Who Won The Olympics - The United States or China?

china did win because gold is the most important medal
even if the US had more medals, say we add up the scores like this: gold 3 points, silver 2 points and bronze 1 point.
the total points would be...
China :
gold 51 x 3 = 153
silver 21 x 2 = 42
bronze 28 x 1 = 28
TOTAL : 223 points
USA:
gold 36 x 3 = 108
silver 38 x 2 = 76
bronze 36 x 1 = 36
TOTAL : 220 points

if country A had 30 bronze and country B had 29 gold
it would not make sense that country A wins...just cause they have more medals..

All countries which participate in any Olympic games do so as a team of sportsmen and women, not as individual stars. As such, the final results reflect the overall effort of the whole delegation of each country. Using an analogy of war, it is not the action of a hero that wins the war, it is the concerted effort of the whole armed forces. Team effort is always more important than personal achievement. We got to the Games as a nation, not as a group of stars. And our TEAM won the Games through a concerted effort and performance. The US had more medal winners than China, that means, we have more first class athletes than China.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

to be a truly first class athlete, you need to come first. thats how you get a gold medal. like china did. 51 times.

how you can suggest that someone who came 3rd is as good an athlete in their chosen sport as someone who comes 1st, is beyond me. The very inclusion of 2nd and 3rd place prizes is not part of the original olympic format. Gold used to be the only medal. Why? because 1st is the most worthy of acknowledgement. 2nd and 3rd on the other hand? if they get a medal, why shouldnt 4th? or 5th and 6th? why not do a points score like formula 1? 12 for 1st 10 for second 8 for 3rd and so on. however you do it, the fact remains,

there are more olympic events in which china has beaten the entire world than there are in which USA has.

and yes team events still only count as 1 medal. they always have only counted as 1 medal. they always will. everyone else in the world seems to see that china won on both the official ioc medal count, a standard 321 points system, and the alternate 531 points system. Only the US bangs on about 'total medals' and team medals all counting. why didnt the US say team medals should all count before the games? maybe because they didnt realise they'd be beaten in an official reading of the rules then.

ways and systems to count medals, and points and so on. But the fact is, everywhere, the medal count is the total medals won in an Olympic Game. And America won more medals than any other country.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

everywhere? or just in the USA? The medal tables elsewhere rank things a bit differently

Yahoo France
http://fr.sports.yahoo.com/jeux-olympiqu...

Yahoo australia
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/olympics/

Yahoo Germany
http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/olympische...

ABC australia
http://www.abc.net.au/olympics/

British Broadcasting Corp (BBC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/

official site of the Olympic Games
http://en.beijing2008.cn/

Reuters News Agency
http://blogs.reuters.com/china/2008/08/23/china-assured-of-first-place-in-medals-table/

Turkish Daily News
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=113535

Lets be honest here. Gold is clearly worth more than Silver and Bronze. Take this as an example.

China Russia and USA all compete in the first event of the Olympics.

China wins gold, usa silver, Russia bronze.

on the podium there are numbers. 3 under russia, 2 under USA, 1 under China. who is number 1?

I think its fair to say that Chinas achievement is greater than that of USAs and Russia's. No?

the medal table after that event would look like this

1. china 1 0 0 1
2. USA 0 1 0 1
3. Russia 0 0 1 1

it wouldnt say joint 1st between all of them. because thats not what happened. ok?

I tend to agree with hardhat. Getting a first position and a Gold in Olympics means a lot and cannot be equated with two silvers for example. There is only one winner, and he gets the Gold. And China has clearly surpassed US on that count.

But that the US has won more medal in aggregate is also true. Are two silver medals and one bronze better than one gold? How many silvers or bronze medals equate to a gold. This is open to debate.

Similar interesting discussion about took place on this topic too.

