[afcbfan]

Okay, this has been bugging me since 1980 The medals table: countries are ranked by the number of golds that they win. Silver medals' only importance is to split countries that have an equal number of golds, and bronze splits countries that have an equal number of gold and silver.

Wouldn't it be a more accurate assessment of a country's achievements to have a points-based system that takes into account all the medals won in a fairer way than the current system? At the moment a nation that wins only two gold medals is ranked above one that wins one gold, five silver and ten bronze.

So the way I'd do it is to award 3, 2 and 1 points for each gold, silver and bronze medal won. Gotta be a better system, surely?

[fab cesc]

I do think they should take into account silver and bronze medals more than they currently do but I wouldn't go 3, 2, 1 as its too far the other way and places too much importance on bronze medals compared to gold. Maybe something like a 6, 3, 1 points system.

[kingjeremy]

Agree with fab.

A point system would be good but it needs to reward getting gold more than 3,2,1 would.

[Jason C]

I recall this being talked about a lot by Americans after the Beijing Games when the Chinese sat atop the medal table with more golds than the US but fewer medals overall.

I don't think it should be changed, really, because in my opinion one first place beats five second places, and one second place beats five thirds.

[grassmarket]

The medals table is completely unofficial, so you can make up whatever system you want.

[baroquepop]

The weight of the medal table is always skewed by the fact that some golds more distinctive than others. For example a single swimmer, gymnast, shooter or cyclist can win multiple golds where the whole football team winning the tournament (or hockey, basketball etc) count as 1.

In some ways it's best to view each sport as a separate competition and medal table, as do many of the individual sporting bodies. i.e. in rowing, sailing and cycling, the respective GBR teams will want to top those sport's medal table as they did 4 years ago. They were also third in the swimming medal table (well done!). Japan meanwhile will want to stay top of the Judo and Wrestling table.

Then if you awarded points according to how many separate sports a country won, it would be broader representation of a country's success. GBR's 4th place finish in the official table was hugely aided by their cleaning up on the cycle track, and in fact their dominance in very few sports, the 'sitting' sports!

Anyway, table of tables:
CHN 7G 2S 4B
USA 5½G 3½S 3B
RUS 3½G 2½S 3B
KOR 3G 1½S 1½B
GER 3G 3½S ½B
GBR 3G 1S
JAP 2G 1S 1B
FRA 1½G 1½S
AUS 1G 4½S 1½B

(the halfs are where there's a tie in the sports medal table)

[LostFool]

Originally Posted by grassmarket

The medals table is completely unofficial, so you can make up whatever system you want.

This.

However, it was quite amusing in 2008 to the the US team and media claiming they were top on the basis of the most medals.

[baroquepop]

Who says it's unofficial? Do we know for sure? These tables are published in Olympic documents and their official websites.

The Americans have always been contrary in counting the total medals rather than gold first, so it wasn't a convenient excuse concocted for 2008. They (the American press I guess) should nevertheless fall into line with the accepted format.

[afcbfan]

Originally Posted by Jason C

I don't think it should be changed, really, because in my opinion one first place beats five second places, and one second place beats five thirds.

Doing the maths that would make one gold equal twenty-five bronze.

See, I don't agree with this because I think a country getting second place in the 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1500m events, for example, is a better achievement than getting gold in one of them.

Originally Posted by LostFool

This.

However, it was quite amusing in 2008 to the the US team and media claiming they were top on the basis of the most medals.

Originally Posted by baroquepop

The Americans have always been contrary in counting the total medals rather than gold first, so it wasn't a convenient excuse concocted for 2008. They (the American press I guess) should nevertheless fall into line with the accepted format.

Yes, the American system would rank six silvers and six bronzes better than ten golds, which is obviously not right either.

Looking at the medals table for 2008:

China: 51-21-28: 100
USA: 36-38-36: 110

My system would give China 226 points, and the USA 220. I think that's a fairer ranking than just using the gold medals alone.

There were a couple of other anomalies, too: Cuba finished in 28th place with twenty-four medals, directly behind Georgia who won six. Romania were 17th with eight. Armenia picked up six medals and finished 78th out of 80, but Belgium finished 46th with two.

