medals, alt give 5 points to eachgold ,
3 to each silver ,
and
2for each bronze
and add up. what is ur consideredview on this line of thought for future olympics?

l agree

except make it

4 for gold 2 for silver and 1 for bronze



BUT

bad thing for that ranking is that it will have tie scores

Well, that is not the way it goes, so too bad. You people should get over this already.

Seriously.

l think that medal counts should be done away with entirely. Ranking countries by medals won only serves to devalue the efforts of the athletes.

People are so obssessed. There is no country that wins the Olympics.

l believe whoever comes in 2nd place in the Gold standings should be declared the winner.

l think a lot of people do not really understand what the Olympics are all about.

l think so yes. however, i'm not into the point system. this olympics just had US with the most medals but China had the most golds. l think in the past olympics, the country that gets the most golds also gets the most medals. but this year, the situation is different. but to choose whether China or US is the top country, l will go for China with the most golds. every athlete went out there to win golds not silver and not bronze.

There is no declaration that a country has ''won'' the olympics.
Countries cannot win the olympics, they can only participate in them.
As for medal tally, u can rank by total medals won & then
break it down by gold, silver, & bronze. This type of ranking is the most universally used, & always has been.
Another type is to rank them by golds won, then silver, then bronze.
This is sort of like what u r suggesting. By this type of ranking
begins to look screwed up once u start running out of golds.
Example: In the Beijing olympics just completed, Armenia won
6 medals total, all bronze; Panama 1 medal, gold; Morocco won
2 medals, 1 silver, 1 bronze.
Total medal ranking: Armenia 6, Morocco 2, Panama 1
G,S,B medal ranking: Panama, Morocco, Armenia.
Is it fair to rank Armenia behind Panama & Morocco, when
they obviously had a better olympics with 6 medals won?
Total medal count is the best way to rank .

l think we should leave it the way as it is..

If the Americans like to think they won the most medals, that is true & that is good.

If the rest of the world think China won because they had the most gold medals, then that is also true & that is wonderful, at least a very good inspiration for the developing world.

Each country should use their own definition, as long it encourage youths to take part in sports, & also if they simply use the different way to define winning, not by war, than that is all fine with me.

From Dexmonte.

Ranking by total medals is just as unfair & it is easy to draw a similar example to ur 6 medals to 1 gold showing the situation in reverse, that is 25 gold 26 bronze versus (51 total) versus 50 gold (50 total). The latter is obviously a better performance.

Officially the Olympic medal tables r ranked by gold. It is not fair to those who won silver & bronze, but neither is treating a gold the same as coming second or third. Anybody who makes it to the final in an event is a champion period, & yet nobody cares about those who came 4th through 8th. It is an arbitrary cut-off but nonetheless real.

Because the Olympics is about being the best. So really golds r the best way to rank, because the people winning those medals r the best at the games. Everybody else r simply great athletes.