Yuki's Passion 1 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Having a chat with Chriselle this morning about the upcoming Canada vs US hockey game and it was mentioned that more golds is better than the total amount of medals. I think the number of golds is important, but I think the total balance of medals is most important. What if Country A had 10 gold medals, but nothing else; and Country B had 5 gold, 5 silver, and 5 bronze. To me country B seems stronger. Now, what if Country C had 20 bronzes? Is there a better country? Out of those 3 Id go with Country B. What do you think? And for what its worth, Canada is going to get spanked in hockey Link to post Share on other sites
Chriselle 158 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I think it's all just fuel for friendly banter with a lot of winks and nudges. Good stuff however way you see it. Canada tomorrow...it's our birthright. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 to be honest I think its who has most Golds.........who cares about the also rans? The name of any competitive sport is winning right? So celebrating 2nd and 3rd place is just celebrating losing. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Yep it's all about the golds. No one remembers who came 2nd or 3rd! Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 It should be F1 - 10 points for a gold, 5 for a silver, 3 for a bronze or whatevah Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 Interesting because while you dont remember who comes in 2nd or 3rd there are many individual/team sports where the teams win based on overall points like Bobby12 mentioned such as swimming and track. random rant, is this tsunami news going just a bit overboard? Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Unless its a relay team, I don't think it should be on points. It should be 1st across the finish line who are the champs and everyone else can go suck eggs Link to post Share on other sites
boardbaka 3 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 its about golds for sure - and the same for summer games I think most people would agree Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Yep let's leave the it's ok not to be first to the schoolies. This is the Olympics, it's go for gold or go home. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 It seems strange that Japan and Finland are both above Aus on the medal table ... despite neither country having bagged a Gold, and Aus has two....but it is on total haul, not the colours in the haul. If it is going to be on total medal haul rather than medal colour then it is always going to be the countries with the largest representation who go home with their names at the very top end of the medal table. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 I'm Scottish, we are absolute pish at EVERYTHING, we never win anything, but you'll not hear me supporting the total medals haul. It's first past the post and thats it. Giving "runners-up" medals to kids is ok to keep their spirits up but for Adults its namby-pamby shite. This isn't just a rant about the Olympics, I never understand why in the World Cup there is a 3rd and 4th place play off.......who cares!! You didn't win it so just sod off and get a couple beers down your neck! (my rant also includes when we are competing as part of GB during the Olympics) Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 gold - always believe in your soul. Link to post Share on other sites
gareth_oau 2 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 i put this together a few days ago, so the detail is now outdated, but it does a comparison between total, gold and points. points assumes G=3, S=2, B=1 There are a few subtle movements but overall, not a massive difference Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Gold. No one wants silver. No one wants bronze. Simple really. Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 As Sienfeld once said. " Second place means your are the first loser. Out of all the losers, your the best in that group". Link to post Share on other sites
Slippery Jim 65 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 It's not about the medals; it's about doing your best. Link to post Share on other sites
Chriselle 158 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim It's not about the medals; it's about doing your best. To get what? A MEDAL! Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Only one winner. Doing your best.... to be a loser. Just isn't kosher. Link to post Share on other sites
stemik 14 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 though i believe that gold medal counts are the best for the medal table.... Coming in 2nd or third or fourth...is still awesome considering you are second best in a total of 6 billion + Not a loser in my books Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 Originally Posted By: gareth_oau i put this together a few days ago, so the detail is now outdated, but it does a comparison between total, gold and points. points assumes G=3, S=2, B=1 There are a few subtle movements but overall, not a massive difference doesnt canada have the most golds? Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 And major props to canada in hockey!! Didnt watch the game, but it seemed like it was incredible! Cool. Hopefully will find a copy of it somewhere Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 It should be gold and gold only that counts because that puts Australia ahead of Great Britain. Hang on.... .. Both ways put us ahead of Great Britain. Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 "Coming in 2nd or third or fourth...is still awesome considering you are second best in a total of 6 billion + Not a loser in my books" Mmm...the pedant/statistician comes out in me now. It is not really 6 billion because not every is trying to compete. I doubt 10,000 in the world have ever even tried skijump for example, never mind thought about competing. So if you come 2nd, its only 2nd out of 10,000 - pretty lame if you ask me Link to post Share on other sites
js 0 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Having a silver or a bronze means you're in the world top 3 of your chosen activity (debatable if some of them are actually sports). On that basis, I'd be pretty chuffed to get either a silver or a bronze - it also adds incentive to try harden next time. I suppose the question remains, that in this world where most sports are professionally based, what's the point of the Olympics when there are 'world titles'. And, particularly with the Winter Olympics, is it equitable - not every country has, for example, an Ice Hockey team, so its stature as a world sport is kinda misleading ... similar to the so-called 'World Series' (does the US still believe it is the centre of the Universe? ) Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Originally Posted By: SubZero Having a silver or a bronze means you're in the world top 3 of your chosen activity (debatable if some of them are actually sports). Not true. there are a few sports where the Olympics do not constitute the top competition in a sport......Football for one (in the summer) and from what Oyuki was saying, Snowboarding in the Winter. Of course finishing 2nd or 3rd is still a damn good personal achievement, but you still lost. The taking part is what matters.....bollocks!! Jim you sound like the head of Sports Development in the UK. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts