Medal Tally, Medal Schmally

American media may put the United States at the top of the Beijing 2008 Olympic medal tally, but the rest of the world would tell you otherwise.

Of course the China Daily tally has China on top with the most golds, but the BBC, CBC and most other international media also report China first and the United States second. Australia may be the exception with its comical per-capita tally. But in the end, America is the odd man out with its total medals tally because everyone else is focused on the number of golds.

The International Olympic Committee has no official medal tally because the Games shouldn't be about winning or losing, but bringing the world together through competitive sport -- right?

I love the United States just as much as any other American but, come on, can we really say we won when China had 15 more golds than us? Of course winning silver and bronze is a great feat, but the gold is really what everyone is striving for and it should count for something more in the medal tally.

I'd like to think we're all proud of our athletes' performance in the Beijing Games no matter how many gold, silver and bronze medals they rack up. So let's be good sports and just admit that we're No. 2 this time around.

Comments

[PaPaPeng]

It is the athletes who won the medals, not us. So be happy with whatever way of counting, Golds or total tally, that pleases you. No one is going to disagree with you. Nothing is at stake between your happiness and mine. The medallists are happy enough with their awards of whatever color. If not it is for them to do better in 2012.

[Golfgirl27]

Shouldn't we be talking quality not quantity when it comes to gold medals. Jamaica wins!

[morejamesmore]

I found this widget that displays who won the 2008 Olympics from different perspectives.
It displays medals won by total medal count and gold count.
In addition it can show medals won per million inhabitant and per million dollar GDP.

I think you might like it:-)
http://www.youcalc.com/apps/1219403616554?application_popup=1

It's free and easy to embed

[Calinative]

Who really cares about the medal count? Before the games there were people on this site wishing the US would boycott because its a totalitarian police state that wants to control everything their people see and hear.

The US got to represent itself directly, and for each of those 36 golds, they blasted the Star Spangled Banner to an entire stadium in Red China. I think that's a win any way you slice it.

[mandalaina]

I don't know how you can say that China has more golds thus more medals then the US. I understand that they have more golds, but that doesn't mean squat if you are simply counting medals.

I thought of it this way: just for the sake of argument let's say humans value blue eyes more than brown:

China has a billion or so people. US--not that many. BUT--can I say with any logic that because the US may have more people born with blue eyes that the US has more people because we might value blue eyes more than brown?? (PS--I have brown eyes before we jump on THAT bandwagon.)

I am glad that China got those golds--for the most part they earned it. ( I don't believe for a minute that some of their gymnasts were 16 but they still were good enough to get the gold.)

I'm glad the Olympics went well for them.

[IAmYourDad]

Why do you hate America?

[Furby]

Did you accidentally post this comment in the wrong thread? Just wondering.

[BoomKing]

I agree that Gold Medals should be worth more than Silver and that Silver should be worth more than Bronze (and yes, Bronze worth more than no medal at all).

This leads me to the most simple, obvious tally system I can think of...

Gold Medal = 3 points
Silver Medal = 2 points
Bronze Medal = 1 point

If we used this system, the results would be as such:

1. China - 223 points
2. USA - 220 points
3. Russia - 139 points
4. Great Britian - 98 points
5. Germany - 83 points

Pretty damn close, but China still gets the top spot.

[Pompeii]

Yeah, they were using a points-based system over at the NYT as well, in their case a 4-2-1 rather than 3-2-1. Actually, the 4-2-1 makes the most sense, because *nobody*, least of all the athletes, would exchange one gold for two silvers (and a 3-2-1 would suggest that 2 silvers would be worth more than one gold). It's interesting that one can actually approach this valuation semi-quant­itatively, and the results are just about universal-- among athletes, fans, countries, the gold medal is worth vastly more than a silver, at least more than double, based on ratings and also based on financial rewards. (So if anything, 4-2-1 is an underestimate.)

The gold medal after all indicates who won the events, which is after all, how teams and athletes have been ranked since the ancient Greeks, not based on 2nd place, 6th place, whatever finishes. Obviously, any athlete in the Olympic Games should be congratulated, especially a Top 10 finishes, but the official IOC system has always been gold medals, and that's international, how everyone ranks it.

