OT: Final Olympic Medal Count/Olympic wrap up

Submitted by M-Wolverine on February 28th, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Nation     G S B Total
UNITED STATES 9 15 13 37
GERMANY 10 13 7 30
CANADA 14 7 5 26
NORWAY 9 8 6 23
AUSTRIA 4 6 6 16
KOREA 6 6 2 14
CHINA 5 2 4 11

Set US and world records for most medals. And on a standard 3-2-1 point attributing USA totalled 70, Germany 63, and Canada 61, so come out on top on the totality of it all too (which wasn't necessarily the case in China even though we had the most medals. Canada had a great last weekend to turn their Olympics from a disaster to one they can be proud of (assuming they can get the Olympic flame to shut off tonight....I kid! I kid!). Germany, which had athletes say they only care about gold, unlike North Americans, I guess comes away with nothing, because they didn't get the most gold or the most medals.

So, watch the closing, get ready for the post Olympic blues, and at least we don't have to wait 2 years for our next international sporting event with World Cup this summer.



February 28th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^

we used to get negative medals in the winter Olympics.
Dorthy Hamill - everyone else = -200 medal count.

Now we rule!

Thor and Odin must be turning over in their longboat.


February 28th, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^

Nice showing by the US. Was a little surprised by the gold medal count, but it kind of seemed like the second week of events was tailor-made for Canada to get back into it. I had no idea about the world record for total medals, though - that is crazy.


February 28th, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^

All in all a big thumbs-up to Team USA. You could say the snowboarding had a lot to do with the medal count, but we got some medals in places we don't normally get that many. Bobsled and all those skiing medals come to mind. Very successful Olympics for Team USA, very proud of the athletes.


February 28th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^

This was fun. It's a little sad that they're ending, but with the Summer/Winter Olympic staggering (has it really been 16 years since they started doing that?) the Olympics happen a lot more often now. It seems like the Beijing Games were just the other day. London will sneak up on us, too.


February 28th, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^

I have mixed feelings. I like the Olympics, so having them every two years instead of every four is nice. But having both Winter and Summer Games in the same year was pretty cool. The Winter Games stoked your appetite for the main course that summer. And you had to wait so long for them that it was really special when they finally came. The build-up for the Games isn't the same now.


March 1st, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

See, I like the winter games better. So for me it was like, we get the best ones first, and then later we get the semi-good ones. Plus, I was 10 during the 1992 games, which meant that the 1988 games were half a lifetime ago (and I vaguely remember the Seoul games but have no recollection at all of Calgary) so only having to wait two more years for the next ones (and bonus: it was the winter games) was great stuff.


February 28th, 2010 at 8:30 PM ^

I was just thinking about this . . . there's been a remarkable stretch of having the Olympics in English-speaking cities. About 50% of the Games over over the past generation have been in one. Think about this:

1976 Summer - Montreal (well, it's sort of English-speaking)
1980 Winter - Lake Placid
1984 Summer - Los Angeles
1988 Winter - Calgary
1996 Summer - Atlanta
2000 Summer - Sydney
2002 Winter - Salt Lake City
2010 Winter - Vancouver
2012 Summer - London

I wonder if this was a factor behind Chicago (and Toronto) not getting them for 2016. There probably are a lot of people tired of having the Olympics in the "Anglosphere" all the time.


March 1st, 2010 at 5:27 AM ^

As an example, NBC paid $894mil for the rights to air the Beijing games, the IOC's total TV revenue for Beijing was $1.76bil. The next highest contributor was the European Broadcast Union consortium's $443mil fee, BUT it was for BOTH the 2006 Winter Games and 2008 Summer Games.


As an additional FYI, NBC agreed to pay $820mil for Vancouver and $1.18bil for London, when they re-signed with the IOC in 2003. Plus, GE(NBC's parent)agreed to be a global sponsor for $200mil as well. WOW.


Between this and the recent late night debacle among other issues, doesn't it seem like NBC can't get anything right anymore?

Blue in Yarmouth

March 1st, 2010 at 8:05 AM ^

but to say that Montreal is kind of English speaking isn't very accurate. There are English speaking people who live there, but Montreal is by far a french city. I have visited Montreal several times and if I want to get by I have to speak french. I have been there with friends on various occasions who can't speak the language and they have a very difficult time there.

Anyway, as I said I agree with the point of your post but Montreal is certainly not an english city in my experience.


March 1st, 2010 at 8:11 AM ^

From my experience, Montreal is about the most bilingual city I've ever been to. Certainly, English isn't the dominant language, but I'm impressed with how many people there (not everyone, but a large number of people) can easily switch from French to English, and speak both with very good pronunciation. Quebec City on the other hand is definitely more strictly francophone.

Blue in Yarmouth

March 1st, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^

Wow, I guess we will have to just chalk it up to two different experiences in the same city. As I said, I am bilingual so I didn't really notice as I speak french when I go there, but friends of mine who don't speak the language have had difficulties when the went there.

I have heard the same thing about Quebec City though. I have never heard anyone say anything different when it comes to them.

Blue in Yarmouth

March 1st, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^

poutine is a wonderful thing, I have to say. In the Maritimes they have even taken it a step further and made what they call "lobster poutine".

In lobster poutine you substitute the gravy for a heavy cream and butter mixture which you cook the lobster in. You pour that over the fries and grated cheese over the top of that and let it melt. The result is beyond delicious I have to say. A little full of cholesterol though, and as a cardiologist it would be irresponsible of me to eat it too often.


February 28th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^

Was this band not allowed to write lyrics of any more complexity than "Whoa . . . Vancouver," or are they just kind of crappy in the songwriting department?


February 28th, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^

Sad to see a great Olympics come to an end. I get rather choked up watching the athletes' dreams come true. And that hockey game... never has there been a more perfect example of "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat."

But of all the emotional moments this Olympics provided, none touched me quite like the unbelievable courage shown by Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette. What a lovely and remarkable person she seems to be. My heart goes out to her.

Blue in Yarmouth

March 1st, 2010 at 8:12 AM ^

and not just because I am Canadian either. It has more to do with the fact that I just lost my Father last month than the fcat that we are from the same country.

Having been through what she is going through only a month ago, I have to wonder how she found the strength to do what she did. I could barely put two thoughts together in sequence, let alone do anything constructive for days.

I feel terrible for that young lady (and anyone who loses a loved one), and admire her greatly at the same time.


March 3rd, 2010 at 5:22 PM ^

Sincere condolences to you, Blue.

Joannie did a rather lengthy interview with Bob Costas for NBC a day or two after competition. She maintained amazing composure throughout, even laughed a couple times. And she admitted that while she'd been able to hold it together in Vancouver, she expected it would all hit her when she walked into the house back home. How she managed to not break down even while saying that... what a strong person.

Again, sorry about your dad. That's pretty rough.


February 28th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^

So, my wife did a bit of research and apparently, Detroit is in the process of putting together a bid for the 2020 Games with the IOC permission as a joint venture with Windsor. The games would do wonders for the city. The funding from construction and engineering and then eventually tourism would pump money that is an order of magnitude greater than the Super Bowl.

Detroit has had the most losses for the games than any other city in the world, the most recent losing the games to Mexico City.


February 28th, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^

It's kind of sad to think that Detroit came close to winning the Games a few times in the '60s, but honestly, nowadays the city's got more pressing concerns than building a bunch of stadiums that will instantly become obsolete. Beijing has no idea what to do with half the venues it constructed.


February 28th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^

Still, the economic impact will be much longer lasting then the impact from the Super Bowl. Perhaps the games can spurn the city into finally demolishing the abandoned buildings, rezoning dilapidated areas, and finally forcing the city council to work together rather the current racial bullshit that gets thrown around.

At the moment, the only individuals making a positive impact on the city are Mike Illitch and the Fords


February 28th, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^

Every city that bids for the Olympics makes this claim. They build the venues in the crappiest locations and hope the magic of the Games will turn them around. It doesn't happen. Montreal hosted its events in the run-down east side of town. Los Angeles put most of the 1984 events in South Central. Atlanta built the Georgia Dome in the middle of the 'hood. The Olympics didn't do anything for those areas. (And in the case of South Central at least, they didn't do much to relieve racial tension.) London is now building a bunch of stadiums in the East End; I doubt we'll see that area get any better.

Cities bid for the Games because they're an ego trip, and give them a fun two-week party. But in the long run the cost-benefit analysis is dubious.


March 1st, 2010 at 1:43 AM ^

1976 Montreal being the worst.

In contrast, 1984 Los Angeles was actually profitable, with expenses limited by utilizing existing facilities spread across the Los Angeles area. A complaint from those Games was that it didn't have the "Olympic village".

While Los Angeles might have been able to get away with it, I'll eat my hat if Detroit can win a bid based on what already exists in the city.


March 1st, 2010 at 12:56 AM ^

I dunno. Detroit has a lot of the facilities built up already, a byproduct of having 4 pro sports teams each with their own stadium. The Silverdome will presumably still be standing then as well, they could host huge soccer matches there. The same thing could be said of the Big House.

All of the rowing events can use the Detroit river. The swimming and diving events can be held at Canham. Some of the less popular/obscure events like fencing can be held at a converted Crisler or Yost.

The only things I think Detroit would really have to build are tennis courts and a track/opening/closing ceremonies stadium. Then they just need to clean up the eyesore that is most of Downtown Detroit, create a viable public transportation option, and pray.

Detroit 2020, let's make it happen. The Olympics should be coming back to North America that year...


March 3rd, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^

Detroit would need to build some serious mass transit infrastructure. IMO, that would be one of the largest deterrents in being awarded the games. Lots of venues already, probably enough hotel rooms, but no way to get people around.

Of course, it's a double-edged sword. If Detroit somehow got awarded the games, it would no doubt force them to make these long-needed improvements.

I doubt it'll ever happen, though. Most were really surprised that Chicago didn't manage to pull it off for 2016. (Although this would seem to have been almost entirely related to politics, South America having never hosted before, etc.)