Olympic medals comparison by population

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Go for it, it's just as valid.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Go for it, it's just as valid.

It's valid only if you don't concede the goal of competition is to win and be the best. That's what is reflected by Gold medals.

You guys are hilarious. Reminds me of children in elementary school, "Nu-uh! We're first cause we were 2nd and 3rd more than you, so we've got lots more medal! Who wants Golds anyway! Gold is so passe! USA! USA! USA! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1".

Look up "delusional" in your nearest dictionary.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
How many NFL teams do you see bragging about how many times they came in either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?

[Winston]

I'm glad I had enough of this.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
It's valid only if you don't concede the goal of competition is to win and be the best. That's what is reflected by Gold medals.

A ranking is only valid if you concede that nations are what is in competition, not athletes. Which I do not.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Don't be a ****ing ****.

It's fine to be proud of being in the top 3. Silver/bronze is nothing to be a shamed of.

But when you're making a list of which country or team won the most, you rank by how many golds or championships they have.

I've never once seen a team say "We've been 1st, 2nd, or 3rd 10 times" or a site that ranks how many times a team has been in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. But there's many that list how many times they won championships...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


A ranking is only valid if you concede that nations are what is in competition, not athletes. Which I do not.

So then you object to the entire presence of the table.

But you don't, you're arguing about the ordering of the medals of a national table. You acknowledge the presence of national medal tallies and are arguing in a thread about how they should be ordered.

Nice try, but I'm not ****ing stupid.

If you want to simply say all medal rankings by countries are worthless, fine, then **** off and go read a Furry Porn thread or something.

I personally think it's a cop-out. This is but one metric. If it was truly about just the athletes, there wouldn't be national funding from the government in most countries. A table marking medals by specific athletes would be more of an exercise in identifying which sports are overrepresented by medals and events (eg, swimming and gymnastics).

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher

So then you object to the entire presence of the table.

But you don't, you're arguing about the ordering of the medals of a national table. You acknowledge the presence of national medal tallies and are arguing in a thread about how they should be ordered.

Nice try, but I'm not ****ing stupid.

If you want to simply say all medal rankings by countries are worthless, fine, then **** off and go read a Furry Porn thread or something.

I wouldn't say worthless, I'd say counterproductive.

I acknowledge the medal tallies as data, but not as meaningful data, much less with an inherent order to it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


I wouldn't say worthless, I'd say counterproductive.

I acknowledge the medal tallies as data, but not as meaningful data with an inherent order to it.

Why are you making so many posts if what you are saying is...nothing?

Does this look like some philosophy class to you? Take your vacuous posts elsewhere.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
I personally think it's a cop-out. This is but one metric. If it was truly about just the athletes, there wouldn't be national funding from the government in most countries.

And if there were no table, there wouldn't be national funding from the governments in most countries either and it would actually be about the athletes.

(Sorry I had to go back to a previous post, there was really no content to reply to in the last one.)

[snoopy369]

You know that the official website is run by the Chinese, right? So they'll rank it by golds because that helps make them look better...

Me, I think it should be 3-2-1 points, and rank by that; so China is first at 322, US second at 320, etc. That seems like the most fair way to do it, in terms of total athletic performance.

But I'm generally with Koy here in the sense that I don't think the rankings matter in the slightest, and I don't give a **** what order you or anyone else wants to put them in... if it were me I'd sort by RANDUNI(0).

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You know that the official website is run by the Chinese, right? So they'll rank it by golds because that helps make them look better...

It was ranked by golds before the game started. Every chart I've ever seen by any country and any organization outside of the US has always ranked by golds. It's what makes sense.

The US media are the only ones in the world ranking by "total medals" where all are of equal value, where it makes no sense to do so, and the reason they do it is because it makes THEM look better.

Don't project your country's failings elsewhere. Canada would do better in the standings if we used "total medals", but all Canadian media uses the gold medal ranking as well.

But I'm generally with Koy here in the sense that I don't think the rankings matter in the slightest

What a triumphant position to take when your country is not #1.

I don't give a **** about the standings either, but I do give a **** that the American media and American public and for the most part, American posters here are seriously delusional as to their performance at the games. You guys were a distant second to the Chinese when it comes to winning.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Asher

It was ranked by golds before the game started. Every chart I've ever seen by any country and any organization outside of the US has always ranked by golds. It's what makes sense.

The US media are the only ones in the world ranking by "total medals" where all are of equal value, where it makes no sense to do so, and the reason they do it is because it makes THEM look better.

Your arguing against yourself. You say the Gold count isn't to make China look better because they have been using gold count on their website since before the games. Yet the total medal count is specifically to make the US look better, but we have been using it since before these games started.

[MOBIUS]

**** me! I'd never thought I'd see the day!

Yanks actually bragging about how many times they came second or third...

China ****ed you up the ass at the Olympics - just accept it and stop being such loser (2nd and 3rd means you didn't win ) crybabies...

"USA, USA, USA #2!!!

USA, USA, USA #3!!!

WE ARE LOSERS, USA, USA, USA!!!"

[Asher]

Originally posted by Will9
Your arguing against yourself. You say the Gold count isn't to make China look better because they have been using gold count on their website since before the games. Yet the total medal count is specifically to make the US look better, but we have been using it since before these games started.

The difference that you, and most Americans, can't comprehend is the ranking of using gold as the metric is used by everyone else in the World, not just China.

This is the default and common sense ranking, the American one is specifically engineered to make the Americans look better. They've used this one for several years because Americans are #2 and #3 more than #1, and they know it.