Should medals be evaluated at the olympic?

[AndyChrono]

Have you seen the times posted in the women's sprints?

There are high school guys posting better times consistently. In state championships like Texas and Florida (amongst larger schools), you would need times like a 10.3 or 10.4 to have a shot at winning. The world record for women's 100 meters 10.49 (set 20 years ago; and no one else has come within .16 seconds of that mark).

Regarding the 100m Women's WR.

Florence Griffith-Joyner set that 20 years ago at the US Olympic trials, and Marion Jones (drug aided of course) was the one to come closest to it, running a 10.65. There is a lot of controversy over that WR. Many insist that Flo-Jo was definately doping, as even those caught doping in the last 20 years haven't come close to her record, although Flo-Jo never failed a drug test. The other controversy is regarding whether that run was actually heavily wind-aided with a malfunctioning anonometer. Flo-Jo never ran under 10.61 without heavy wind assistance other than that one time at the trials. 10.61 would appear to be more within the realm of possibility for women although after watching Usain Bolt tonight, it seems anything is possible if you are just a freak of nature.

[ChanceEncounter]

I would say it's a possible indicator of doping if you never come close to the record again.

Usain Bolt is a freak of nature, but he also held the world record at 9.72. The scary thing about Bolt is that he still has trouble getting out of the blocks (slow reaction time), but he's also a taller sprinter, so he may never get out of the blocks as fast.

On the women's side of sprinting though, unless you are a freak of nature, the results tend to be a big crapshoot, thus I'm not surprised a woman from Vietnam qualified. Leverage issues makes it harder to explode out of the blocks quite as fast, and the women sprinters don't peak until later in the race (roughly 70 meters in vs 50 meters for the men), and they sustain their top speed better.

But since they don't peak as fast, a lot of women sprinters simply run out of track to catch people who get a good jump on the gun.

Put it this way, if the men's sprint was only 60 or so yards, Bolt may not have been that impressive.

[pandamao]

You seem to be confused over the thread topic.

We're not talking about medal counts, but rather how much the medals are worth compared to each other. Obviously, from a financial standpoint, the Gold is far and away the best. From an accomplishment standpoint though, the difference can range between total domination like Phelps in the 400 IM to a fingernail like Phelps in the 100m Fly. Assigning static numbers to each medal would imply that the performance of the 2nd place guy relative to Phelps in the 400 IM was the same as that of the Serbian guy relative to Phelps in the 100m Fly which makes no sense (unless you are of the Gold or nothing persuasion).

Which is fine ... they were the best in that race so they got the gold.

are you saying, here's the gold medalist and their point system. or are you saying, here's all the medalist and their point system which may surpass some people with actual gold? from ur response, i got the second system but if we use the first system, then i say it will work.

[999roses]

But that should only be the case if the world record was set in the exact same situation. There are a lot of factors that go into the proverbial 'perfect storm' that results in a world record.

In terms of the Olympics, barring injury, you are pitting yourself against the very best in the world. If you win gold, you proved that there is no one better.

By your logic then, we should never assess whether someone has beaten a world record if it's not under the exact same conditions, right? I think they do make minor corrections/adjustments for altitude, etc.

[ChanceEncounter]

By your logic then, we should never assess whether someone has beaten a world record if it's not under the exact same conditions, right? I think they do make minor corrections/adjustments for altitude, etc.

No, I'm saying that the raw times are not the best indicator. The track may have been particularly fast that day, and the competitor may have never come close to duplicating it again. This doesn't make the champion any less of a champion because he didn't grab the record.

However, the Gold Medal is the ultimate reward in most Olympic sports, and everyone will be gunning for it.

[warlock110]

Have you seen the times posted in the women's sprints?

There are high school guys posting better times consistently. In state championships like Texas and Florida (amongst larger schools), you would need times like a 10.3 or 10.4 to have a shot at winning. The world record for women's 100 meters 10.49 (set 20 years ago; and no one else has come within .16 seconds of that mark).

Track and field, unfortunately, is not one of the sports where racial and gender equality is common. Those of West African descent dominate the sprint events; those of East African descent dominate the long distance events.

Everything below that elite level is a crapshoot. So I'm not surprised she qualified. Now, if she performs well in the finals, color me super impressed.

dude, you're comparing women time to men time, totally different things. I'm just impress that a country without all the sophisticated training and high tech like Vietnam is able to get one girl pass her heat, in case you didn't know, vietnam ain't that great in the track.

