ZeroPT*
Guest
In my eyes, if you can´t appreciate silver, you don´t deserve gold.
You don't win the sliver medal.
In my eyes, if you can´t appreciate silver, you don´t deserve gold.
You don't win the sliver medal.
Bingo.Yes you do. By winning a number of group stage games and two playoff games.
You seem to not get a lot of things.
Perhaps you don't watch as much hockey as I do. I have multiple times heard people say they regret not winning the bronze. The Canadian team in regards to losing the Bronze to Finland at the Olympics were the best example, and that is pretty widely known.
As for my other point I'll try to say it again...in much simpler language for you. There is this thing called a medal table. It tracks what teams have collected in terms of medals throughout their history in this tournament. It allows for easy comparisons as to what each country has achieved. You've asked why they couldn't do that without attaching silver and bronze to the chart. Well they could, but then they'd have to remove the gold and just call it first, which sucks. It also points out the fact that first to third are better than 5th to whatever, which is true. Arbitrary perhaps, for them to stop at three, but that concept dates back several hundred years, so I don't personally have an issue with it.
You don't win the sliver medal.
You lose the game, you win the silver medal.
You lose the game, you win the silver medal.
I don't like to think of it as winning or losing a medal, but rather earning a medal.
You don't win silver, you earn the silver medal.
You have to win a quarter-final AND a semi-final just to guarantee yourself at least a silver.
I'm sure they would have preferred to win the bronze game in Nagano, but I've never seen a Canadian express true regret over the loss.
How about calling the winner the champion? Medal tables are another ridiculous notion. Some people think 1001 bronzes are better than 1000 golds.
And what part of my post denies anything from your post?
Why? Best 3 teams/individuals win some hardware, others don't, it's simply a tradition going back hundreds of years. And if you insist on calling it just an "arbitrary tradition", then what isn't? You could argue that every single thing about every single sport is just an arbitrary tradition.
You lose the game, you win the silver medal.
In pretty much every sport there is a victor, 1st place winner, champion, gold medalist, call it what you like but the fact they were the sole winner is not arbitrary.
In my eyes, if you can´t appreciate silver, you don´t deserve gold.
What are they supposed to do? Look back in 5 years and be proud they lost the game?
I don't know. What's your point?
I wrote it at least 3 times in this topic.
Yeah, and I thought we were both arguing against ZeroPT about the semantics of "winning" the silver, but whatever, that's why I asked.
It's to rub it in the faces of the losers. I personally think the winner should be allowed to point and laugh at the losers.
I've never felt that Canada "won" anything after losing a final.