warspite1
Posts: 10744
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:
ORIGINAL: redcoat
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Depends how you look at it - we've always done the table based on Golds first, not number of medals.
That's true. We use the gold first system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_medal_table
China have led the way since day one.
We would be higher up the table if we cheated and used the total number of medals won.
Interesting quote from the IOC chief what:
"I believe each country will highlight what suits it best. One country will say, 'Gold medals.' The other country will say, 'The total tally counts.' We take no position on that."
IOC President Jacques Rogge[5]
So my question to the Britishers: which methodology makes you feel better about your traditional underwhelming Olympics performance-the Gold count that you didn't win or the total medals count that you didn't get within a whiff of*?
Warspite1
As I've said, we consistently use the Golds first method. We don't change the method to make us feel better or enhance our position (unless we used the Ambrose method it wouldn't do us much good anyway  ).
As to traditional underwhelming performance, well yes, but more so in the past. It's only recently that someone realised you need to put money and effort into a co-ordinated approach. Yes we've had some stinkers - 1952 (Helsinki) 1 gold - won in showjumping, the last competition of the last day and, more recently, 1996 (Atlanta) - just 1 gold again, this time in the rowing, but I think we have given much to the Olympic movement - outside of just winning medals.
It is recognised we not only stepped in when Italy suffered their earthquake in 1906 - but those London games, held in 1908, are also regarded as having saved the Olympic movement after the unfortunate events of Paris (1900) and St Louis (1904).
Despite London being a bomb site, having absolutely no money, and the islands still undergoing rationing (imagine training under those conditions) we successfully held the 1948 (austerity) games too.
And finally, I repeat the comment made previously. In the name of fair play we did not go down the route of Vancouver by restricting access to courses for overseas athletes.
These achievements were recognised by Jacques Rogge in his speech at the opening ceremony.
It has been commented on by overseas athletes how fair our supporters have been, recognising the greatness of athletes regardless of nationality in terms of applause and cheering.
We don't always win - well, truth be told, we rarely win  - but we play fair (mostly) and do our bit.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/2/2012 11:28:35 AM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.
|
Printable Version
RE: All things Olympics and London 2012 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread