[Mongoose]

Olympic metals by country

@ The American Website ranking it on medals won instead of Golds like every other site.

Not to bring up a few-days-old line, but why is it strange to be counting the total number of medals?  I don't even really give a damn who's winning what count, but considering the tally is supposed to be medals, not medal, why would silvers and bronzes be omitted?  It's like you're saying, "Yes, yes, those silvers and bronzes are lovely and all, but y'see, they're just not shiny enough.  Better luck next time."  Being second-best in the world is a pretty damn good accomplishment in its own right.  Or, at the very least, one could implement some sort of 3-for-gold, 2-for-silver, and 1-for-bronze scoring system; it's still scaled, but at least then you're not ignoring the accomplishments of 2/3 of the medaling athletes.

(And for anyone wondering if this is a temporary aberration, the media's been listing medal counts in this manner over here for as long as I've been watching the Olympics.  And I've been watching the Olympics for a good 16 years or so.)

What I honestly find most interesting about the whole thing is the overall consistency of the medals.  When you look at us or Russia or Britain or Australia, there's a pretty even spread across all three medals.  But when it comes to China, it's an all-or-nothing distribution.  Yes, winning 47 (at the moment) golds is very impressive, but it's tempered a bit by the fact that the rest of your athletes don't get on the other podium steps all that often.

All of that aside, Phelps was amazing, beach volleyball is awesome, and I'm still convinced that someone just made up handball on a street corner last week.

[karajorma]

Not to bring up a few-days-old line, but why is it strange to be counting the total number of medals?  I don't even really give a damn who's winning what count, but considering the tally is supposed to be medals, not medal, why would silvers and bronzes be omitted?  It's like you're saying, "Yes, yes, those silvers and bronzes are lovely and all, but y'see, they're just not shiny enough.  Better luck next time."  Being second-best in the world is a pretty damn good accomplishment in its own right.  Or, at the very least, one could implement some sort of 3-for-gold, 2-for-silver, and 1-for-bronze scoring system; it's still scaled, but at least then you're not ignoring the accomplishments of 2/3 of the medaling athletes.

Great idea. Except if you do that America are still second. Which is probably why they aren't using it.

The American websites have been using a system counting the total number of medals thereby meaning that a team which has 99 golds ranks below one that gets 100 bronzes. In other words a trumped up system which says that a bronze medal and a gold medal are equivalent and which can only have been designed to make America look cool at the expense of common sense.

The method of ranking gold medals says "This country is the best in the world at the most things" Silver and bronze medals are counted if there is a tie for gold which helps preserve that meaning. A system giving out points for each medal says "This country has the most people who are good at things or a few people who are the best at things"

The system American websites are using on the other hand says nothing of value. The best you can sum it up is as "It doesn't matter if you're best at the Olympics as long as you are amongst the best"

[Mongoose]

The American websites have been using a system counting the total number of medals thereby meaning that a team which has 99 golds ranks below one that gets 100 bronzes. In other words a trumped up system which says that a bronze medal and a gold medal are equivalent and which can only have been designed to make America look cool at the expense of common sense.

While that view works in theory, you and I both know that that's not a plausible scenario for medal totals the way the Games usually play out.  The only way that that "equating" gets you into trouble is if you're talking about Podunk Country A with 1 gold and 1 silver vs. Podunk Country B with 3 bronzes...and who really cares about fighting it out for 25th place to begin with?  I don't think anyone in the media over here has ever given the impression that a bronze medal somehow equates to a gold, and every single report I've seen on medal counts has noted that China has been running away with the golds since the start of the games.  It's hardly making us "look cool."  Besides, as I said above, I see no "common sense" whatsoever in any "medals count" listing that doesn't even count all of the medals in some form.  Call it a "golds count" if you wish, but it's not a true medals delineation.

The method of ranking gold medals says "This country is the best in the world at the most things" Silver and bronze medals are counted if there is a tie for gold which helps preserve that meaning. A system giving out points for each medal says "This country has the most people who are good at things or a few people who are the best at things"

But that first bit further justifies my point.  A system that relegates silvers and bronzes entirely to tiebreakers completely devalues them, when being second or third-best in the world at a particular event should be celebrated in its own right.  For certain countries, even getting a bronze in a particular event is a near-mythic accomplishment.  Like I said, I don't have anything personally invested in winning some medals count; hell, I'd welcome that points total being used whether or not we were leading it, because it's a system that makes sense and takes into account every medal.

