Page 1 of 1

Olympic medal count

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:22 am
by fanboy
I find it amusing that most American websites list the USA on top the medal table, considering that the medal count isn't done by total medals, but ordered by gold..
"The ranking sorts by the number of gold medals earned by a country (in this context a country is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee). The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals. If, after the above, countries are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed alphabetically."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summe ... edal_table

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:52 pm
by Ares2
Both are somehow wrong anyway.
Ordered by total medals: A country with 0 0 81 isn't better than one with 76 0 0.
Ordered by gold: A country with 1 0 0 isn't better than one with 0 21 0.

IMO the only way to rank them right is to have a points-system: gold 3 silber 2 bronze 1. Add the points you get a fair ranking. :)

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:32 pm
by Lanik
Ares2 wrote:IMO the only way to rank them right is to have a points-system: gold 3 silber 2 bronze 1. Add the points you get a fair ranking. :)
Sweet I think you just invented a new medal there Ares. :mrgreen:

Silber is that Gilberts distant cousin or something?

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:44 pm
by Ares2
Lanik wrote:Sweet I think you just invented a new medal there Ares.
Argh, damn German. Who thinks about this one damn letter when everything else is the same? :biggrin:

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:37 am
by rick752
This whole thing is wrong anyway.

Countries don't win medals ... people do!

What did George Bush do to make Michael Phelps a great swimmer? It's time to leave politics out of the Olympics and just let the athletes compete against each other and enjoy the moment. Countries counting medals ... how retarded ... like THEY won them. :-(

I love just watching those special people do amazing things ... like Phelps swimming the butterfly and that amazing Jamaican that just broke the 200 meter world record, the Chinese in diving competitions. Those events were special ... those PEOPLE were amazing!

Ordinary people just doing extraordinary things. :-)

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:01 am
by fanboy
Ares2 wrote:Both are somehow wrong anyway.
Ordered by total medals: A country with 0 0 81 isn't better than one with 76 0 0.
Ordered by gold: A country with 1 0 0 isn't better than one with 0 21 0.

IMO the only way to rank them right is to have a points-system: gold 3 silber 2 bronze 1. Add the points you get a fair ranking. :)
Ofcourse, if you visit the following sites, you'll notice a common theme,.. they're all non-american, and the medal table looks different (to the american sites)

http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/beijing- ... dal-tally/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/
http://www.bild.de/BILD/sport/olympia20 ... piele.html
http://observers.france24.com/en/jo2008
http://www.globesports.com/beijing2008/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic ... efault.stm
http://www.reuters.com/news/sports/2008olympics
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/olympics/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/event/index.cfm?c_id=502
http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/I ... 0000.shtml

By rating countries total medal count, you're ignoring the value of the medals, People who compete will obviously aim for Gold, why not rank this way? You're underlining the importance of being the best being an Olympic champion in your given sport.

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:50 am
by Ares2
rick752 wrote:Countries don't win medals ... people do!
That's true, of course. I really love statistics though, and medals by country is the only interesting one in this case.
fanboy wrote:People who compete will obviously aim for Gold, why not rank this way?
As I said above you are making a silver medal almost worthless compared to gold although the athlet winning it is almost as good as the winner of the gold medal. That the situation is the same between 3rd and 4th place is ignored because the 4th doesn't get a medal.

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:52 pm
by fanboy
Ares2 wrote: As I said above you are making a silver medal almost worthless compared to gold although the athlet winning it is almost as good as the winner of the gold medal. That the situation is the same between 3rd and 4th place is ignored because the 4th doesn't get a medal.
Sure silver is counted, only if 2 (or more) countries have equal amount of gold medals.. then if the countries are still equal, then the bronze is counted.. sounds like a reasonable way of counting medals.

Ares2 should support the proper way of counting, Germany moves up to 5th :P

Overall, China has done well, they have more Olympic champions than the US, that's where it matters.

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:59 pm
by Ares2
fanboy wrote:Sure silver is counted, only if 2 (or more) countries have equal amount of gold medals
That's why I wrote 'almost'.
fanboy wrote:sounds like a reasonable way of counting medals
Is a country with just one gold medal better than one with 21 silver but no gold? For me not. :P
fanboy wrote:Ares2 should support the proper way of counting, Germany moves up to 5th :P
Look down or to the right. :mrgreen:
Image

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:19 pm
by fanboy
bah

Re: Olympic medal count

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:26 am
by Hubird
marrieX wrote:Who agrees that Mixed martial arts should become an olympic sport? It actually was going to be an olympic sport under the name " Pankration" at the 2004 Athens Olympics but they decided not to. But I want it to change and let it be an olympic sport.
I'd find it more interesting than the other events....