NationStates Jolt Archive

looking at the medal count (http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml) as it stands, USA is second in the overal medal count but third for the Gold count.

Considering the dual nature of how they are displaying it (the listing is by Gold count, the ranking is overall) which is more important to you?

more Gold, or more medals?

More medals.

Second is first loser. There should be no medals other than gold. Therefore total medal count is bogus and should be ignored.

Total medals is more important to me. I despise the whole "if you don't win you have failed" attitude. In all honesty, I'd take it further, and think they should take account of the finishing order all the way down to last, so that if someone just edges someone out in the fight to finish second last there effort is recognised too. I'd also advocate medals for all positions. I suspect my opinion won't be a popular one.

Moar gold..:D

I propose a variant of the D&D gold-silver-copper financial system.

1 Gold = 4 Silver = 8 bronze.

I tend to be more impressed by things like... Cuba winning a medal at all, or how well South Korea have been doing.

Big countries that throw shitloads of money and effort at the thing, versus lesser powers. That stuff kinda impresses me.

People like the US should collect lots of medals... big population, the ability to AFFORD an insane training regime, better drugs than everyone else... it doesn't really impress me when we do.

I tend to be more impressed by things like... Cuba winning a medal at all, or how well South Korea have been doing.


That I do agree with. I only like watching when some unheard of country upsets the results.

I'm also rooting against the US in the medal count. Losing to china will cause untold butthurt, which will be lol.

The Gold count, but only cos that means that currently the UK is in the top 10 :D I'm sure this will change however as the games go on and we will drop down the board.

In all honesty, I think a weighting system is better. Gold is more important than silver, which is more important than bronze, but total medals still makes an impact. Maybe something like 3 points for Gold, 2 for Silver, 1 for Bronze?

That I do agree with. I only like watching when some unheard of country upsets the results.

I'm also rooting against the US in the medal count. Losing to china will cause untold butthurt, which will be lol.

Plus it might be bad for Bush and McCain politically.

I tend to be more impressed by things like... Cuba winning a medal at all, or how well South Korea have been doing.Agreed. It's the amazing stories that make the Olympics great.

I mean, we've all heard about Michael Spitz's quest for 8 golds, but what about Team USA's come-from-behind gold in the 4x100? Yes, it's a gold medal, but the story behind it makes it that much better.

Doesn't matter to me. All I'm glad about today is that the French 4x100 swim relay team got clipped. "We will smash them."

Au contraire, muthafucka!

They did the one thing that assured them their loss -- you can't feed trash talk to the nation that invented it.

Agreed. It's the amazing stories that make the Olympics great.

I mean, we've all heard about Michael Spitz's quest for 8 golds, but what about Team USA's come-from-behind gold in the 4x100? Yes, it's a gold medal, but the story behind it makes it that much better.

Mark Spitz.

Michael Phelps.

And FUCK YEAH that was awesome. And I mean that in the literal, non-adjunct sense of that overused word.

Plus it might be bad for Bush and McCain politically.

Seriously? I don't think even John McCain is lame enough to have as a campaign promise, "We'll do better in sports if I'm elected." Although thinking about the Olympics and the campaign has given me an idea...an idea for a new, much less dull way of choosing the president of the United States, and one that I'm fairly certain Barack Obama would win handily.

I give three points for gold, two for silver, and one for bronze. So right now, the score is:
China--35
US--22
South Korea--20

Hm, kudos to Korea. It has more golds, and is very near the total score for the United States.

Total medals is more important to me. I despise the whole "if you don't win you have failed" attitude. In all honesty, I'd take it further, and think they should take account of the finishing order all the way down to last, so that if someone just edges someone out in the fight to finish second last there effort is recognised too. I'd also advocate medals for all positions. I suspect my opinion won't be a popular one.

I dunno...

GOLD
SILVER
BRONZE
copper
alumin(i)um
brass
pewter
amethyst
quartz
myrtlewood
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
plywood
plastic
cardboard
cardstock
paper
kick in the crotch

I dunno...

GOLD
SILVER
BRONZE
copper
alumin(i)um
brass
pewter
amethyst
quartz
myrtlewood
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
plywood
plastic
cardboard
cardstock
paper
kick in the crotch
Hey, our country got seven crotch kicks this year! Woohoo!

I dunno...

GOLD
SILVER
BRONZE
copper
alumin(i)um
brass
pewter
amethyst
quartz
myrtlewood
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
plywood
plastic
cardboard
cardstock
paper
kick in the crotch

How could you make a medal out of "kick in the crotch"? Thats an action, not a material, silly.

Yeah, I was thinking about that -- the US was 2/3/4, while China was 6/2/0...

How could you make a medal out of "kick in the crotch"?. Thats an action, not a material, silly.
Tell that to LG.:eek2:

we're #1 in coming in 3rd!

How could you make a medal out of "kick in the crotch"? Thats an action, not a material, silly.

:rolleyes:

*Psst* joke.

See, last place would get a kick in the crotch. You wanna talk motivation?

That I do agree with. I only like watching when some unheard of country upsets the results.

