Winning isn’t everything, nor is it the only thing. In fact, winning doesn’t matter at all.
What matters is CLAIMING the victory.
You don’t have to win, but if the people who matter see you as the winner, you’ve accomplished your task. That’s why cheating doesn’t pay, but creative rule-bending does. Let me give you an example.
We’re about halfway into the Olympics at the moment, and by the International Olympics Committee’s chart, China is leading with 27 gold medals. Coming second is the United States, with 17 gold medals, and finally Germany, with 9 gold medals. Does this mean that the Americans aren’t winning? Of course not.
(Taken from http://en.beijing2008.cn/)
“But wait,” you say, “Clearly the scoreboard shows CHN ranked as number 1, doesn’t that mean they’re winning?”
Absolutely not. Go over to ESPN’s website, or USA Today, or any other American media source, and you’ll soon see my point.
This is the ranking list on the New York Times website:
(Taken from: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/olympics2008/index.html)
See how suddenly, the tables are turned? Either side can effectively claim their own victory by changing how the system works. Depending on the media announcement you read, one or the other will come out Number 1.
Effectively, they claimed victory in the eyes of those who matter: their readers.
self-UNimprovement Blog 
So true! Some other website surely can do it by percentage of medals/athletes, in which case if Liechtenstein won even one medal they’d be first.
I’d imagine Liechtenstein could list their chart as “country size to medal ratio”. Having biked through the microstate in a couple of hours, I doubt anyone could argue otherwise.
I think the author of this website should do his research. Olympic medal leaderboards in every country are ALWAYS ranked according to number of gold medals – even Wikipedia does so. If no golds are available, they are ranked on silver, then bronze.
America is the sore loser in this case, ranking their medals on total rather than golds.
Hmm… I think ^ (B) you should really read the article. You missed the sarcasm and humor in the article completely. I feel sorry for you.
I believe he IS saying that the states are playing it a little cheap.
To the person above. I’m sorry but nowhere in the article is there any direction as to who is right and wrong. The point is that “either side can effectively claim their own victory”.
Nowehere in the article is it mentioned or even insinuated that the US is playing it cheap.
^
That’s exactly what you’ve missed.
The subtlety of the commentary. Keyword, subtlety…. that’s also why its amusing to read. I’d say read it again, but I’m not sure you can help it.
Ah ofcourse. Its so subtle only you can see it.
Even if that is the case, I actually followed this from a link of someone who believed the Chinese were in the wrong.
So if only people such as yourself on your high horse are able to understand the true meaning of the article, its kind of failed in its purpose hasn’t it?
Actually, when I first wrote the article, I was leaning towards revealing the IOC’s score. Not to say anyone is “in the wrong”, but after all, the Olympics has always been listed by Gold medals won.
But then after I thought about it a little, I realized it would be far more interesting to let the readers make their own mind– after all, that’s kind of the point of the article. Only the good guys should win, and only the audience can determine who the good guys are.