'm not saying that equal treatment is right. I'm saying that this whole affair, that a country should treat its athletes impartially, is absurd.
At what point did you form the opinion that I don't think it's absurd? Did I ever say they should? In fact didn't I just say the exact opposite in my last post?
I'm sure Uzbekistan spent a disproportionate amount of time on their medals and medal hopes too. Good on them.
-
well think of it this way karajorma, just yourself in the shows of someone who has never scored a point in a very competitive event in over 6 years and you don't expect any points this time either, however you do better but not by much, then you get a bit of luck and finally score that point, your completely estatic with the result, it would be like winning the championship in comparison. now how would you feel honestly after all that turmoil to have someone laugh at you saying, your crap and that was a piss poor result then laughs at you? even so you would be annoyed beyond belief because you really tried hard knowing its next to impossible with such a great competitive field.
my point is i would applaud thier effort knowing they are the real underdogs and not point and laugh at them. however if you think that is wise so be it.
-
Damnit people, when will you learn.
The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Charter#Chapter_1:_The_Olympic_Movement_and_its_Action
-
that seems to be an invalid rule, especially when celebrating your win right after with your national flag and national anthem, not only that but a small flag appears as cgi onscreen on a live feed or next to a persons name. so much for that rule... also the medal tables go against that rule also.
-
Not following it demeans the athletes themselves. It's supposed to be their win, not their country's.
Besides, it's in the first chapter of the bloody Olympic Charter!
-
Not following it demeans the athletes themselves. It's supposed to be their win, not their country's.
Fine. I'll have the money back we paid them to train with then. :p
@Al Tarket : Try actually reading what I wrote. Then comment. :rolleyes:
-
See? Everyone wins! And I'd wager that in some events, the athletes were not trained by their nacional association coach or equivalent, but by their club or even their own coach. Meaning they spent their own money in training. :p
Besides, there have been independent athletes in the Olympics.
-
Wat?
It's over?
Man I didn't even see any of it.
Who won?
-
Besides, there have been independent athletes in the Olympics.
Fine. We can add an independent category for them. :p
But I suspect if you asked most of the athletes concerned they are proud to represent their country.
-
Wat?
It's over?
Man I didn't even see any of it.
Who won?
We should have swapped places for the previous sixteen days... :p
-
Besides, there have been independent athletes in the Olympics.
Fine. We can add an independent category for them. :p
But I suspect if you asked most of the athletes concerned they are proud to represent their country.
But that's the thing, they aren't representing their country, they are representing themselves. The Olympic games are supposed to be about them, the best athletes in the world, not where they came from.
-
Perhaps that was true last time, Ghost, but it seems that it has changed. Formula 1 used to be pretty simple too; one man builds a car, races around a track with other people who built their own cars, and one man wins the prize money.*
* - According to Jeremy Clarkson, that is.[size] :nervous:
-
But that's the thing, they aren't representing their country, they are representing themselves.
Which brings me back to my argument that they can damn well pay for themselves to be there in that case.
I can't speak for other countries but I know that Team GB were paid a very large amount of cash from lottery grants that could have been spent on other things. I don't mind cause they are representing the country. If you want to argue that they aren't then explain why the country should pay for them?
-
I have no idea why they would pay for it. My reasoning is that if it's the athletes that are competing, their win should be their own.
If not, then having multiple athletes from the same country competing in the same event is somewhat uncompetitive.
-
Let me put it this way. If top scorer of the year can be won by Cristiano Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney do you say it's uncompetitive because they both play for Manchester United? Would you say that everyone should pick one individual they like and not be able to say that they don't care who wins as long as it's a Man U player who beats everyone else?
In the case of the Olympics there is more personal achievement in winning an individual event than in a team sport like football but that doesn't mean you can simply discount the team's achievement completely.
-
Let me put it this way. If top scorer of the year can be won by Cristiano Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney do you say it's uncompetitive because they both play for Manchester United? Would you say that everyone should pick one individual they like and not be able to say that they don't care who wins as long as it's a Man U player who beats everyone else?
But that's an award that's separate from the sport itself. They didn't have to participate in a tournament where the prize for first place was "top scorer of the year". It's not exactly relevant to the discussion at hand.
