Measuring stick for the Olympics: total medals vs gold medal count
- Thread starter theycallmebruce
- Start date
The beauty of the ambiguity of the standings is that more countries can spin the results the way they want and tell their citizens how successful their respective programs were.
I would not downplay at all the importance of countries being able to use the ambiguity as a form of propaganda at home.
For that reason, I don't think they will ever come up with a definitive system for declaring final positions.
I would not downplay at all the importance of countries being able to use the ambiguity as a form of propaganda at home.
For that reason, I don't think they will ever come up with a definitive system for declaring final positions.
It makes no sense to declare a country a winner. It DOES make sense to compare a country's progress versus prior years. If Jamaica ever wins a single bronze medal at the winter Olympics it will be a huge victory for them. If Canada gets less then about 20 medals we should hang our heads in shame.
Amateur status is bogus. All athletes get funding. Just that people pay to see sports like hockey and basketball. No one would pay to go see professional bobsledding. You think those bobsledders pay their own way? They are professionals paid by the taxpayers of the country.
This is exactly what I have observed. The networks will do whatever to make their countries look good or better. If the total medal counts is to their advantage, they will use it, if not they'll use the total Golds.
To me, it is a no-brainer. A Gold medal is worth a lot more than a Silver which in turn is worth more than a Bronze. That being said, I will support a point system if a standardised system could not be agreed upon.
And it is governments as well, if not moreso.
Everybody wants to be proud of their country. It is good for morale etc. As well a country that does well (relatively speaking) can be used by the government to show how the way of life they are creating and their policies have benefits. Even if a lesser (in terms of athletic dominance) country only wins a medal or two more than before, then it can be used as an example or metaphor of how that country is making progress.
If they really wanted a way to declare a system whereby there is an undisputed winner of the games, they could have done it easily a long time ago and declare it at the end of the Games. But they haven't and they never will because the ambiguity can be positively spun by numerous entities at numerous different levels. The more countries that have some bragging rights, the better. Most countries shell out big bucks and they want something back for that money.
I also believe that there should be a weighted point score for the type of medal (3, 2, 1) but in the absence of that it should be total medals.
If one country won 20 non-gold medals and another won 1 gold medal, which country is more competitive or "better" at the Olympics? I think it's pretty clear.
If one country won 20 non-gold medals and another won 1 gold medal, which country is more competitive or "better" at the Olympics? I think it's pretty clear.
I think there should be 2 classes of medals, One class for the original (higher, faster, longer) like CC skiing, ski jump, speed skating, etc, and another class for the "circus soleil " disciplines of half pipe this and that, freestyle, short track skating etc.
Sure let's make it even more complicated. The record books would have an asterix or some such notation beside the B class medals. Which gold medal is the better gold medal? A sport like Ski jumping or mogols is as much based on form as it is a distance or speed. A sport like nordic biathlon is as much accuracy as it is speed.
How competitive, or "better" is a country that wins 19 of 22 medals in one discipline? It's amazing what the Dutch have done in speed skating, but when you just look at the medal count, you think "boy that country is great at the Olympics", when in reality, they are great on the ice.
