>> |
SSG Posted Here
Too me, in the end, it really goes down to how big the difference is in how many golds are won, and how many total medals are won. For instance, let's say China beat us by only two golds, but we won 20 more medals then they did. It then makes sense to name USA as the overall "winner" of sorts, for it seems we had some sort of success in more events. Now let's say China beats us by 20 golds (like they are this year), but we narrowly beat them in total medals; China would be the winners (hands down).
However, I do think there is one other point to be made: let's say China had done as much to prepare for these games, but these games were played somewhere else, such as Britain, or one of the countries that could host in 2016. They likley will not succeed as much, for they will not have the home crowd on their side, rooting for them.
Now does that mean China can't win the most golds and/or medals in future Olympics? No, they absolutely could. It's just the amount of golds won, in theory, would be much more even, assuming the US would at least go out and look for someone somewhere in the country that could win in each sport.
|