Medal table & oddity of rankings

[Bledlow]

Does anyone else think it slightly odd that the medal table is ranked by golds first, then silvers, then bronzes, with no account taken of lesser medals until the higher ones are ranked?

A national team could win silver in every event, but be ranked below a team with a single gold & no other medals. For example, Japan, with 17 medals (2 gold, 4 silver, 11 bronze) is ranked below South Africa & Kazakhstan with 3 each - all gold.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

No, winning is what is most important, placing is somewhat important, then comes 'also ran'.

[geraldc]

Only America counts total medals above number of golds.

[clarion]

I'm sure medal tables in previous Games had a points system.

[mattc]

No system is perfect.

I'd argue that winning 50 Silvers and some Bronzes is better than just 1 Gold, but if I actually quantified a formula, someone would disagree with some aspect of it.

Most top teams will win enough Golds for the system to work more-or-less OK (my example above will almost never happen!). If you are ranked 35th and feel you should be 33rd ... well, perhaps you should just get out and play some sport

[geraldc]

http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/2012-standings/index.html

[Bledlow]

Still wrong. That values six bronzes as worth more than three golds & two silvers (compare Japan & Germany), & two silvers & two bronzes as more than three golds (Australia & Italy), which can't be right.

[hubner]

"first is first second is nowhere"

How about:
winner = 10 points
second = 2 points
third = 1 point

Even if you have one gold, you should be ranked above anyone without a gold regardless how many seconds or thirds (they did not win!), just IMHO.

[red marley]

To be fairer Team GB should receive one quarter of Australia's and New Zealand's medal total on account of the union flag occupying 25% of their flags. And should various Pacific and Atlantic island nations with similar flag motifs suddenly surge in the tables, we should be entitled to a tithe (or 2.5 tithes to be precise) of theirs too.

[hubner]

To be fairer Team GB should receive one quarter of Australia's and New Zealand's medal total on account of the union flag occupying 25% of their flags. And should various Pacific and Atlantic island nations with similar flag motifs suddenly surge in the tables, we should be entitled to a tithe (or 2.5 tithes to be precise) of theirs too.

Naturally it goes the other way as well, Australia etc should get 4 times GB's.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'm sure medal tables in previous Games had a points system.

I thought so too. Something like 5 points for a gold, 3 for a silver and 1 for a bronze.

[mattc]

(click to show/hide)

Whatever.

Our 6-6-6 beats France's 6-5-6.
Woohoo!

_{(It can't last ... )}

[red marley]

(click to show/hide)

ARGH!!!! Spoilers Mr C! (Maybe I should just stay away from YACF until I've watched the highlights tonight).

[Cudzoziemiec]

Whatever.

Our 6-6-6 beats France's 6-5-6.

Woohoo!

_{(It can't last ... )}

Devilishly good.

[mattc]

(click to show/hide)

ARGH!!!! Spoilers Mr C! (Maybe I should just stay away from YACF until I've watched the highlights tonight).

Sorry, I had no idea - I don't really track our totals, so it wouldn't have been any sort of spoiler for me. If that makes sense. [we have been in at least 3 finals this morning, and that's just the ones I've watched]

But I accept your admonishment  ...

[ran doner]

Aren't medal tables still frowned upon by the IOC as against the spirit of the Olympics??