Proposal for Medal Rankings

[Soaring]

I would like to first acknowledge that this topic is ridiculous, but I decided to post it for fun.

With some forumers (myself included) bickering about who came out on top of the medal rankings, I am hereby suggesting a new way to looking at medal totals. I am proposing a "points system". Not sure if anyone ever came up with this concept before in ranking medals.

Gold medals are worth 3 points

Silver medals are worth 2 points

Bronze medals are worth 1 point

Who ever has the most points at the end wins the medal ranking!

Here is the TOP TEN

USA Medals = 37 (9 Gold = 27, 15 Silver = 30, 13 Bronze = 13)

Total Points = 70

Germany Medals = 30 (10 Gold = 30, 13 Silver = 26, 7 Bronze = 7)

Total Points = 63

Canada Medals = 26 (14 Gold = 42, 7 Silver = 14, 5 Bronze = 5)

Total Points = 61

Norway Medals = 23 (9 Gold = 27, 8 Silver = 16, 6 Bronze = 6)

Total Points = 49

Korea Medals = 14 (6 Gold = 18, 6 Silver = 12, 2 Bronze = 2)

Total Points = 32

Austria Medals = 16 (4 Gold = 12, 6 Silver = 12, 6 Bronze = 6)

Total Points = 30

Russia Medals = 15 (3 Gold = 9, 5 Silver = 10, 7 Bronze = 7)

Total Points = 26

China Medals = 11 (5 Gold = 15, 2 Silver = 4, 4 Bronze = 4)

Total Points = 23

Sweden Medals = 11 (5 Gold = 15, 2 Silver = 4, 4 Bronze = 4)

Total Points = 23

France Medals = 11 (2 Gold = 6, 3 Silver = 6, 6 Bronze = 6)

Total Points = 18

Korea jumped ahead of Austria and Russia in their points.

So, what do you think?

[Fox334]

I'll stick with most gold, if only because that's the only ranking that makes us win

[Soaring]

^^^

I will stick with my "points" system if that keeps us on top.

[Soaring]

By this system, China beats the USA in points for 2008 medals

CHINA

51 Gold = 153

21 Silver = 42

28 Bronze = 28

Total Points = 223

USA

36 Gold = 108

38 Silver = 76

36 Bronze = 36

Total Points = 220

[stir.ts]

That makes sense.

I'm happy either way, it was great competition. I was nervous that the US might win yesterday. I think things turned out fine for all.

Edited March 1, 2010 by stirthesoul

[baron-pierreIV]

How about US medals worth 50 (for 50 states) points each? Canadian medals (10 poitns each for the 10 porvinces)?, etc., etc.???

[Citius Altius Fortius]

when you start this way of ranking - you should include the 4th and the 5th place

[Soaring]

when you start this way of ranking - you should include the 4th and the 5th place

This is just medal rankings. It would be interesting to make another ranking called "performance ranking"

The point system could be as follows:

1st Place = 5 points

2nd Place = 4 points

3rd Place = 3 points

4th Place = 2 points

5th Place = 1 point

[The Moose]

This is just medal rankings. It would be interesting to make another ranking called "performance ranking"

The point system could be as follows:

1st Place = 5 points

2nd Place = 4 points

3rd Place = 3 points

4th Place = 2 points

5th Place = 1 point

Actually there used to be an official olympic point system in the early history of the games. I think the system was something like this:

1st Place = 7 points

2nd Place = 5 points

3rd Place = 4 points

4th Place = 3 points

5th Place = 2 point

6th Place = 1 point

For some reason, this system is still used by the Norwegian press sometimes.

As for medal tallies, they have in Norway always been given with the country with the highest number of gold first.

[memorabilia]

when you start this way of ranking - you should include the 4th and the 5th place

And the 6th (or even to the 8th) as it is usual to consider those guys as finalists

As for medal tallies, they have in Norway always been given with the country with the highest number of gold first.

As in most of the country and as in IOC records.

