| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
whitebeagle
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MANDRL
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Location: South Korea
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I have already said this in another thread, but here it goes again. The United States is the only opinion that matters. If the US says it is total medal count that counts, than it is the total medal count. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeseface
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Ssyangnyeon Shi
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MANDRL
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The funny thing is, unless you are Chinese, the Americans on this board can talk all the shit they want about medal count. The next closest country to the US by the standards set forth on this thread would be Great Britain. So, using the gold medal count, users on this message board are as follows:
31 United States
18 Great Britain
12 Austraila
11 South Korea
3 Canada
3 New Zealand
Why do they award silver and bronze medals if they are not included in the medal count? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellofaniceguy
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: On your computer screen!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MANDRL wrote: |
Why do they award silver and bronze medals if they are not included in the medal count? |
It's the total of all medals won that counts......not just gold. Anyone with common sense can figure that out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hellofaniceguy wrote: |
| MANDRL wrote: |
Why do they award silver and bronze medals if they are not included in the medal count? |
It's the total of all medals won that counts......not just gold. Anyone with common sense can figure that out. |
That's how I tend to see it, too, though there is something to be said for a hatful of golds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitebeagle
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whether or not it makes sense counting only gold; it just amuses me that USA are the only ones counting it as total medals because thats the only way that puts them in front. The established international measure is, and has always been, gold and only gold.
I bet if you ask pretty much any top athlete they would say its gold or nothing. That's certainly what a lot of silver / bronze medallists suggested in post-race interview, the british womens quad skulls were devastated with "only silver".
Silver and bronze are certainly not meaningless, but the olympics is about excellence. And excellence = gold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tfunk
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It should be weighted.
A gold should be worth 3, silver 2, bronze 1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesus Christ you Commonwealther flunkies can find any bloody reason at all to spout off about the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| whitebeagle wrote: |
| Whether or not it makes sense counting only gold; it just amuses me that USA are the only ones counting it as total medals because thats the only way that puts them in front. |
No, the US did not suddenly strart doing this with the aim of looking better. They did it when they won more golds too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulsanchris
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: take a wild guess
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The US can be sore losers. Just remember when Donovan Bailey won the gold medal at the 100m. Amercian's started to claim that the American who had won the 200m was the fastest man in the world. The standard has always been the 100m but the Americans tried to change. That was pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ulsanchris wrote: |
| The US can be sore losers. Just remember when Donovan Bailey won the gold medal at the 100m. Amercian's started to claim that the American who had won the 200m was the fastest man in the world. The standard has always been the 100m but the Americans tried to change. That was pathetic. |
The "US" is a country, not a person. Would you tolerate such generalizing about any other group? How about this, Britain has bad teeth and wears tracksuits. Canada dresses poorly and is unsophisticated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| ulsanchris wrote: |
| The US can be sore losers. Just remember when Donovan Bailey won the gold medal at the 100m. Amercian's started to claim that the American who had won the 200m was the fastest man in the world. The standard has always been the 100m but the Americans tried to change. That was pathetic. |
The "US" is a country, not a person. Would you tolerate such generalizing about any other group? How about this, Britain has bad teeth and wears tracksuits. Canada dresses poorly and is unsophisticated. |
No, mises. He's right. We decided that the new standard would be the 200m, and reacted accordingly. We have meetings for co-ordinating this stuff. The logistics is quite a bitch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I_Am_The_Kiwi
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tfunk wrote: |
It should be weighted.
A gold should be worth 3, silver 2, bronze 1. |
and it should be compared to population......
meaning that China and USA would be waaay down the list considering their population compared to medals. Where as NZ, Jamaica, even Aus i think would be heading up the top of the list....
if were gonna whine about something do it right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I_Am_The_Kiwi wrote: |
| tfunk wrote: |
It should be weighted.
A gold should be worth 3, silver 2, bronze 1. |
and it should be compared to population......
meaning that China and USA would be waaay down the list considering their population compared to medals. Where as NZ, Jamaica, even Aus i think would be heading up the top of the list....
if were gonna whine about something do it right. |
And we can adjust the population differentials further to reflect that only a limited number of entrants is allowed for each country . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
