China second on the medal tally? Only in America
Roar Pro
By Benjamin Conkey, 25 Aug 2008 Benjamin Conkey is a Roar Pro
The United States of America topped the medal tally in Beijing. That’s right, America is the best. What? You don’t believe me? You think China won with 51 gold medals to America’s 36? You’re wrong, and Americans will tell you so.
You see the great broadcaster, NBC decided it would be awesome if they used their own medal tally. A medal tally that ranks countries by total medals won, not by that silly thing called gold.
So that means America did beat China in their own country by 110 medals to 100.
The cynic in me says NBC knew this day would come. They knew that America would be challenged one day by the emerging communist superpower.
Changing the medal tally was a stroke of genius. Now Americans can feel better about themselves, while the rest of the world applauds China for their worthy place at the top.
We shouldn’t be surprised by this arrogance. After all, NBC were the ones that blackmailed China into scheduling the swimming finals in the morning to synch up with prime time viewing in the States.
Then, they had the nerve to show Access Hollywood while Phelps was swimming for his eighth gold medal. This was followed by a newsflash asking ‘Will Michael Phelps make Olympic history?’
And we complain about Channel Seven!
It’s not just changing official medal tallies that annoys me about American sport. If you flick on the television in the next few weeks for the U.S Open, don’t get too excited if a match enters a final set.
Americans for the last couple of years don’t believe in advantage sets. Therefore, you will never see a 21-19 fifth set like the famous Andy Roddick-Younes El Aynaoui marathon.
Instead, you can expect a lame tie-breaker to decide a Grand Slam match, just because Americans like to be different.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- Why I won’t be watching the Sharapova-Azarenka final (51)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (45)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Sonny Bill wins title in first round (25)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (3)
- New champ Williams looking to next fight (4)
- Aust and GB aim to convert 4ths to bronze
- Young pitcher signs big deal with Red Sox (7)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (19)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (3)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (19)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (43)
- Lachlan Murdoch squashing FTA sport for Fox’s benefit (4)
- Sonny Bill Williams vs Clarence Tillman III: Live updates, blog [video] (180)
- Explore:
USRugbyFan said | August 25th 2008 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
What are you on? We won more total medals than China, so therefore we are #1 in the standings. It’s simple logic, I don’t know how you try and twist that around.
Homer said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
USRugbyFan congratulations on coming second or third. Everyone else will congratulate China on winning things. Hang on, did I just use logic?
Jerry said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
If you’re gonna go to the trouble of ranking nations by medals won logic would dictate that a gold medal is worth more than a silver which is worth more than a bronze. I don’t see how anyone could seriously claim that 10 bronze medals is better than 8 golds, but to be fair the US have been using the same ranking system for a fair while now, including when they were winning the most gold medals.
USRugbyFan – pretty much every other table ranks countries in terms of gold medals, with silver and bronze used as a tie breaker. So a country with 3 golds and no silver is ranked higher than a country with 2 golds, 2 silvers and a bronze for instance. Neither system is perfect as you could say the second country in my scenario has actually achieved more – some have suggested a weighting system where (for instance) gold is worth 3 points, silver 2 and bronze 1. But it’s all academic as the IOC and Olympic Charter say there’s no official ranking system for medals won.
sheek said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Let’s see…..
3 points for gold, 2 points for silver, one point for bronze.
USA – 36 x 3 = 108; 38 x 2 = 76; 36 x 1 = 36. Total points 220.
PRC – 51 x 3 = 153; 21 x 2 = 42; 28 x 1 = 28. Total points 223.
Well, on that basis, China wins. Gee, isn’t it the yanks who often turn their noses up at anything with a colour other than gold?
JohnB said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
There’s no “official” table, or “official” “number 1 country” title, so you can choose to rank it as you will. The statements “the US topped the total medals won tally at the Beijing Olympics” and “China topped the gold medal tally at the Beijing Olympics” are both true. It’s up to the reader which measure they consider the more significant.
If you can get a consensus there, I suggest you start work on the questions of whether all medals are of equal value regardless of the sports they are won in, and whether all sports and events in the Olympics should be included!
JohnB said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Sheek – your post went in while I was typing mine. In my view, while you could possibly argue that 2 bronze equal one silver, there’s no way 2 silvers beat (or even equal) 1 gold, so the points can’t be 3/2/1. While at some point a country winning multiple silver and bronze does start to look like it’s doing better than one which wins a solitary gold, I think there should be a good deal more weighting for a gold. Maybe something like 7 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze?
Redb said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
I was thinking if we managed to get more overall medals than Great Britain (missed by one) then we may have chosen a similiar route
Redb
JohnB said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Redb, as I read it, the bet John Coates had with his GB counterpart was based on total medals not gold medals, so we would have had some basis for that approach!
Mick of Newie said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
I’d take Jamaica’s gold medals over Australia’s.
Redb said | August 25th 2008 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
JohnB,
I think Coates is leading with his chin re a challenge to win more medals than Great Britain in 2012, apart from the fact that the host nation usually punches well above their weight, we have no need to prove anything to anyone. Our medla tally is admirable for the size of this country especially if when you look around at the other countries in the Top ten, members of the G8 and China.
Redb