Came from Ancient Olympic Games where only the winner received a laurels' crown...

[baron-pierreIV]

MEDAL Count should include the silver and Bronze winners. It doesn't say "Gold Medal" count only, does it. Therefore, the medal rankings should include all 3. I mean it's always been like that...even in academia, it's Summa, Magna and plain cum laude. Not just Summa!!

Edited March 1, 2010 by baron-pierreIV

[Soaring]

I don't completely understand just counting the gold standard either. Sure, when there is a tie, the gold should be ranked first, but at the end of the day the team with more medals around their neck seem to be the one with more success to me. I know most will go by the system that favors them the most, but is this the way it has always been? Or is it an anti-American thing?

I at least agree that even though China had less medals than the U.S. in Beijing, they were more successful because they had 15 more gold than us, even though we had 10 more medals than them.

In Vancouver, the Canadians had 5 more gold medals than the U.S., but we had 11 more medals overall. So I guess the simple calculation to me would mean if the country with the most gold has less medals, the country with the most medals need to have more overall than the disparity between their gold.

In the end, I am proud of both the Canadians and Americans. Together, we hauled in 24% of the medals compared to 8% in Calgary, 14% in Nagano, 19% in Torino, and 21% in SLC.

[Rob.]

I don't completely understand just counting the gold standard either. Sure, when there is a tie, the gold should be ranked first, but at the end of the day the team with more medals around their neck seem to be the one with more success to me. I know most will go by the system that favors them the most, but is this the way it has always been? Or is it an anti-American thing?

Wrong. Most go by the system they've always gone by whether it favours them or not.

I don't know whether the US has always ranked its medal tables by totals, but here in the UK it's always been ranked by number of Golds. And I believe it's the same in the rest of Europe, Australia and most other nations outside of North America. Anti-Americanism has nought to do with it as counting by Golds isn't something we've just decided to do so America isn't top, it's what we've always done.

Edited March 1, 2010 by RobH

[baron-pierreIV]

Wrong. Most go by the system they've always gone by whether it favours them or not.

I don't know whether the US has always ranked its medal tables by totals, but here in the UK it's always been ranked by number of Golds. And I believe it's the same in the rest of Europe, Australia and most other nations outside of North America. Anti-Americanism has nought to do with it as counting by Golds isn't something we've just decided to do so America isn't top, it's what we've always done.

I guess Americanadian culture (or mindset) is MORE inclusive. Euro is very narrow...just looking at #1.

[LuigiVercotti]

Well using a more logical formula derived from the best sporting minds in the world (i.e. Aussies on the grog), the medal table should be adjusted for average land coverage with snow, divided by the depth of that snow and then weighted by a factor of 5 points for gold, 3 for silver and 1 for bronze.

Therefore John Coates and the AOC have awarded the Lord Kevin Gosper Trophy for Winning Vancouver's Medal table to Australia, followed closely by Latvia and Estonia.

Lord Gosper shows his usual enthusiasm when asked about Dick Pound's Canadian bias

[Rob.]

I think you're missing one very important factor Eusebius - fear of snow. Some nations simply can't deal with snow. The lightest flurry causes some nations to all but declare a national emergency. Given that some countries are filled with people who can't even stand up or wear the right footwear when it snows, I think it's only fair that their unique circumstances are taken into account. It truly is a miracle on ice when someone from such a nation wins a Winter Olympic medal.

I therefore declare Team GB as the nation atop of the Vancouver 2010 medal table.

Who'd have thunk it?

[LuigiVercotti]

I think you're missing one very important factor Eusebius - fear of snow. Some nations simply can't deal with snow. The lightest flurry causes some nations to all but declare a national emergency. Given that some countries are filled with people who can't even stand up or wear the right footwear when it snows, I think it's only fair that their unique circumstances are taken into account. It truly is a miracle on ice when someone from such a nation wins a Winter Olympic medal.

I therefore declare Team GB as the nation atop of the Vancouver 2010 medal table.