I'm also rooting against the US in the medal count. Losing to china will cause untold butthurt, which will be lol.
well, the prediction from the start is that china will win alot of medals. mainly because the home team has a psychological advantage.

I dunno...

GOLD
SILVER
BRONZE
copper
alumin(i)um
brass
pewter
amethyst
quartz
myrtlewood
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
plywood
plastic
cardboard
cardstock
paper
kick in the crotch
or as one dilbert stip put it...
"is 'Talc' a gemstone?"

Hey, our country got seven crotch kicks this year! Woohoo!Wait? is that Giving or Recieving. I think they should be giving the Kicks. give them one moment they can 'cherish' on their flight home.

Can you imagine the medal ceremonies?

"And the kick in the crotch for last place will be administered by legendary soccer ambassador, Péle."

Or better yet, a simultaneous kick for all those on the losing-est team. Y'know, use some of that opening-ceremony synchronization we all saw.

:rolleyes:

*Psst* joke.

See, last place would get a kick in the crotch. You wanna talk motivation?

The fact that they've bothered to train for years and travel across the world to take part suggests they possess plenty of motivation. Why punish people for losing, anyway? They tried. And to have got there they have to be amongst the best in the world at what they do. So even the person in last place has a lot to be proud of.

Wait? is that Giving or Recieving. I think they should be giving the Kicks. give them one moment they can 'cherish' on their flight home.

That's a valid idea, too.

"You lost, despite years of training, sacrifice and thousands of dollars. You may now kick any medalist in the crotch."

Talk about sporting gestures.

The fact that they've bothered to train for years and travel across the world to take part suggests they possess plenty of motivation. Why punish people for losing, anyway? They tried. And to have got there they have to be amongst the best in the world at what they do. So even the person in last place has a lot to be proud of.

Nobody's disagreeing with you.

It was a joke. Funny you're okay with a paper medal for next-to-last, but that last joke was too much?

Nobody's disagreeing with you.

It was a joke. Funny you're okay with a paper medal for next-to-last, but that last joke was too much?

I realise that you were joking. I just have a thing with the whole "win or you've failed" mentality, and latched on to your post as a springboard for trying to clarify what I was trying to say with what I said in my first post. I'll stop now :p

Considering even 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place competitors are still breaking records in some areas, I'd say total medal count is more important.

I realise that you were joking. I just have a thing with the whole "win or you've failed" mentality, and latched on to your post as a springboard for trying to clarify what I was trying to say with what I said in my first post. I'll stop now :p

That's a fine cause to champion. I'm no fan of "second is first loser" horseshit, either, but you should latch on to the posts that actually espouse that deficient ideology instead of little old me just a-goin' fer the cheap giggle.

Can you imagine the medal ceremonies?

"And the kick in the crotch for last place will be administered by legendary soccer ambassador, Péle."

Pelé.

You got last place in spelling Brazilian nicknames...

*Gives Edson Arantes do Nascimento a call* (Pelé) :P

Pelé.

You got last place in spelling Brazilian nicknames...

*Gives Edson Arantes do Nascimento a call* (Pelé) :P

careful, that might mean he gets to kick someone in the crotch. :eek:

Can you imagine the medal ceremonies?

"And the kick in the crotch for last place will be administered by legendary soccer ambassador, Péle."

Or better yet, a simultaneous kick for all those on the losing-est team. Y'know, use some of that opening-ceremony synchronization we all saw.

Pele? Well, that'd certainly be ironic given the advert he did about erection problems a few years back :tongue:

careful, that might mean he gets to kick someone in the crotch. :eek:

Yes, specifically Intangelon. :p

:rolleyes:

*Psst* joke.

See, last place would get a kick in the crotch. You wanna talk motivation?

This is how I would do motivation:

During training: Hey, if you win here, you can go to China!

During the Olympics: Hey, if you win here, you can come back home again!

Second is first loser. There should be no medals other than gold. Therefore total medal count is bogus and should be ignored.

Still that's a neck.

China has 9 golds.
Korea comes second with 4 golds.

It's too early to tell, perhaps America might end up second in gold and total medals altogether. :P

Plus it might be bad for Bush and McCain politically.

Do you care to explain your reasoning behind this statement.

Second is first loser. There should be no medals other than gold. Therefore total medal count is bogus and should be ignored.

Funny, because though I realize that the title of "Second best amateur Xist in the world." is amazing.. I do tend to think of Silver Medal bearers as the first losers, lol, even though they no doubt would pwn my face into destruction.

Blame society I guess?

I propose a variant of the D&D gold-silver-copper financial system.

1 Gold = 4 Silver = 8 bronze.

This. :D

I dislike medal counts in general.

Second is first loser. There should be no medals other than gold. Therefore total medal count is bogus and should be ignored.

I hate that way of thinking. I really really despise it, in fact. I don't understand it, and never will.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/temp/TotalCereals.jpg

Golden Flakes. Crunchy. Best of both worlds.

Who freakin' cares?

