›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics

MarcusNobleMarcusNoble
edited February 2010 in Everything Else
I know it's a bit late to start this topic but I figured I would so that there'd be a place to discuss anything involving the winter olympics this year in Vancouver. Any sports or athletes you're looking forward to seeing? Predictions on who will win what medals? Why curling is so exciting? All of that and more can be discussed here.
«134

Comments

  • ......
    HAHA OLYMPIA! Calgary had to fly over a proper Zamboni, I mean, seriously. It's the olympics, how the fuck is it possible that they only have 3 on hand? Sven Kramer will likely win the 10km and will put the Netherlands at 2 gold medals.

    I have no fucking clue about the short tracking but it'll be fun to watch.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    We should discuss ways of tallying medals. What's the best way?
  • RailithRailith
    Our curling teams are terrible. I'm rooting for Canada.
  • ......
    We should discuss ways of tallying medals. What's the best way?
    Have you tried counting? Generally all gold medals won by a country are counted, all silver medals are counted and all bronze medals are counted. Then the list of countries is sorted by most gold medals, most silver medals in the cases of equal gold medals, and in the case of equal gold and silver, bronze medals, if even that's the same then it's just alphabetical. Not like it matters since it's all unique sports that you shouldn't be comparing short tracking to ski jumping.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Have you tried counting? Generally all gold medals won by a country are counted, all silver medals are counted and all bronze medals are counted. Then the list of countries is sorted by most gold medals, most silver medals in the cases of equal gold medals, and in the case of equal gold and silver, bronze medals,
    Not necessarily. Some places sort first by the total number of medals, though I do prefer the gold-silver-bronze approach.
    However, that approach implies that a gold medal is worth infinitely more than a silver one, which I also disagree with.
    Not like it matters since it's all unique sports that you shouldn't be comparing short tracking to ski jumping.
    Then we shouldn't have medal tallies at all.
  • MarcusNobleMarcusNoble
    I've been watching the biathlon, an interesting combination of rifle shooting and cross country skiing. How Biathlon Works

    France has won the most medals in this event so far interestingly enough.
  • ......
    edited February 2010
    Then we shouldn't have medal tallies at all.
    Indeed, we shouldn't. All that medal tallies do is show that a country has world-top athletes in a sport that's contested at the olympics. You'd have to start looking at which medals specifically before you can make comparisons.
    Post edited by ... on
  • ChurbaChurba
    However, that approach implies that a gold medal is worth infinitely more than a silver one, which I also disagree with.
    Actually, I disagree, because I don't think it's an judgement of worth, more than an accounting of how many places each country has. The gold isn't worth more in that context, it just means you won the competition - if they gave you an Apple for first, an orange for second, and a pear for third, it would be much the same.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2010
    However, that approach implies that a gold medal is worth infinitely more than a silver one, which I also disagree with.
    Actually, I disagree, because I don't think it's an judgement of worth, more than an accounting of how many places each country has. The gold isn't worth more in that context, it just means you won the competition - if they gave you an Apple for first, an orange for second, and a pear for third, it would be much the same.
    I'm using worth as a mathematical concept. If you don't want to assign values to medals, then medal counts should be listed in completely random order, because mathematically speaking an ordering can be expressed as an ordering function, which is inherently a measure of "worth". If not random order, what order is optimal? Alphabetical?
    The standard gold-silver-bronze ordering is mathematically equivalent to one where gold is worth infinitely more than silver, which in turn is worth infinitely more than bronze. On the other hand, the ordering by total number of medals implies that all medals are equal, but there is an infinitesimal gap between gold and silver, and silver and bronze.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • RailithRailith
    This guy choked in every game this Olympics. It's tragic.
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited February 2010
    The standard gold-silver-bronze ordering is mathematically equivalent to one where gold is worth infinitely more than silver, which in turn is worth infinitely more than bronze. On the other hand, the ordering by total number of medals implies that all medals are equal, but there is an infinitesimal gap between gold and silver, and silver and bronze.
    Isn't that the Idea, though? The gold is worth more than the silver, and the silver is worth more than the bronze, because you're giving the guy the gold to denote he won that particular competition, and on that occasion, he was better than the other guy at what he was doing. No matter what they get, it has more worth than than what you give the other guy, which has more worth than what you give the third guy, which has more worth than what you give the rest, which is a big hug and a "better luck next time" because you're giving it to them to denote their place in the final standings. Even if you give them nothing, if you count and keep track of the places instead of any arbitrary thing you give them, one of them still has more worth. It's the fairest and most sensible way - The other two options are One guy/team wins, and everyone else gets a big "Fuck you!" or EVERYBODY wins, which makes the win effectively meaningless.

