Tweet
The Olympian, WA
Aug 24 2008
Which country is winning? That depends on how you count the medals
By Vahe Gregorian |
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Published August 24, 2008
Comment (1) BEIJING ' At the halfway point of the Beijing Olympics,
discerning the winner was a simple matter. It was, of course,
Slovenia, which overtook Armenia courtesy of Primoz Kozmuz's gold
medal in the hammer throw.
Should you scoff at the relevance of that Los Angeles Times-generated
report based on medals per capita, there's always the European Union
approach of classifying Olympic competition by economic blocks. By
coincidence, The Guardian reports, this methodology crowns the EU
champion of the Beijing Olympics.
And then there's the `Alternative Olympic Games Medal Tally' touted by
Australian economist Bill Mitchell. He told The Associated Press that
the clear winner is, naturally, North Korea ... at least based on his
funky formula incorporating a nation's relative wealth.
If you torture the numbers long enough, the saying goes, you can get
them to confess to anything.
So is the winner of the Olympics the nation that claims the most gold
medals (China, with 49), or the one with the most overall (the United
States, 108 with two more guaranteed in men's basketball and men's
water polo)?
Could it be both? Or even neither?
`There is no official way ' there has never been an official medal
count,' said David Wallechinsky, author of `The Complete Book of the
Summer Olympics' and one of the foremost historians of the Games. `So
all of this is artificial.'
The fascination with medal counts, not to mention distinguishing
between golds and overall totals, really didn't begin until after
World War II.
`During the Cold War, it was a big deal,' he said. `It was like a
surrogate war going on.'
Even so, it wasn't until either the 1988 Seoul Games or perhaps
Barcelona in 1992, Wallechinsky said, that the International Olympic
Committee grudgingly posted medal counts for the press.
`The IOC really resisted it,' he said. `Until then it was something we
all did on paper on the side.'
Today, it's hard to find a medal table on the modern equivalent, the
IOC website. But reflecting the times in several ways, the tab for
medal counts is front and center on nbcolympics.com, a popular
website.
As of the end of competition Saturday, its standings led with the
United States and its 108 medals overall, followed by China second
with 97. Below it is a poll asking, `Which matters more?' Gold medals
won (or) total medals won?
Most of the rest of the world ' other than those calculating by per
capita or economic formulas, that is ' renders its standings in order
of gold medals won. But while NBC's stance seems to reflect a
U.S.-centric point of view, and Wallechinsky joked that it might be
done differently if Americans were winning the gold but not the
overall, the USOC says it long has measured its Olympic production
more by its breadth.
While USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth says Team USA is as `fascinated'
with golds as anybody and suggests there is room for improvement,
colleague Jim Scherr said he considers the performance in Beijing one
of the most `successful engagements' in an Olympics ever.
Not that the USOC is claiming Beijing as an exclusive victory for the
U.S.
`It's a matter of what the tradition and expectations are as a
country. There's not a right way or a wrong way. They're just
different,' said Darryl Seibel, chief communications officer for the
USOC. `You're seeing two countries succeed at a high level in their
respective areas of emphasis.
`China emphasizes gold medal production, and they're succeeding. We
emphasize total medal production, and we're leading the total overall
medal count.'
Seibel called that a `reflection of what we value and measure as a
society,' and China has taken that tack toward gold medals over the
last generation since it won its first in the 1984 Los Angeles Games.
Shortly after being granted the Olympics in 2001, China invested
itself in Project 119 ' a strategy to go after more gold medals among
the 119 available in track and field, rowing, swimming, canoe/kayak
and sailing.
As it happened, China won only four golds in those categories. Most of
its gold rush came through gymnastics (11 including trampoline),
weightlifting (eight) and diving (seven).
American gold, though, was even more centralized. Of its 33, swimming
claimed 12 ' with Michael Phelps nabbing eight ' and track has seven
in a year that will be remembered for being its first-ever Olympics
without a gold in any of the six sprint events. No other American
sport won more than two.
But even as they seemingly conceded the gold count, Scherr and Seibel
each noted that the sheer number of Americans who won gold medals was
much higher given the number of teams and relays involved.
`Some countries are just not in the business of investing
significantly in a medal that is two weeks in the making here,' Seibel
said, adding, `That matters in our country (but) it's a slower path.'
China's only team golds were in rowing (women's quadruple skulls) and
men's team and women's team gymnastics.
Not even counting the convoluted permutations of swimmers and track
runners involved in relays, or the men who could win the basketball
championship game, 54 individual Americans won gold in six team events
(men's volleyball, women's basketball, women's soccer, men's and
women's beach volleyball and rowing women's eight).
A reflection of the USOC emphasis could be seen and heard Saturday at
the Bird's Nest, after the men's 1,600-meter relay team won gold.
`That shows you they care about representing America,' track coach
Bubba Thornton said. `They wanted to end it with a good dose of good
ol' American apple pie.'
It's not likely the Chinese care any less about representing their
country, of course. And in the end, the difference in views and
results might be seen as merely the difference between, say,
loganberries found in the States and ... longan berries, a popular
Chinese fruit.
And who's to say either is more definitive than per capita or economic
indicators?
`There are different ways of looking at it,' Wallechinsky said, `and
those are not invalid.'