[Pompeii]

For that matter, so do we-- nobody would argue that 20 bronzes would be better than 19 golds, and Michael Phelps got all the attention when he won 8 gold medals to be beat Mark Spitz, not 8 total medals as he did in 2004 (which also been Spitz's total medals). And the USA media always used to tabulate based on gold medals, even in 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/aug/14/bustedhowamericaturnedthe

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/fanguide/history?year=2004&type=medals

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/medals.aspx

So to the rest of the world (which is our most important audience, after all), this just looks like the USA "pulling an Enron again," insecure and in denial, a sour loser with sour grapes. This isn't the kind of image we want to be projecting!

There's no shame in coming in #2 to China in 2008, they're the hosts. So let's just smile and suck it up, then refocus our efforts to do better in subsequent Olympics. No need to get upset about it.

[HeevenSteven]

Gold, Schmold! I'm so tired of hearing about gold. Ya'd think this story was USA goes to the games. Every event I watched was about the american in lane 2, lane 4, and oh, yeah, the world champion is over there in lane 5, keep an eye on her, but back to the Americans, as they chase gold!

[tmacie]

Being Irish,for us generally it is about being represented at this global sports event and we are pleased with our medal tally this time of 1 silver and 2 bronze. (Maybe the silver should have been gold, but let's not quibble now)

Not wishing to be competitive though but comparing like with like population wise, I wonder what was the total EU medal tally?

[bbfatima]

Yeah, except I don't count the medals where China cheated, e.g. gymnastics. What else did they cheat at?

[Pompeii]

Please, stop-- JUST STOP. I'm really getting sick and tired of this line, "China cheated, China cheated, waaah waaah waaah waaah waaah, where's my pacifier?!" Do you realize that this is just making the USA look like a bunch of crybabies to the rest of the world? Especially considering our own history with Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin, an entire 2000 relay team, Maurice Green and countless others?

There is no evidence that the Chinese women gymnasts are underage. I've worked in Asia before and I'm telling you, you simply cannot tell the ages of women there-- I've encountered women that we all thought were maybe in middle school, and it turns out that they're in their 30's married and with 2 or 3 kids!!! The size and bone structure are very different from the USA.

I was suspicious at first, but then there were old passports and videos (including some family videos) showing the girls as the proper age. A lot of corroboratory material. They won it, fair and square.

[MainSpark]

"I was suspicious at first, but then there were old passports"

Yeah, like it would be impossible to forge a passport...

[blindjester]

Well, not to quibble, because I don't think we should be counting, either, but...

If gold was worth 5, silver 3 and bronze 1 (like the points in a track meet) China earned only 346 points, and the US had 360.

It's not just about who comes in first.

[HeevenSteven]

"It's not just about who comes in first."

Bravo!

[Pompeii]

Um, blindjester, you need to check your math here-- your numbers are totally wrong.

If we use your 5-3-1 system, then the results are indeed 346 for China, but the USA has 330, not 360:
36X5 + 38X3 + 36X1 = 330. Much less than China's 346 value.

Face it, any way you calculate it, China wins here,. The international and historical standard is gold medals for reasons as described above, and any point system also puts China on top. (Frankly, even 5 points for a gold versus 3 points for a silver would be an underestimate, since this would imply that 2 silvers would be worth more than one gold-- which no athlete would accept, and when it comes to bonus payouts for athletes, one gold is always worth more than 2 silvers throughout the world, if anything the payout approaches more 5:1 for gold vs. silver).

[blindjester]

Add it up again.

36X5=210.
38X3=114.
36X1=36.

210+114+36=360.

All I'm saying is that in track competitions, the team with depth beats the team with a few stars. And maybe we should look at the Olympics the same way.

[Pompeii]

"It's not just about who comes in first." Yeah, but it's also not about who comes in 2nd or 3rd, either-- what about who came in 4th place or 5th place? What about Top 10? Or Top 25?

Any Olympian who competes is an extraordinary athlete and they should all be congratulated. But when it comes to the rankings, it's always been based on who wins the most events.

Probably the most comprehensive comparison would be the 4-2-1 points system which e.g. the New York Times and other US news organizations have been using (and again, even this underestimates the value of gold compared to silver medal, based on financial rewards and the athletes' and fans' own ratings of the medal values). But the 4-2-1 works because it gives you exactly the same result as the gold medal standings, which are based on who won the events-- and, of course, which is also the most practical.

[MainSpark]

"It's not just about who comes in first." Yeah, but it's also not about who comes in 2nd or 3rd, either-- what about who came in 4th place or 5th place? What about Top 10? Or Top 25?"

Okay, let's petition the IOC and have medals awarded for...effort?

The point is, if second or third (silver or bronze) didn't matter, there'd be no medals for those finishing in those positions.