You know I obviously am never gonna fully understand the intricacies of some of these sports, like gymnastics. There are gonna be deductions and small nuances in a routine that I'll never be able to see. But my problem with these judged events, over the years that I've watched them, is the inconsistency of the scores and the discrepancy between the judges...and their accountability; it's way too subjective. And until they address that problem there will always be much scrutiny. Maybe they need to not only display the judges score on that event, but the amount of deductions and what each one was for (and by display I mean show it to the public, much like referees in other sports who have hand signals for each rule infraction)...that would seem to eliminate any wiggle room. You can't give a .6 deduction for something that is only supposed to be .5 ...if you do then you have to explain the other one-tenth. Now extending on that...what if all the scores are entered into the computer, every deduction has a reason for it but there is still discrepancy between the judges. The computer should recognize that and alert the panel. So now here's where instant replay proves valuable. The computer should be able to eliminate the deductions that all the judges had in common, leaving only the differences. So then you just have to go back through the video quickly and take a look to see if those deductions were warranted. If they were you keep them, if they are not based on video evidence you get rid of them. So now you've been able to eliminate any deductions that were wrong and keep the ones that were justified; the judges score by this time should all be the same...and much like a jury, once that unanimous verdict has been reached, it's turned in as an official score. The judges don't operate independently; if there's confusion they have to work together to get the call right. And you eliminate (as best you can) any subjectivity because they all have to be accountable for their scores and they all have to be in agreement. I think the technology is there to do this and to do it efficiently. Certainly I'm no expert, but am I wrong in thinking it could be this simple?
Makes too much sense to ever be implemented. Crooked judges such as the French judge at the SLC Winter Olympics or the boxing judges at Seoul are what always make people suspect the judging. If they were the blatant ones that got caught, how many more subtle fixes went unproven or unnoticed?
hoahm...such an ignorant post.... maybe u can go to countries like China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Denmark, Thailand and even in some part of England and India (already about 2.5 billion people combined) too see how much they care about their badminton baseball? US, Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic....hmmm ...600 million people? oh man.. nobody complained that football only got 2 golds for olympics ....so why complain about basketball only getting 2 golds...maybe because u guys are behind in golds ?? This thread has turn into a whining thread ...heck ...quit whining and act like a winner, ..... and conceed that China will highly likely become the leading gold medal winner (gold always worth a zillion more than silver and bronze, so for those of u guys who use medal count to determine the strongest sporting country, that is pretty stupid) NB: Check my previous posts....I am definitely not Chinese
Really? I've always thought that 1st place is worth A LOT MORE than 2nd place. Are you telling me that the Bills would rather be 4 time SB losers than 2 time SB winners? Which you would be by that logic. 2nd place, after all, is the 1st loser. I don't understand the fascination with total medal count. By this logic, we might as well give credit to 4th/5th place performers, becaue they also accomplished "something". In a country where our sports fan mentality is defined by "championship >>>>>> all else", why are we caring so much about silver or bronze?
Olympics: America turns the tables Rest assured, only in America. Most of the technocrat crowd knows about it
why cant they have a tie in Gymnastic? man, that tie breaker make no sense and both athlete deserve a win.
WHy care about silver or bronze? Because they mean something, thats why. If the Olympics was all about the Gold, then nobody would get silver or bronze, the only medal handed out would be gold, then it would defeat the whole purpose of the Olympics. Obviously some people love to sell out to what has been going on for a long long time. Go buddy up with the commies.
They mean that you are the loser of your chosen sport. The purpose of the Olympics is about raising the bar to the highest position possible, that's why it's the most prestigious competition. They only hand out silver and bronze as consolation prizes. When all reasons fail, be rude and insult those who don't agree with you ... classic.