Who'd have thunk it?

Now laddie, if one considers that the best British winter olympians are actually Scottish or come from the north (which will undoubtedly break away with Scotland when King Sean finally recovers the throne of Scone and tosses off the Sassenach hegemony), then I'd say Scotland is a better candidate. And let's not forget that skeleton was invented by Brits...if you can't win that well, it'd be like Canada not winning ice hockey or Aussies not winning AFL

[4seasonscentre]

But the model should also include consideration for GDP, percentage of global population, how much coastal area there is, how much of that coastal area is fresh vs. salt water, and how many other interesting things there are to do in the country because people are less inclined to follow sport if other fun can be had.

[Soaring]

...we should also consider each athlete's background, and circumstances weighing their stories of them defying the odds.

[Faster]

This is interesting. By looking at athletes walking away from Vancouver with medals

Canada - 68 gold, 15 silver and 9 bronze with 4 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 88 athletes with medals, and a 42.5% team success rate

USA - 12 gold, 64 silver and 21 bronze with 11 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 86 athletes with medals and a 40% team success rate

Germany - 15 gold, 24 silver and 15 bronze, with 10 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 44 athletes medaling, 28.75% of the team

Norway - 16 gold, 15 silver and 10 bronze with 12 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 29 athletes with medals and a 29.25% of the team with medals.

Though if you take out hockey which accounts for 44 gold for Canada and 44 silver for the USA its relatively the same.

But interesting none the less.

Btw, Finland was tops with an almost 52% athlete to medal conversion.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Faster

[Soaring]

That is interesting...

[4seasonscentre]

Canada - 68 gold, 15 silver and 9 bronze with 4 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 88 athletes with medals, and a 42.5% team success rate

USA - 12 gold, 64 silver and 21 bronze with 11 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 86 athletes with medals and a 40% team success rate

Germany - 15 gold, 24 silver and 15 bronze, with 10 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 44 athletes medaling, 28.75% of the team

Norway - 16 gold, 15 silver and 10 bronze with 12 medals won by the same athlete for a total of 29 athletes with medals and a 29.25% of the team with medals.

I don't understand these figures.

[trebor204]

In group/team events, additional medals are 'awarded'

For example pairs figure skating, 2 medals

4-man bobsled = 4 medals.

Hockey = 23 medals.

However each athlete can only be credited with 1 medal.

Take the number of athletes who won medals / size of team to get the succes rate.

P.S. I had similar numbers, (I had to guess at some of the numbers)

USA, 12 Gold, 65 Silver and 22 Bronze),

Canada 69 Gold, 15 Silver, and 8 Bronze.

[Team USA fan]

Interesting proposal, but i think complex medal counts are pretty ridiculous, considering it's to solve those overall vs gold medal count debates, even though the IOC says it doesn't matter what you use (since the games are all about the athletes) and these counts these days are to brag about nationality these days.

Wrong. Most go by the system they've always gone by whether it favours them or not.

I don't know whether the US has always ranked its medal tables by totals, but here in the UK it's always been ranked by number of Golds. And I believe it's the same in the rest of Europe, Australia and most other nations outside of North America. Anti-Americanism has nought to do with it as counting by Golds isn't something we've just decided to do so America isn't top, it's what we've always done.

Well it didn't stop other countries from accusing the US media of "spinning" the medal count in their favor, even though the overall count is what the US has used for years. Although i think that is fueled by Anti-Americanism.

[AmaniS]

Wrong. Most go by the system they've always gone by whether it favours them or not.

I don't know whether the US has always ranked its medal tables by totals, but here in the UK it's always been ranked by number of Golds. And I believe it's the same in the rest of Europe, Australia and most other nations outside of North America. Anti-Americanism has nought to do with it as counting by Golds isn't something we've just decided to do so America isn't top, it's what we've always done.

I don't know about. Eurosport here in Germany was listing by total medals for a few days and then changed to gold count when it was better for Germany. I have found the US does it both ways.