2008 Beijing Olympics

china now in most country's new report ranks the first,if america has its own way to count them,let them do that,kind of funny,but that's ok,most non american posters here agree on gold comes first.that's enough.you win,you win. you lose, you lose.it is very simple.

Then rank it like that, like I said the US has ALWAYS used the total count in their ranking, if you want to rank it by gold then do so...but in the US it has ALWAYS been done like this, despite our gold medal ranking. It has nothing to do with "nationalism" or anything, it has to do with...well...that being how we've always done it. There are no "rules" that say you have to show it a certain way, which is how many of you are acting...it's ridiculous.

The Olympics table is always calculated on gold count. This goes back to the original Olympics of Ancient Greece. Gold is the most important medal at the event - it means you've "won" a particular event - so that is why the number of gold is the main variable in calculating the ranking table.

The American Olympic team knows this, so why is this so hard to understand?

Just because American media goes on total count does not mean it is correct.

America doesn't rule the world you know

I'm starting to see why Yellowcard has been on my ignore list for a very long time.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by infinite]

Which world is that in?




The US is even taking a unilateral approach to counting medals now. Join the rest of the world and the offical olympic governing body in representing the right way to post medal achivements.



So what?. That was before and this is now. How does refering to the "old ways" make it anymore right?. The new system is more fair in the competition and more detailed giving a winner instead of a "tie"



LOL.



You said "total medal count " which is the name of the US system of counting medals and in reply to Voxs post regarding how medals are measured. I dont think you are able to comprehend how the discussion is progressing and posting on impulse without letting the information settle through




Because its their small achievment which given the circumstances is a rare feat.



That is COMPLETELY different from a indiviual race or event. Off course a divisional winner is decided. But if you compete with NATIONAL titles you get a NATIONAL award




Did they win?, who won?????. I missed the final?????.

Winning a silver is like coming second in a race. Because their is 3 "winning" positions the loser can rest on mediocrcy knowing that he won something. Doesn't make people try to achieve the impossible. People go into events thinking they will just settle for silver and just do that. Take that away and they can only aim to win

Metric vs Standard

Awww, I'm on your ignore list, and you even stated it publicly. That's so...nice? I guess if I weren't on your ignore list you would see how I just pretty much dismantled everyone's arguments.

As for you "gold medal ranking system" claim, that is completely untrue, considering the International Olympic Committee does not recognize ranking by total medal tally at all. It ranks by country, don't believe me?

What is the Ranking System at International Olympic Committee at Olympic Games?

Hey guys, why don't you keep making up stuff so you can prove your points.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by yellowcard]

The table you see is the official and most common way the IOC and the World tallies the medal count. US can claim it is number one, but the IOC will not. See table from 2004;

IOC Athens 2004

You'll notice the IOC does not even include TOTAL COUNT on its information display.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only.

The Official Report, at the end of the games, will include the final ranking (I believe it is points, which China is currently winning) but the IOC pay no attention to national ranking systems. So trolling by nationalist on this board claiming "U.S.A. #1" can shout and waste bandwidth all they like - the IOC and the rest of the world do not recognise the US system of scoring.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by infinite]

not always like that,google new shows china ranks the first based on the gold medals.
news.google.com...

This one, I guess you think calling someone "ignorant" is also a personal attack?



What is the Ranking System at International Olympic Committee at Olympic Games?



Really? You are really trying to say this? And yet you believe that there is a "standard" (which isn't the standard)



Your post said something along the lines of "I don't see a total medal tally" I'm sorry that I take the English language literally.




Yet, you believe they shouldn't be recognized at all for that feat?



Not really, considering conferences and divisions are only ways to make bracketing easier to reach the National title...





This makes 0 sense.



Take that away and there is no need for 90% of the athletes in the Olympic games, and most of the Nations can leave too, because they have no chance at winning gold, only the "super powers' have a real chance at most competitions. You do realize that not everyone, from every country can afford to be a "full time" athlete. I hardly consider being second or third best in the world...as "mediocrity."

Official Olympic site:

Medal Ranking System

The main ranking system is gold count and there is a minor system for total. But, as we can all see, the main ranking is gold.

I cannot believe some members are so puerile and dissolute that they would rather worry about the scoring system at the Olympics than worry about the War in Georgia.

I'm not saying "U.S.A. #1"..... You do know what you just posted means right? Because you just proved my point...

"the medal tables are displayed for information only"



Oh, look on the far right it says "rank by total"...



