Notwithstanding Tibet, the conflict in Xinjiang, suppression of Falun Dafa, the alleged connection to the alleged genocide in Darfur, broken promises of a free press, the pollution and eviction of citizens from Beijing, or the less than flattering revelation of how the “live” opening of the Olympics was not quite as “live” as it should have been — not to mention the use of a substitute child lip-syncing the song at the opening ceremony because the actual singer was not pretty enough — another phenomenon which this Olympics will forever be associated with is the competition between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. The methods used to measure the competition at the moment are flawed however.
The Olympics, in a way, can be seen as a proxy battle between the world powers. Prior to the Second World War, the United States was up competing against Germany. The battle was conclusively settled outside of the stadium in 1945 in Berlin.
During the Cold War, it was the US against the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union crumbled under its own weight, so did the competition between the US and the USSR. Today, it is the PRC versus the US.
The competition between the US and the PRC is not just in the courts of sport. It can also be seen in how the points are tallied and, subsequently, how ranks are determined.
Go to the official website of the Beijing Olympics, head over to the medal count table and immediately a visitor can observe how the count is carried out. At the site, a gold medal is the ultimate yardstick. Regardless of quantity of bronze and silver medals, if a country has more gold medals than the other, the country gets to be on the top.
Head over to any Olympic standings published by the US press and there is a good chance that a person will find that countries are ranked by total medal count, regardless of the value of gold, bronze and silver. That is how the New York Times, FoxNews and MSNBC do it, anyway.
I am unsure how far the different ways of assigning ranks relate to competition between the US and the PRC but it is tempting to attribute the difference to the rivalry between the two countries. Another possibility is that this could be an innocent systematic difference.
A quick check of the official standings of previous editions of the Olympics reveals that it is gold medals that count, not total medals. In the 2000 Sydney Olympics, for instance, Ethiopia ranked 20th with four gold and eight total medals while Ukraine held the 21st place with three gold and 23 medals in total. The US ranked first, having the most gold and total medals.
The same arrangement is true for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Italy ranked 6th with 13 gold and 35 total medals while Australia ranked 7th with nine gold but 41 total medals. Just as with the 2000 edition, the US reigned supreme by garnering the most gold as well as total medals.
I am unsure how the US media did their rankings for the 1996 and the 2000 Games. Therefore, I cannot comment on the consistency of the US media but it is safe to say that the official convention at the Beijing Olympics is in line with past practice.
One way to see if bias has played a role in the determination of ranks would be to see if changes of circumstances of standings under a particular convention would lead to changes of convention.
Regardless, each convention suffers from a serious flaw respectively. Are 50 bronze medals worth less than a single gold medal? Is a gold medal worth as much as a bronze or a silver medal?
Surely the answer is no to both questions.
Yet, under the gold convention as officially adopted at the 2008 Olympic Games, the answer is yes to the first question and no to the second question. Under the total medal convention as adopted by the US media, the answer is reversed.
Truly, all participants actually care about winning a medal and what kind of medal. Gold is obviously the most favoured medal. Silver is not bad too if gold is out of reach. And better bronze than nothing, do you not think so?
The fact that participants compete for these medals and obviously hold transitive preferences for each type of medal insists that both types of ranking adopted by the Beijing Olympics and the US media are flawed. If the rankings are not flawed, then the principle of microeconomics would have to see a complete overhaul!
It would be the end of economics as we know it.
Seriously!
For those who truly wish to right the wrongs of the world, we can begin by restructuring the way countries are ranked in the Olympics. Weight to medal should be assigned to reflect the transitive nature of preference for different types of medals.
We could assign three points for gold, two for silver and one for bronze. The sum of points would then determine the final standings.
I think this is a worthy cause to fight for. I shall take up my dissatisfaction against the IOC by protesting in front of their headquarters soon. So, who is with me?
A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.
11 replies on “[1751] Of they counted it wrongly”
if that is the case, then let’s cut the pretension and do away with silver and bronze.
2 is not a winner and 3 nobody remembers…
Ask the US Media; If Phelps had won only 6 golds and 2 silver, is it better than Spitz 7 Gold??
Under both conventions in the past, the US still top the rankings. For the longest time, the US was both the country with the most gold AND total medal. You could check past tallies for that. Therefore, all of your points do not hold water.
As for me, as I have mentioned, I have problems with both conventions because both are flawed. And that is the point of the whole article. I’m not quite sure why everybody is overlooking the main point.
Another thing. I apologize if my first comment was misleading.
I meant to say the US has ALWAYS used the ‘total medal tally’ system, AND I have problems with that. I didn’t mean to imply it had only started using it for this Olympics.
I said what I said based on what I’ve seen. Here in Australia the ‘gold tally first’ rule is used. Same with Malaysia. Same also with the UK.
Pray tell now the reason for the US’s alternative system? Is it just a case of US recalcitrant tendencies again? Similar with how it persists with the antiquated Imperial units?
The US continues with the ‘total medal tally’ count for one simple reason only: It has historically been the country which wins the most medals. Let’s call out bias-ness when we see it. No harm in that.
About an interesting a topic as the mating habits of the Amazon leech or the feeding habits of the Serengetti lallang-mite.
How come they don’t have squash at the Olympics, but they have beach volley-ball, futsal, wushu, softball and that peculiar but thrilling sport called ‘ogling female divers in the open shower stalls.’
http://donplaypuks.blogspot
I recall that in the last olympics newsites like Cnn also list total medals first. It’s the american way. I had the same question last time when that happened in 2004.
I dont read too much into this.. but i view total medals as significant. But just participating is already an achievement in itself for athletes.
I do agree with the views from 1st commentator about China. The way they go about churning athletes are like the Soviet or East Germans of the past. At all cost for national pride.
Are you sure about that? Could you prove that the US did not adopt its current convention in the past? Until anybody could prove that, I don’t think your conclusion could be valid.
The USA’s ‘unique’ ranking system just shows that the USA can get off its imaginary ‘moral’ high horse and admit it’s as biased as any other country.
It’s quite obvious that once the US realised it couldn’t defeat China in the gold medal tally, it decided to adopt it’s own system. And it worked for a while, during the first few weeks of the competition when it was ahead of China in the metal tally count but behind in gold, yet ranked as the #1 country in the tables.
IMHO, the Olympic has turn into countries pride arena. And many countries just want to won the medal regardless of the PROCESS!
During the cold war, Olympic game are none other than DOPE competitions, or athlete mills. Olympic are none other than the F1 game, which burn country willing to pay billions.
China alone, has create a system for the sick of getting gold medals. The process are cruel : youth are recruited in mass, and there is no “rehabilitation” plan for people that failed to achieve the rank. In China, to “produce” 1 athlete from the sport school, at least 1000 youth/children are recruited, and they don’t have a life except training.