Do you think the Olympic medal tally should be based on number of gold or all medals based on points?

Question

Most Olympic Games medal tallies are based on number of gold medals, however we were thinking that it is still important if you get silver and bronze.

So, do you think that medal tallies should be based on number of total medals (where gold, silver and bronze are worth different points), number of gold-only medals or some other way?

Answer 1

Yes, I am Australian, however my opinion has nothing to do with whether or not Australia would go higher up the medal tally.

I think the tally should be based on number of points assigned to the different medals.  Silver and bronze are still important achievements.

There are countries like France that have more points than others who are ahead of them on the all-gold tally.  Even the US would be higher than China (at this point in time).  A points-based tally would be a much fairer way of displaying achievement at the Olympic Games and much more representative of the Olympic Games spirit of participation rather than winning.

At this point in time the standings are still pretty much the same.  I ran a spreadsheet up giving 5 points for gold, 3 points for silver and 1 point for bronze and get the following points vs. number of medals vs. number of gold:

China - 297, 83, 46

USA - 289, 99, 30

Russian Federation - 148, 52, 16

Great Britain - 132, 40, 17

Australia - 111, 39, 11

Germany - 91, 31, 11

Korea - 86, 26, 10

France 78, 32, 5

Japan - 72, 24, 9

Italy - 64, 22, 7

Answer 2

I think it should be based on all medals based on points. Silver and Bronze are still important.

Answer 3

Definitely based on Gold, because that is the pinnacle achievement in each event that is held.

Answer 4

It depends on your question:

Q1. Which country won the most medals?

A2. USA.

Q2. Which country won the most gold medals?

A2. China.

Q3. Which country did better in the Olympic medal tally?

A3. You need to be more specific, refer to Q1 and Q2.

International Olympic Committee does not promote ranking for the games, probably because there are different measurements on which country did "better". But if you really want to rank I think the point system makes the most sense. But again, what kind of point system: 3-2-1, 5-3-1, or something else?

Olympics is supposed to be more fun and less hate.

Answer 5

I like the idea of a points system based on overall medal tally. I don't like the fact that a country with 2 gold medals and nothing else, can be higher on the medal table than a country with 1 gold, 5 silver and 6 bronze, for example.

The question about whether the medal tally should be based on sports is a difficult one. I agree that it doesn't seem fair that a country can win 20 medals in the pool or on the track, but in hockey, for example, all countries compete for only one medal. It means that if the country is a power house in swimming, for example (like Australia and the USA), they can win many medals, yet a country which is a power house in a team sport, may only have real opportunity to win one medal.

Now, I am Australian so I am not complaining that our swimming medals keep us up near the top of the table, but still not sure whether it is fair.

I guess the difference is that some sports are individual sports and some sports are team sports and that's the way it has always been.

Answer 6

It should be based on golds won.

Answer 7

should be based on gold.

but yea yea silver and bronze are important too, but this is actually how you calculate who is in the lead

gold = 3 points

silver = 2 points

bronze = 1 point.

so yeah

Answer 8

total medals, the way we've always counted them here in the states. it's called a medal count, not a gold medal count

Answer 9

I think it should be based on points. You know like... gold equals 3 points, silver = 2, and bronze = 1. I believe that is how the official olympic website is showing it. And I like it that way.

Answer 10

I like the idea of a points system..

someone has already pointed out the difference between 50 gold, 50 silver 50 bronze vs 51 gold 0 silver 0 bronze etc .. as a reason while total should be what counts...sure... but.... using that logic similarly, 0 gold 0 silver 15 bronze would displace 14 gold, 0 silver. 0 bronze.. which hardly seems fair either...

a points system on the other hand, would give credit for all medals but greater credit for gold followed by silver then bronze and seems fairer than either of the methods used now, both of which are flawed...

Answer 11

Gold Medals

like it always has been listed

Answer 12

USA only use total medals to rank countries this year, may be American did not aware of it because USA had the most gold and total medals for many Olympics. If you have copies of old newspaper from USA that a poster in another question confirmed, you can find out that USA always use gold total to rank other countries. Can anyone in USA confirms it by checking newspapers archive in public library?

In my opinion, point system is more fair although there is no agreement on how many points should  assign on each medal yet. If Gold is 3, Silver is 2 and Bronze is 1

China G46 S15 B22               190 points

United States G29 S34 B32     187 points

It is likely that USA will have the highest score at the end because USA still have a lot more chances for medals than China.

Answer 13

50 gold, 50 silver, 50 bronze is better than 51 gold and 0 silver and 0 bronze to me.

I like the points deal mentioned above,

The U.S. has ALWAYS done it the way they do now and I doubt will change just because a few foreigners don't' like it, no disrespect intended.

Answer 14

I think each sport should have an individual tally.

gold = 5 points

silver = 3 points

bronze = 1 point

Ok.. so take all medals won in a sport, add up the points.

The country that leads this total gets 2 'overall points' for winning the sport. All others get no points. Any countries that tie for first in the sports point total get 1 point each.

Ok so add all those 'overall points' Whoever wins this... wins the games. This system accounts for all sports equally, even those that have a dozen or so medals available,.. like track, and swimming will count as much as the ones that have only one set of medals.. like volley ball, tennis, and the like... It evens the sports up. And the weighted medal scores make golds more important that silvers and silvers more important than bronze on a 'per-sport' level, rather than lumping them all together and  trying to compare a 100 freestyle medal with a gymnastics all-around medal.

There is actually no 'official' way of doing it. The IOC would prefer the Olympics be viewed as a 'coming together' of nations rather than a 'competition between'. So they do not endorse an official way to count.

For as far as I've been alive, and able to pay attention it's always been reported as "total count". But I've NEVER understood that. Gold should be worth more, but it shouldn't be the only medal of value.

Answer 15

We all know that official IOC policy is that they do not provide ranking/standings for the olympic games. However, we also know that IOC unofficially endorse the current overall standing of total gold count. (IOC themselves list the medal count table using the total gold count).

Why do we need to change this? Just because US media use different method despite the fact that all other nations and IOC use same method?

Even in US, as recently as 2006 Winter and 2004 Summer games, US used the ranking based on Gold medal count. See: http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/...

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/...

That being said, in my opinion, if we are to change to a point base system, Gold must be given some more weight compared to other medals. I favor 1 for bronze 2 for silver and 5 for gold. At minimum, it should be 1 for bronze 2 for silver and 4 for gold to keep the proper weight/ratio for all medals. (1 gold = 2 silver, 1 silver = 2 bronze, ratio of 1:2)

What we all should ask ourselve is what would we rather have? 1 Gold or 2 Silver, if given a choice. If you prefer 1 gold over 2 silvers, then go to next level and ask 1 gold or 3 silvers and keep going until it become unnecessay to choose because they are close enough in value/weight. Same with 1 silver or 2 bronze, etc. Asking these questions will give proper ratio that we can work with to build a point base system.

Answer 16

In my opinion, it should be the weighted score of all the medals. For example Gold is equal to 3 points, silver equals 2 points and broze euals 1 point. In this way, it will reflect the difficulty level in getting the medals rather than just comparing the number of medals won. For example, a country with 10 gold medals will have acomplished more compared to another getting 11 bronze medals per se.