In the case of the Olympics there is more personal achievement in winning an individual event than in a team sport like football but that doesn't mean you can simply discount the team's achievement completely.
If a team wins, it's the team's win, not their entire country's win. Not all those couch potatos' at home win, or their closest rival's at home win, it's their own and nobody else's win. To make it count towards some medal count demeans those athletes and the spirit of the Olympics.
-
By that logic any football supporter who says "My team won!" demeans their football teams victory. After all they did nothing to help them win except cheering and giving them money via ticket sales.
-
By that logic any football supporter who says "My team won!" demeans their football teams victory. After all they did nothing to help them win except cheering and giving them money via ticket sales.
His team won opposed to his "country" won event ABC in the Olympic games. See the difference?
He didn't win, the team won. He attributed credit to where it's due. In the second he didn't.
-
He's called it his team however. Which then brings us to the point of exactly what makes it his. Why is he taking a personal stake in the victory of a team who have nothing to do with him.
-
But he isn't a part of the team. It's his team because he supports it, not because he is part of it. Spectators' psychology is not exactly my forte. :p
Regardless, I think you should ask for your money back and so should I unfortunatly.
-
So consequently if the athletes say that their country is their team you'd withdraw your objections?
-
Yes and no. If they are ok with being treated like that it's their problem, even though other athletes might not feel the same.
But the fact remains that the Olympic spirit (not to mention the Olympic charter) is not being followed.
-
However if a country which won one silver medal organises the Olympics table to put them at the top and say "WE WON THE OLYMPICS!" then yes I'm going to laugh at them cause it's delusional.
Which isn't at all what ESPN did. Even in your own words, earlier in the thread, you stated that:
The system American websites are using on the other hand says nothing of value. The best you can sum it up is as "It doesn't matter if you're best at the Olympics as long as you are amongst the best"
That's a far cry from "WE WON THE OLYMPICS!". That's also what it seems like any country which ranked itself first despite not placing anywhere near the top in terms of medals would be saying. So since you're willing to deride ESPN for doing that, but not websites for any other country, I conclude that you're just talking **** about America because you want to do that more than sort the table by golds or use a different website that orders it the way you want.
Of course, even if you go to the official website (http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/CHI/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml), they still rank the countries by total medals as well as gold medals, and don't use any kind of point system in tallying the total.
-
They also rank the countries by silver medals. But no one uses that ranking because it's stupid.
And as I said before, if you point out a website from another country using a stupid system to rank the medals I'll take the piss out of them too. I'm only taking the piss out of the Americans because I haven't seen anyone else doing it. If you can point to a website from the Bahamas which is placing them as the winners in its default configuration because it's working on medals divided by population I'll quite happily take the piss out of them too.
Not as much perhaps cause anyone from the Bahamas would probably laugh with me and agree that it was silly.
If you found a nation which organized the table not on golds but on silvers or bronzes and put themselves on top cause of that I'd mercilessly take the piss. Unfortunately I'd probably get accused of anti-Americanism again since they got the most of those two types. :p
-
Wat?
It's over?
Man I didn't even see any of it.
Who won?
Phelps
That's right, you want to talk **** about America. I'm sure that every country that participated in the Olympics devoted a disproportionate amount of time and attention to their athletes and the number of medals won. Yet I don't see you or karajorma complaining about that.
If everybody were to follow your standards, every news station would be showing the same thing, talking about all the athletes from first-world nations who had the luxury of sending a lot of athletes who won a lot of medals. That would be unreasonable and inconsiderate to those countries who only sent a few athletes, but still managed to win a medal or even just break some records. Or hell, maybe just the big deal is that they were able to participate this year at all.
Let me ask you this. Did you care enough, in your crusade against bias, to actually check the websites of Mauritius, Togo, and Moldova? Or did you just kind of skip over those because you didn't care?
And in case you ask, I didn't bother to look either, but neither am I going to complain if they decide to list themselves first.
I'm frankly amazed at how defensive someone can get over me commenting on a link someone posted. Of course I didn't go around checking Mauritian websites, no-one posted links to them. If Mauritius had the most medals overall, and someone posted a link to their medal table listing them as first I'd have laughed at that. It's not anti-American, or a "crusade against bias" it was just one instance of blatant bias that I found to be unusual considering every other medal table I've seen has listed the countries by Gold medals first. I sincerely apologise if I've wounded your sense of national pride.
