How to determine 1st place country in the Olympics?

Question

It's not by simply overall medal count is it? That would make a bronze as valuable as a gold.

Answer 1

No it's not only gold, check yahoo homepage, the site your using.

Answer 2

I always love kurt's answer to these qeustions because i agree with him 100%

You can only take so much before you crack.

Answer 3

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH... make it stop make the madness stop.

Answer 4

The International Olympic Committee ranks the nations competing in terms of gold medals won. In the absence of any kind of weighting system, that's the only fair way to do it.

Even a 3-2-1 scheme wouldn't be fair to the gold-medal winner. Most athletes would much rather win gold in one event than bronze in 3 events. And nobody would claim that gold is only 1 1/2 times as valuable a medal as silver.

If a weighting system is ever introduced, it should be more like 5-2-1, 5 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze.

As for Yahoo listing it by medal count, that's because Yahoo is based in the United States, and all US media are deathly afraid of appearing unpatriotic, ever since Sept 11 2001.

Bottom line is the IOC ranks by total golds. That's official and there's no questioning the IOC, who invented and run the Olympics.

Answer 5

The Gold medal is awarded to the Olympic Champion, there is only one Olympic champion in each event, there is not a Olympic Champion grade 2 and Olympic Champion grade 3.

Obviously the Gold medal is the more important one, so if there has to be a leading country it is the country with most Olympic Champions and Gold ! Nobody, but nobody, ever remembers the silver and bronze places, excepting of course the individuals who won them.

This is the official Games site : http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/IN...  

The way they list the medals is the same way, outside of America it seems, that the medals are always listed by the rest of the world, and have been since the medals table was first used. Originally only the champions were listed.

Answer 6

First place means winning.  How many wins each country achieved is the determining factor.

Therefore, the country with most wins, that is, with the most gold wins.

We don't call coming in second and third or even fourth as winning, do we?  Then where is the point we stop?  Coming in 100th is also winning?

Answer 7

Well if you only count gold, that wouldn't give credit to silver or bronze, now would it.  I guess your country is one of the few that has olympic "winners" and number ones etc.

Answer 8

it is the gold medal that matters.

Answer 9

i think if you put the host country aside every olympic,that will give a clearer picture..

Answer 10

Determined by Gold. There is no perfect system of ranking a country in terms of medals, but the current system is the best system and I will explain to you why. We can all agree that Gold medal is better than Silver and Bronze am I correct? So we have to find a system in giving Gold more weight in determining a winner than either Silver or Bronze. So from this we have to eliminate the Total Medal Count system as being the best system. Another reason why the Total Medal Count system is flawed is it is extremely unfair to a country with a smaller team. For example 600 athletes sounds like a typical size team for a country like the U.S.A, so there is just so much more chances they will be able to win some sort of medal. And they typically end the Olympics with around 100 medals. So if a country with only 100 competitors want any chance of winning, all of them would have to medal and teams with less than 85 competitors will have virtually no chance in winning even if they all end up with Gold medals. This would also be the case for the Gold = 3pts. Silver = 2pts. Bronze = 1 Pt. system which many people wished they adapt. It is simply too hard for even a medium size team with 300 athletes to win. I've also heard of a very strange system from someone on here saying we should divide the number of Medals with the number of athletes that is in each country. I have proven that this is the most flawed out of all the systems listed so far. My reason for this is for example if America sends 600 Athletes and win 100 Gold medals, this means they win at a 1 to 6 ratio (1 gold for every 6 people) which is an amazing feat in itself (100 Gold!?) but then Jamaica sends only Usain Bolt to win the 100 meters dash and not even risk the 200 meters(As if it's a risk) Jamaica will then be ranked over America whom of which has 100 Gold medals under this system of ranking, because they will have a 1 to 1 Gold per person ratio. So this system is deeply flawed because it would greatly favor countries with smaller teams. So the only system left is the Gold system, and I know I know you will probably say well what's the point in winning Silver? What's the point of Bronze? I will tell you they do have a point, but only when a country is tied for Gold in which then Silver will be taken to account, if they are still tied at silver, bronze will be taken to account, and if then they are still tied they will be ranked the same. With this system all medals are taken to account with Gold being the most important (as it should) and smaller countries will have a shot at winning. I am almost positive that I will be thumbed down for this, but if you can think of a better system then the Gold System and explain it like I have you are welcome to do so. Remember the System should be as fair as possible to all countries and should take all medals in account with Gold having more weight than Silver or Bronze. Good Luck.

Answer 11

By the amont of GOLD medals won.

Answer 12

The rank is based on who has the most golds. It would make more sense to use a scoring system, whereby a gold was worth 3, a silver worth 2 and a bronze worth 1. That way the sum total would reflect the overall value of the medals won, and be ranked accordingly.

Answer 13

They should do it per medal and population of the nation. I believe Jamaica are the winners?

Answer 14

I'm sure the medal table never used to matter that much.I think only since '96 maybe when UK did c**p. I don't think it's what the Olympics is all about, more about India winning its first gold, Afghanistan its first medal etc. No country actually wins the Olympics, only events at the games.

Answer 15

The standard way is to compare gold and, in the event of a tie, look at the silver medals.

That's how international media does it. The U.S. media however.....

Answer 16

Well, the winner isn't it and that's gold. Saying bronze is as important, is like saying three third places is as good as one first. Of course any medal is good and it's why they get points, but first is the winner.

The USA have their own table so that bronze look as important as gold, so it keeps them brainwashed that they're the greatest.