Really? That's ironic because you posted in this thread instead of focusing specifically on the War in Georgia threads...

[edit on 19-8-2008 by yellowcard]

Australian media jokingly wanted to use the American system so they finished higher than the British (massive rivalry between us and the Aussie's), but the news presenter pointed out;

The American system is not used because it is unfair because a country could win 34 bronze and no gold and finish top. The IOC see this as unfair, gold is what counts.

The Australian government have conceded defeat to Great Britain as well

I always thought whoever had most gold won.

Even if you applied a 3 2 1 point system, china would be ahead.

Depends how you would use the word "ignorant", if you had the higher case and one side was ignoring blatant information and globally acknowledged information such as the world is a shpere than he is clearly ignorant and thus acceptable to call him ignorant. If you use it because he doesn't see the one thing as you and thus ambigious then no, its not a acceptable word to use and hence a personal attack. You called me a fool, what other connotations do you think the word represents



So you link me to a Blog?

This comment left below answers you question
"Thanks for the reply, IOC clearly says that it does not recognize 1,2,3 slots for countries ( I have made some observations at my post in my blog ), and it creates the medal table info only for information, so why the countries stick to the ranking system when IOC itself a body of all the countries says it does not.....in true spirit. I think the answer lies in IOC's stand that it does not recognize global ranking per country (Is this the Olympic Spirit ?)...then why this practice amidst us ?"

The IOC uses this as a way to foster olympic spirit amongst the competition but their website CLEARLY uses their offical method to rank the competition



No, not really. Yes they should get rewarded for their feat and become a icon in their country but not with a silver medal



Yes, that is a way to find the best athlete countrywide. You obviously need to go around looking for them and no award should be given such as coming first etc. You then move to the national titles where you can ultimately win the national title



Why would they?. More than 90% of athletes should not recieve a medal anyway so I think their is any big deal in not allowing silver and bronze. Its a good achivement to get to the olympics and anything is possible there. I love to see a good battle with the under-dogs

Really?.

So your case rest on this "fact"???. USAtoday and ESPN are both large news organisations who "changed" it to be more patriotic


www.guardian.co.uk...


ESPN

proxy.espn.go.com...

Beijing 2008 - Spot the difference

sports.espn.go.com...


There is most definately more but as I dont live in America I dont really know all of them. So your argument that the US "always" used the total medal count is null



Add Yahoo as well. From one of their articles.

He says we came second in athens even through we had the third most medals and we are leading the medal race even though America has slightly more bronze medals. Apprantly the US "always" used the total medal system



Link




[edit on 20-8-2008 by chinawhite]

china now can absolutely secure its top rank for this olympics.

Watch the mens even bar event, and that will pretty much tell you just how fair the gymnastics events are. I refused to be one of those "whiners," but after watching the insane and near flawless routine of the United States Athlete and getting etched out by .025 with a performance from a Chinese athlete that was fairly tame with comparable execution. I refuse to pull the nationalism card, but damn that must be painful knowing that the only reason you were beat is because another country vouched for it's people to win.


No longer are the Olympics the Olympics. Just another display of gross wealth, greed, treachery, and money.

But, on a side note. How intense is Usain Bolt? He is incredible! Such an inspiration. I love racing, as you can't rig the heart and determination of a runner or swimmer. I'm over the scored exhibitions.

the judges are from around the world,the for gymnastics,the system now is the difficulity points and performance points combined together to get your final points.evne you perform flawlessly,if your difficulty points were low,you still can get a very high score.but anyway,they are not chinese judges.

reply to post by haidian

---

I'm well aware of how the scoring system works. The routine difficulty for the American was much higher than that of the Chinese Olympian. And as I said, fairly comparable in execution, but the American suffers a .025 loss to someone who had an obviously inferior routine? Money talks and the Olympics are no different.

in every olympic games chinese team suffers from what i think unfair treatment,including this olympics.but that's only my personal opinion.during past olympics chinese delegation lodged several complaints,but no result.that is the game and how it works.if you think host countries must have paid off judges and refereec,america has had several olympics on their land.and i dont believe host countries must have paid off judges.dont be a sore loser.

Kai Zou had a higher difficulty level than Horton. I think it was 7 compare to 6.9 and Zai Zou had the better execution. You obviously missed Kai's actual routine since it wasn't "fairly tame" in comparison. Anyhow Horton did do a few new tricks compare to what he did in the group routines which was impressive considering what he got before. Anyhow, this probably explains why and not some "unfair" judging