Is the Nagoya AG a failure? (1) Is our goal Asia or the Olympics?

‌
Personally, I find the cliché and provocative phrases that appear every year, such as "Winning 50 golds should have been a given...", to be very negative, as if they are driven by political trends that divide national opinion.
That is not to say that winning gold at the Asian Games (AG) is not important in sports... but shouldn't we think about what our actual goal is?
As many people here feel, especially regarding baseball, isn't it not a matter of national strength, national prestige, or the promotion of sports culture to simply crush easy opponents like semi-professional or professional teams in disciplines where we have no real competition and take the gold medals?

Just looking at this table... was Korean sports truly healthy when the previous AG national teams won so many medals?
Of course, through such political activities, Taekwondo did become a global sport... but aggressively pushing Taekwondo at the AG to take 12 out of 16 events is not leading a healthy sports culture. Furthermore, I don't think it is healthy to create semi-professional teams to nurture minor sports like tennis or bowling (in fact, the tennis semi-pro teams are like a "honey pot" where even players from the home country, Japan, join) and provide AG medal prize money.
Rather, since the mid-2010s, although the number of medals has slimmed down significantly, the disciplines have become more advanced in terms of sports science. While some disciplines failed to expand globally, like cycling in Jakarta or swimming in Hangzhou... the swimming wave that started in Hangzhou is serving as nourishment for Korea's foundational sports. The current harmonious state of Taekwondo, fencing, archery, judo, and shooting is actually lighting the path toward the "Olympics," which is the ultimate destination and core of foundational sports.

Disciplines like fencing, archery, and Taekwondo, which have maintained their status even after the AG gold count dropped to the 40s, are disciplines we have also maintained in the Olympics over the last 10 years. In fact, they are disciplines that effectively fulfill the significance of state-supported elite sports and are managed relatively well by sports associations. Ultimately, I believe focusing on preserving these disciplines is more meaningful than a policy that simply tries to inflate the total number of medals.
Ball Games and Olympic Events
It can be said that the positive achievement of this Asian Games lies in the revival of ball games and confirming South Korea's status in Olympic events—especially in disciplines where being top in Asia can lead to being top in the world.
Excluding canoeing, which is somewhat exceptional and currently an AG-centric discipline, if we look at the areas where Korea won multiple golds... we have fencing, gymnastics, badminton, and modern pentathlon, all of which will be core to the 2028 Olympics. (Including archery and Taekwondo, where the disciplines haven't fully matured yet, that makes 6; if we look more broadly, I believe golf and judo will also be included.)
Additionally, although the individual counts are low, it is an attractive situation that we have already secured 6 gold medals in disciplines such as football, baseball, 3x3 basketball, basketball, and handball. Even if the numbers are small, the diversity of disciplines is high, and we have often secured medals in major, popular sports. Excluding the somewhat exceptional case of baseball, most disciplines are ones where almost every Asian country dispatched their best players. While an AG win doesn't necessarily mean being the best in Asia, it is an undeniable position that is difficult to dream of unless you are one of the top three countries that has established a somewhat unrivaled foundation within the Asian region.
I believe that achieving results in these meaningful, main professional sports disciplines that are linked to the Olympics or are close to the public is better than a mere numbers game of whether we won 40 or 50 medals.