[ollie1004]

I like it how it is. 1 gold medal v. 10 bronze medals? So 10 athletes from let's say Brazil who might each finish 3rd in their respective events would be worth more than let's say a single individual from GB that wins Olympic gold? The pinnacle of any athlete's career? Didn't think so. It's fine how it is.

[afcbfan]

Originally Posted by ollie1004

I like it how it is. 1 gold medal v. 10 bronze medals? So 10 athletes from let's say Brazil who might each finish 3rd in their respective events would be worth more than let's say a single individual from GB that wins Olympic gold?

Yes, 10 bronze medals by a country is a greater achievement than 1 gold in my book.

It's fine how it is.

It patently isn't, particularly if one of those bronze medals is achieved in a sport where you haven't won a medal in a century and it has zero effect on your position in the table. If it's fine how it is then there's no need to show how many silver and bronze medals a country has won.

[tiger2000]

Originally Posted by grassmarket

The medals table is completely unofficial, so you can make up whatever system you want.

Exactly, The IOC/LOCOG do not recognise any 'Official' Medal Table, though they do publish them on their website.

In the past I noticed that the US and Australian media have used both the 'most golds' and 'most medals' systems, whichever one placed them higher at the time

[oncemore]

whats the point?

I've been enjoying some of the threads in this forum, but it seems like almost every thread has someone (if not multiple people) bashing the US and making disparaging comments about us in some way. It's almost too much, tbh. American athletes / coaching and media coverage gets crap on this forum more than any other country to the point that it's just become a joke.

I hope you all have a wonderful Olympics and that Team GB does great. London is putting on a great Olympics, but the poor sportsmanship and just outright tackiness here is over the top. I was hoping to enjoy the games and read / chat with people in the UK about the games, but it's honestly not worth it. Stay class, I guess.

[Fizix]

Originally Posted by oncemore

whats the point?

I've been enjoying some of the threads in this forum, but it seems like almost every thread has someone (if not multiple people) bashing the US and making disparaging comments about us in some way. It's almost too much, tbh. American athletes / coaching and media coverage gets crap on this forum more than any other country to the point that it's just become a joke.

I hope you all have a wonderful Olympics and that Team GB does great. London is putting on a great Olympics, but the poor sportsmanship and just outright tackiness here is over the top. I was hoping to enjoy the games and read / chat with people in the UK about the games, but it's honestly not worth it. Stay class, I guess.

I think you'll find its a vocal few who troll threads with the same comments and dominate the thread.

I've come to notice certain names on this forum already - on certain topics; and over the god knows how many years I've been on this site there are names who always crop up on certain subjects; you can guarantee they will crop up in said threads and can expect them to make up the bulk of the thread.

So don't take it too seriously and certainly don't take it personally.


In regards to the topic, I've always thought there should be a points system to the Olympics. As it stands it's flawed no matter how you try to rank countries.

Just taking into account gold medals for example; a country who gets 2 gold medals and nothing else would rank higher than a country who gets no gold medals but scores 20 silvers and 30 bronze medals.

That's just not right.

If you rank by medal total, a country who gets 10 medals overall; who has 1 gold, 5 silver and 4 bronze medals would rank higher than a country who gets 8 gold, 1 silver and no bronze (9 overall), which is also incorrect.


Personally I think there should be a points system that takes a few things to account.

- A base scoring system of 3-2-1 (gold-silver-bronze)

- A medal value for each event; so tougher events and team events (that require a team to do exceptionally to get gold) is multiplied onto the base score.

Most events would have a medal value of 2.

So for most events gold would be worth 6 points, silver 4 points and bronze 2 points.

Some events that are particularly difficult, prestigious and certain team events (tolken events if you like) have a medal value of either 2.5 or 3. But these would be few and far between.


Then have a bonus system where an extra point is added for anything spectacular; say breaking a world record (and holding it at the end of the event) would add a point; getting a gold in an event where you have no (or very little history) would gain an extra point.


That way, your final table would mean something and the order would be defined by overall performance rather than a gold medal count; which would give something back to the smaller countries who get medals but don't dominate the golds.


Or maybe a base of 4-2-1 to give gold medals a bit more weight; or some other base.

[PlatinumSteve]

Why is this a big deal? The IOC repeatedly and often has relayed they do not rank country's officially according to medal haul. Outside the US and Canadian media the medals are ranked by gold, in North America we rank by total then gold, but there is not supposed to be a winner or a loser, they don't intend for there to be either.

As for baroque "fall in line" huh? Good luck with that buddy the US doesn't do stuff just to fit in or fall in line, hehe silly.

[klunk]

It should be governed by weighted coefficients according to population, per-capita GDP, and number of medals available in the sport. It could all be done with a simple Excel spreadsheet, but it would probably make Gary Lineker's head explode. Those guys have enough trouble with goal difference.

[sorlo]

Having a system of assigning values of 3-2-1 for G-S-B is worse than what we have currently because you are effectively saying winning a silver & bronze is the same as a single gold, or 2 silvers are better than one gold - i think the majority of people would not agree with this system.

[jsmith99]

It depends the importance you put on medals; do they really matter at all? A month later, everyone's forgotten how many any country won.

If you must have a table, then I think medals should have varying value, based on the number of population, or the amount of money spent on training. A country like Malta winning a model would have far more significance than China winning one; maybe 1 Maltese gold should equal 20 Chinese golds.

Originally Posted by Jason C

I recall this being talked about a lot by Americans after the Beijing Games when the Chinese sat atop the medal table with more golds than the US but fewer medals overall....................

Had that been reversed, I bet there'd have been no discussion about it.

[sorlo]

Originally Posted by PlatinumSteve

Why is this a big deal? The IOC repeatedly and often has relayed they do not rank country's officially according to medal haul. Outside the US and Canadian media the medals are ranked by gold, in North America we rank by total then gold, but there is not supposed to be a winner or a loser, they don't intend for there to be either.

As for baroque "fall in line" huh? Good luck with that buddy the US doesn't do stuff just to fit in or fall in line, hehe silly.

Precisely. We have had twenty odd games prior to the Beijing Olympic without any issues. It only became an issue when the US found themselves not on top anymore, so they were butt hurt and came up with an alternative ranking system.

[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by baroquepop

...............
The Americans have always been contrary in counting the total medals rather than gold first, so it wasn't a convenient excuse concocted for 2008. They (the American press I guess) should nevertheless fall into line with the accepted format.

Originally Posted by PlatinumSteve

......... in North America we rank by total then gold, but there is not supposed to be a winner or a loser, they don't intend for there to be either.

As for baroque "fall in line" huh? Good luck with that buddy the US doesn't do stuff just to fit in or fall in line, hehe silly.

And what would happen should China get most medals, but america more golds this year? Would you still insist on sticking to the same system? I've no doubt america would do its usual hypocritical bit, and "fall in line" rather quickly in that event.

[oncemore]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

And what would happen should China get most medals, but america more golds this year? Would you still insist on sticking to the same system? I've no doubt america would do its usual hypocritical bit, and "fall in line" rather quickly in that event.

I suppose you do realise the extent to which america really pees people off with this sort of attitude? I imagine you do, but just don't care. It almost makes me wish I had an american flag to hand, go to the sprint tomorrow, wait till some american riders came along .....and dip the flag....right onto the ground. Luckily, I'm not like that ...I did say 'almost'

So you would trash another country's flag because you don't like the way NBC and Sports Illustrated do the medal table. I have no words.

[Mr Teacake]

One possibility is to award each participant their timing/score and then aggregate these figures with the lowest nation winning the times and the highest nation winning the scores, whilst dividing both figures by number of participants.

[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by oncemore

So you would trash another country's flag because you don't like the way NBC and Sports Illustrated do the medal table. I have no words.

Trash? Just merely touching the ground a bit ....anything to annoy the americans. And I didn't say it was something I was actually going to do ...but thinking about it's nice.

[Mr Teacake]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

Trash? Just merely touching the ground a bit ....anything to annoy the americans. And I didn't say it was something I was actually going to do ...but thinking about it's nice.

What an utter trivial hate crime. Touching a flag on the ground when everyone's too busy watching the sprint?

[epicurian]

Are the Olympics supposed to engender such bigotry?