2008 and future Olympic Games.

Maggern · Jun 7, 2011

Re: China Takes home World Sniper Cup. 2011

t2contra said:
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.

bd popeye · Jun 7, 2011

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.

Red___Sword · Jun 7, 2011

bd popeye said:
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!

HKSDU · Jun 8, 2011

Re: China Takes home World Sniper Cup. 2011

vesicles said:
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

solarz · Jun 8, 2011

Re: China Takes home World Sniper Cup. 2011

vesicles said:
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.

bd popeye · Jun 8, 2011

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.

You are right. That's why I only put the medal count from 1988. I did not include 1984 because the SU did not compete. And in 1980 the US under Pres. Jimmy Carter did not compete.

vesicles · Jun 8, 2011

Bltizo said:
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.

Numbers are numbers. I don't see any logic in choosing one over others. So why is choosing 3, 2,1 or 5,3,1 more logical than choosing 4,3,2? Also the only reason that I picked 4,3,2 system is that the GPA system in the States uses 4 points for A, 3 points for B and 2 points for C (assuming gold is equivalent of an A, silver a B and bronze a C). This system is almost universal throughout all school levels in the US. Since I'm a nerd, the first numbering system that came to my mind is the 4,3,2 system. That's all. To me, it's very logical since that's the system I've been using for most of my life.

solarz said:
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.

Agreed. However, even in those sports where China dominates, can you say those athletes getting the silver and bronze are not world class? If they are, they need to be recognized for their achievements. Yet, the paradox is that they are recognized by getting the metal, but totally ignored by not being counted in comparing national athletic strength if using the gold metal count system.

solarz said:
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.

Yes, but you gotta have a cut-off line somewhere. It's like in school, if you get a 90, you get an A. If you get an 89, you get a B. Can you say these two students are a letter grade apart? No, they are actually on a similar level, but you got to have a cut-off point somewhere. If you happen to get an 89, too bad for you... (it happened to me a number of times in college). the system in my graduate school is a little better because they get A+, A and A-. So if you get an 89, you are A-, which is the same letter as 90. But there is still a cut-off line, where someone getting a slightly worse score becomes a letter grade lower. So what do yo do? You feel sorry for the guy getting 89 and decide that from now on, 89 is an A. So what about the guy getting 88? He'll feel bad about getting a B since he's only a point lower. You can't keep moving the cut-off point down... Same with the metals in Olympics.

bluewater2012 · Jun 8, 2011

vesicles said:
Numbers are numbers. I don't see any logic in choosing one over others. So why is choosing 3, 2,1 or 5,3,1 more logical than choosing 4,3,2? Also the only reason that I picked 4,3,2 system is that the GPA system in the States uses 4 points for A, 3 points for B and 2 points for C (assuming gold is equivalent of an A, silver a B and bronze a C). This system is almost universal throughout all school levels in the US. Since I'm a nerd, the first numbering system that came to my mind is the 4,3,2 system. That's all. To me, it's very logical since that's the system I've been using for most of my life.

The problem is with the numbers which like you said, A, 3 points for B and 2 points for C and 1 for D (assuming gold is equivalent of an A, silver a B and bronze a C) but there is no fourth place, so that number comparison are flawed.

Imagine using 4,3,2 as 1st, 2nd & 3rd. 3rd place is only two points below 1st and 2nd is only 1 points below 1st. It does not even out. A more fair comparison should be 5, 3, 1 where each are two points apart. Or 3,2,1 each with 1 points apart. The flaw with your number is 4,3,2 (missing 1) is with a fourth position in mind, while what we're discussing only account of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, both different mindset.

-on a second thought, all the numbers lining doesn't matter and your could say 3,2,1 also works the same as above. So, it just looks weird to start with 4 since there no fourth place to being with so I'll drop this.

vesicles · Jun 8, 2011

bluewater2012 said:
The problem is with the numbers which like you said, A, 3 points for B and 2 points for C and 1 for D (assuming gold is equivalent of an A, silver a B and bronze a C) but there is no fourth place, so that number comparison are flawed.

No, I said A is 4 points, NOT 3 points. You can go back to my original post to check.

Like I said in my last post, I proposed the 4, 3, 2 system because of the GPA (grade point average) system used in grade schools and colleges across the country in the US. That's it. I proposed the system because this system is the most familiar to me. That's all. If you think you have a better system, fine. Just don't try to argue how illogical my system is since the system I proposed is a well established system used by hundreds of millions for decades. Apparently, many people think there is good logic in it.

Plus, I threw out the 4,3,2 system as an example to start things off. Apparently, I succeeded.

bladerunner · Jun 9, 2011

In the first modern olympics the organisers got it partially right when the winner got silver and the second place getter was awarded the bronze. Nothing for third. However they should have stuck to the ancient greek tradition of only acknowledging the winner.

2008 and future Olympic Games.

Maggern

Junior Member

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

Red___Sword

Junior Member

HKSDU

Junior Member

solarz

Brigadier

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

vesicles

Colonel

bluewater2012

Junior Member

vesicles

Colonel

bladerunner

Banned Idiot