Its quite simple, and theres no true 100% logical reason, but this is for something i cant tell you. I'm sorry, but it will be released soon enough. Statement In the Olympics all men and women compete for the title of being the best in the world, the gold medal. So: A man wins the gold medal and is deemed the best in the world, but eventuelly, years pass and another man rises to the top and claimes the gold medal, deeming him the best in the world. Question So, is the first man still considered the best in the world? ________________________________ Some may say "He won the medal, but someone else has got it also, therefor the newest man must be the best." While other will say "But he won the gold medal, and was deemed the best in the world. Can you take that away from him?"
I believe it breaks down to a problem of linguistics more than anything. Considering the Olympic games happen every four years, any awards or medals won during that time can be said to apply only to the four years in between. Or rather, the Olympic Games serve to determine who is the best at a given event at that time. There is one pretty big presupposition coming with that: the group of athletes who presents themselves at the Olympic Games is comprised of everyone on the globe who could possibly have a shot at winning, or rather, no one who could have had a shot at it in that particular time did not participate. For one, I would like to know where you got that definition of what the Gold Medal entails, because anyone who defines such things would do very well to remember the temporal aspect of life. One who wins the Gold Medal one year would might be incapable of doing the very same thing four years down the road. As it happens, the Olympics serve their Gold Medals as awards for the best athletes at specific events for the time in which they were won. Just because someone else wins that same event next time doesn't make them any less proficient at the time they entered. In this way, it is best to look at the language in that definition of, "the best in the world," as defining a group of people, and not a single individual. Look at it this way: the Presidents of the United States across the years serve in four- or eight-year terms, and then are done with their Presidencies. In one sense, they cease being the President when they are replaced, but in another sense, they will always have the respect as having been a President of the United States, so they never quite lose it. In much the same way, the "reign" of a Gold Medalist ends after four years if they can't win again. While they won't hold the title of "best in the world" for that year, they are still among the best in the world. But my brain's starting to quit on me 'cause I can't word this as clearly as it is in my head. It's a very abstract concept that I have, but I'm tired and hungry, so if you'll excuse me, this ends the post.