The system American websites are using on the other hand says nothing of value. The best you can sum it up is as "It doesn't matter if you're best at the Olympics as long as you are amongst the best"

While I don't completely agree with that sentiment, I feel that there often is too much emphasis placed on just winning these events, as opposed to being one of the best two or three people on the entire planet at them.  Let's face it...if you win silver in the 100m sprint, you're the second-fastest man in the world in a certain sense.  While our media's method of counting medals is biased in a different sense, at least it manages to take that distinction into account.

[karajorma]

I don't think anyone in the media over here has ever given the impression that a bronze medal somehow equates to a gold

By placing America at the top of a table which is calculated solely on number of medals won regardless of whether they are bronze, silver or gold that is exactly what they are doing. America is currently in the lead of that table with 100 points. If Phelps had come 3rd in all 8 races that wouldn't change in the slightest. If you can't see how ****ed up that is there is little point in me continuing this conversation.

But that first bit further justifies my point.  A system that relegates silvers and bronzes entirely to tiebreakers completely devalues them, when being second or third-best in the world at a particular event should be celebrated in its own right.

I've got no real objection to either a count based on golds or a count based on points for all three medals. As I said in my previous post they both mean something. Both say something different about which country is the best. Interestingly regardless of which of the two you use you only get a difference once you get to fifth place anyway (where Germany and Australia are swapped).

I'm not actually arguing between the two methods as I feel that both have merit. My point is simply that both of those methods say something. You might not like that measuring on gold is basically a "No second prize" method of doing things but you can't argue that it does say something.

The one that places America top says nothing.

[General Battuta]

I think that any sensible American (myself included) can see right through a deceptive sorting method.

[Nuclear1]

The one that places America top says nothing.

Have to disagree.  While China has a comfortable lead over the US in gold medals, the US placing higher on the total count indicates: 

A) China didn't earn medals in events where the US did
B) China didn't compete at all in those events where the US did

A isn't particularly true, because it just about every event where China and the US have both competed (which a few exceptions--swimming especially, and probably basketball once the men's finals are over) China has consistently beaten everybody with the US usually coming in second or third.

B is what is giving the US such a higher count, especially in the track and field events.  While the US may be coming in second or third to Jamaica, it is still demonstrating considerable versatility compared to China. 

Really, the standings are entirely a matter of opinion.  Do you prefer the US team to be a jack of all trades, or to limit themselves to only events where they will clearly dominate?

[Mongoose]

Exactly.  I do agree that going by a strict total medal count without weighting isn't that great of a system, but one fact it does take into account that a strictly-gold count doesn't is the diversity of talent on a particular team.  It's all well and good to rack up the golds in disciplines where you're traditionally dominant (see: diving, table tennis, gymnastics, weightlifting for Chinese; swimming, basketball, beach volleyball, track and field [though not as much this time around] for Americans), but if you're able to win medals of any sort in a wide variety of disciplines, it implies that you've sent an overall very talented group of individuals to the Games.  That was the whole focus of that much-touted "Project 119" that the Chinese Olympic team ran over the past several years; they were trying to go after all of the events where they're not traditionally top contenders.  From everything I've been able to tell from medal counts and general coverage, it wasn't an incredibly successful program for them, though they obviously struck gold quite a bit.

And besides, this often-not-very-reasonable American likes gloating that we still have more bling than anyone else, no matter what color it is.

[karajorma]

Clutching at straws.

Let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe you'd support this system if you were in China's position?

I think that any sensible American (myself included) can see right through a deceptive sorting method.

Evidently not.

[BloodEagle]

I think that any sensible American [...] can see right through a deceptive sorting method.

 

[Nuclear1]

Clutching at straws.

Weren't you the one saying both systems have merits?

I'm not knocking on China having a lead, and by all means, they deserve the vast majority of golds they've earned (all I question is the women's gymnastics, but we've been over that). 

I'm just saying the fact the US has more medals at all is some indicator that the US has some versatility compared to China (not necessarily dominance, I've stated that clearly, but versatility). 

