But this was not about just Liu the athlete. The outbreak of emotions — grief, anger, perplexity, curiosity — asked the big Olympics question, what is the measure of a single medal?

In that moment, just for that moment, you could have suspected that China would have traded its entire, formidable haul for the prospect of having him on the 110m hurdles medals podium. Of course, only for that moment.

Then, the Chinese had 35 golds. By the time the Games closed tonight, it was 51 golds in a total of 100 medals. For the US, the corresponding numbers: 36, 110. (Before the Athens Games, China’s sports minister is said to have told the US Olympic committee chairman, “Don’t worry, we will not topple you. But we are making this effort.” Evidently the reassurance did not carry forward to Beijing.)

For China, sport has been a dominant form of self-assertion and of engaging with the rest of the world. But, remarkably, its state-controlled newspapers have been allowing criticism of the rigidity of the network of state sports schools.

Others, however, are looking to China, and wondering what lengths a country should go to acquire gold. Upon failing to win a medal in synchronised diving, the American team said their country had much to learn from China. They, the American divers, would have to return to the necessity of holding a job while training, while their Chinese competitors, gold medallists in this case, would be looked after by the state.

Is there, however, a way to assess individual feats? Is there a scale that shows the worth of an individual haul? To use a popular graphic, if Phelps had been a nation, at the end of the 2008 Olympics, he’d have been tenth in the medal tally. Of course, if he was your average 23-year-old, he would have been a guy with a goofy grin and a strange body.

... contd.