What's better?
I have a dog in this hunt. You see, I'm a REAL homer. I love my country and want to see us do well. In fact, I get pretty upset when we lose stuff...especially if we should win.
What I don't like is two different measures of winning.
In this case it's medal counts. We (the good 'ol USA) tend to count total medals...but if I'm China, I think Gold's would be my measure of choice, as they may need to build their own Ft. Knox to house all of theirs.
And frankly, if I'm totally honest, I tend to agree with the Chinese...total Gold's should be the measure of excellence. I mean really, Silver is the 1st loser and Bronze is the 2nd loser. I'm not sure when they started awarding Silvers and Bronzes, but I'm guessing about the time Dr. Spock's parenting book came out.
So, what do you think is better...most medals....or most Gold's?
posted by Hollywood at 7:36 AM
1 Comments:
I'm okay with the top 3 being recognized. I mean, in the case of swimming, literally hudredths or tenths of a second separate all three places. Keep in mind that this is a WORLDWIDE competition. to pick 3 is certainly elite.
And, it's certainly NOT cheapening the medal count because, well, they're GIVING OUT MEDALS. And, frankly, I don't think a Chinese gold in fencing is better than an American bronze in the 200 meter butterfly. I mean, like 50 people in the world fence.
So, they can have their gold in synchronized diving. Our golds in basketball (men & women), swimming, track, softball, etc. mean more to me than the gold they get for badminton.
Man, you kinda went all Ricky Bobby on this: "If you ain't first, you're last." Hehehehe. May work for NASCAR, but not in worldwide competition, man.
8:58 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home