Did I miss something or was that a really abrupt ending of the coverage of the closing ceremonies?
Printable View
Did I miss something or was that a really abrupt ending of the coverage of the closing ceremonies?
The IOC uses total golds, then total silvers. So the US finished third, behind Canada and Germany.
I was reading something about the USOC's strategy, in which it has stressed a sort of "diversity" to maximize medals in the winter games, rather than relying on, say, Eric Heiden. So we do better in the bobsled and the Nordic sports than ever before at the expense of throwing all our economic support behind a very few people who are expected to win gold. I even sensed this on teevee, where people (athletes in addititon to nbc) seemed to talk much more in terms of just medaling than in "going for the gold" compared to previous winter games.
And that's what happened. Personally I like it better this way. It makes more events more interesting to watch from an American standpoint.
Still, I'm teed off about our dual last-place finish in curling. And Vancouver is a nice place, but it's FAIAP a smaller Seattle... it's Portland with the metric system and free healthcare.
If you think the Canadian government spent more money overall developing this year's Olympic team than the Americans, you're quite mistaken.
However you value each color of medal, both countries performances were impressive to an unprecedented degree. But the way the American media and population were pining for a Canadian disappointment on home soil was a little unnerving.
I was only a Math minor at Duke, but I think the Canadian medal haul totals one gold medal won for every two or three maple syrup-eating Canadians. So that's pretty good.:cool:
Did the American government spend any money on the Olympic team? I don't know, but my guess would be no.
Blame Dick Pound.Quote:
However you value each color of medal, both countries performances were impressive to an unprecedented degree. But the way the American media and population were pining for a Canadian disappointment on home soil was a little unnerving.
The U.S. government spent $0. Also, the USOC may take care of athletes once they make the Olympics (in the form of travel and uniforms, room and board, meals, etc.), but they don't subsidize training costs like other nations do, which is the reason many of our athletes use private sponsorships to cover their training costs. If you watched any of the curling coverage, the fact was pointed out many times how John Shuster (U.S. skip) was a bartender and how Jason Smith was a construction worker. None of their costs were covered until they made the Olympic team. Canada's curlers got a government subsidy, which wasn't much but more than having to get a job as a bartender.
Aren't China's Olympic athletes all sponsored by their government? I've heard some stories about their rigid system and about the young ages at which their athletes begin to train for Olympic events. A lot like the old Soviet athletes in some aspects.
My point was that the US performance can't really be compared to all previous performances. The # of events has increased drastically (maybe not in the last 8 years, but the point remains). It's still a great accomplishment nonetheless.
I looked up the numbers out of curiosity... between 1984 and 2010 the # of events went from 39 to 86. So the increase is rather dramatic. This year actually only has 2 more than Torino.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Olympic_Games
The IOC does not rank the countries. In fact, it is expressly prohibited in the Olympic charter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_medal_table
They do "list" the medals that way, but it could be argued that is merely an organizational listing, not a ranking.
It makes even less sense, IMHO, to essentially discard silvers and bronzes than the (admittedly flawed) way the US media typically does it, by total medals.
The best would be a widely-accepted points system, say 5 or 6 for gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze (we'd "win" under that scenario this time, but not in Beijing, BTW).
We're both wrong!
They *do* publish a ranking, regardless of what they say: http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-medals/ And look at those numbers down the left-hand side. Sure looks like a ranking to me.
And it's by total medals.
The fairest to me, would seem to be like a 5-3-1 pts system. So that winning the gold is better than finishing 2-3, but there is a reason you give out silver and bronze medals. Canada did end the games well, setting a record for number of gold. But of course that's with dramatically more events. I don't think anyone will ever match the Soviet performance at the 76 games in Innsbruck. In 37 total events, they won 13 gold medals. More than a third of the golds went to them. That's pretty impossible to beat - Canada would have to have won 30 golds to win an equal percentage.
I really enjoyed the olympics this year.
The number of gold medals by Canada is an outstanding accomplishment. The number of total medals by the US is likewise an outstanding accomplishment. To appreciate and applaud both, there is really no need to equate or measure the two against each other.