[/troll]

Total medal count, but really, both. Also, if the U.S. was leading in golds, I'd probably say gold. :tongue:

How come the host country always does so well?

I hate that way of thinking. I really really despise it, in fact. I don't understand it, and never will.

Despise away; but if there is going to be national dickwaving amongst the superpowers it should at least be done properly.

I'd prefer the olympics if it was just athletes and not about national delegations. As it is, it's all a bit 1936.

How come the host country always does so well?

Greece didn't do that great, in 2004 it came in its normal range for the past few Olympics, so did Australia which managed 4th. USA came 1st in 1996 but then that is what you might expect.

Since China has invested a lot of money into their athletes in order for them to show off how good they are so they can laud it over everyone, it is hardly surprising that they are going well.

I heard that Great Britain has set aside close to USD100 million funded by lottery profits for their Olympians to get them ready for the 2012 Olympics.

Greece didn't do that great, in 2004 it came in its normal range for the past few Olympics, so did Australia which managed 4th. USA came 1st in 1996 but then that is what you might expect.

Since China has invested a lot of money into their athletes in order for them to show off how good they are so they can laud it over everyone, it is hardly surprising that they are going well.

I heard that Great Britain has set aside close to USD100 million funded by lottery profits for their Olympians to get them ready for the 2012 Olympics.

Nearly all british atheletes are lottery funded anyway, so having more isn't exactly a surprise. Plus, i'll be willing to wager more will be spent by American and China even with any extra money :)

One of the reasons that host nations tend to do so well is that they automatically qualify for every event, so they have a lot more people in there to do well. Plus, China just has a large number of very good athletes, with 1.3 billion people who all aspire to become the best, its hardly surprising really.

I'd say total medal count after about four years, so all the people taking drugs will have been found out and had their medals taken away.

Nearly all british atheletes are lottery funded anyway, so having more isn't exactly a surprise. Plus, i'll be willing to wager more will be spent by American and China even with any extra money :)

One of the reasons that host nations tend to do so well is that they automatically qualify for every event, so they have a lot more people in there to do well. Plus, China just has a large number of very good athletes, with 1.3 billion people who all aspire to become the best, its hardly surprising really.

Are ok I wasn't aware of that, it was just the amount spent to me was quite staggering.

Do you care to explain your reasoning behind this statement.

In some countries, sports performances tend to help or hinder the current leader (and their party) depending on whether they were good or bad. I don't know if that's the case with the US, but I'm rooting for China on the off-chance that it is.

moar glod pls.

Plus it might be bad for Bush and McCain politically.

Hardly. It's not like the electorate gives a shit about how many medals we win (I think that crap went out in the 1970s).

Oh, and we just win another:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/shooting/news/story?id=3530942

We have a lot of shooters in various shooting events on the Olympic team (a lot more than most of you think).

The last time I cared about medals count was 1984, when the Rooskies boycotted the games.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics)
McDonald's ran a promotion entitled "When the U.S. Wins, You Win" where customers scratched off a ticket and if the U.S. won that event then they would be given a free menu item: a Big Mac for a gold medal, an order of french fries for a silver medal, and a Coca-Cola for a bronze medal.[4] The company lost millions of dollars when the Soviet boycott let the U.S. athletes fare better than they otherwise would have.

They even gave you a scratch-off ticket when you redeemed a prior free ticket. I ate free for a month!

I'm going to go with neither since my country hasn't got any.


But my opinion doesn't matter really since I don't watch the olympics or care. I only went to see if there were any for the purpose of this thread.

How come the host country always does so well?
they tend to have the Psychological advantage. locals rooting for them, the Visitors dealing with travel fatigue and the 'shock and awe' of being in a new place.

Nearly all british atheletes are lottery funded anyway, so having more isn't exactly a surprise. Plus, i'll be willing to wager more will be spent by American and China even with any extra money :)

One of the reasons that host nations tend to do so well is that they automatically qualify for every event, so they have a lot more people in there to do well. Plus, China just has a large number of very good athletes, with 1.3 billion people who all aspire to become the best, its hardly surprising really.

Not to mention China's training regimen... looking at how young some of these kids start off... and how big a celebrity they become as they excel is a huge boost for China's athletes.

I'm going to go with neither since my country hasn't got any.


But my opinion doesn't matter really since I don't watch the olympics or care. I only went to see if there were any for the purpose of this thread.

Sorry, brain fart.... which country are you from?

How come the host country always does so well?

The host country automatically qualifies for every event. It's a perk of being the host country. The more events your country qualifies for, the more chances your country has to win a medal. Even though preparation, talent and skill are the biggest factors in who comes away with a medal, luck still does play a part.

Despise away; but if there is going to be national dickwaving amongst the superpowers it should at least be done properly.

I'd prefer the olympics if it was just athletes and not about national delegations. As it is, it's all a bit 1936.

I'm most happy if US athletes get golds, yes, but I'm still happy if they get silvers or bronzes. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Hmmm... Screw them both, we need more cowbell.

Hmmm... Screw them both, we need more cowbell.

Yes. Too much cowbell is an oxymoron.