DO the Write Thing & Get Paid Here

Just close your eyes and think who is the winner - only one name comes up! if usa had won 51 golds and china 37 with just ten higher no. of medals , i am sure no one would have argued about the winner. Grace is a big thing. The thing is USA has forgotten to lose at Olympics - so the lack of grace in admitting the winner! I came across similar rantings when Nastia won a silver in an individual event, when the gymnast who won the event actually fumbled. China didnt invent the new gymnastics scoring system. It was decided at a proper international forum. If the scoring system has its faults, the same applies to everyone - the chinese gymnasts adapted better to the new system by taking on difficult routines and thus gaining more starting points, but the scoring system was same for everyone. Seriously, its very amusing to see the poor grace in which USA media is taking the loss of a few medals!

My writings here
My profile here

I kinda agree with you. Yes, China was smart in selecting the harder routines. But what about the United States as a team. Wouldn't you say that we had the most medals? What would that make us then?

Yes. I absolutely agree with you.

when do i ever argue with you :-)

My writings here
My profile here

I don't argue with you either :). I think you are awesome!

There are medals for winning individual events, obviously, but this fixation on who is the overall "winner" goes against the spirit of cooperation and harmony of the Olympic Games. I would rather have good competition between players and teams than have an attitude of "gold or bust".

Look at Men's Basketball. When it was amateur-focused with collegiate, non-professional players, it was more interesting to watch. Because the U.S. team didn't always win, steps were taken by the U.S.O.C. to bring in professional basketball players, the so-called Dream Team. Ever since then, Men's Basketball in the Olympics has epitomized everything that is wrong with the NBA: chest thumping, hosing down the court with testosterone, and winning is everything so screw competition. If this was an exception, I'd ignore it, but it tends to be the rule.

The Olympics is supposed to be about the bringing together of athletes from different countries, even if their governments are currently at odds, and seeing how people can learn how to cooperate under a singular flag. It is not supposed to be about "Ooh, my country has more gold medals, so we are the best country ever and everyone else must bow down to our greatness."

+1 for your article, champagnedreams, because I have many fond memories of Olympics past.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Thanks! You are awesome too!

My writings here
My profile here

for your vote. I agree with you about Men's Basketball. But isn't the Olympics a competition? And doesn't competition imply winning?

China has surpassed the USA on all counts here without doubt.

No. 1 position is definitely counted in Gold.

I am amazed to see that all the countries that are so used to "winning" are such bad losers! The same thing happened to Australia when they lost to Indians at the T20 Cricket world cup. They were the Unbeatable Team till then. Their bad temper and antics are well known on the field, specially when things are not going their way, they then scream, "Racism" at India!!!???!! I found that very funny. Imagine calling "India" Racist! Have you seen the way they treat Indians in Australia?

If an individual or a team went out and did his/her/its utmost best and gave everything he/she/it had, but didn't win a medal, would you say that that individual or team is a loser? I have more respect for individuals and teams that left everything on the floor or pool or arena but maybe didn't even place than I do for those who just coasted through the competition and claimed a medal.

Think about the best stories coming out of these Games. Are they the ones where a competitor overcame huge obstacles to get to the Olympics and maybe win a medal or are they the ones where one team dominated another one in a mismatch and won gold? Yes, Michael Phelps is an exception to that rule but because he did something no one else had ever done in a single Games.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

I just wanted to correct the record about the U.S. men's basketball team from a misinformed comment above.

The U.S. did not begin using professional players because they were getting beat in the Olympics. They had only lost two games in the entire history of the Olympics before the 1992 "Dream Team" - one of those losses was the absolute farce in Munich in 1972 and the other was in 1988.

The reason that the U.S. began using professional basketball players in international competition is because FIBA finally allowed us to use them in 1989. Before that time, Europe and South America were allowed to use professional athletes in basketball, but not anyone else. Our record before the 1992 team was 93-2 in Olympic basketball (and that includes the Munich loss).

It had nothing to do with U.S. dominance...we were already quite dominant. But if other nations were allowed to use their professional athletes in international competition, why should the U.S. be expected to deny our professionals the opportunity to play for their country?

I would suggest that the commentor do his research before making inaccurate comments, but I understand that's a tall order for him to fill. It's more important for some people to blame the U.S. for all the world's problems (even trivial ones like the spirit of Olympic basketball).

