What matters more, the overall olympic medal count or the gold medal count?

Question

What matters more, the overall olympic medal count or the gold medal count?

Answer 1

REAL ANSWER IS BELOW

The real reason that you cannot definitely decide which country is better is because the IOC does not even separate medals by country. Their reason is that originally the Olympics were only an individual sport and that only the individuals were counted. It did not matter what province or city that person was from. Only the individual's was important. To prove my point, there were no team sports in the original Olympics-- no track relays or anything, because that was not an individual sport. To break this down by country with whatever formula is bound to cause conflict and rightfully so, it is not in the spirit of the original games. My opinion is that total medal count with some extra emphasis on gold should be the standard, but again this is against the true spirit of the ancient Olympics.  

Answer 2

The US: Overall medal count

The REST of the WORLD: Gold Medal Count.

It's a DENIAL of the US. What a SHAME!

Answer 3

the gold count is of prime importance and the overall secondary but nonetheless, the overall too is considered a great achievement!

i guess this year China will beat the Americans this year......

enjoy watching!!!!!!!!!

Answer 4

Neither.  Any medal count is flawed by default.  If Michael Phelps wins 8 gold medals and the American basketball team wins 1, then it should be clear not all medals are created equal.  Also, no country is awarded anything for having the most medals or most gold medals.

So the winner is the country with the most sportsmanship so that karma doesn't hit them hard next Olympics (hint hint).

Answer 5

The overall count. Each athlete has trained their

whole life for this event. So when that athlete puts

that medal around their neck, they have proven,

they have did their best, and they will "never again,"

have any "dought" in their mind. <}:-})

Answer 6

While the IOC goes by gold, I feel that the total medal count is more significant. It shows that you have more top level athletes, not just a few who are particularly good.  

Answer 7

The official IOC table always counts gold medals first.

Unfortunately this means that a country with just one gold will be placed above one with loads of silver and bronze but no gold.

It looks like it is only the USA media that is using the total medals as a way of ranking in the medals table.

Answer 8

well, if you look at everywhere except the us based media, you'll see that by tradition, it's based on the gold medal...but because currently US is at least 10 gold away from china but they have collected dozen of silver and bronze (of course, where they dispute here and there) , therefore, it's being look at from a new method ... now it's the totality that counts...(on certain media that is) ..hhahah

Answer 9

on the medal tally, mainly the gold

but every country should be glad with wat they get

it's not like every country gets 1

Answer 10

I don't know, I rank them the same.

Answer 11

Neither. To me, all of them are great. The effort of one athlete is not 'more' in my eyes than the other athlete. That is just me.