Aug 24 2008
Which country is winning? That depends on how you count the medals
By Vahe Gregorian |
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Published August 24, 2008
Comment (1) BEIJING ' At the halfway point of the Beijing Olympics,
discerning the winner was a simple matter. It was, of course,
Slovenia, which overtook Armenia courtesy of Primoz Kozmuz's gold
medal in the hammer throw.
Should you scoff at the relevance of that Los Angeles Times-generated
report based on medals per capita, there's always the European Union
approach of classifying Olympic competition by economic blocks. By
coincidence, The Guardian reports, this methodology crowns the EU
champion of the Beijing Olympics.
And then there's the `Alternative Olympic Games Medal Tally' touted by
Australian economist Bill Mitchell. He told The Associated Press that
the clear winner is, naturally, North Korea ... at least based on his
funky formula incorporating a nation's relative wealth.
If you torture the numbers long enough, the saying goes, you can get
them to confess to anything.
So is the winner of the Olympics the nation that claims the most gold
medals (China, with 49), or the one with the most overall (the United
States, 108 with two more guaranteed in men's basketball and men's
water polo)?
Could it be both? Or even neither?
`There is no official way ' there has never been an official medal
count,' said David Wallechinsky, author of `The Complete Book of the
Summer Olympics' and one of the foremost historians of the Games. `So
all of this is artificial.'
The fascination with medal counts, not to mention distinguishing
between golds and overall totals, really didn't begin until after
World War II.
`During the Cold War, it was a big deal,' he said. `It was like a
surrogate war going on.'
Even so, it wasn't until either the 1988 Seoul Games or perhaps
Barcelona in 1992, Wallechinsky said, that the International Olympic
Committee grudgingly posted medal counts for the press.
`The IOC really resisted it,' he said. `Until then it was something we
all did on paper on the side.'
Today, it's hard to find a medal table on the modern equivalent, the
IOC website. But reflecting the times in several ways, the tab for
medal counts is front and center on nbcolympics.com, a popular
website.
As of the end of competition Saturday, its standings led with the
United States and its 108 medals overall, followed by China second
with 97. Below it is a poll asking, `Which matters more?' Gold medals
won (or) total medals won?
Most of the rest of the world ' other than those calculating by per
capita or economic formulas, that is ' renders its standings in order
of gold medals won. But while NBC's stance seems to reflect a
U.S.-centric point of view, and Wallechinsky joked that it might be
done differently if Americans were winning the gold but not the
overall, the USOC says it long has measured its Olympic production
more by its breadth.
While USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth says Team USA is as `fascinated'
with golds as anybody and suggests there is room for improvement,
colleague Jim Scherr said he considers the performance in Beijing one
of the most `successful engagements' in an Olympics ever.
Not that the USOC is claiming Beijing as an exclusive victory for the
U.S.
`It's a matter of what the tradition and expectations are as a
country. There's not a right way or a wrong way. They're just
different,' said Darryl Seibel, chief communications officer for the
USOC. `You're seeing two countries succeed at a high level in their
respective areas of emphasis.
`China emphasizes gold medal production, and they're succeeding. We
emphasize total medal production, and we're leading the total overall
medal count.'
Seibel called that a `reflection of what we value and measure as a
society,' and China has taken that tack toward gold medals over the
last generation since it won its first in the 1984 Los Angeles Games.
Shortly after being granted the Olympics in 2001, China invested
itself in Project 119 ' a strategy to go after more gold medals among
the 119 available in track and field, rowing, swimming, canoe/kayak
and sailing.
As it happened, China won only four golds in those categories. Most of
its gold rush came through gymnastics (11 including trampoline),
weightlifting (eight) and diving (seven).
American gold, though, was even more centralized. Of its 33, swimming
claimed 12 ' with Michael Phelps nabbing eight ' and track has seven
in a year that will be remembered for being its first-ever Olympics
without a gold in any of the six sprint events. No other American
sport won more than two.
But even as they seemingly conceded the gold count, Scherr and Seibel
each noted that the sheer number of Americans who won gold medals was
much higher given the number of teams and relays involved.
`Some countries are just not in the business of investing
significantly in a medal that is two weeks in the making here,' Seibel
said, adding, `That matters in our country (but) it's a slower path.'
China's only team golds were in rowing (women's quadruple skulls) and
men's team and women's team gymnastics.
Not even counting the convoluted permutations of swimmers and track
runners involved in relays, or the men who could win the basketball
championship game, 54 individual Americans won gold in six team events
(men's volleyball, women's basketball, women's soccer, men's and
women's beach volleyball and rowing women's eight).
A reflection of the USOC emphasis could be seen and heard Saturday at
the Bird's Nest, after the men's 1,600-meter relay team won gold.
`That shows you they care about representing America,' track coach
Bubba Thornton said. `They wanted to end it with a good dose of good
ol' American apple pie.'
It's not likely the Chinese care any less about representing their
country, of course. And in the end, the difference in views and
results might be seen as merely the difference between, say,
loganberries found in the States and ... longan berries, a popular
Chinese fruit.
And who's to say either is more definitive than per capita or economic
indicators?
`There are different ways of looking at it,' Wallechinsky said, `and
those are not invalid.'