-
The whole point that a few of us were arguing in here to begin with was that the "total medals count" method wasn't showing any particular national bias to begin with, but rather a sort of "significance bias" medal-wise. That same argument could be made in the opposite way for the gold-ranking list, at least so long as it wasn't labeled "Gold Medal Count." That's it, really. I certainly didn't see any need to get overly defensive about any of this from any party...as long as we all agree at the end of the day that China was h@xing in women's gymnastics. :p
-
I'm frankly amazed at how defensive someone can get over me commenting on a link someone posted. Of course I didn't go around checking Mauritian websites, no-one posted links to them. If Mauritius had the most medals overall, and someone posted a link to their medal table listing them as first I'd have laughed at that. It's not anti-American, or a "crusade against bias" it was just one instance of blatant bias that I found to be unusual considering every other medal table I've seen has listed the countries by Gold medals first. I sincerely apologise if I've wounded your sense of national pride.
(1) I don't agree with the statement that ranking the medals by total is "worthless", but it seems even less constructive to pursue that topic. There's lots of complexity you could bring up in terms of ranking medals with each other - for instance, does 1/100 of a second really mean that a gold medal is worth that much more than a silver?
(2) It really is tiring to have people throwing around your nationality and generalizing everybody who's a part of that nation over things that a fraction of a segment of people have any kind of direct control over.
(3) It's very hard to not see it as criticism of America when that's the unifying word being used. It's not "ESPN", it's an "American website". I could analyze your choice of words but I think it would be better to give a similar example.
If I were talking about "intolerant Muslims" and comparing them to Jews, painting the "intolerant Muslims" in a bad light and "Jews" in a neutral to good light, do you think it would be reasonable for somebody who was Muslim to object?
I think it would be. If you don't understand why, we may just be reading things differently.
-
I'm frankly amazed at how defensive someone can get over me commenting on a link someone posted. Of course I didn't go around checking Mauritian websites, no-one posted links to them. If Mauritius had the most medals overall, and someone posted a link to their medal table listing them as first I'd have laughed at that. It's not anti-American, or a "crusade against bias" it was just one instance of blatant bias that I found to be unusual considering every other medal table I've seen has listed the countries by Gold medals first. I sincerely apologise if I've wounded your sense of national pride.
(1) I don't agree with the statement that ranking the medals by total is "worthless", but it seems even less constructive to pursue that topic. There's lots of complexity you could bring up in terms of ranking medals with each other - for instance, does 1/100 of a second really mean that a gold medal is worth that much more than a silver?
Yes it is, because it means you won.
(2) It really is tiring to have people throwing around your nationality and generalizing everybody who's a part of that nation over things that a fraction of a segment of people have any kind of direct control over.
(3) It's very hard to not see it as criticism of America when that's the unifying word being used. It's not "ESPN", it's an "American website". I could analyze your choice of words but I think it would be better to give a similar example.
If I were talking about "intolerant Muslims" and comparing them to Jews, painting the "intolerant Muslims" in a bad light and "Jews" in a neutral to good light, do you think it would be reasonable for somebody who was Muslim to object?
The word "American" is relevant because they're showing bias towards America. If it had been Moldovan website, I would have said "the Moldovan website" If the Muslim did object he'd be overly defensive in my view as long as you're not referring to all Muslims as intolerant
-
If someone made a table ranking religions and put Islam at the top based on similar nonsense you can bet I'd laugh at it too.
Right up until the death threats started. :p
-
If someone put religions through something like the Olympics, I think I'd laugh anyway.
-
Who can pray non-stop without repeating for the longest amount of time...
Prayernastics...
Longest ohme meditation...
Most stunning prayer position...
Rush to the temple (of death!!!)
Mountain templing (mountain bike from the temple race)
The tempathlon.
and I think someone needs to include stone throwing (by distance) in the Olympics. That would be interesting, seeing someone throw something 100m. (A fifty gram steel ball, so no aerodynamic advantage for "slingers" over "over armers")