Support NeoGAF

[bishoptl]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-9-2004_pg2_18

TEHRAN: A number-crunching Iranian sports official claimed Tuesday Iran did in fact beat its arch-enemy the United States at the Athens Olympics, even if the Americans won 103 medals compared to the Islamic republic’s six.

“Iran won one medal for every 6.2 athletes sent to Athens, while the United States won one medal for 13.8 athletes,” the head of Iran’s Physical Education Organisation Mohsen Mehralizadeh told the Etemad newspaper.

According to his calculations, Turkey won one medal per 12.8 athletes, Britain got a medal for 11.8 athletes and Japan got one for 12.2 athletes. “Therefore,” the official asserted, “of the 202 countries present at Athens, Iran was in fourth position. This is a good result.”

 

[worldrunover]

In other news, my softball team is better than the New York Yankees, because I've not lost to the Red Sox, and they have 8 times this year.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Gahiddy would be proud...

 

[Chopin Trusty Balls]

They hired Gahigiddy

 

[Grizzlyjin]

I'm sure Paul Hamm has something to do with this... :lol

 

[jenov4]

Hahah what a way to spin things.

 

[Slo]

Arch Nemisis? When did this happen?

 

[Catchpenny]

This is pretty funny, since I've seen essentially the same argument from Euro/Canadian citizens in the past.

 

[Phoenix]

So THAT's where Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf went!

 

[Shinobi]

Don't see how that's a bad argument...you could also base medal counts on the population, or economic wealth (or lack thereof).

And let's not kid ourselves...when China's kicking everyone's ass in the Olympics for the next thousand years, all everyone will say about it is "Well they bloody well ought to, they're home to a sixth of the world's population!!".

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Arch Nemisis? When did this happen?

Remember that whole Axis of Evil thing?

 

[Pochacco]

This reminds me of Atlanta 1996 when Americans claimed Michael Johnson to be the 'worlds fastest man', since his 200m time divided by 2 was faster than the 100m winner's time.

 

[Shinobi]

:lol Thank you...fuck Bob Costas for starting that shit. Of course they conveniently left out Bailey's 8.93 in the final leg of the 4x100 relay, which was the fastest 100 metres run EVER (might've been the only sub 9 second leg run to boot).

 

[ghostface]

This reminds me of Atlanta 1996 when Americans claimed Michael Johnson to be the 'worlds fastest man', since his 200m time divided by 2 was faster than the 100m winner's time.

And then Bailey ripped him head-to-head, because of Johnson's "leg cramp". Good times.

 

[Poody]

In other news Michael Phelphs >>>> Iran

 

[ghostface]

Don't see how that's a bad argument...you could also base medal counts on the population, or economic wealth (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

Me: "The U.S won so many medals because of the size of their delegation and also because of the amount of money poured by the government and the private sector into sport programs.

GAF: "LolZ, stop spinning, you...uhhh...spinner!"

P.S. Steroids > All

 

[Miburou]

Don't athletes have to first qualify for the olympics? It's not like countries can send as many athletes as they please.

 

[Luscious LeftFoot]

And then Bailey ripped him head-to-head, because of Johnson's "leg cramp". Good times.

It was funny how after all that Johnson was still called the fastest man in the world.

 

[Dan]

Don't see how that's a bad argument...you could also base medal counts on the population, or economic wealth (or lack thereof).

Unless I'm missing something, it's a bad argument because it doesn't take into account the fact that there are events where multiple athletes compete to win one medal for their country, as in sports like basketball, soccer, softball, volleyball, relays, etc.

 

[Guileless]

lol, Iran is our "arch-enemy"? Who wrote this, a Roger Moore-era James Bond screenwriter?

 

[Loki]

:lol Thank you...fuck Bob Costas for starting that shit. Of course they conveniently left out Bailey's 8.93 in the final leg of the 4x100 relay, which was the fastest 100 metres run EVER (might've been the only sub 9 second leg run to boot).

What the hell? Is this true? He ran a 100 in less than 9 seconds? Is there some difference in how the relay is timed as compared to the straight 100m? Do they start the clock at the same time? Does the relayist's 100m measure from AFTER they have the baton until they pass it? Because they are only jogging until they get the baton from what I've seen. I'm very confused-- I've never heard of this sub-9 second run before.

 

[duderon]

:lol Thank you...fuck Bob Costas for starting that shit. Of course they conveniently left out Bailey's 8.93 in the final leg of the 4x100 relay, which was the fastest 100 metres run EVER (might've been the only sub 9 second leg run to boot).

