• Great Britain finishes above China for the first time in Olympic medal table
    14 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/37085511[/url] [quote]Great Britain have finished second in the Rio 2016 medal table - above China for the first time. China are one of the Games' dominant nations, with more than 200 gold medals since debuting in 1984. Britain has 27 golds to China's 26 and their superior haul of silvers - 22 to 18 - means China cannot overtake them with only one more athlete in action.[/quote]
Yeah, how's it feel to be lacking in silver now, China?
God save the Queen.
According to the handover agreement, this means we get Hong Kong back
Now we wait to see how many medals will be revoked becausr cheating
This is our greatest victory since the Opium War [editline]21st August 2016[/editline] I'm still salty about the men's 4x400 DQ #conspiracy :tinfoil:
I can't wait for the inevitable contrarian articles on the guardian about how this is bad, and will somehow cause lord Kitchener to rise from the grave and reestablish the British Empire again if we don't all begin self flagellating right now.
There already has been one by Simon Jenkins if you care to read it comparing our success to the USSR
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50924365]I can't wait for the inevitable contrarian articles on the guardian about how this is bad, and will somehow cause lord Kitchener to rise from the grave and reestablish the British Empire again if we don't all begin self flagellating right now.[/QUOTE] Whats more likely to happen is someone's gonna come in and say that GBR finished third because the US does the medal table by total medals, and not total golds.
[QUOTE=Chains!;50924382]Whats more likely to happen is someone's gonna come in and say that GBR finished third because the US does the medal table by total medals, and not total golds.[/QUOTE] Seems like a really bad way of doing it, you can't say that a country that won 15 bronze medals did better than a country than won 14 golds. They should at least use some sort of weighting system e.g. 3 points for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze.
[QUOTE=MADmarine;50925138]Seems like a really bad way of doing it, you can't say that a country that won 15 bronze medals did better than a country than won 14 golds. They should at least use some sort of weighting system e.g. 3 points for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze.[/QUOTE] A weighting system is definitely needed because, as it stands the moment, silver and bronze medals feel very devalued. A country can have 15 silvers and they can be beaten by another country with just one single gold medal.
CHINESE TEAM: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SUPERHUMANS, BRED FROM BIRTH TO ACCOMPLISH OLYMPIC VICTORY BRITISH TEAM: PUB LOCALS WHO WERE CONVINCED TO GO ON THE BASIS THEY'D RECEIVE A SNICKERS FOR EACH MEDAL THEY WON INTROSPECTION TIME CHINA
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50925297]CHINESE TEAM: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SUPERHUMANS, BRED FROM BIRTH TO ACCOMPLISH OLYMPIC VICTORY BRITISH TEAM: PUB LOCALS WHO WERE CONVINCED TO GO ON THE BASIS THEY'D RECEIVE A SNICKERS FOR EACH MEDAL THEY WON INTROSPECTION TIME CHINA[/QUOTE] In all seriousness, the Chinese have 400,000 people in special schools so they can train to win medals. We don't do anything remotely similar. [editline]21st August 2016[/editline] Though we for once do focus on winning and winners by allocating funding to successful sports, which has certainly helped. No more complacency
watching people bicker over second place is cute
[QUOTE=meppers;50925706]watching people bicker over second place is cute[/QUOTE] Let's talk medals per capita, shall we? No pride in being the athletic equivalent of Zapp Brannigan.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.