The medal count should come down to who has the most gold.

It's like that everywhere else BUT the USA and I don't understand why. I do see the point to having a silver and bronze medals, they are there to cancel out when countries have the same amount of gold. In the end though, when they are NOT tied in gold medals, then the nation who has the most gold medals should be considered the best. Nobody cares about who got silver or bronze medals. Am I right?

So if you're the second or third best in the world at something, you haven't achieved anything? Might as well throw that medal in the trash because you're just a tiebreaker?Dark__Link

I actually would like to see it divided into points when comparing medals.

Gold is 3 points, silver is 2, and bronze is 1.

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"]So if you're the second or third best in the world at something, you haven't achieved anything? Might as well throw that medal in the trash because you're just a tiebreaker?peanutbudduh

I'm sorry but simply winning a medal at the Olympics is an impressive feat. Something to be proud of.

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"]So if you're the second or third best in the world at something, you haven't achieved anything? Might as well throw that medal in the trash because you're just a tiebreaker?peanutbudduh

Country A: 1 gold medal, 7 silver medals, 6 bronze medals

Country B: 2 gold medals

Are you really telling me that country B had a better olympics?

And of course there's a second place for Best Picture; all of the other nominees can proudly call themselves Best Picture nominees.

Country A: 1 gold medal, 7 silver medals, 6 bronze medals

Country B: 2 gold medals

Are you really telling me that country B had a better olympics?

And of course there's a second place for Best Picture; all of the other nominees can proudly call themselves Best Picture nominees.

GabuEx

I also think that gold is the most important.

Are you saying this because Canada has most gold medals right now? :D But yeah, 8 golds >>> 9 bronzes after all.

Country A 0 gold 1 silver 5 bronze

Country B 3 gold 1 silver 1 bronze

do you think country A had better olympic than B?megapikachu101

No, which is why I think that the point system where golds are 3, silvers are 2, and bronzes are 1 is a good metric; it acknowledges that golds are most important, but it also acknowledges that the other places are not worthless.

[QUOTE="megapikachu101"]Country A 0 gold 1 silver 5 bronze

Country B 3 gold 1 silver 1 bronze

do you think country A had better olympic than B?GabuEx

No, which is why I think that the point system where golds are 3, silvers are 2, and bronzes are 1 is a good metric; it acknowledges that golds are most important, but it also acknowledges that the other places are not worthless.

what would be the point of a point system? You don't win a medal for having the most medals. The medal count and # of gold medals are enough to compare different countries. F1_2004

As illustrated above, if you have, for example:

Country A: 2 gold, 9 silver, 5 bronze
Country B: 4 gold, 3 silver, 6 bronze

...how do you determine which country had the better Olympics?

Assigning point values to each type of medal creates a very easy numerical metric with which to make that comparison, one that allows neither the absurdity of a country with some golds but nothing else being ranked higher than countries with tons of medals, nor the absurdity of a country that comes in third over and over and over again being ranked higher than countries many of whose athletes are the best in the world.

Medal count should turn into a point system. 3 points for gold, 2 for silver, and 1 for bronze.

I agree with having a point system.

But who cares really? Like some else stated you don't get a medal for having the most medals.

how about no medals at all.:roll:

The thrill of competition should be enough for the athletes

It doesn't matter if Canada had 100 golds if it loses the hockey game tomorrow. I can fully root for the US now that Brodeur isn't starting; he has just given me too many awesome memories to root against him. I hope Parise scores a hat trick tomorrow. wstfld

Using the point system (G3-S2-B1) doesn't change a whole lot compared to just listing who has the most:

1. USA - 65
2. Germany - 59
3. Canada - 54
4. Norway - 44
5. South Korea - 32
6. Austria - 30
7. Russia - 26
8. China - 23
9. Swiss - 21
10. France - 18

SK is really the only nation that makes a real jump. They went from 7th to 5th. Switzerland moves up one spot as well. Canada could gain some ground by winning gold in Curling, Hockey, and Speed Skating Pursuit which are all likely. Although it won't be enough to move into 1st. Canada will still likely finish with the most golds though.

