I don't get the logic in the country who "wins" the Olympics is based on Gold Medal count?

Question

I don't get the logic in the country who "wins" the Olympics is based on Gold Medal count rather total Medal count. I mean what is the point of having silver and bronze, if at the end of the day it will be discarded, forgotten and, not appreciated. Can someone please enlighten me on why Gold Medal winnings is the way we should be basing the winner of the Olympics on?

Answer 1

I think it is just based on the amount of #1's and does not factor into the 2nd and 3rd place unless a tie.  There really should be a scoring system where Gold=3, Silver=2 and Bronze=1 or something like that.  I don't care what the official tally says I look at the total.

Answer 2

Fed up repeating myself on this, winning is about WINNING , not 'nearly' winning [ which is silver and bronze ], WINNING is G-O-L-D  !!!

Answer 3

In all competitions, the winners are recognised, for example, who won the most majors, not who is the most runner-up in most majors.  Before Phil Mickelson won a major, he was the best player to have never won a major, and I can tell you, that is not a nice title.

So, can we say USA is now having the most participants not to have won the olympics? (in other words, having the most losers).  You get my point?  

Unanimously, the country with the most gold wins the olympics.

Answer 4

sighhhhhh..

now if the USA just buckled down and counted the same way as the rest of the world,... all these threads/questions could be put to rest....

Answer 5

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.

Edit: It's sad to see all the answers that really tries to answer the question in a logical manner being thumbed down, while in the same time answers that aren't even answering the question but instead insulting other countries in a thread about the Olympics, which is about Union and peace being thumbed up. I am an American but it makes me feel almost shameful to be one, when most of my only countrymen are so ignorant and disrespectful. And don't be giving me all the "how do you know it was the Americans thumbing down the logical questions and thumbing up the insults" bumsh1t. Don't be ignorant and naive, we all know who's doing what.

Edit 2: In response to your response to Yahoo User about you never saying silver = to gold. You said "I don't get the logic in the country who "wins" the Olympics is based on Gold Medal count rather total Medal count." The Total Medal Count counts Gold, Silver and Bronze the same. They don't count Gold multiple times so hence this makes Gold = Silver = Bronze which makes it a flawed system of ranking a country because winning 3rd would be equaled to winning 1st which we all know isn't true.

Answer 6

there is no winner, nobody actually "wins' the Olympics.

there is the medal tally, you decide from there, if you want to base it on Gold, by all means go for it, I don't do it that way.  I like the way you do it but many will disagree (and insult the US while doing so)

to each his own.

Answer 7

The US is still in front of all the whiny crybaby jealous foreigners who answered here no matter how you tally them so that's all that matters.

Answer 8

There isn't any point to choosing a "winning" country. The point of the Olympics isn't for all countries to compete against each other. It is for the athletes of 200+ nations to have a chance to compete together. If you really want to choose a winner of the Olympics, I'd personally choose every individual who made it to the Olympics, that in and of itself is no small feat.

Answer 9

Well the motto is faster, higher, stronger...so the gold medalist on the day has achieved that...no one is belittling the other medalists...but I line up the medal tally with the motto...so I can understand how the country with the most gold medals is top of the table...plus I think this is how they've always done it....

'm from a small country who has managed to win 9 medals so I'm rapt....

Answer 10

I think everyone agrees that a gold medal is worth more than a bronze.

It could be scored bronze=1 point, silver=2 points, gold=3 points. However, countries could easily adopt different ranking systems so instead the number of gold medals is used and, if tied on the number of gold medals, the number of silver medals and so on.

I do feel that a point system would be better but the IOC feels that it is against the Olympic spirit to compete in this manner.

Answer 11

It's like the government, whoever wins the most "events" shall we say, get the most seats, thus the winning party

Answer 12

Christine, don't even try and figure out what that dude is talking about, I doubt he even knows or understands his own whacked out flawed logic.

American has always done it a certain way and isn't going to change for some petty whiny low medal crybaby who doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway.

yet foreigners "care" soooooo much for some odd reason, it's hilarious.  Maybe they didn't get the memo that Americans don't give a c**p about them.

Answer 13

Why didn't you raise this question during Olympic Games in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, ........18xx? Ohhhhhhh, you forgot..but purposely....Well, please also forget this time, it is too ..oooooo later.....

If heartbreakingly sad this time, must raise this question next time, at least 365 days earlier, do you know which year,  2012 -1 = ?????, would this math be too hard ???? You know what it is, don't you? So don't forget again, OK....................haaaaa....

Answer 14

What is the point of a country winning point final? afterall, it will most always be one of 3 or 4 countries.  What about the countries with 5 athletes, are they discarded?  

Answer 15

Well, I will give you my logic as to why this makes sense to me.

Because the country with the largest amount of gold medals means quite simply that that country fielded the BEST athletes/teams period.

To me, #1 is it.

By the way, that is why Micheal Phelps is to date, the best olympian the U.S. has put out.

Answer 16

So it makes sense to you that the whole world gets together and participates in competitive activities guaranteed to keep them apart?

Answer 17

Grand Slam (Mens Singles Finals) :

Player           Total        Winner   Runner-up

1 . Lendl         19           8            11  

2 . Sampras  18          14            4  

Beijing Olympic Medal Table :   (Until 16:00 Beijing Time Zone)

State / District   Total   Gold    Silver    Bronze

1. USA                  103       31        36       36

2. China                  90       47        17       16

Lendl is greater than Sampras!

Answer 18

In the Olympics, there is no such thing as a winning country. There is a leading country which actually is a difference. In this case China is leading the gold medals, which means that they predominantly have first place in most of the events. In America's case, the first, second and third are accounted for as a "I have participated, and i have proven my worth".

It's not a matter of winning, but how they lead the competitions in their own point of view.

PS- I hope that wasn't confusing.  

Answer 19

At the end of the day, a Gold medal should be worth more than a silver or bronze. We should assign points to each medal. For example, assign 3pts to gold,  2pts to silver, and 1pt to bronze.

If we do this, based on current standings,

China and USA have exactly the same number of points...201 !!!

Answer 20

I think if you want to assign a "winning country" of the entire Olympics you should factor in Country Population to number of athletes competing to medals per athlete with a slightly larger weight to Golds over Silvers over Bronze.

Honestly if you want to say the US beat China(no matter how much I want to say that) they better have at least as many more total medals as China's differential in Golds.

I'd also like to point out the whole "The country with the most Golds has always 'won the olympics'" is flawed since the country with the most golds has had the most total medals for the last 30+ years.

I still stand by my statement that if any country wins the olympics it has something to do with medals per country population.

Answer 21

I have never, ever heard of a country winning the Olympics, only the athletes themselves.