Jump to content

Canada's Medals


How Many  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. How Many

    • 8 to 15
      3
    • 16 to 20
      10
    • 21 to 25
      6
    • 26 to 30
      5


Recommended Posts

So either you win no gold medals at all on home soil or you win more than any other nation in history!

It's just all or nothing with you Canucks isn't it? :P

Once again,congrats Canada!! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the one that counts, that's the one everyone remembers, and that the one ranks the medal table in most of the world.

Well just to reiterate:

The only time it's ever undisputed is when the the country at the top of the medals table has won the most medals and the most golds (which is ideal). If it's split, you'll always have this debate. I remember talking to this one guy, and he was like "silver and bronze are meaningless. you didn't win". Okay, so then why have silver and bronze medals at all? Why do we tell athletes what an achievement it is, and to be proud, that they won a silver or a bronze medal? If you're going to look it as "gold is all that matters, and anything else is a loss, screw silver, 'screw coming in third'", then let's just dump silver and bronze medals for good! Gold is all that matters, and anything less doesn't count for anything, and makes you a loser! ;) Would sure clear up this medal table debate once and for all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ideal to be at the top of both, but the "Gold Standard" negates the value of silver and bronze medals.

Honestly, it's worth a debate on its own. But I just follow the tradition we've always followed here and which I see in most medal rankings in the rest of the world outside the US. It's how Wallechinsky's almanac tables rank as well. And it's not denying the value of silver and bronze, they're used respectively to rank them after ties in gold. There's also fourth placed finishers and later who achieve amazing and inspirational results - all tallies deny those as well. In the end, it's really the golds that are remembered the most - why else would Canada, say, have equated hockey silver with failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, it's worth a debate on its own. But I just follow the tradition we've always followed here and which I see in most medal rankings in the rest of the world outside the US. It's how Wallechinsky's almanac tables rank as well. And it's not denying the value of silver and bronze, they're used respectively to rank them after ties in gold. There's also fourth placed finishers and later who achieve amazing and inspirational results - all tallies deny those as well. In the end, it's really the golds that are remembered the most - why else would Canada, say, have equated hockey silver with failure.

It's not just the U.S. who uses the "most medals" standard. Ironically, it's the standard Canada uses as well.

why else would Canada, say, have equated hockey silver with failure.

Perhaps because it's their national game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the U.S. who uses the "most medals" standard. Ironically, it's the standard Canada uses as well.

The vancouver website started the gaaames on the gold standard. I've mentioned before how weird it was that they switched. Anyway, the thing is, the IOC doesn't recognise any tallies as "official" anyway. It comes down to what you've grown up and are familiar with. I've grown up with the Gold standard, it it matches just about every resource I've collected or consulted over the decades. Anyway, just personally, it's not like whole nations collectively hold their breaths and cross their fingers for silver. Or spontaneous parties break out on the streets for bronze.

You guys like your way. Good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just personally, it's not like whole nations collectively hold their breaths and cross their fingers for silver. Or spontaneous parties break out on the streets for bronze.

I guess people should stop telling athletes who won silver or bronze to be proud of themselves and that it's still such an achievement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? Jesus. No one country officialy "wins" the Games anyway.

They should do a point system (1 for bronze, 2 for silver, 3 for gold) to prevent such endless, unimportant debates at the end of every Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess people should stop telling athletes who won silver or bronze to be proud of themselves and that it's still such an achievement.

Of course we're proud of their achievements and celebrate them as well. But c'mon, don't we always wish they'd gone just that extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Golds count more than silvers and bronzes.That is why the traditional table has always ranked nations by number of gold medals won irrespective of the totals.Like Roltel that's how I've always remembered it!

I don't say that there shouldn't be acknowledgement for the nation who wins the most medals overall and that nearly always seems to be the USA.But it just looks weird to rank it above the one with the most golds.It just doesn't look right!

After all,it's the gold medal-winning performance that sets the standard for that sport and which everyone remembers!

As to why the IOC website now shows the default medal table by total medals won rather than golds won (as it did for previous Olympics like Beijing) is puzzling.I wonder if it has cut a deal with the USOC along the lines of: You be more flexible about your share of the revenues and we'll adopt your way of presenting the medal table?? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...