The Song Fight Bulletin Board

I'm not sure which Olympics you're watching where China is first, and USA is second.

Rone Rivendale wrote:I'm not sure which Olympics you're watching where China is first, and USA is second.

I have been watching the Beijing Olympics. That's Beijing, China - not Beijing, Oklahoma.

(as of now)
Rank
1 China 47 G / 17 S / 24B
2 United States 31 G / 36 S / 34B
3 Great Britain 18 G / 13 S / 11 B
4 Russia 17 G / 18 S / 21 B
5 Germany 14 G / 9 S / 13 B
6 Australia 12 G / 14 S / 16 B


http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/beijing- ... dal-tally/

Both of you are right, I guess.

China has more gold, US has more overall medals.

Niveous wrote:Both of you are right, I guess.

China has more gold, US has more overall medals.

Yes.
China has more winners.
The USA has more losers.

Minor medals don't count. We're not celebrating mediocrity here.

Caravan Ray wrote: Minor medals don't count. We're not celebrating mediocrity here.

Well then we'll just forget the 307 minor medals that Australia has gotten over the years.

Really, even if that was meant as a joke, that was a ridiculous thing to say, C-Ray. So should Togo forget about celebrating the first medal they've ever gotten because it was a bronze? Should India only be happy because they got a gold in shooting but they shouldn't celebrate Sushil Kumar because he's only the third best wrestler in the world at his weight class? I know it was probably only a joke but really, as a bunch of slobs on a music forum talking about athletics, I see no reason we should discount someone for being a silver or bronze medalist (or even making it that far).

Instead of medals - 2nd and 3rd should get silver and bronze chokers. It would be more appropriate.

Bolted on permanently, to remind those "athletes" every day for the rest of their lives of the day that they let themselves and their country down. The day they were just not good enough.

Gee, I wonder what you would give to those didn't medal, seeing as only 72 countries have ever gotten medals in the olympics. That's 72 out of 206.

I'm going to walk away from this conversation because I know C. Ray is only joking but it really is striking a bad chord with me.

Yes bronze and silver are good personal achievements, but the overall tally is usually sorted by gold as winning is better than coming close. In America the medal counts are sorted by total instead of gold so that USA is first, which is not right. There is no overall winner in the Olympics so it doesn't matter but this is cheating to make America look like the best, which is silly because if second is as good as third they could have left it sorted by gold.

China won and USA came second.

Think of it this way.

Let's say there were 2 sprinters and they sprinted in 10 races. Sprinter A won 2 of the races and came in second place in 3 races. Sprinter B won 1 race and came in second in 7 races. Who did better?

Seems this whole argument is pretty silly.

How about that closing act? I loved those big wheels with lights! I want one of them to cruise around in.

roymond wrote:Seems this whole argument is pretty silly.

Agreed.

Niveous wrote:Think of it this way.

Let's say there were 2 sprinters and they sprinted in 10 races. Sprinter A won 2 of the races and came in second place in 3 races. Sprinter B won 1 race and came in second in 7 races. Who did better?

Silly or not, the correct answer to your example is Sprinter B. Winning a couple times and doing poorly the rest of the time is not championship material. The person/team/country who wins or comes closest on a consistant basis is the champion.

Who is the better band, The New Radicals for having one great hit in the 90's for You Only Get What You Give, or Aerosmith for cranking out great songs for 30+ years. Think about it.

So if China won 100 gold medals and USA won 110 bronze, USA did better? I don't think so. If China won 1 gold and USA won 110 bronze then I would think USA did better. USA only won 10 more medals than China and China won 15 more golds than USA.

How about this: gold = 3 points, silver = 2 points, bronze = 1 point. The only way this doesn't work is if you disagree that gold > silver > bronze.

China:
51 gold (153 points)
21 silver (42 points)
28 bronze (28 points)
total: 223 points

USA
36 gold (108 points)
38 silver (76 points)
36 bronze (36 points)
total: 220 points

Nice mathematical argument there, Denyer. I'll give it to you (especially since I had never stated which way on the argument that I stood, just that it could be seen two ways). Your formula is a good one. Hella close race there. I like a good competition. Onto London 2012!

If you look at the number of medals per country per capita or for instance by GDP, the picture is very different. And at least as relevant.

One can always be proud to have a large amount of affluent brothers-in-nation with a normal proportion of them being good at sports, of course!

I was told that there would be no math.

PlainSongs wrote:If you look at the number of medals per country per capita

Ha ha ha!! Australia still beat New Zealand!

Rone Rivendale wrote:

Niveous wrote:Think of it this way.

Let's say there were 2 sprinters and they sprinted in 10 races. Sprinter A won 2 of the races and came in second place in 3 races. Sprinter B won 1 race and came in second in 7 races. Who did better?

Silly or not, the correct answer to your example is Sprinter B. Winning a couple times and doing poorly the rest of the time is not championship material. The person/team/country who wins or comes closest on a consistant basis is the champion.

No - sprinter B is a choker who should be given a good boot up the arse and have his tracksuit taken off him for wasting everybody time and being too lazy to get off his arse and go and get some decent drugs.

Rone Rivendale wrote: Who is the better band, The New Radicals for having one great hit in the 90's for You Only Get What You Give, or Aerosmith for cranking out great songs for 30+ years. Think about it.

Is that a trick question?

The answer is "None of The Above"

As much as I enjoyed the Olympics this year, there were some crazy controversies. What the hell was up with Angel Matos and Dzhakhon Kurbanov???

Another thing, what the hell was up with this?

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?s ... &type=lgns

Niveous wrote:Another thing, what the hell was up with this?

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?s ... &type=lgns

The Olympic dress code applies to places never seen, it seems, with the New Zealand hockey manager banished from the field at a crucial men’s match because officials objected to his players’ underwear.

Heh! Quite appropriate really.

The week I arrived in NZ - one of the biggest news stories here was this - a young girl complaining that uniform Nazis said she couldn't wear something warm under her skirt while playing netball in Christchurch (Christchurch is a seriously cold place - just a hop, step and jump away from Antarctica).

Uniform Nazism is a very important part of Kiwi sport.

Here is an event that should have been included at Beijing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZMI7eI-WM

(...you need to get through to 4:26 in this video for the "Mystery Penis Guessing" competition in a Beijing restaurant. Bloody funny)


...And here is a beautiful wrap-up of the Olympics from an Australian point of view.