zekekelso Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Media like to show medal tables ranking the countries. Some rank the countries by number of gold medals. Others rank total medals. I suppose there could also be a table using weighted rankings (g=3, s=2, b=1?), If you ran the world, how would you set the rankings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 You say "some" but isn't it only the US that lists by totals? Everyone else agrees its on Golds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethnalGreen Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 there is probably a third option though in that some countries might do it depending how many medals or golds they have to make them look better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox334 Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I just use gold > silver > bronze. That's what wikipedia does, so it must be right :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 We come across this every games. I'm not sure why the US goes for total medals while everyone else ranks by gold, then silver then bronze. There was some (unofficial, of course) points system I remember reading about in the early 1950s, but I guess it never really took on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheal_warren Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Gold - Silver - Bronze rankings rather than total medals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 You say "some" but isn't it only the US that lists by totals? Everyone else agrees its on Golds. I've never heard that. I noticed the BBC paid more attention to the gold medal table, but I didn't realize they disregarded the total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Canada is pretty much the same situation as the American way of ranking medals. At Vancouver 2010, Canada won the most gold medals, but some people "were disappointed" that the country did not win the overall medal tally (The American team did that). If I read the news carefully, the COC wants to the Canadian team to be in the "top 12" overall in the final medal standings, regardless of how many gold medals won. However, that could mean that, when the gold medals are tallied, the country may not rank so well in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trebor204 Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 How should they decide the overall winner of the Olympics? You can use Gold Medals / Total Medals / Medal Points. However some sports have only 2 events (ie Team Sports). While others like Swimming and Athletics could have as many as 50 events. Should a nation that wins 4 medals in team sports be ranked lower than a nation that wins 5 medals all in Athletics? I got a few interesting ideas: A nation can win only 1 medal in each sport. If USA wins 7 medals in Swimming, then they are awarded the highest medal won Medals are award for each competitor who wins a medal. A pair’s event wins 2 medals, a relay event wins 4 or more medals (you tend to more than 4 competitors in some relay events). Teams sports can win around 20 medals Determine an overall winner for each Sport. You take all the events within each sport, and give them points based on their ranking (ie. 10 points for 1st place, 9 points for 2nd, etc) The nation that finishes with the most points get 10 points , 2nd place get 9 pts, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiejie Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 The entire ranking-by-medals phenomenon is a silly endeavor whichever way you want to do it. It's not the country winning the medals, it's the individual athlete or the team. Some manage to win a medal because of their country and backing; others manage to win in spite of their country. I've always thought this was similar to those "My d!ck is bigger than yours" comparison contests. What's the motive for even doing it? I'm of the opinion that winning an Olympic medal of any type is impressive. Is a silver medal winner that clocked in behind the gold medal winner at .01 second in a 200 meter swim, a second-rate athlete? What about the golds that were won by cheating (doping, underage, etc), should include these in "the count"? I realize my opinion is likely to be highly unpopular here, so I'll leave it at a big Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I'm of the opinion that winning an Olympic medal of any type is impressive. Is a silver medal winner that clocked in behind the gold medal winner at .01 second in a 200 meter swim, a second-rate athlete? obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoNutz Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 The entire ranking-by-medals phenomenon is a silly endeavor whichever way you want to do it. It's not the country winning the medals, it's the individual athlete or the team. Some manage to win a medal because of their country and backing; others manage to win in spite of their country. I've always thought this was similar to those "My d!ck is bigger than yours" comparison contests. What's the motive for even doing it? I'm of the opinion that winning an Olympic medal of any type is impressive. Is a silver medal winner that clocked in behind the gold medal winner at .01 second in a 200 meter swim, a second-rate athlete? What about the golds that were won by cheating (doping, underage, etc), should include these in "the count"? I realize my opinion is likely to be highly unpopular here, so I'll leave it at a big The Chinese Team won a crap-ton of Gold in Beijing didn't they? Was that not a moment of pride for the Chinese and/or the Administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiejie Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Of course it was, but it was calculated. In the years running up to the Olympics, the Chinese purposely strategized a way to lead the medal board, and focused on sports that yielded a lot of medals and that were primarily individual efforts rather than team efforts (Chinese generally suck at team sports, especially the men). It would have been a loss of face to them NOT to win the most gold medals at their own Olympics. So the athetes, coaches, and all the federation apparatus prepped and competed like their lives depended on it...which in some respects, it did! Look no further than what happened to Liu Xiang when he pulled out of the hurdles due to injury. But if you're trying to link this to me personally, I must inform you that it was all hilarious to me, not pride-inducing. I'm not Chinese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.