I agree they mean something. And if I would ever get a bronze medal in ANY Olympic event (even lame ones like shooting), I'd be celebrating and bragging my ass off. But let's face it, a silver or a bronze is nowhere close to a gold medal. Other things where I consider the winner to be much better than any other placement 1. NBA Champion >>>> Finals loser 2. NCAA basketball champion >>>> final four appearance 3. Super Bowl winer >>>>> Super bowl loser 4. Grand Slam champion(in tennis) >>>> runner up 5. College football AP/Coaches Poll/BCS rank #1 >>>>>>>>>> Season ending ranking #3. The list is endless. And as an Astros fan, I did NOT feel anywhere as close to jubulant as the Sox fans felt when we got our ass kicked in the championship series. What the hell does this have to do with me loving commies?
pirc1 was proposing a scoring system to determine an overall winner of the Olympics (the Superbowl) by assigning points to medals (season games). In Formula 1, you get 10 points for a 1st place finish, 8 points for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, etc. You don't weight first place so heavily that you give the championship trophy to the guy that wins 1 out of every 10 races, and fails to place in the others.
It's rather senseless. In competitive sports, you either win, or you lose. That's only for each race. At the end of the season, there is only 1 winner for the drivers and only 1 winner for the constructors. All professional sporting leagues operate the same way. There is 1 winner in NBA each season, 1 winner in Superbowl each season, 1 winner in each boxing match, 1 winner in World Cup every 4 years. The list is endless. Do you ever hear any professional sports team that publicly announce that they only want to be the second best? Rudy Tomjanovich had that famous quote "Don't ever underestimate the heart of a champion", how would you feel if he had said "Don't ever underestimate the heart of a runner-up"?
You've typed all this inane babble out without showing one iota of knowing what the original conversation was about.
It's hard to talk to have a conversation with somebody that has no grasp of the topic at hand. Posters were suggesting a scoring system for medals for those that don't want to go purely by total medal count or gold medal count. Then you come in here proclaiming that there can only be one winner in the NFL, NCAA, FIFA, etc. without proposing how you would determine a winner in the Olympics. I'd guess from your posts that you would just go by total golds, which is a fair enough stance, but you never really come out and say it.
I think you are seriously stretching to compare the Olympics with F1 racing. The Olympics isn't a ranking system. If it was, there would be no need for games. The top ranked player in their respective sports would simply step up to the podium. F1 system is like giving the Mavs the NBA championship trophy two years ago because they won more regular season games than anyone else. Or give the US basketball team their gold medal now because they were #1 in the preliminaries. I can't imagine I'm arguing against Americans(or at least I think you guys are) on the validity of 1st place being vastly superior to any place below it. This seems almost surreal.
<br> Your response to louisiana was fitting but the last one had nothing to do with the original discussion... <br> A system where each medal is worth a certain amount of points would be very logical. Maybe 10 for gold 6 for silver and 3 or 4 for bronze
It's hard to have a proper discussion with someone who completely refuses to be rational. I'm dismissing the system of giving weights to medals as total nonsense -- that's my contribution to that discussion. Of course I think that we should just go by total golds, I've said that many times before my last a few posts.
<br> Are you serious?? What are you talking about. When he says ranking system he is referring to the point at which the event has been completed and the 3 medals awarded.. Let's say it's judo and japan gets 1st usa 2nd and brazil 3rd. Would it not be fair to give china 10 points for their gold the USA 6 for their silver and brazil 4 for their bronze??
You cannot start giving weight to medals because there is no objective way of determining the values of the weights. If a gold is more important than a silver, then that should be the end of the story -- who cares how much more important? How do you determine the weights anyway? Why is a gold 10 and a silver 6? Why not give gold 11, and silver 7? How about 3.3 for gold and 2.1 for silver? How are these numbers more meaningful than something you pull out of your rear end? While you are at it, why not give weights to the 4th, 5th and 6th, and all the other losers? They are participants too, are they meaningless?
err .... no, because China is not Japan and therefore does not win anything when Japan wins the gold. and no, Japan should just get the gold, and everyone else is a loser. the points make no sense.