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

So, the lowly bronze medal won by the 1988 US basketball team had NOTHING to do with the decision to allow professional basketball players to be part of Team USA, hmm? Why not allow professional basketball players to play in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, or 1988? Why wait until Team USA was humiliated on the national stage?

1988 Team USA loses. 1989 FIBA, through some political backroom dealings, allows Team USA to use NBA players. Nah, that's just a coincidence. I couldn't care less what you think, Publius, but even the owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban, agrees:

US Olympic Basketball: Mark Cuban's Correct Call on NBA Players

It is also not coincidental that the allowing of NBA players onto Team USA in 1989 led to the rise of international NBA marketing and importing of more players into the NBA.

For you to say that FIBA made the decision in a vacuum is to ignore the facts. Take what you want from that statement, but I will let the reader read the article and decide for himself or herself.

But, that's your m.o. TELL the reader what to think and FEIGN surprise when the reader doesn't agree with you, using AD HOMINEMS to define the reader's disagreement, then PIOUSLY deny using said insults.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

For the commentors from other countries who are trying to incite the U.S. commentors...

Hey guy from Great Britain - let me know when your country gets to 50 total medals.

To the people from India - let me know when you get to five total medals. (And no, you can't combine the last three Olympics to get that total.)

Hey guy from Hong Kong - did you send a team this year?

I'm going to make this real simple. The total medal count does not rank people by gold medals. If it does, it isn't a "total" count - it is a "most gold" count. Only when a country is tied with another does the number of gold, silver, and bronze come into play. Let's look at a few examples:

Spain and Canada were tied at 18 medals each. Spain had five golds and Canada had three. That would put Spain ahead of Canada.

Poland, Hungary, and Norway had 10 medals each. They also had three gold each. So, the tie-breaker goes to the team with the most silver, which was Poland with six. Hungary and Norway each had five silver, so that tie-breaker goes to the most bronze, which also happened to be a tie. Hungary and Norway are even across the board.

The Czech Republic had six total medals and three gold. Cuba had 24 total medals, but only two gold. Does that mean the Czech Republic should be ranked ahead of Cuba who had four times the amount of total medals?

The "medal count" has always been based on the total number of medals. China finished with ten less medals than the United States. If we are going to place China ahead of the U.S. then we need to put Japan (with 25 medals) ahead of France (with 40); we need to put Mexico (3) ahead of Turkey (8); we need to place Tunisia (1) ahead of Armenia (6); and we need to put 16 countries ahead of Cuba because only 2 of Cuba's 24 medals were gold.

Not only is this stupid, but it defeats the purpose of awarding any other medal besides gold. If you're only counting gold, then you simply don't understand the Olympics.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

""The "medal count" has always been based on the total number of medals. China finished with ten less medals than the United States. If we are going to place China ahead of the U.S. then we need to put Japan (with 25 medals) ahead of France (with 40); we need to put Mexico (3) ahead of Turkey (8); we need to place Tunisia (1) ahead of Armenia (6); and we need to put 16 countries ahead of Cuba because only 2 of Cuba's 24 medals were gold. ""

not if we use some point system like i mentioned above.

if country X won 1-gold 3silver 13-bronze
and country Y won 8-gold 6 silver 0-bronze....

...country X would have a total of 17 medals
and country Y would have a total of 14 medals
it would look stupid if country X beats country Y due to "more medals" because gold, silver and bronze has different values, if they didn't why not just have one coloured medal and have three winners in each game....

therefore we should have a point system, since there are 3 different types of medals we should have something (like i mentioned above)like 3 points for gold, 2 points for silver and 1 point for bronze, just like they do for some leagues such as the English Premier League, 3 points for a Win 2 points for a Draw and 1 point for a Lost.

PS. if you look at the official medal standings Japan is ahead of France, Mexico is ahead of Turkey and Tunisia
is ahead of Armenia. Check it out yourself http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml

This argument is not in any way in the Olympic spirit! How many people arguing about this have ever seriously competed in a sport? If you have competed and won (and lost), at some level, you might see the Olympics differently.

The Olympics is designed to promote peace and cooperation between the countries of the world even when they may have conflicts off the Olympic field. It IS NOT a substitute for war. Did you see any representative of a National Olympic Committee receiving recognition as the winning country?

Of course countries like the USA, China and Russia can field huge teams and will always win the lions share of the medals whether they are gold, silver or bronze but it should never become all about the biggest teams.

Does that detract from the accomplishment of some of the smaller teams like Thailand for example, who came away from the games with two gold and two silver?

Falling back on some of the logic used in these arguments, the top 8 in each event are recognized by an Oympic Certificate, so maybe we should add all of those up too?

Maybe we should divide the number of medals by the number of athletes each country had competing in the games. (Actually, that might be a better measure of who was really the "winner" of the games.)

As an American, of course I root for the home team, but I also cheer for the Kenyan who won his country's first gold in the Marathon.

I saw the arguments starting, so I did post a byte linking to the Olympic Charter just in case anyone was interested in learning more about the Olympics and what they are all about.

"For the commentors from other countries who are trying to incite the U.S. commentors..."

"To the people from India - let me know when you get to five total medals. (And no, you can't combine the last three Olympics to get that total.)"

In other words....

OH, You Mere Mortals of lesser known lands, How dare you speaketh Thus to the Mighty Americans? Bow down to the God of all Gods. WE ARE THE TRUE CHAMPIONS!

"For the commentors from other countries who are trying to incite the U.S. commentors..."

"To the people from India - let me know when you get to five total medals. (And no, you can't combine the last three Olympics to get that total.)"

In other words....

OH, You Mere Mortals of lesser known lands, How dare you speaketh Thus to the Mighty Americans? Bow down to the God of all Gods. WE ARE THE TRUE CHAMPIONS!

"For the commentors from other countries who are trying to incite the U.S. commentors..."

"To the people from India - let me know when you get to five total medals. (And no, you can't combine the last three Olympics to get that total.)"

In other words....

OH, You Mere Mortals of lesser known lands, How dare you speaketh Thus to the Mighty Americans? Bow down to the God of all Gods. WE ARE THE TRUE CHAMPIONS!

I fully agree when you say "this argument is not in any way in the Olympic spirit" and "the Olympics is designed to promote peace and cooperation between the countries of the world even when they may have conflicts off the Olympic field"

However in the end there is a winner and a loser and ranks are presented every Olympics (less important than the main reason why we have the Olympics), and when a country claims they have won the olympics when they didn't, that is something we can disagree with especially when your from China. (i am not chinese btw)

To sum up, I'm shocked the way how the opening ceremony was given such negative comments repeatedly and nothing good was mentioned, even if one of the firework scene was a fakery or not, overall that was the best olympic opening ceremoney with out a doubt. I'm also disappointed the fact that the US can't take coming 2nd behind China, and have to claim they have won the olympics. It's sad theres such an argument but the truth is still the truth.

the firework scene was not fake, just a portion of the telecast was digitalised since it would apparently have been dangerous for cameras to track the real firework footprints. So those who saw it in beijing saw it live and real

My writings here
My profile here

In any competition, peaceful or otherwise, there is always a winner and a loser. That's just the way it is.

And yes, the opening ceremony was absolutely awesome. Nobody will ever be able to top that.

Here are the words directly from the Olympic Charter

"The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries."

You notice that the word competitions is plural. It is a series of competitions.

WHO WON THE OLYMPICS

"the firework scene was not fake, just a portion of the telecast was digitalised since it would apparently have been dangerous for cameras to track the real firework footprints. So those who saw it in beijing saw it live and real"

Hmmm, not sure what you mean... yes, a part of it was digitized, which means it WAS fake: they were not real fireworks explosions but a digital effect designed to create the appearance that certain fireworks were going off. It was created so people would see the effect on TV.

People in Beijing did not see that effect "live and real," because that portion of the fireworks was NOT real... it was added digitally for TV and didn't exist in the sky above the stadium.