    Also - It's just the most sensible way to tally the victories. Sure, we call them Gold, Silver and Bronze because that's simply a longstanding tradition, you can call them what you like, but they're still not comparable categories. X number of Silver doesn't equal one gold, because they're different things. It's almost the definition of an apples to oranges comparison.

    As for what order is optimal? Well, whatever the order you like it in for the information you want. Tally it by countries that have the steel drum bands, for all it really matters. You're the one that defines what data you want them to be ordered by. It doesn't change anything what order the countries are in on a list.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • AndrewAndrew
    I'm rooting for the Russian Men's Hockey Team.

    /commie
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    The standard gold-silver-bronze ordering is mathematically equivalent to one where gold is worth infinitely more than silver, which in turn is worth infinitely more than bronze. On the other hand, the ordering by total number of medals implies that all medals are equal, but there is an infinitesimal gap between gold and silver, and silver and bronze.
    Isn't that the Idea, though? The gold is worth more than the silver, and the silver is worth more than the bronze, because you're giving the guy the gold to denote he won that particular competition, and on that occasion, he was better than the other guy at what he was doing. No matter what they get, it has more worth than than what you give the other guy, which has more worth than what you give the third guy, which has more worth than what you give the rest, which is a big hug and a "better luck next time" because you're giving it to them to denote their place in the final standings. Even if you give them nothing, if you count and keep track of the places instead of any arbitrary thing you give them, one of them still has more worth. It's the fairest and most sensible way - The other two options are One guy/team wins, and everyone else gets a big "Fuck you!" or EVERYBODY wins, which makes the win effectively meaningless.

    Also - It's just the most sensible way to tally the victories. Sure, we call them Gold, Silver and Bronze because that's simply a longstanding tradition, you can call them what you like, but they're still not comparable categories. X number of Silver doesn't equal one gold, because they're different things. It's almost the definition of an apples to oranges comparison.

    As for what order is optimal? Well, whatever the order you like it in for the information you want. Tally it by countries that have the steel drum bands, for all it really matters. You're the one that defines what data you want them to be ordered by. It doesn't change anything what order the countries are in on a list.
    Indeed, it's obvious that G > S > B, and while I won't agree that it's necessarily the fairest and most sensible approach, it's a pretty reasonable one.
    However, as a mathematician I must ponder the question of the relative values of gold, silver, and bronze. I cannot agree that a gold is worth infinitely more than a silver, nor can I agree that it is worth only infinitesimally more.
  • RymRym
    Gold = 1.0
    Silver = 0.51
    Bronze = 0.26

    This allows for meaningful tiebreaks and maintains the supremacy of the medal type. I chose these numbers for very specific reasons. I trust you can figure it out. ^_~
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2010
    Gold = 1.0
    Silver = 0.51
    Bronze = 0.26

    This allows for meaningful tiebreaks and maintains the supremacy of the medal type. I chose these numbers for very specific reasons. I trust you can figure it out. ^_~
    The problem is that 51 gold = 100 silver, and 26 silver = 51 bronze. Unless that is desirable for a specific reason, it's best to stick with tiebreak rules.

