RealGM

But when we are talking dominance from a national team tou have the triple flag medal ceremony, like what happened in Womens Fencing. That shows more TEAM dominance, as the whole delegation is a team, even thought we reward individuals with medals.

DelaneyRudd wrote:But when we are talking dominance from a national team tou have the triple flag medal ceremony, like what happened in Womens Fencing. That shows more TEAM dominance, as the whole delegation is a team, even thought we reward individuals with medals.

It depends on how many players you can sent in one event. Many events only allow up to 2, or even just one athlete from each country.

Gold Medals. Would you rather have Jamaica's medal count or Canada's medal count? Canada has more, but Jamaica has more gold medals. I know I would rather have Jamaica's medal count over Canada and I am Canadian

Gold >>>>>>>>>>> Amount.

I mean, the German kajak and canoeing team won a gazillion silver and bronze medals but "only" 2x gold. That was a huge disappointment. Tell the German K/C coaches that they had a stellar Olympics and they will go LMAO at you.

BTW, yesterday in German TV they ran a 5min piece asking why the US sportswriters staunchly asserted that the US was the Nr 1 Olympics 2008 nation. The US journalists said "only medal count is relevant, all the others do it so", and the Germans did a quick query at the Australian, Chinese and French stations, and they all said that Gold > everything else. The report ended with the question why Americans are perceived as arrogant, self rightous and always inclined to bend the rules so that they fit the best.

In addition to golds and total medals, you should also consider how many times, you finished dead last.
Last Place Finishes
China 10
Canada 8
Australia 7
Germany 7
South Korea 6
UK 5
Italy 5
Egypt 4

Gold is more important. While this year ended up being nice for Canada overall with 18 medals, we only have 3 golds. I still think Canada's 1992 with 7 golds was much better even though we only had 16 medals overall.

if athletes grow up thinkin to themselves, "man, i wanna win a bronze medal so bad" then they should count them all as equal, but until we get to that point, Gold is still worth much more than any other. I said earlier that gold should be given 5 points and 3 for silver and 1 for bronze but actually even the 5 points is too little for gold. something like 10 and the same for the others

vwc228 wrote:if athletes grow up thinkin to themselves, "man, i wanna win a bronze medal so bad" then they should count them all as equal, but until we get to that point, Gold is still worth much more than any other. I said earlier that gold should be given 5 points and 3 for silver and 1 for bronze but actually even the 5 points is too little for gold. something like 10 and the same for the others

It makes no sense for a silver worth 3 bronze while a gold is worth less than 2 silvers. The ratio between gold and silver should be much higher than that between silver and bronze.

Point forward wrote:BTW, yesterday in German TV they ran a 5min piece asking why the US sportswriters staunchly asserted that the US was the Nr 1 Olympics 2008 nation. The US journalists said "only medal count is relevant, all the others do it so", and the Germans did a quick query at the Australian, Chinese and French stations, and they all said that Gold > everything else. The report ended with the question why Americans are perceived as arrogant, self rightous and always inclined to bend the rules so that they fit the best.

That wouldn't be the first or the last time. It is in daily life.

The fed is calculating inflation in such a crooked way to show that US has the lowest inflation rate among all developed countries (save the pathetic Japan), with we consuming most energy, and with dollar depreciating 60%-100% against other major currencies. Americans work wonders when it comes to numbers.

i heard on the radio last night that maybe what people should consider is the medals per participant per event.

for example, china had tons on gymnastics and diving. us had a lot in swimming. jamaica a lot in track and field. how many chinese were there in t&f compared to us and jamaica? how many from jamaica in gymnastics or diving?

that should also be taken into consideration.

BlackMamba wrote:i heard on the radio last night that maybe what people should consider is the medals per participant per event.

for example, china had tons on gymnastics and diving. us had a lot in swimming. jamaica a lot in track and field. how many chinese were there in t&f compared to us and jamaica? how many from jamaica in gymnastics or diving?

that should also be taken into consideration.

Not the same at all, but interesting, nevertheless, is Medals Per Capita, LA Times has been keeping a track of it.

Rasho Brezec wrote:

BlackMamba wrote:i heard on the radio last night that maybe what people should consider is the medals per participant per event.

for example, china had tons on gymnastics and diving. us had a lot in swimming. jamaica a lot in track and field. how many chinese were there in t&f compared to us and jamaica? how many from jamaica in gymnastics or diving?

that should also be taken into consideration.

Not the same at all, but interesting, nevertheless, is Medals Per Capita, LA Times has been keeping a track of it.

Medal per participant per event makes little sense. It would discourage participation. It is like saying "if you are not the best, don't even think about coming, because you will just add more to the denominator while do nother to the numerator." Ridiculous.

Medal per capita favors small countries. If you really want that way, you have to let bigger countries sent more athletes in each event to make it fair. So in many event, in order to let a small country send one athletes, China has to be allowed to sent 100 and US has to be allowed to sent 25.

no, i don't think it should be the official way to make the count, but medals per event per participant is a good way to measure a country's performance.

BlackMamba wrote:no, i don't think it should be the official way to make the count, but medals per event per participant is a good way to measure a country's performance.

So a country really good (gold) at one sport but suck so much in other sports that they couldn't even qualify, is better/stronger than another country really good at some sports (gold) and also good at many other sports (silver/bronze)? That is what it implies by measuring it your way. It makes no sense.

yep, if one country wins 20 silvers and no golds, shouldn't they place ahead of a country with a sole gold medal? The same could be said of a country with 100 4th place finishes though, so maybe the fairest way to look would be to take the average position of each country across all competitions.

ok, i repeat, i don't think it should be the official way or a close to official way, but it's a way to determine how good your performance was.

for example, let's say USA has 50 athletes for t&f participating in 10 events and got 20 medals.
now, for example, mexico has 10 athletes for t&f participating in 4 events and got 0 gold medals.
and lets say jamaica has 20 athletes for t&f participating in 10 events and got 14 medals.

and then, USA has 40 athletes for swimming participating in 14 events and got 30 medals.
mexico has 10 atheltes for swimming participating in 10 events and got 0 gold medals.
jamaica had 5 athletes for swimming in 6 events and got 0 gold medals.

if you make a comparisson of the ratio of athletes per event and the medals you can measure if your olympic delegation is having good success or not.

i'm just saying that for each country and event it's a way of knowing if you were successful or not no matter how many gold medals or total medals you got.


maybe off topic of the gold vs. total count, but just wanted to point it out...

So I guess China accomplished its goal in Beijing and got more gold than anyone else did. Take THAT America!

Seriously though, when's the last time the US finished second in gold count? Must have been when the Soviet Union was still around or something.

Between most golds and most medals i prefer most golds... but i think something like a points race would be more interesting, 5 points for gold, 3 for silver and 1 for bronze, ie.

MoMM wrote:Between most golds and most medals i prefer most golds... but i think something like a points race would be more interesting, 5 points for gold, 3 for silver and 1 for bronze, ie.

If there were a point system, I'd say at least 10 pt for gold, 3 for silver and 1 for bronze. With 5/3/1, 1 silver = 3 bronze, and 1 gold < 2 silver. It makes no sense.