Which is this sentence mystifies me.  I'm sure most of the American media understands we're trailing in golds, but we still have more total medals.  We're not being desperate, we're taking pride in that we're actually competing in the vast majority of the Olympic games, unlike China.

[Mongoose]

Again, exactly.  I'm proud of the fact that my country's athletes can win medals in a wide variety of sports; likewise, the Chinese should be proud that their athletes have come in first in a large number of events.  Everyone wins, no matter how you're counting.  The only reason I said anything in the first place is because I saw people calling out a particular means of tallying up medals (which is still a perfectly factual tally, subjective interpretations nonwithstanding) while ignoring the flaws in another method of doing so.  So...yeah.  Unless I'm currently in desperate need to sip a liquid through a small opening, I'm not seeing any straws here.

(And again, the implication that this is somehow a novel, biased way of tallying medals based on the fact that China has more golds than the US does is incorrect.  I've seen the same system used during every Olympics I've witnessed, whether or not the US was in either the total or the gold medal lead.)

[karajorma]

Weren't you the one saying both systems have merits?

Both sensible systems have merit. Not the 3rd stupid one the American media are using so that it looks like America are winning the Olympics.

Measuring who has the most gold shows which country can field athletes who are the best in the world. Giving points for each medal is a good overall view. Measuring the total medals though is the system which most devalues the gold as it is worth no more than silver or bronze under that system.

And quite frankly I've not heard a single American admit that they would continue to use that system if they were in China's position.

[General Battuta]

Wait, wait, it's hardly like we decide, and it's certainly not representative of the views of American citizens.

I would not continue using that system if I were in China's position! There, satisfied?

[Ghostavo]

Quite frankly, unless it's a team sport, I don't think medals shouldn't be counted towards countries in any way. The Olympics are supposed to celebrate human accomplishments, will to struggle against adversity and to better ourselves. To see this polarized as "we've got more medals/gold medals/reinforced titanium medals than you have!" somewhat diminishes this feeling.

Can't we all just be happy, watching the Women Beach Volleyball matches and not think that the participants are from this country or that one, but that the matches are something worthy to preserve for future generations?


Also, this has no bearing on the fact that my country absolutely sucks at every single sport event they are allowed to participate.

[Mongoose]

And quite frankly I've not heard a single American admit that they would continue to use that system if they were in China's position.

Would I?  No, probably not.  But I'm not in their position, which is why I like this system, and the Chinese like the other, and we both feel like we're winrars.

[Kie99]

Olympic metals by country

@ The American Website ranking it on medals won instead of Golds like every other site.

Not to bring up a few-days-old line, but why is it strange to be counting the total number of medals?  I don't even really give a damn who's winning what count, but considering the tally is supposed to be medals, not medal, why would silvers and bronzes be omitted?  It's like you're saying, "Yes, yes, those silvers and bronzes are lovely and all, but y'see, they're just not shiny enough.  Better luck next time."  Being second-best in the world is a pretty damn good accomplishment in its own right.  Or, at the very least, one could implement some sort of 3-for-gold, 2-for-silver, and 1-for-bronze scoring system; it's still scaled, but at least then you're not ignoring the accomplishments of 2/3 of the medaling athletes.

(And for anyone wondering if this is a temporary aberration, the media's been listing medal counts in this manner over here for as long as I've been watching the Olympics.  And I've been watching the Olympics for a good 16 years or so.)

Every other website I've seen, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation one, has listed them by the amounts of Golds won, it seems rather odd that the country who have won the most medals overall is the only country who's broadcasters list it purely on medals won.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Perhaps they're want to make it clear to the Americans that, despite not having the most gold medals, they have the most medals on overall.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

OK so if you do the gold medal system you are saying a country that has 50 gold medals and nothing else would be better than a country that has 49 gold, 25 silver and 10 bronze? 

BTW that system has been in use since day one even before the Americans had more overall medals.  China was on top more than once.  Guess they should have cheated more.


BTW just hear a new report that 5 of the 6 Chinese gymnast were underage. 

[Nuclear1]

Where?

The investigation hasn't finished yet, so there's no possible way we know beyond rumors right now.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I was discussing about this with my mum just now over porridge. She thinks that the Americans are being sour-grapes. Of course, that's only her opinion.