Olympic medals comparison by population

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
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.

Using the word 'metric' should remind you of how much we care.

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.

Given the historical correlation between total medals and golds, this argument makes no sense.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Using the word 'metric' should remind you of how much we care.

You seem to care an awful lot. There's a lot of Americans here defending something they claim not to care about.

Given the historical correlation between total medals and golds, this argument makes no sense.

Given your vague and false assumption, this argument makes no sense.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
You seem to care an awful lot. There's a lot of Americans here defending something they claim not to care about.

What am I defending again? I think it's harmful either no matter how it's ordered.

Given your vague and false assumption, this argument makes no sense.

Sorry, you'll have to be more specific. What was my assumption?

[Asher]

The words immediately after "Given"?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

HARR HARR HARR

/counterglow

[Asher]

You lose on all counts.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm still waiting to hear what my false assumption was.

[Asher]

I suppose you'll be waiting a long time if you still do not comprehend.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Given the historical correlation between total medals and golds, this argument makes no sense.

Oh, I get it. I was assuming your argument was supposed to make sense. Sorry!

[Asher]

[Felch]

For the record, MOBI, Asher, we still hold all kinds of records when it comes to ****ing the world up for everybody. And really, doesn't that matter more than some faggy rhythmic gymnastics?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Well, I'll be the first to say that ****ing uses a lot of the same muscle groups as any "rhythmic gymnastics" so your distinction may be a fine one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch
For the record, MOBI, Asher, we still hold all kinds of records when it comes to ****ing the world up for everybody. And really, doesn't that matter more than some faggy rhythmic gymnastics?

The US ****s the world up missionary style. It's old, it's boring, it's republican.

At least the faggy rhythmic gymnasts have sex in flexible positions.

Speaking of faggy gymnasts, here's an American embracing his German lover. The German appears to be the top.

[Deity Dude]

My reason for posting that there was no official ranking of countries was not a backhanded attempt to put the US in first place. I posted that there is no official ranking of countries because it is a fact. If you go to the IOC website they themselves say they do not rank, they do not recognize any 3rd party ranking system and it is specifically against the Olympic Charter for them to rank. It seems to me quite clear that the IOC does not rank. I don't know they could spell out that position any clearer.

Since the IOC is the official governing body, and it specifically does not endorse any ranking system. there cannot be an official ranking system.

Ultimately there is no official way to rank because there is not an official methodology for ranking.

It is like ranking the best hitter in baseball. The league does not give out a best hitter award nor do they rank the best hiter. They provide hitting staistics that anyone can sort anyway they want. Some people will sort them on a specific attribute, other will combine certain elements and sort. still other might weight different categories and sort. Then they may attempt to make an argument as to who was the best batter based on their sorting methodology. But it is only an opinion since the award is not awarded by the official body governing the sport. You can say who won the batting title, you can way who won the HR crown etc etc, but you cannot say that Player A was the officially recognized best hitter.

I personally think some sort of weighted system for medals (5,3,1 or 3,2,1) would be best, but it would only be an opinion. If I were to sort based on that fashion it would provide interesting data. If I labled the result as "IOC Ranking" or "Official Ranking" it would be wrong.

Why? Because the IOC says in Black and White 1) they do not rank 2) they do not endorse any 3rd party ranking system 3) it is against the Olympic Charter for them to rank.

I don't see why this isn't clear. Maybe you misread me and thought I said the "total medal" approach was better than a "gold first" approach. If I had said this then there could be a debate. I, like the IOC, originally did not endorse any system. All I did was point out that the "gold first" approach is not official.