Printable View
Figured with the Olympics almost complete and a world-wide membership on the VX board it would be a good time to start a fight. So...
What's more important, winning the most medals or winning the most golds?
As an American I'm obviously in favor of most medals, but I'm betting our friends to the north would disagree... :D
You should have included a fourth option in your poll...:yesgray:
O - Jimmy crack corn, & I haven't watched a single event...:laughing:
sorryQuote:
Originally Posted by Ldub
How about a ranking based on medals vs. competitiors? If a country had 500 athletes and won 20 medals, is that better than a country having 20 athletes and winning 10 medals? There are many ways to weigh the results and conclude which is better. Joannie Rochette didn't need a gold medal to win the hearts of Olympic viewers.
How about a point system?
3 points for a gold medal.
2 points for a silver medal.
1 point for a bronze medal.
Peace.
Tom
I'm amazed that it hasn't taken the way that almost all other non professional competition has headed..
There are no loosers, everyone is a winner so, everyone gets a medal just for competing oh heck, just for showing up! Yea!!!! Go World!!!!
Those Olympics would be Special...Quote:
Originally Posted by Moncha
Well, ya gotta admit that a gold is worth more than a silver or bronze.
There should be 4 columns -
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Points - based on say 5 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze.
The country with the most points wins the games.
Not that I care, or that it is important anyway.
The athletes that get to that level all deserve recognition, even if they are paid proffessionals.
PK
What's it matter? It's everyone vs the US anyways. Nobody cares who wins or loses unless they beat out the US. *shrug*
People and their silly reindeer games. Stop skiing and skating and get a job. :p
who cares. Millions of tax payer dollars so teenagers can do the game they love and only to get rich if they are successful. Stop funding these silly things and give me my money back.
Gold medals...everyone else is just the best of the rest!:bwgy:
i think its funny how many people are 'opposed' to the games. considering i would BET that most of those people b*tching watch football/baseball/basketball which take much less skill and training and get paid x10 more than olympians.
IMHO, soccer and hockey are true "passion" sports (in the US anyways). Marketing and salaries/bonus' are very weak considering the sports you mentioned and these guys play it regardless for the love. But, give me RallyX any day. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pbkid
I have nothing against the Olympics, I just think they are overrated. Especially for a US athlete. Unless your name is already big (like Shaun White with his gazillions of Wii endorsements, that Carrot Top looking mofo), you are essentially nobody, even to your own country. Playing favorites is all it is.
Just my opinion....
i'm with circmand... why is this money funding stupid kids getting rich
i didn't watch the olympics and i don't follow any sport for the same reason... that money could be put to better use...
i wish we gave that much money to our troops... they do something important and deserve it MUCH more than any athlete
T/J, but we do give a lot of money to our troops. Free healthcare, housing, GI bill, hazardous duty pay, life-long disability benefits, great retirement plan for those that stay in, and the gift of nearly guaranteed employment following separation (at least for those continuing to live/work in military heavy areas). No doubt great sacrifices are made for these benefits, but it's not like they're going away empty handed. Maybe E-1/2/3 are underpaid, but it makes up for itself over time IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by So-CalVX
FWIW, my wife was active duty and is still in the Guard, so I do speak from some experience.
I am 100% with Tom on this one..Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdietrying
Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
Apperently you have not read the condition of military hospitals thanks to Bush or the push to bill a GIs personal insurance for battle injuries being pushed by Obama. The military is the only brangh of the government still being paid less than the private sector in return for more security. Now government flunkies are making out like bandits thanks to a $700 Billion tax payer funded stimulous that was used to keep government employees employed while millions in the private sector got taxed and laid off.
Trust me, unless the athlete has outside indorsements they are no where near getting "rich" on the stipidends that the Olympic gives them. Most have to work real jobs just to make ends meet. I know several that if it wasn't for the generosity of a friends couch to crash on wouldn't be able to make ends meet.Quote:
Originally Posted by So-CalVX
The government spends WAY more money on WAY stupider things!
The government does spend money on stupider things but is that a valid arguement for wasting what they do spend. Sure these kids do not get rich while training but I would like to see what the US tax payer pays to train them. Then if they do get successful and win a gold medal they start getting rich on endorsements. At least with overpaid professional athletes you have an owner and fans voluntarily paying for it not another steal from the tax payer for it. As for tax payer funded stadium deals I am against those too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triathlete
I have an old friend who was training years ago as an Olympic skier. Had been skiing since I met him, and that was around 5-6 years old. Lives in Colorado now and his biggest gripe with it was, he never received a gov't penny towards training. According to him, if you make the cut and are a "chosen one" to perform for and represent your country, you MIGHT get your travel covered, That's it. I never actually thought much about that and don't know if there is a shred of truth to it, but hey.... sounds like the American way, so I wouldn't doubt it.
And ya know, still, I don't care. Let some kids play their reindeer games. Doesn't effect me one way or the other. :bwgy:
Military hospitals sucked way before Bush friend, and they continue to do so under Obama. In my experience the problem has far less to do with who sits at the top of the pyramid than it does with laziness, incompetence, and apathy on the part of uniformed health care professionals (not just doctors and nurses but administrative staff as well). But maybe if we paid them more they'd care more. Who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by circmand
Whether it is teachers, doctors etc who are doing a lousy job that we should pay them more and maybe they will do a better job. The only arguement for better pay is to FIRE the lousy workers and replace them with better workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
That arguement is really just saying give a raise to lousy workers. I say make them earn it then pay them more.
I think the olympic gold medal is the most prestigeous sports award in the world. I was a swimmer in college and actually swam against Mark Spitz in the early 70's. Tried for the 1972 olympic team but did not make it. To many world class swimmers. Of course that was the time when the world was getting into steroids in sports to enhanse preformance.
Amatures were truely amatures. No sponsors to give the athlete money for training. You had to get there on your own. Athletes did training and competition for the love of the sport.
Of course I would not mind being a world class athlete getting millions of dollars from sponsors. But of all the awards, to me the olympic gold medal is the best.
Agreed, but it was you who suggested better pay above. Actually I think the problem is simply accountability. I don't know if the other services use this phrase, but in the Air Force they talk about "Firewall 5's." As in, on the OPR/EPR scale of 1 to 5, everyone is a 5, because if you're not, you will almost certainly be passed over for promotions or sweet assignments. So mid-managers are afraid to put a realistic number on performance reviews because they don't want to screw people. I've known very few officers (commissioned and otherwise) who dared to challenge this hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by circmand
Btw, this is also how the civil service works to a large degree. If you can't / won't fire people, you breed this culture of apathy. IMO at least.