You cannot take 100 meter splits as legit 100 meter times. They are extremely hard to take and the final leg is usually less than 100 meters.

 

[fobtastic]

Agreed.

Me: "The U.S won so many medals because of the size of their delegation and also because of the amount of money poured by the government and the private sector into sport programs.

I'm with you on that one. Not all athletes are paid. From what I've heard, some of the athletes from less fortunate countries are practically in poverty. I think it's admirable that these people are willing to sacrifice so much to represent their country at the Olympics.

 

[Screaming_Gremlin]

I'm with you on that one. Not all athletes are paid. From what I've heard, some of the athletes from less fortunate countries are practically in poverty. I think it's admirable that these people are willing to sacrifice so much to represent their country at the Olympics.

While this is true, there are also a lot athletes from other countries that live and train in the United States. For example, Veronica Campbell won the Women's 200 meter for Jamaica is in my marketing class at the University of Arkansas and runs for our track team. There are a lot of other athletes like her around the country.

 

[Shinobi]

And then Bailey ripped him head-to-head, because of Johnson's "leg cramp". Good times.

:lol Ah, that was a fun time...both sprinters talking shit, then Bailey calling him a chicken after MJ fell to the track. :lol I assume they patched things up shortly after though.

Agreed.

Me: "The U.S won so many medals because of the size of their delegation and also because of the amount of money poured by the government and the private sector into sport programs.

GAF: "LolZ, stop spinning, you...uhhh...spinner!"

P.S. Steroids > All

:lol Well I'm not trying to downplay America's success either...I simply think there are several ways to break down the success of a nation at the Olympics. Again we'll be seeing Americans doing the same sort of breaking down in four years, because China is going to own everybody's ass in Beijeng.

Unless I'm missing something, it's a bad argument because it doesn't take into account the fact that there are events where multiple athletes compete to win one medal for their country, as in sports like basketball, soccer, softball, volleyball, relays, etc.

Yeah, but so what? That just means Iran doesn't have the resources or athletes to compete in those sports. The US Olympic team is 100% corporately funded...you think Iran would be able to acheive that? You can pick holes at anything if you try hard enough.

I'm not saying it's a flawless method of measuring success, but none of the methods are flawless...including pure medal totals. At the end of the day, it's all relative.

What the hell? Is this true? He ran a 100 in less than 9 seconds? Is there some difference in how the relay is timed as compared to the straight 100m? Do they start the clock at the same time? Does the relayist's 100m measure from AFTER they have the baton until they pass it? Because they are only jogging until they get the baton from what I've seen. I'm very confused-- I've never heard of this sub-9 second run before.

Well when you consider a good 4x100 relay time is 38 seconds or less, and the first leg is generally 10.10 to 10.50 seconds, it stands to reason that the last final leg is going to be at or under 9.

This page shows the fastest times ever run up until the summer of 1987. Go down near the bottom of the page for the 4x100 metre times, including their splits. As it turns out Bailey's split time wasn't the fastest ever run (he was timed at 8.95, while a couple guys including Carl Lewis ran 8.92), but it wasn't far off. And it's certainly faster then anything Michael Johnson had ever approached.

You cannot take 100 meter splits as legit 100 meter times. They are extremely hard to take and the final leg is usually less than 100 meters.

Yet it was okay to do that for Michael Johnson? :lol It's one or the other...I personally prefer to use what the rest of the world has used since the beginning of time, which is the 100 metres. Since the Olympic champ in 96 wasn't a yank, America decided to change those rules for a few years. :lol Either way it stands to reason that a 100 metre runner is faster then any 200 metre runner, and more so is going to be even faster in his relay leg since he's on a flying start with no energy dispensed.

 

[levious]

I personally prefer to use what the rest of the world has used since the beginning of time, which is the 100 metres.

bah... how fast could they run in full pads? That's all that would really matter.

 

[Mandark]

We should have just sent Phelps, we woulda killed.

Loki: When you're running a later leg of a relay, you get a running start, which accounts for the difference. So comparing a solo 100m to a leg of a relay 100m is apples to oranges.

 

[duderon]

Yet it was okay to do that for Michael Johnson? It's one or the other...I personally prefer to use what the rest of the world has used since the beginning of time, which is the 100 metres. Since the Olympic champ in 96 wasn't a yank, America decided to change those rules for a few years. Either way it stands to reason that a 100 metre runner is faster then any 200 metre runner, and more so is going to be even faster in his relay leg since he's on a flying start with no energy dispensed.

