OT - Who is winning (won) the Olympics?

by rhd on Aug 24, 2008 1:53 AM EDT Comment 14 comments

Sometimes you see the countries listed in of order who won the most medals overall, and sometimes you see them listed by who won the most gold. Currently:

China - 49G 20S 28B = 97 Total

USA - 34G 37S 36B = 107 Total

So, by the 1st method, the US wins, and by the second method, China wins easily. Both methods seem fatally flawed, since a gold is obviously worth more than a silver and a silver more than a bronze. And if you count only the gold medals, what is the point of listing the silvers and bronzes at all? I'm surprised noone seems to use a more intelligent way of determining the winner. In all the sports voting I know about, you get a certain # of pts for a 1st place vote, a lesser # of points for 2nd place, etc. Why dont they use this in the Olympics?

A simple method would be that a gold medal is worth 3 pts, a silver 2 pts and a bronze 1 pt. By this method:

China - 49*3 + 20*2 + 28*1 = 215 pts

USA - 34*3 + 37*2 + 36*1 = 212 pts

and China edges out USA. I think there still are a few medals to be awarded, so the USA could pull out an 11th hour win.

Maybe some of you say that the Olympics are about bringing nations closer together thru sports and it's not important which one wins. In that case, why bother displaying the medal counts by nation at all? If it's worth keeping track of publicly, it's worth doing right.

Of course, you could say that it's silly that there are dozens of medals awarded in some individual events, like swimming, but only 1 set of medals in team competitions like baseball, soccer and basketball that last the entire length of the games, and therefore, medal counts arent as meaningful as they could be. I dont know what can be done about that short of making medals in some competitions worth more than others, which wont happen.

BTW, it seems curious that the host country seems to do much better in the games that they host than in other games. AFAIK, China has never won an Olympics but they are likely to win this one. In 2004, which the USA won, China finished in 3rd place overall and in 2nd in gold medals. Germany won the 1936 games (in Berlin), yet in the 1932 games (in LA) the USA won by a landslide and Germany wasnt even close. Also, the USA won in 1984 (in LA) by a landslide and 1996 by a large margin (Atlanta).

Also, does the winning nation get some sort of an award? If so, I've never heard of it.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

China

Definitely from a non-athletic standpoint. They get to look like a player in the international community and generate some goodwill and soft power.

Athletically, I’d say that the Chinese do very well in gymnastics and the judged competitions, but the US is better at the ones that have a definite winner (i.e swimming, running, the decathalon). I’d say its a tie, maybe with the US coming out slightly ahead because our medals were decided a bit less arbitrarily.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Aug 24, 2008 2:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How about the age scandal with their gymnasts? That would affect 3 or 4 of the golds they won. Besides diving, I think the US did much better all things considered. Nothing against those girls who competed in gymnastics, they did great, but there seems to be a lot pointing towards them being underage. If the documents and websites didn’t suddenly disappear, maybe I’d take China and their coaches’ word for it but it’s pretty suspicious when stuff magically disappears once attention is drawn to it.

I agree with the first statement although there were reports of some pretty bad treatment of those who participated in the opening ceremonies. The end result was a great show but did they really have to treat their citizens like that to get those results? I can’t remember everything but there was a report on what the participants had to endure and some of them were forced to wear diapers and stay in their place for a 3rd of a day without leaving for anything.

by jfish26101 on Aug 24, 2008 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also the medal count is...

…according to NBC.com:

USA – 36 G, 38 S and 36 B = 110
China – 51 G, 21 S and 28 B = 100

Although I still say we should have had some of those women’s gymnastics golds.

by jfish26101 on Aug 24, 2008 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Age scandal

China gets the gold in lying well.

Time you enjoy wasting was not wasted.

by t ball on Aug 24, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boxing

And in paying off judges.

OK, maybe I won’t go that far, but judges did the Chinese athletes a LOT of favors in boxing, some favors in women’s gymnastics, and to a lesser extent, diving and Judo. And that’s not counting the judging sports they did well in that I didn’t watch at all, like tae kwon do and wrestling. Boxing was absurd though. They deserved none of their three medals in that sport – all three athletes advanced on clear robberies in the early rounds.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 25, 2008 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boxing

Judging was terrible.. so I should say +1 or something.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Aug 25, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah

This games is rife with scandal, so that will hurt the Chinese slightly. And I’m pretty sure the judging was skewed toward the Chinese. But all things considered, it was a win for them.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Aug 24, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If only because

China got to control the message more than probably any other host country in recent history. But that’s another topic for another site.

Besides, we all know Cuba won in the prestigious Athletes and Coaches Earning Lifetime Bans category… ;)

"...and the only things I've found better than listening to Vin Scully are listening to Keith Jackson and uncut cocaine." (bleedjaxblue)

by drjayphd on Aug 25, 2008 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

host country winning

I believe the host country does better in games they host because the cost of competing in more events is less, since they don’t have to fly athletes to the olympics, etc…

I have not done research to show that the host country participates in more events than when they do not host, but it seems that could prove/disprove my theory.

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Aug 24, 2008 12:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

In judging events

host countries may do better because judges might feel inclined to favor the host country when there is a close and potentially controversial decision.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Aug 24, 2008 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Judging the host country

Well, a large part of it also is the tendency to go along with the crowd. And, obviously, local athletes will tend to generate considerably larger amounts of cheer.

by Lunkwill Fook on Aug 25, 2008 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The host country gets an automatic invite to every event

Usually this doesn’t make an enormous difference in medal counts, because often the beneficiary of this “affirmative action” is non-competitive, but put enough events together and someone will win a fluky medal or three.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 25, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs