Do these news organizations just hate Americans and Russians or what?

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Seriously, this is strange. The BBC and Le Monde (French newspaper) have a Medals Table and a Tableau de medailles, respectively (obviously), and instead of listing total medals, which would put the US on top, they list by order of GOLD medals, which puts China on top. Yet the medal trackers make no mention of gold.

Now the US has tied China in gold medals, and the BBC has changed the board to reflect the US in the lead (French haven't updated yet).

Anyway, it makes for strange results. The medal count yesterday had the US with 58 and China with 46, but 21 and 22 gold medals respectively -- so the country with the most total medals, by a margin of twelve is second? Even more strange with this system is that Russia is listed currently in 11th place -- despite the fact that their medal count is overall 3rd (only 6 gold). Sweden, with 4 medals, beats out Belarus with 11 medals (3 vs. 2 gold). New Zealand with 2 medals (both gold) is higher than Spain with 10 total (only one gold)?

I realize it's basically pointless (much like P&N :D), but I just found it odd. Anyone else notice this?
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
yes, it was discussed in Offtopic. They should just have a formula, something like: gold 4 pts, Silver 2 pts, Bronze 1 pt and then whoever has the highest score is first.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: maddogchen
yes, it was discussed in Offtopic. They should just have a formula, something like: gold 4 pts, Silver 2 pts, Bronze 1 pt and then whoever has the highest score is first.

LOL

(you were joking right)
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: maddogchen
yes, it was discussed in Offtopic. They should just have a formula, something like: gold 4 pts, Silver 2 pts, Bronze 1 pt and then whoever has the highest score is first.

LOL

(you were joking right)

What's so funny about that?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: maddogchen
yes, it was discussed in Offtopic. They should just have a formula, something like: gold 4 pts, Silver 2 pts, Bronze 1 pt and then whoever has the highest score is first.

LOL

(you were joking right)

What's so funny about that?


It just seems kind of comical. With all the stupid games that are now part of the Olympics (I think I heard that Sycronized Diving (sp?) is now a contest), we can add a contest for reporting medal standings.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
I think it's a pretty defensible system. In the ancient Olympics second place was no better than last!

Either way both countries have had pretty successful Games so far.
 

Klixxer

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2004
6,149
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Seriously, this is strange. The BBC and Le Monde (French newspaper) have a Medals Table and a Tableau de medailles, respectively (obviously), and instead of listing total medals, which would put the US on top, they list by order of GOLD medals, which puts China on top. Yet the medal trackers make no mention of gold.

Now the US has tied China in gold medals, and the BBC has changed the board to reflect the US in the lead (French haven't updated yet).

Anyway, it makes for strange results. The medal count yesterday had the US with 58 and China with 46, but 21 and 22 gold medals respectively -- so the country with the most total medals, by a margin of twelve is second? Even more strange with this system is that Russia is listed currently in 11th place -- despite the fact that their medal count is overall 3rd (only 6 gold). Sweden, with 4 medals, beats out Belarus with 11 medals (3 vs. 2 gold). New Zealand with 2 medals (both gold) is higher than Spain with 10 total (only one gold)?

I realize it's basically pointless (much like P&N :D), but I just found it odd. Anyone else notice this?

Perhaps they think that winning ranks higher than second and third place?

I dunno about you but i kinda agree with them.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
If they hated Americans and Russians, then I don't think they would take it out on a medal count table. However, I don't agree with their arrangement of the rankings.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: maddogchen
yes, it was discussed in Offtopic. They should just have a formula, something like: gold 4 pts, Silver 2 pts, Bronze 1 pt and then whoever has the highest score is first.

LOL

(you were joking right)

What's so funny about that?


It just seems kind of comical. With all the stupid games that are now part of the Olympics (I think I heard that Sycronized Diving (sp?) is now a contest), we can add a contest for reporting medal standings.

Well if you get rid of all the stupid events, China's gold total would drop by 10.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Seriously, this is strange. The BBC and Le Monde (French newspaper) have a Medals Table and a Tableau de medailles, respectively (obviously), and instead of listing total medals, which would put the US on top, they list by order of GOLD medals, which puts China on top. Yet the medal trackers make no mention of gold.

Now the US has tied China in gold medals, and the BBC has changed the board to reflect the US in the lead (French haven't updated yet).

Anyway, it makes for strange results. The medal count yesterday had the US with 58 and China with 46, but 21 and 22 gold medals respectively -- so the country with the most total medals, by a margin of twelve is second? Even more strange with this system is that Russia is listed currently in 11th place -- despite the fact that their medal count is overall 3rd (only 6 gold). Sweden, with 4 medals, beats out Belarus with 11 medals (3 vs. 2 gold). New Zealand with 2 medals (both gold) is higher than Spain with 10 total (only one gold)?

I realize it's basically pointless (much like P&N :D), but I just found it odd. Anyone else notice this?

Perhaps they think that winning ranks higher than second and third place?

I dunno about you but i kinda agree with them.


Good for China, it won 3 table tennis gold medals to go with its 2 badminton gold medals.

Seriously, table tennis, badminton, hand ball, and trampolining should not be olympic sports. Nor should shooting and equestrian.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Perhaps they think that winning ranks higher than second and third place?

I dunno about you but i kinda agree with them.

Ummm, what planet's Olympics are you referring to? ON your planet, 50 is > 66?

MEDAL COUNT
GOLD SILVER BRONZE TOTAL
United States 23 26 17 66
China 23 15 12 50
Russia 6 16 19 41
Australia 13 9 13 35
Japan 15 8 9 32
 

Klixxer

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2004
6,149
0
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Perhaps they think that winning ranks higher than second and third place?

I dunno about you but i kinda agree with them.

Ummm, what planet's Olympics are you referring to? ON your planet, 50 is > 66?

MEDAL COUNT
GOLD SILVER BRONZE TOTAL
United States 23 26 17 66
China 23 15 12 50
Russia 6 16 19 41
Australia 13 9 13 35
Japan 15 8 9 32

No, on my planet 22 > 21 which was the case when he started writing his post, now that has changed and the US is ahead because of more silver medals.

BTW, what part of winning is it that you have a hard time grasping? It has to be something about it since you quote my post and then ask if 50 > 66, i said WINNING, you know, GOLD medals are for the winners and i don't see anyone having 50 OR 66 Gold medals.

I have no idea what you are arguing about, they moved the US up when they got their last gold medal.
 

Klixxer

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2004
6,149
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Seriously, this is strange. The BBC and Le Monde (French newspaper) have a Medals Table and a Tableau de medailles, respectively (obviously), and instead of listing total medals, which would put the US on top, they list by order of GOLD medals, which puts China on top. Yet the medal trackers make no mention of gold.

Now the US has tied China in gold medals, and the BBC has changed the board to reflect the US in the lead (French haven't updated yet).

Anyway, it makes for strange results. The medal count yesterday had the US with 58 and China with 46, but 21 and 22 gold medals respectively -- so the country with the most total medals, by a margin of twelve is second? Even more strange with this system is that Russia is listed currently in 11th place -- despite the fact that their medal count is overall 3rd (only 6 gold). Sweden, with 4 medals, beats out Belarus with 11 medals (3 vs. 2 gold). New Zealand with 2 medals (both gold) is higher than Spain with 10 total (only one gold)?

I realize it's basically pointless (much like P&N :D), but I just found it odd. Anyone else notice this?

Perhaps they think that winning ranks higher than second and third place?

I dunno about you but i kinda agree with them.


Good for China, it won 3 table tennis gold medals to go with its 2 badminton gold medals.

Seriously, table tennis, badminton, hand ball, and trampolining should not be olympic sports. Nor should shooting and equestrian.

Table tennis is a worldwide very large sport, there are probably more people playing table tennis in the world than there are runners, high jumpers, and a multitude of other sports, why shouldn't it be an olympic sport?

If it's for the physical part of it i assume you have never played table tennis.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Seriously, this is strange. The BBC and Le Monde (French newspaper) have a Medals Table and a Tableau de medailles, respectively (obviously), and instead of listing total medals, which would put the US on top, they list by order of GOLD medals, which puts China on top. Yet the medal trackers make no mention of gold.

Now the US has tied China in gold medals, and the BBC has changed the board to reflect the US in the lead (French haven't updated yet).

Anyway, it makes for strange results. The medal count yesterday had the US with 58 and China with 46, but 21 and 22 gold medals respectively -- so the country with the most total medals, by a margin of twelve is second? Even more strange with this system is that Russia is listed currently in 11th place -- despite the fact that their medal count is overall 3rd (only 6 gold). Sweden, with 4 medals, beats out Belarus with 11 medals (3 vs. 2 gold). New Zealand with 2 medals (both gold) is higher than Spain with 10 total (only one gold)?

I realize it's basically pointless (much like P&N :D), but I just found it odd. Anyone else notice this?

Perhaps they think that winning ranks higher than second and third place?

I dunno about you but i kinda agree with them.


Good for China, it won 3 table tennis gold medals to go with its 2 badminton gold medals.

Seriously, table tennis, badminton, hand ball, and trampolining should not be olympic sports. Nor should shooting and equestrian.

Table tennis is a worldwide very large sport, there are probably more people playing table tennis in the world than there are runners, high jumpers, and a multitude of other sports, why shouldn't it be an olympic sport?

If it's for the physical part of it i assume you have never played table tennis.

:thumbsup:
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
The olympics started with sports that appoximated the skills needed to be a warrior. Equestrian events and shooting should stay.

Considering the technological nature of modern warfare, I would say that many physical/mental games would qualify as olympic sports.

Wouldn't be surprised if a Counter-Strike event were introduced soon. Or at least a flight sim.
 

zzzz

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2000
5,498
1
76
did you guys started following olympics this year? It has always been this way. (at least in the non-us media) They list by the number of gold medals, then silver etc..

Seriously, table tennis, badminton, hand ball, and trampolining should not be olympic sports. Nor should shooting and equestrian.
what about softball and baseball? I would say badminton is way more physically stressful than either of the games.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
the rankings make perfect sense

it ranks the countries in order of how many events a single country is best in, so if countryA has 10 golds, 0 silvers, 20, bronze it is best in 10 events, while as a country with 0 golds, 500 silvers, 125023583530 bronze is best and no events.

If we would suddenly be giving medals to those in 4th and maybe 5th place then it would be different again, the only mesurable count is the number of golds
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Seriously, this is strange. The BBC and Le Monde (French newspaper) have a Medals Table and a Tableau de medailles, respectively (obviously), and instead of listing total medals, which would put the US on top, they list by order of GOLD medals, which puts China on top. Yet the medal trackers make no mention of gold.

Now the US has tied China in gold medals, and the BBC has changed the board to reflect the US in the lead (French haven't updated yet).

Anyway, it makes for strange results. The medal count yesterday had the US with 58 and China with 46, but 21 and 22 gold medals respectively -- so the country with the most total medals, by a margin of twelve is second? Even more strange with this system is that Russia is listed currently in 11th place -- despite the fact that their medal count is overall 3rd (only 6 gold). Sweden, with 4 medals, beats out Belarus with 11 medals (3 vs. 2 gold). New Zealand with 2 medals (both gold) is higher than Spain with 10 total (only one gold)?

I realize it's basically pointless (much like P&N :D), but I just found it odd. Anyone else notice this?

Perhaps they think that winning ranks higher than second and third place?

I dunno about you but i kinda agree with them.


Good for China, it won 3 table tennis gold medals to go with its 2 badminton gold medals.

Seriously, table tennis, badminton, hand ball, and trampolining should not be olympic sports. Nor should shooting and equestrian.

and I bet you have never trained any of these sports... (though trampolining is a bit weird I agree)
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
the rankings make perfect sense

it ranks the countries in order of how many events a single country is best in, so if countryA has 10 golds, 0 silvers, 20, bronze it is best in 10 events, while as a country with 0 golds, 500 silvers, 125023583530 bronze is best and no events.

If we would suddenly be giving medals to those in 4th and maybe 5th place then it would be different again, the only mesurable count is the number of golds

Then why call it a "medal count"? That's why I am curious about the tabulation. If it's a "Gold Medal Count/Tally/Etc.", then fine. If it's a "Medal Table", then list by number of medals.

No matter how you look at it, the Olympics award medals for the first three athletes or teams, not simply one. Your attitude reminds me of the Nike ad campaign at the '96 Olympics -- "Second place is first loser." While I thought it was funny, it is basically contrary to the Olympic spirit of the modern games.

My theory with the French is that they didn't want to have the Belgians on top of their count. :)

EDIT: Oops, meant the Germans. Working too much lately.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Czar
the rankings make perfect sense

it ranks the countries in order of how many events a single country is best in, so if countryA has 10 golds, 0 silvers, 20, bronze it is best in 10 events, while as a country with 0 golds, 500 silvers, 125023583530 bronze is best and no events.

If we would suddenly be giving medals to those in 4th and maybe 5th place then it would be different again, the only mesurable count is the number of golds

Then why call it a "medal count"? That's why I am curious about the tabulation. If it's a "Gold Medal Count/Tally/Etc.", then fine. If it's a "Medal Table", then list by number of medals.

No matter how you look at it, the Olympics award medals for the first three athletes or teams, not simply one. Your attitude reminds me of the Nike ad campaign at the '96 Olympics -- "Second place is first loser." While I thought it was funny, it is basically contrary to the Olympic spirit of the modern games.

My theory with the French is that they didn't want to have the Belgians on top of their count. :)

well its true, getting second place is probably the second worst spot to be in, the worst being nr4

its a medal count because there you can see how many medals each country has won, the important medal is ofcorse the gold medal and thats why the ranking is ordered by gold medals
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
I have no idea what you are arguing about...

There is no argument. That's the thing. Only facts.
In any case, I don't really care, I just like clearing up misrepresentations when I see them.
 

Klixxer

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2004
6,149
0
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
I have no idea what you are arguing about...

There is no argument. That's the thing. Only facts.
In any case, I don't really care, I just like clearing up misrepresentations when I see them.

True, there are only facts, and the fact is that i was talking about winners, which would be gold medalists.

Are all medals gold medals on your planet?
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Oh NOES the evil Chinese have more medals than us on some table that sorts by gold medals. Must be anti American bias and everyone hates us.

Zephyr
 

Klixxer

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2004
6,149
0
0
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Oh NOES the evil Chinese have more medals than us on some table that sorts by gold medals. Must be anti American bias and everyone hates us.

Zephyr

Nah, it's just another French conspiracy, these are quite popular these days.

However, regarding anti-americanism, did anyone watch the boxing?