Some sites rank the medal count by total medals (US is winning). Some sites rank by Gold medals won (China is winning)
I am not that big into sports, but I do like when US athletes win and you get the whole back story on them. Sunisa Lee was a feel good story.
So who wins the Olympics?
I still think the best way to do it is to rank them like this:
Gold - 5 points
Silver - 3 points
Bronze - 1 point
I have:
USA at 185 points
China at 175 points
That’s as of Sunday, August 1.
I’d say USA is slightly winning, but it is admirable how well China is doing.
The IOC does not assign a winner, so there is no factual answer to this. It’s gonna be wholly up to the observer; their chioice of ranking system will usually be aligned with whichever’s best for their country.
The official IOC site ranks it TWO ways. The list is ordered in gold medals (China ahead) but then it also notes a country’s ranking by total medals (USA ahead.)
I’m a 4-2-1 guy: your way ranks two silvers as more impressive than one gold, but two bronzes as less impressive than one silver — and while I could see an argument for either case, I can’t see it for both.
Has anyone ever devised a calculus that takes into consideration a country’s population?
Cool!
Which is itself fraught with all kinds of obvious problems.
There is no way to “fairly” rank countries. It just is what it is.
OK, someone do the math on that one to see how it is going.
U.S.: 149
China: 127
ROC: 99
Japan: 87
Australia: 76
Which is, by the way, almost exactly the rankings just by total medal count (Japan and Australia are tied at 31 total medals, but Japan has more golds and silvers while Australia has more bronzes, so weighting the medals gives Japan a clear lead).
ETA: by the 4-2-1 formula, Great Britain comes in next at 72 points, but has a slight edge over Japan and Australia in raw total medals at 32, so the raw medal count is similar to the 4-2-1 weighted results, but there are a couple of differences.
ETA 2: the “ROC” above is the “Russian Olympic Committee”, since Russia was banned for doping, but its athletes were allowed to compete as a team under their national Olympic committee - which is how Olympic delegations are organized anyway, so that doesn’t exactly seem like a ban to me, but that’s another thread…
To take the “one medal from a really small country” problem into account, I assume that every country has at least the median population among the participating countries - usually 5 or 6 million.
As for the medal counts, another thing I like to do is to list the top countries, but instead of counts, put a note saying, “The rankings will be released once the medal counts are official - in 10 years, after they stop testing the samples for drugs.” Yes, they test for years after the event; the 2004 men’s shot put winner was disqualified when his 2004 sample tested positive in 2011 or 2012. (I remember this because the second-place finisher from the USA received his 2004 gold medal at the 2012 USA Olympic trials.)
In the olden days, the Olympic were seemingly ranked by gold medals. Winning one gold medal put a country ahead of one that won that won twenty silver ones.
I am not a big fan of ranking winning countries. I may be alone in this, but it does not reflect my idea of the Olympic spirit. I think winning a silver medal is still impressive. Sure, I’m Canadian, and we are usually twelfth or so in the summer and higher in the winter. This is because in the summer, most of our medals seem to be won by women, which is curious but commonplace.
Who wins? Rank them however you want. Arrive at the conclusion you wish to. Note these rankings drive widespread cheating at high levels. How can you possibly pitch bubble gum if you don’t bring home the golden hardware?
Another monkey wrench in the is the premise that a gold medal in the 50m Freestyle is equivalent to one for team basketball or volleyball.
My vote would be 3-2-1; mostly because there’s precious little difference between gold, silver, and bronze in most races or competitions. Yeah they won, but in most things, it’s not like winning gold means they did considerably better than the silver person, or that the difference is greater there than between silver and bronze.
At the elite level, you compete to win. Gold medals matter - others don’t. Who decided that 3rd place was worthy of a reward but 4th isn’t? Why not give medals for everyone who makes the top 10? Why not give medals for everyone who turns up? It’s not a Junior sports day.
Totalling medals (even golds) by country is silly and leads to unfortunate happenings where Governments will put money into sports, not based on their participation, but on whether a handful of individuals can win Gold medals for the country.
I think the difference in rankings is much more likely to be because Canada is a winter country and it’s just really good at those sports.
This is one of the reasons, among many, that medal rankings don’t really matter much. In Rio, there were 111 medals awarded for swimming. There were 6 awarded for basketball. There were none awarded for cricket. Swimming is fine sliced into a zillion events, whereas there’s no 3-on-3 basketball, or HORSE, or three point shooting events, or slam dunk contest events. So if your country is good at basketball but not at swimming, your medal opportunities are rather more limited. If you’re good at cricket - like India - you don’t get a medal at all.
I agree. Say you are an athletic student. You want to specialize in a sport you excel at to pursue championship dreams. If you live in a place with long winters, the ones who choose skiing are unlikely to choose surfing.
Thing is, though, this also applies to the women, So, not a complete explanation.
But if you are a new and talented women’s soccer team, you want to be better than the US and Sweden. A tall order, but far more likely than the men being better than virtually every country in Europe, South America, much of Africa and anywhere where it is an ersatz religion.
I don’t care for this sort of puffery, either, but what would make more sense than raw numbers, is maybe factoring-in the size of the Olympic team from a country. The USA has a giant team of several hundred athletes, so of course we’re gonna get the most medals overall, and likely in the top 2 or 3 if you consider Gold, Silver, Bronze. But, a small Olympic team that ends-up with a Gold medal for something, like that weightlifter from the Philippines, that’s gotta count a bit more, since their team is so much smaller. Maybe something like number of medals / number of athletes on the country’s Olympic team would be more meaningful?
So (hypothetically) China and the US have equal numbers of excellent swimmers and gymnasts, and have split all those medals. But the US has a bunch of archers and rowers in the top 10 in the world, and China doesn’t. So the US brings them to the game, and they place int he top 10 but don’t win medals, making their team bigger… and that means the US ends up WORSE on the medal count, because they have way way better athletes than China does in another sport? That seems a bit bonkers.