Medals in total or gold?

Question

What do you think? How should the media emphasize the Olympics? The total count of medals (gold, silver, bronze), or the first place of gold?

Answer 1

This question is the most asked on Yahoo... What would I do: medals were rated. For example:

Gold medals 5points

Silver medals 2points

Bronze medals 1point

With this way, no ones would be confused.

Answer 2

What is right is what is done where you live

If you country count the gold only, then it's gold only

My country always count the total amount, even when they were not very good

I think its should be the total count

Here is why

France and Netherlands both have seven gold medals

Most of the games they were one behind the Netherlands

France has 40 Medals, that is very impressive, should they really be tied with the Netherlands with 16 medals, no of course not

But it really depends on what you are used to

US always did it this way, it is what American is use to, it makes more sense.  I think France would agree with US

Answer 3

The Americans (rather predictably) use the total count (because using it put them in first place), but over here in the UK we use the Gold only count (as up until recently we were in third place with it)

I think they're both flawed and it just shows how medias make statistics to show what they want (China or USA best Olympic country???)

The Olympic comittee never actually wanted to do a count because it's about celebrating the human body and the world coming together in sport not about individual accomplishments.

EDIT: That last part came out wrong, of course it's about individual accomplishments why else would they have medals, but it's not about which country is best type of thing.

Answer 4

Total count for sure.

Answer 5

GOld of course!!

Answer 6

The answer is obvious.

What is worth more - 5 athletes getting bronze or 4 of those getting gold?

Answer 7

Gold. Always has been, always will be.

Gold is for the Winner. The best.

You an't possibly say that the silver you got for an event is better than the gold the other guy got for the same event. He bested you. Thats how it works.

Answer 8

it has to be gold as no one really remembers the silver or bronze medalists. total golds has always been the bench mark.

Answer 9

develop a point system like more points for gold, less for silver, lesser for bronze, and add it up - which is what they're doing now.

Answer 10

Everyone knows deep down that gold count beats total medal count.

Every country other than the US ranks countries by gold.  Most importantly, the IOC ranks countries by gold.  Not to say the US can't do what they want in their own country.  They are entitled to do what they want to do and believe what they want to believe.  If it were any other country doing this people would just ignore them, but because it's the US people feel the need to give them a hard time.

So, you've got common sense (that being first is better than second or third), every country in the world (except the US), and the ORGANIZING COMMITTEE of the Olympics saying that countries should be ranked by gold rather than total medal count.  On the other hand, you've got one country saying that the total medal count is what counts.  Isn't the answer obvious?

Answer 11

Should be gold, silver and bronze cause of the effort people put in to sport

Answer 12

I think it should be gold, then silver and bronze, because if you use total medal count, it's like there's no difference between a gold and a bronze. And people can argue that 4th place and 5th place should be in the count too.

Answer 13

It has and always will be Gold, Silver, Bronze.

The alternative version is only 'emphasised' by the media of one country in order to satisfy the spoiled little brats of that country.

Everyone else is laughing at their stupidity.