United States: 19-21-25 65 China: 35-13-13 61 Russia: 7-12-12 31 Australia: 8-10-11 29 Britain: 11-6-8 25 France: 4-9-12 25 South Korea: 8-9-5 22 Germany: 9-6-6 21 Japan: 8-5-7 20 Italy: 6-6-6 18 Ukraine: 5-3-6 14 Netherlands: 2-4-4 10 Belarus: 0-3-7 10 Romania: 4-1-3 8 Cuba: 1-3-4 8 Kazakhstan: 1-3-4 8 Canada: 2-1-4 7 Spain: 3-2-1 6 Poland: 2-3-1 6 North Korea: 2-1-3 6 Czech Republic: 2-3-0 5 New Zealand: 2-1-2 5 Switzerland: 2-0-3 5 Azerbaijan: 1-2-2 5 Indonesia: 1-1-3 5 Brazil: 1-0-4 5 Hungary: 0-4-1 5 Armenia: 0-0-5 5 Slovakia 3-1-0 4 Jamaica: 2-2-0 1 Zimbabwe: 1-3-0 4 Norway 1-2-1 4 Slovenia 1-1-2 4 Denmark: 1-0-3 4 Ethiopia: 2-1-0 3 Georgia: 2-0-1 3 Bulgaria: 1-1-1 3 Finland: 1-1-1 3 Sweden: 0-3-0 3 Kenya: 0-2-1 3 Turkey: 0-2-1 3 Austria: 0-1-2 3 Greece: 0-1-2 3 Mongolia 1-1-0 2 Algeria: 0-1-1 2 Colombia 0-1-1 2 Croatia: 0-1-1 2 Kyrgyzstan: 0-1-1 2 Serbia: 0-1-1 2 Uzbekistan: 0-1-1 2 Taiwan: 0-0-2 2 Cameroon: 1-0-0 1 India 1-0-0 1 Thailand: 1-0-0 1 Tunisia: 1-0-0 1 Chile: 0-1-0 1 Ecuador 0-1-0 1 Estonia: 0-1-0 1 Malaysia: 0-1-0 1 Singapore: 0-1-0 1 Trinidad & Tobago 0-1-0 1 Vietnam 0-1-0 1 Argentina: 0-0-1 1 Egypt: 0-0-1 1 Lithuania: 0-0-1 1 Mexico: 0-0-1 1 Tajikistan: 0-0-1 1 Togo: 0-0-1 1
The Medal Rankings: Which Country Leads the Olympics? - New York Times Counting Precious Medals - Wall Street Journal
Sounds like an acceptable system to me. China: 179 medal points. USA: 143 medal points. Still a blow-out.
For me I say award 3 points per old, 2 points per silver, and 1 point per bronze and set the standings as such.
Yea, I think that'd be the best method, with the Total medal count being the next best option... Imagine if Country A had 2-0-0 And Country B had 1-59-10 Country A would be ranked higher. The point system is the best way.
Had this exact same discussion with the wife (who is not from the US or any country that wins lots of medals). Our conclusion is that a points system is best. The idea to rank by gold is to reward those countries who have the best! But that rewards the countries like China and Australia who have government sponsored programs. But, rewarding the silver and bronze should also be done - after all, those athletes beat out another 15 or 50 competitors.
United States: 22-24-26 72 China: 39-14-14 67 Russia: 8-13-15 36 Australia:11-10-12 33 France: 4-11-13 28 Britain: 12-7-8 27 Germany: 9-7-7 23 South Korea: 8-9-6 23 Japan: 8-5-7 20 Italy: 6-6-6 18 Ukraine: 5-3-8 16 Netherlands: 3-5-4 12 Cuba: 1-5-5 11 Belarus: 1-3-7 11 Canada: 2-3-4 9 Romania: 4-1-3 8 Spain: 3-3-2 8 Kazakhstan: 1-3-4 8 Poland: 3-3-1 7 Kenya: 2-3-2 7 Denmark: 2-1-3 6 New Zealand: 2-1-3 6 North Korea: 2-1-3 6 Brazil: 1-0-5 6 Czech Republic: 2-3-0 5 Switzerland: 2-0-3 5 Azerbaijan: 1-2-2 5 Norway 1-2-2 5 Indonesia: 1-1-3 5 Hungary: 0-4-1 5 Armenia: 0-0-5 5 Slovakia 3-1-0 4 Jamaica: 2-2-0 4 Zimbabwe: 1-3-0 4 Slovenia 1-1-2 4 Ethiopia: 2-1-0 3 Georgia: 2-0-1 3 Bulgaria: 1-1-1 3 Finland: 1-1-1 3 Sweden: 0-3-0 3 Turkey: 0-2-1 3 Austria: 0-1-2 3 Greece: 0-1-2 3 Uzbekistan: 0-1-2 3 Mongolia 1-1-0 2 Algeria: 0-1-1 2 Colombia 0-1-1 2 Croatia: 0-1-1 2 Kyrgyzstan: 0-1-1 2 Serbia: 0-1-1 2 Taiwan: 0-0-2 2 Cameroon: 1-0-0 1 India 1-0-0 1 Panama: 1-0-0 1 Thailand: 1-0-0 1 Tunisia: 1-0-0 1 Chile: 0-1-0 1 Ecuador 0-1-0 1 Estonia: 0-1-0 1 Malaysia: 0-1-0 1 Portugal: 0-1-0 1 Singapore: 0-1-0 1 South Africa: 0-1-0 1 Trinidad & Tobago 0-1-0 1 Vietnam 0-1-0 1 Argentina: 0-0-1 1 Egypt: 0-0-1 1 Lithuania: 0-0-1 1 Mexico: 0-0-1 1 Morocco: 0-0-1 1 Tajikistan: 0-0-1 1 Togo: 0-0-1 1
Disagree with this completely. You enter any competition to be number 1, not 2 or 3. Therefore the best nations are the ones with most number 1 atheletes. In your example Country A should be higher a they are the BEST in two events. Using medal points just promotes second rate athletes, you dream of winning gold not getting a medal, its nice to come second or third but Success is measured on being the best not having a high proportion of second and third place finishes.
Bullshit. You're thinking one-dimensionally. What's the point of handing out silver and bronze medals if they don't mean anything. THOUSANDS of Olympic athletes come just to get a medal because they know the chances of getting gold are so unlikely. A medal tracker based purely on gold medals is a complete joke. There are only so many 'gold medal athletes', you need to account for all the silver and bronze medal athletes as well.
Just seems strange that it's this Olympics where the universal standard of ranking by gold, silver then bronze is being tanked by the American media - AFAIK they've always used the standard format in the past (happy to be proven wrong here). Does the US media really think the average american ego is so fragile it can't accept being second?
I don't see why anyone would be against a point system. China would still be ahead if one were incorporated
Me neither but how do you quantify how much more "valuable" a gold medal is than a silver or a bronze? I don't see what's wrong with the current system - only the feeble minded wouldn't be able to look at the tables as they stood and take their own conclusions from it
Which goes back to the question - why does the American media feel it appropriate to dump the table format that's been used for decades?
Actually, the "American media" didn't dump anything. As far back as the first Olympics I really remember watching -- Mexico City 1968 -- they've always used the total medal count in the U.S.
Could well be true but do you realise how petty and insecure that makes you look to the rest of the world?
Evidently not so thanks to river's clarification. Seems a bizarre ranking table format to use where a bronze medal is equal to a gold but hey, it's all good.
In the very end, the medal table is misleading since it over-represents certain sports. For example, only two medals can be gained from football while about 294 medals can be gained from swimming.