[ChanceEncounter]

dude, you're comparing women time to men time, totally different things. I'm just impress that a country without all the sophisticated training and high tech like Vietnam is able to get one girl pass her heat, in case you didn't know, vietnam ain't that great in the track.

And I explained in a later post why it's quite common to see lesser track powers qualify in the lower rounds, but in the end, the freaks of nature dominate the finals because of the variability of track and field events, particularly in the women's 100.

[999roses]

No, I'm saying that the raw times are not the best indicator. The track may have been particularly fast that day, and the competitor may have never come close to duplicating it again. This doesn't make the champion any less of a champion because he didn't grab the record.

However, the Gold Medal is the ultimate reward in most Olympic sports, and everyone will be gunning for it.

No one said they were any "less' of a champion. But there is a reason why breaking a world record is a big deal. It's just not rewarded in the form of points system or other types of numerical merit, but more of a personal success. Those confounding factors are taken into consideration, but at the end of the day, someone who breaks a record is better than someone who didn't. That doesn't mean they're "less of a champion', because gold is gold, but I don't agree that they're on the same caliber as another person who just outcompeted everyone else of their Olympic year, but had a slower time.

[ChanceEncounter]

And what if they already own the world record, and then just reaffirmed that they were the best in the world in the championship?

What if Usain Bolt celebrated a little more and didn't break his world record in the 100m final? Does that make his feat any less impressive?

I can see the gist of what you're saying, but it's just too subjective. The only relatively objective barometer we have is that the gold represents you beating everyone else.

[999roses]

Then they should get bonus points (or brownie points if you want as bragging rights) for beating that, because it improved the world record of human capabilities and limits in sports.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying things are LESS impressive, but if you can do more, why wouldn't it be more impressive? Sure, he's already doing great and wayy better than anyone else right now. But if he did better, well it's simple--that's just better.

Nothing is really all that objective, even sometimes with gold vs. silver, but it's just one of the most agreed upon systems right now. There are pros and cons to each of these systems proposed.

[ChanceEncounter]

The problem is that the system you're proposing defies logical understanding. You claim that winning the gold isn't less impressive than getting a world record, but yet, getting the world record is somehow 'more impressive'? You've managed to poke a hole through the transitive law.

Furthermore, what about events such as swimming, where the fast pool at Beijing, along with new suits, pretty much guarantees records come down? There were swimming events where the top 3, 4, 5 swimmers all came under the world record. You can't possibly award bonus points to every one of them, can you?

Records are just barometers. The medal is the result. Therefore the result is what should be factored into the evaluation.

[999roses]

Haha I guess I wasn't being very clear. Okay, I think that it doesn't make them any less of a CHAMPION if you want to use that word. But if you want to say about "impressiveness", then yes I think it is less/more impressive if you have a world record under your belt.

But medals are rewarded according to these barometers. It just happens that the IOC decided to use 1st, 2nd, 3rd as gold, silver, bronze to reward as medals for the result. Someone else may use different criteria. That doesn't really mean you can't change the system. You could easily make a new system and factor into the result to create a new level fi you want, of gold + for instance, then normal gold. It's very changeable. Just a matter of whether the committee and the majority of people agree with it.

[AndyChrono]

Which is fine ... they were the best in that race so they got the gold.

are you saying, here's the gold medalist and their point system. or are you saying, here's all the medalist and their point system which may surpass some people with actual gold? from ur response, i got the second system but if we use the first system, then i say it will work.

Actually it's neither. The point system will always give the gold medals more points than the other medals. I'm saying that depending on the margin of victory, a silver may be worth varying fractions of a gold medal, but never equal and certainly not more than a gold. It's a way of measuring the accomplishments of the athletes and not just a method of counting hardware.

[pandamao]

Actually it's neither. The point system will always give the gold medals more points than the other medals. I'm saying that depending on the margin of victory, a silver may be worth varying fractions of a gold medal, but never equal and certainly not more than a gold. It's a way of measuring the accomplishments of the athletes and not just a method of counting hardware.

Well, are you saying there's a chart reflecting number of gold medals and then a point system next to it that is some sort of summation of the mariginal wins?

I mean, I just don't get how you are able to hedge one against another. Perhaps I'm complicating the situation, but I'm going to need an example to understand this better.

So far, I'm not sold on this ...