[QUOTE="wstfld"]It doesn't matter if Canada had 100 golds if it loses the hockey game tomorrow. I can fully root for the US now that Brodeur isn't starting; he has just given me too many awesome memories to root against him. I hope Parise scores a hat trick tomorrow. CoreyNT

I am Canadian and am rooting for Canada, but I am not sure about Luongo. he has never really been able to win the big game or winner take all game and that kind of worries me

I actually would like to see it divided into points when comparing medals.

Gold is 3 points, silver is 2, and bronze is 1.

Tezcatlipoca666

USA- 70

Germany- 63

Canada- 59

I am American, but I'm not trying to do this out of bias. I thought Canada would win if I did this actually. But it seems reasonable to me.

[QUOTE="CoreyNT"][QUOTE="wstfld"]It doesn't matter if Canada had 100 golds if it loses the hockey game tomorrow. I can fully root for the US now that Brodeur isn't starting; he has just given me too many awesome memories to root against him. I hope Parise scores a hat trick tomorrow. Colin1192

I am Canadian and am rooting for Canada, but I am not sure about Luongo. he has never really been able to win the big game or winner take all game and that kind of worries me

There shouldn't be a medal tally anyway, it goes against the spirit of the Olympics.

I actually would like to see it divided into points when comparing medals.

Gold is 3 points, silver is 2, and bronze is 1.

Tezcatlipoca666

in all countries except for north american countries surprisingly it always shows which country has the most gold at the top

Uh... why do the Olympics need a "winning nation" anyways? Each individual medal is an accomplishment, and should be treated as such.Setsa

I really don't care what it comes down to. Canada did far better this time around than any year that I know of before. They should be commended for doing so well on the home soil and for winning as many gold medals as they did. I don't even understand how "winning" the Olympics is even worth talking about.

why? because you wan Canada to have more bragging rights?

why? because you wan Canada to have more bragging rights?

dissonantblack

Country A: 1 gold medal, 7 silver medals, 6 bronze medals

Country B: 2 gold medals

Are you really telling me that country B had a better olympics?

And of course there's a second place for Best Picture; all of the other nominees can proudly call themselves Best Picture nominees.

GabuEx

What if country B has 2 million inhabitants and country A has 300 million inhabitants?

Uh... why do the Olympics need a "winning nation" anyways? Each individual medal is an accomplishment, and should be treated as such.Setsa

Why should we have winners? Each individual place is a accomplisment?

lol, were humans, were competitive. Why do you think we've got system wars a few boards down?

Olympics was never about winning or who has most gold... And it's stupid to think that no one cares about silver and bronze cause people do. People work hard for it and winning just silver or bronze is a great accomplishment.Omzzz

Our contries (Slovenia) ski runner Petra Majdič got a bronze medal on the sprint after falling in a ditch, breaking 4 ribs and puncturing her lungs :D

That medal is worth 5 golds in my heart

I agree, because being second and third best at something in the entire world shouldnt count for anything :roll:

The US has a lot of problems...why dont you hate on something legitimate instead of something stupid like this

[QUOTE="Omzzz"]Olympics was never about winning or who has most gold... And it's stupid to think that no one cares about silver and bronze cause people do. People work hard for it and winning just silver or bronze is a great accomplishment.chaplainDMK

Our contries (Slovenia) ski runner Petra Majdič got a bronze medal on the sprint after falling in a ditch, breaking 4 ribs and puncturing her lungs :D

That medal is worth 5 golds in my heart

I could not agree more!

[QUOTE="megapikachu101"]Country A 0 gold 1 silver 5 bronze

Country B 3 gold 1 silver 1 bronze

do you think country A had better olympic than B?

No, which is why I think that the point system where golds are 3, silvers are 2, and bronzes are 1 is a good metric; it acknowledges that golds are most important, but it also acknowledges that the other places are not worthless.

Like some previous posters said, who cares?

wow this is kinda pointless no offense and your arguement is horrible gabu said it right with his analogy