|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Olympic Standings
Ok so there is a debate wthin the standings for the olympics about how countries are ranked. Traditionally and currently the first place is determined by how many gold a country wins. some say it should be the total amount won. I have heard a good idea that I like that gives the medals points, like a gold 3 points, silver 2 and bronze 1 and then the total points is the winner.
What does everyone think?
What does everyone think?
The USA, when I last checked, had 6 gold medals, more than any country, but Norway had about 4 more medals than the US. Norway's medals were all silver and bronze, and I definitely don't think that Norway, with no gold medals should be the victor of this year's olympics.
Note: these medal counts were from about 1.5 days ago
Note: these medal counts were from about 1.5 days ago
| root wrote: |
| I definitely don't think that Norway, with no gold medals should be the victor of this year's olympics.
|
So you think that the total gold medal count shold be the victor? Do you think that not having any gold medals but 10 more than any other country should be some kind of reward?
Imagine this scenario, Country A has a total of 30 medals, no gold, Country B has 18 medals with 2 gold, is Country A not the better country B? That is why I like the point system, if you get more gold you get more points, but if you don't get any gold but a bunch of silver you may still be first.
Right now germany has a total of 18 and 7 gold both which are best so no issue in this case
The US has 7 gold medals too. I have no idea how the current system for deciding the winning nation is, but I agree that a gold should be worth 3 points, a silver 2, and a bronze 1 (or a similar weighted scoring system), so that way a nation with only silver and bronze can still win.
| root wrote: |
| The US has 7 gold medals too. I have no idea how the current system for deciding the winning nation is, |
The current system is based on the total gold first, then total, then silver. so in this years case the US is second because Germany has a total of 18 medals where the US has 13. If they both had 18 medals with 7 gold they would then go by who had more silver.
I think the country that wins the most amount of medals, either gold, silver, or bronze should be the overall winner.
Just because one country has the most gold medals doesn't really mean they are the overall winner. Sure, everone wants to win the gold if not for thier country, then just for themselves (not to mention if your a USA athlete you get to be on a box of Wheaties). And let's not forget the endorsements that the athletes get. In that case gold does win out.
What's the old saying "He who dies with the most toys wins"
Just my opinion.
Just because one country has the most gold medals doesn't really mean they are the overall winner. Sure, everone wants to win the gold if not for thier country, then just for themselves (not to mention if your a USA athlete you get to be on a box of Wheaties). And let's not forget the endorsements that the athletes get. In that case gold does win out.
What's the old saying "He who dies with the most toys wins"
Just my opinion.
I would definitly have to agree that it is way better to have a "pointing" system where ieach medal is worth a certain amount of points.
 |