Russia overtakes China in olympic standings.

Discussion in 'ATHENS 2004 non-badminton events' started by Russ7, Aug 25, 2004.

  1. Russ7

    Russ7 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before the olympics even started on a different forum I called...

    1. USA
    2. Russia
    3. China
    4. Aussies
    5. Japan

    Glad to see I picked the right order, I'm guessing that will be the standings at the end.
     
  2. Hugo

    Hugo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Well, it depends which method of ranking you're using. The official ranking system from Athens webpage uses gold medals as a standard which puts China 2nd place and only 1 behind USA. If you look at total medals then yes, Russia is 2nd and one ahead of China right now. China should be able to maintain 2nd place in golds if they can pick up the rest of their diving, get one in volleyball, and a few in their remaining events.

    Japan's basically done now with a few medal chances left in synchro swimming, wrestling, etc.. They will probably fall back a few once Germany and France etc. finish up and Russia gets more golds. But they have done much much better than they did at Sydney and have proved to the world that they've once again returned to 2nd best in Asia, ahead of South Korea.
     
  3. Russ7

    Russ7 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah I go by total medals... I mean if the standings HYPOTHETICALLY are...

    China, 24 gold, 10 silver, 5 bronze

    and USA 23 gold, 35 silver, 14, bronze

    Who do you think deserves top spot? USA has one less gold but their olympic team got wayy more medals and was obviously more successful.
     
  4. Pecheur

    Pecheur Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    I disagree, it's all about Gold baby, silver is best loser and almost no one remembers who got silver at the end of the day, let's not even talk about Bronze ;)

    By your argument, Denmark (1 Gold, 5 Bronze) has done better than New Zealand (3 gold, 1 Bronze)
     
    #4 Pecheur, Aug 26, 2004
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2004
  5. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    40,223
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    what if it is:

    country 1 : 14 gold, 0 silver, 0 bronze
    country 2 : 0 gold, 0 silver, 15 bronze

    then who deserves a top spot?

    i don't think one can argue that a gold is worth much more than a silver/bronze.

    and i also like to go by the official ranking in the official site.
     
  6. libra

    libra Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    I have to disagree... I think that the criteria for rankings should be golds won. It wouldn't be fair, to me at least for a country who wins say 1 silver and 1 bronze medal to claim they are better than a country that won a gold.

    Take badminton for example, if Gade had beaten Lin Dan in the semis (and Lin Dan went on to take the bronze) and Chen Hong in the final that puts Chine with 2 medals and Denmark with only 1 but the truth is, that one gold was earned by beating the other two medalist.

    Don't you think?
     
  7. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    21
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    maybe do it like chess, award points for each kill or medal in this case.
    I would give gold 5 points, silver 3 points, bronze 1 point, and rerank the whole list. :)
     
  8. Pecheur

    Pecheur Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    We used to do this in high school to work out which house won the athletics or swimming, can't remember what they used to be though, I always only cared about coming first ;P
     
  9. Russ7

    Russ7 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah I was just going to say that...

    3 points gold, 2 silver, and 1 for bronze or something like it. It would make sense. Many sports do it for wins and ties.


    Either way Russia has 144 million people while China has 1.3 billion, almost 10 times the amount of people. It's clear who is better pound for pound.
     
  10. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    21
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    .........G...S...B..M.. Cooler Point system
    1 USA 28 31 25 84.....138....
    2 CHN 25 17 12 54...... 88
    3 AUS 16 11 16 43......129
    4 RUS 15 21 24 60......102
    5 JPN 15 9 10 34 .......112
    6 GER 12 13 17 42.......116

    well, if u go by that standard, australia beats russia's pants off.
    Aus. has a population of 20 million as of Dec 31 2003. By my point system, the free worlds kick the pants of the commies. :p
     
  11. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    40,223
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    see, that's the problem with the point system. now we will start disagreeing on how many points a gold/silver/bronze should have. ;)
     
  12. Hugo

    Hugo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Cooler, by any standard, China should have more points than the Aussies, Japanese and Germans as the CHNese have more golds and more silvers??!

    What is the point method you used in the above??
     
  13. Russ7

    Russ7 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think he was going by population.

    But I mean you guys are saying China has more golds bla bla bla...

    But it isn't even remotely close anymore (total medals).

    Russia has 84 medals while china has 62.

    If we go by 3 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze (which I think is fair)

    USA= 206 pts
    Russia= 156 pts
    China= 141 pts
    Australia= 99 pts
    Germany= 90 pts
    Japan= 76 pts

    And since China has 10 times the population, etc... Russia's easily the winner in my book.
     
  14. Pecheur

    Pecheur Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    Since Russia has more than 5 times the population of Australia, Australia kicks Russia's arse ;)
     
  15. Hugo

    Hugo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    If we give points to each of the medals then gold should be at least 2 points more than silver as it's a totally different idea between the world's best and the world's top loser.

    As well, the excuse that China's only doing well because of her population has been used many times and I have seen so much discussions about it. If population is the reason for success, why then does India, with a population well over 1 billion, have only 1 medal right now???????????????? Population is far less of a contributing factor to national sporting success than money input, grassroot development programs, number of people playing competitve sports, sporting infrastructure, world-class facilities, level of overall competition and so on.......... Also, what's misleading about China is that ~70% of the population is farming/agriculture based. Couple that with the fact that schooling and academics are WAY more important than sports in China and ultimately in the end, there's probably several times more people playing sports in, say, the USA than there is in China.
     
  16. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    40,223
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    as i said, if we start giving out points, we will be spending a lot of time argue over what how much point shoudl be given to each medal.
     
  17. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    22
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    How many ranking systems are there? I think there is only one official one, and that is the Olympic Games Committee. The other one is the American one, which gives a bronze medal equal points to a gold medal winner. You think it makes sense? I wonder if they would still use the same system if, along the line of Kwun's earlier post, the medal standings are China 0 gold, 0 silver, 100 bronze, and the US 99 gold, 0 silver, and 0 bronze? Of course not? Is there such a thing as an Olympic Games completely free of politics? :rolleyes:
     
  18. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    21
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    -I had already defined my point system in previous post:
    5 for gold, 3 for silver, 1 for bronze
    - Agreed with Hugo. Population is not a good base to predict olympic success. Technically, china is still a 3rd world country.
     
  19. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    22
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Yet another system? Cooler, your point system will probably give birth to a hundred variations of the points system. Then each nation can use the one that shows itself punching way above its real punching weight. Let us give credit to the IOC. They have held many successful Olympics, and I believe the Olympic system as chosen by the IOC in a democratic process, has been agreed to bya majority of the competing countries.
     
  20. bluejeff

    bluejeff Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Developer
    Location:
    TW
    I think using Gold only is the way to go.

    Silver and Bronze should be used if two countries have the same gold numbers (a tie), then they compare silvers, if it's still the same, then, they compare the bronzes.

    However, if you still want to use the point system, then I would like to increase Gold's value.

    Gold=10 pts, Silver=2 pts, and Bronze=1 pt.
     

Share This Page