I never said anything about johnson, and you're right you cannot take his 100 splits to be an indicator for his open 100 time. Bailey was the fastest 100 meter runner, and now he isn't. The fact of the matter is johnson's 200 meter world record is still 3 tenths faster than the previous record and no one has come within 6 tenths in 8 years. Take that for what you will.

 

[DarienA]

I can't believe you guys didn't key in on the words Information Minister... so...

“Iran won one medal for every 6.2 athletes sent to Athens, while the United States won one medal for 13.8 athletes....of the 202 countries present at Athens, Iran was in fourth position. This is a good result.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, but so what? That just means Iran doesn't have the resources or athletes to compete in those sports. The US Olympic team is 100% corporately funded...you think Iran would be able to acheive that? You can pick holes at anything if you try hard enough.

I'm not saying it's a flawless method of measuring success, but none of the methods are flawless...including pure medal totals. At the end of the day, it's all relative.

I'm not saying there is a good or true method of figuring any of this out. I'm just saying that Iran's way is pretty damned flawed. According to it, if Country A sent only a softball team and Country B sent only one weight lifter, and if each won a gold, then according to Iran Country B is somehow 15-20 times better than Country A.

It doesn't matter that Iran may not have the resources to send those teams. The point stands that their statistics are pure spin. If countries want to speak out against the corporate funding and all that crap, they should do so. Spinning statistics so that they misrepresent the manner in which medals are won is simply not the way to do anything but stir up silly nationalism in the home country.

I'm simply saying that this method of Iran's unfairly weighs some events as more important than others. It's worthless.

 

[Shinobi]

bah... how fast could they run in full pads? That's all that would really matter.

:lol Who gives a shit...if a pit bull or some nut in a knife is after you, are you gonna stop to put pads on before running away?

I never said anything about johnson, and you're right you cannot take his 100 splits to be an indicator for his open 100 time. Bailey was the fastest 100 meter runner, and now he isn't. The fact of the matter is johnson's 200 meter world record is still 3 tenths faster than the previous record and no one has come within 6 tenths in 8 years. Take that for what you will.

I take that as Michael Johnson being far and away the greatest 200 metre and 400 metre runner. That has shit all to do with the 100 metres and being the world's fastest man. If he could do anything in the 100 metres, he would've run in the 100 metres, because that's the glamour event and the one where athletes make the most money. Of course, he never tried.

BTW, Bailey was leading Michael Johnson in that quirky 150 metre race when Johnson went down, while Bailey went onto record a time of 14.99 seconds with his head turned at the line. Take that as you will.

I'm not saying there is a good or true method of figuring any of this out. I'm just saying that Iran's way is pretty damned flawed. According to it, if Country A sent only a softball team and Country B sent only one weight lifter, and if each won a gold, then according to Iran Country B is somehow 15-20 times better than Country A.

It doesn't matter that Iran may not have the resources to send those teams. The point stands that their statistics are pure spin. If countries want to speak out against the corporate funding and all that crap, they should do so. Spinning statistics so that they misrepresent the manner in which medals are won is simply not the way to do anything but stir up silly nationalism in the home country.

I'm simply saying that this method of Iran's unfairly weighs some events as more important than others. It's worthless.

The entire thing is worthless if you ask me...fucking corrupt ass IOC and it's money-hemoraging Olympic games. But that's a seperate issue.

In the first place only a complete twat would argue against corporate funding. Of course most governments are comprised of complete twats. There's nothing stating that governments should drop a red nickel into amatuer athletics for any reason, and certainly not for some two week period where people might represent a nation but are ultimately looking to acheive personal glory. I applaud the US for their corporate funding structure...I wish people up here would look into that instead of bitching about the lack of government funding. If you don't like the pitfalls of being an amatuer athlete, go find a fucking job.

(Sorry, that's been on my mind ever since the Olympics...needed to get that off my chest. The whining by athletes and from people who only give a shit about amatuer athletes for two weeks every couple of years just makes me ill.)

Is Iran using spin in their counts? Sure. But who says they can't? More importantly, why the fuck should it bother anyone? I don't think the US athletic federations are quaking in their boots over this new Iranian super power, so who cares if they want to make things sound as good as possible for their own sense of pride? That happens everywhere, in all situations. I just don't know why anyone outside Iran would get bent out of shape over it. They can spin their shit however they want...it isn't gonna affect us in anyway shape or form, so who cares?

Personally I'd rather see this sort of spin, then something devisive like the judo fighter who got paid the same sum of money (approximately $125,000) as their gold medal weightlifter because he refused to fight someone that's Israeli. Even though I think he's within his rights to do that, the reasoning is just stupid and sad to me.