    What is your justification for the exponential scale, and the base of that scale being 2?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • AprecheApreche
    It's best to use something similar to the Formula 1 points systems.

    I suggest Gold = 5, Silver = 3, Bronze = 1.

    A country with 6 bronze and nothing else beats a country with one gold and nothing else. You would need 11 bronze to beat a country with 2 gold. It's similar to Rym's system in that two silver beat a gold, but dissimilar in that he values bronze far more than I do. Also, mine allows for ties far more easily. In case of tie in points, most gold, most silver, most bronze would be the three tiebreakers. One gold still beats five bronze.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    The way it worked at the 2008 Summer Olympics, the media in the USA counted up total medals, where a bronze is equal to a gold, and declared the USA the overall medal leader of the games. The rest of the world counted by gold medals, with silver and bronzes for tie breaks, and declared China the overall medal leader of the games.
  • ......
    The way it worked at the2008 Summer Olympics, the media in the USA counted up total medals, where a bronze is equal to a gold, and declared the USA the overall medal leader of the games. The rest of the world counted by gold medals, with silver and bronzes for tie breaks, and declared China the overall medal leader of the games.
    Dohoho, USA, you so silly. I don't really care, either system we were 12th.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2010
    I say we order by (G-14)^2+(S-15)^2+(B-17)^2 in ascending order.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • StarfoxStarfox
    I'm rooting for the CCCP Men's Hockey Team.

    /commie
    1980 rematch?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited February 2010
    Danish women's curling. Three amazing words.
    Photo 1 and photo 2.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • ChurbaChurba
    Danish women's curling. Three amazing words.
    Photo 1andphoto 2.
    BRB, watching olympics.

    Also, Have you seen the Netherlands team's pants? Man, I want some pants like that.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Danish women's curling. Three amazing words.
    Photo 1andphoto 2.
    The shadows under Dupont's eyes are to die for.

    I'm all about Lindsey Vonn, though. She's adorable.
  • ......
    Also, Have you seen the Netherlands team's pants? Man, I want some pants like that.
    Got a link to a picture? I don't know what you're talking about and am curious.
    The Dutch have now won 76 of their 79 Winter Olympic medals in speedskating, the most lopsided one-sport ratio for any nation at the Olympic Games.
    WHAHAHAHA, so true. National min-maxing much?
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited February 2010
    Also, Have you seen the Netherlands team's pants? Man, I want some pants like that.
    Got a link to a picture? I don't know what you're talking about and am curious.
    The Dutch have now won 76 of their 79 Winter Olympic medals in speedskating, the most lopsided one-sport ratio for any nation at the Olympic Games.
    WHAHAHAHA, so true. National min-maxing much?
    derp derp derp - I meant Norwegian, sorry. I'm so tired that Europe is blending together. But I do have a picture.
    image
    Post edited by Churba on
  • AndrewAndrew
    derp derp derp - I meant Norwegian, sorry. I'm so tired that Europe is blending together. But I do have a picture.
    Agreed, I was thinking the same thing the other day.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited February 2010
    I'm on your internets, selling awesome pants.

    Oh, and they do ship in Europe, customs-free. Go get 'em, Churbs. I might.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • ......
    I'm so tired that Europe is blending together.
    What do you expect? Half the fucking continent uses the same 3 colours for their flag. Hell, even the USA took that habit over.
    I meant Norwegian, sorry.
    Heh, don't worry. I was just a bit confused since black pants aren't that hard to get. Okay, maybe the orange stripe on the side is a bit harder to get, but eh. That diamond madness from Norway is pretty sweet, I must agree.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2010
    Plushenko lost :(
    I was hoping to see Lambiel in third, as well.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • ChurbaChurba
    I'm on your internets, selling awesome pants.

    Oh, and they do ship in Europe, customs-free. Go get 'em, Churbs. I might.
    Well, that just moved to the top of my "Shit to buy when I have money" list. Nine, We must get on this.
Sign In or Register to comment.