Beijing 2008

[benread]

But to all our non-UK port drinking friends, welcome to the new Olympic host country and City.

I meant to add to this (but was trying to feed a 5 week old at the time!) that I hope and expect that 2012 may lead to plenty of excuses for TPF offlines, with friends from the UK and overseas, in what I think will represent the 5th anniversary of TPF.

Is it too early to start planning?!

What would make good Olympic ports?

How about:

- anything from 1908 being GB's largest ever haul, and a London games.
- anything from 1948 being a London games as well. (were there any declarations this year?)
- anything from Olympic years

Thoughts? (...and pedantic responses I hope!)

[DRT]

Good idea. Do you think we could book Boris as guest speaker?

I'm not convinced about the Olympic Years theme: 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948.....only 3 good ones in that lot

[benread]

Good idea. Do you think we could book Boris as guest speaker?

I'm not convinced about the Olympic Years theme: 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948.....only 3 good ones in that lot

Makes it more of a challenge - a bit like Alex B and his "less than £15 theme"!

Perhaps we could play "wiff waff" on the table between flights?!

[DRT]

Makes it more of a challenge - a bit like Alex B and his "less than £15 theme"!

OK - what about a 1948, 1960, 1980 and 2000 from Graham, Taylor, Dow, Warre, Smith Woodhouse and Gould Campbell? All British names, of course, but we could let Fonseca in since Taylor's have adopted it as one of ours

Perhaps we could play "wiff waff" on the table between flights?!

We could, but only if there were enough Chinese people in the room to insult and patronise "a-la-Boris"

...I think if there is to be a sporting event at the TPF Olympic Off-line it can only be Tiddlywinks.

[benread]

...I think if there is to be a sporting event at the TPF Olympic Off-line it can only be Tiddlywinks.

I think it is too late to lobby for tiddlywinks in 2012 so we are stuck with Wiff Waff. We could decamp to an outdoor venue and watch the beach volleyball with a chilled port perhaps....

[Glenn E.]

I would suggest that a fair scoring system would be 4 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze.

3-2-1 is more normal, which results in the following (provided I didn't mess up the math, which I did in my head):

Code: Select all

 COUNTRY       GOLD SILVER BRONZE TOTAL POINTS
 United States 36   38     36     110   220
 China         51   21     28     100   223
 Russia        23   21     28     72    139
 Great Britain 19   13     15     47    98
 Australia     14   15     17     46    89
 Germany       16   10     15     41    83
 France        7    16     17     40    70
 South Korea   13   10     8      31    67
 Italy         8    10     10     28    54
 Ukraine       7    5      15     27    46

So China would come out ahead on points by a margin of 3, but nothing else would change in the top 10.

Despite their huge gold medal tally (which, IIRC, is a new record for a single nation), China lacks depth. Factor in the host nation boost and, honestly, they didn't do that well for a centrally controlled nation of 1.3 billion people. The performances of Great Britain, Australia, Germany, and South Korea are more impressive to me.

BTW - I predict 55-60 medals for Great Britain in 2012. Yay for the host nation boost!

[DRT]

I would suggest that a fair scoring system would be 4 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze.

3-2-1 is more normal, which results in the following (provided I didn't mess up the math, which I did in my head):

Glenn, I was working on the basis that a Gold is worth at least twice what a Silver is and a Silver twice the value of a Bronze. Now that you have the spreadsheet, does it make a difference if you use 4:2:1 rather than 3:2:1?

It's not unusual to have a weighted scoring system like this. Formula 1 is a prime example.

[jdaw1]

I'm not convinced about the Olympic Years theme: 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948.....only 3 good ones in that lot

I see 2000, 1980, 1960, 1948, which is four. Agreed not 1992.

[jdaw1]

Bad news alert. The China versus USA measurement debate has caused me to write an essay on this subject, soon appearing at www.jdawiseman.com.

[DRT]

I'm not convinced about the Olympic Years theme: 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948.....only 3 good ones in that lot

I see 2000, 1980, 1960, 1948, which is four. Agreed not 1992.

I didn't count 1960 as I remain unconvinced.

Perhaps a 15 bottle 1960 Horizontal would persuade me otherwise?

[DRT]

Bad news alert. The China versus USA measurement debate has caused me to write an essay on this subject, soon appearing at www.jdawiseman.com.

That should help my insomnia.

[benread]

Perhaps a 15 bottle 1960 Horizontal would persuade me otherwise?

Now 1960 I do have experience of and can do! Dow 1960 was my grandfathers gift to me at birth. 1 bottle remains. It was my first VP so a wine that i have sentimental attacment to. And i like it - a lot!

[DRT]

Perhaps a 15 bottle 1960 Horizontal would persuade me otherwise?

Now 1960 I do have experience of and can do! Dow 1960 was my grandfathers gift to me at birth. 1 bottle remains. It was my first VP so a wine that i have sentimental attacment to. And i like it - a lot!

I have a 1960 Cockburn. We now have a quorum for an off-line

Any more?

[Glenn E.]

I would suggest that a fair scoring system would be 4 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze.

3-2-1 is more normal, which results in the following (provided I didn't mess up the math, which I did in my head):

Glenn, I was working on the basis that a Gold is worth at least twice what a Silver is and a Silver twice the value of a Bronze. Now that you have the spreadsheet, does it make a difference if you use 4:2:1 rather than 3:2:1?

It's not unusual to have a weighted scoring system like this. Formula 1 is a prime example.

Spreadsheet? What spreadsheet? I did that by hand in the post window. Just eyeballing the table, though, says that there would probably only be one other move - South Korea would pass France - but I think that's it. Great Britain would widen its lead over Australia, but has no hope of catching Russia. Germany would close the gap with Australia, but wouldn't quite catch up.

The weighted systems I have used typically aren't weighted for a mere 3 entries. Doing so basically makes any result other than 1st place meaningless, so there's not much point in doing it. Just rank based on 1st place finishes and be done with it.

Some other examples:

The green jersey competition in the Tour de France is weighted, rewarding the first 25 riders in each flat sprint stage. First place is "only" 35 compared to 30, then 26, 24, etc. Other stages reward fewer riders and award fewer points. The King of the Mountains point system is also weighted, but is even more confusing due to the categories of the climbs. Though, notably, category 4 climbs reward the first 3 climbers and award 3-2-1 points.

Formula 1's system rewards the first 6 drivers and is weighted 10-6-4-3-2-1. That's an extremely "win biased" system, but even there 1st place isn't awarded double the points of 2nd place. (Though it's as close as any system I'm familiar with.) Nascar's system is designed to reward consistency more than it rewards winning, and while there are bonus points awarded for various things 1st place is worth 185 points, 2nd is 170, 3rd is 165, etc. down to 43rd receiving 34 points.

I used to run multiplayer computer game tournaments in which the top 8 competitors received points, and after experimenting for some time with different algorithms finally settled on 9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 as sufficiently rewarding first place without making it the overriding factor in the tournament. The next most workable system was 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, but the problem that caused was that finishing below 4th in any round basically put you out of the competition. We also felt that finishing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in three rounds should be marginally - but only marginally - better than finishing 2nd, 2nd, and 2nd.

[jdaw1]

1960 Fonseca. Quorate and a bit.

[DRT]

1960 Fonseca. Quorate and a bit.

Splendid. Will post a thread in the appropriate place.

[Andy Velebil]

yeah but I hear the air is much better

[jdaw1]

2008 Olympics: who won? Comparing golds and silvers and bronzes

[Glenn E.]

Something's not right - your essay is all of 5 lines and ends with gibberish.

[jdaw1]

Something's not right - your essay is all of 5 lines and ends with gibberish.

GoDaddy have been messing with me. It worked last night, and freshly re-uploaded, now works again. Sorry about that.

[DRT]

I agree with the outcome and the rationale for getting there.

But this sentence includes a spelling mistake so you only get a Silver: "So multiply each medal by the number of Olympics in which that even has been competed."

[jdaw1]

Sackcloth and ashes! Thank you for telling me — fixed.

[DRT]

Sackcloth and ashes!

I do believe that you have used that term often enough to warrant the creation of a suitable Smilie. If you create such a thing I will be supportive of it being made available on

[Glenn E.]

I contest this claim:

"Before the Olympics started, golds were the standard being predicted, and to which importance was assigned. Hence, the results known, that is the standard that should be used."

That is untrue. Golds was the standard being predicted in the same countries that are now sorting by golds. Total medal count was the standard being predicted in the countries that are now sorting by total medal count. So that line of reasoning is irrelevant. It has been a moot point for a while now, though, since the two rankings have been identical since at least the 80s.

One argument that I *might* buy is that since China is the host nation, China should be considered the final arbiter. That has far too great of a chance for causing problems, though, to be an intellectually honest decision making methodology.

I do like the idea of the "historical" weighting and would love to see what that does to the rankings.

[DRT]

Glenn,

Have the USA always measured Olympic success in terms of total medals? I can't be absulotely sure but I am fairly certain that here in the UK the table has always been sorted according to the number of golds, with the silver and bronze being used to decide ties.

I agree that historic weighting is interesting but I think it would also be interesting to add in a weighting that accounted for the popularity of each sport in terms of participation worldwide and the number of coutries competing. There have been accusations from the Auzzies that GB only do well in middle and upper class sports such as sailing, rowing, equestrian and cycling because not many other countires are interested or can afford to compete. I'm not normally one to listen to the child-like ramblings of a defeated Auzzie but this does seem to have some substance.

Another factor that could be worked into this is the number of opportunities there are for individual athletes to win multiple gold medals for essentially doing the same thing in a multitude of events. USA in the swimming pool and GB in the veladrome spring to mind.

Derek