Read the debate intro and the opposing argument from Loyal Homer
The age old debate over which is better – quality or quantity – is something about which I am very passionate, and it is at the forefront of media attention right now because of the Vancouver Olympics. Countries and athletes are engaging in high profile competitions which ultimately entitle them to bragging rights about who is the best in the world at a given sport, at least for another four years. Certainly there is a divided opinion about whether it is better to have a greater quality of Olympic medals or a greater quantity of Olympic medals. But I am here to tell you gold is the only medal that matters, because it is the only medal that actually signifies winning.
In life, and especially in sports, there are winners and losers. In fact, anyone who engages in a competition and does not win is a loser by the very definition of the word. I realize that many of our more politically correct readers might be beginning to cry right now, because I have just offended their sense of equality, but I speak the truth. Society has done more damage than good by inventing feel-good awards for moral victories, like ‘Best Effort’, ‘Most Improved’, and the ultimate homage to losing – The Participation Trophy. What ever happened to learning to improve and overcome from your losing?
When you stop and think about it, competitions are nothing more than events that classify participants as winners and losers based on a given set of criteria. Take a race for example; the first person to cross the finish line is declared the winner. Each competitor who crosses the finish line after the winner is at least in some respect a loser. It doesn’t matter whether they finish the race in second place or last place; they have lost and therefore are losers.
Should Olympic athletes be proud to receive silver and bronze medals? Yes. Those athletes have represented their respective countries with honor and world class performances. Their medals certainly signify great accomplishments, specifically being second and third best in the world at a given sport. But ultimately there is no substitute for winning the gold.
One needs look no further than the Man of Gold, Eric Heiden, for a perfect example of how quality trumps quantity. During the 1980 Winter Olympic Games at Lake Placid, New York, this American speed skating legend truly beat the world. He won an unprecedented five individual Olympic gold medals, which was more than Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, West Germany, Italy, Canada, Hungary, Japan, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and France combined. Sure the Commies topped the American medal count that year, but Heiden proved unquestionably that he and his country reigned supreme in speed skating.
Another American speed skating legend represents the quantity argument of this debate, Apolo Ohno. He boasts an impressive 7 total medals making him arguably the best of his generation, but ‘arguably’ is the key word. Ohno’s Olympic record is tainted with silver and bronze. While accomplishments in their own right, the rank him among the best…but that is not the same as the unquestioned best.
The same concept can be applied at the national level. At the time this article was written the US sat atop the medal count at the Vancouver games with 26 overall medals, 7 of which were gold. Germany was nipping at our heels with 24 overall medals, also including 7 gold. Counting silver and bronze medals leaves room for argument–our losers are better than your losers—and there can be no argument when determining who is the undisputed best. The question of superiority can only be settled with gold.
To borrow from a ruthless legend, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”. In the case of the Olympics, winning is gold.
