Just for fun: in the Olympics, only count Golds, Total Medals, or some combination?

[nd_eric_77]

When comparing medal counts, the worldwide consensus seems to be that only Golds count.
Media in the US seem to prefer total medal count.
What do you think? Should only golds count, all medals count, or should there be a weighted ranking? (eg: Golds count for 5, Silvers 3, Bronzes 1, etc)?

Since the PRC and US tied in the Golds (40 each), should other medals serve as tie-breakers?

 

[Brian86]

who cares? they each got their respective place in their respective sport. there is no medal for having the most medals. anyone wanting to assess a value beyond that might as well be comparing the superiority of apples versus oranges.

 

[Balifrog]

When comparing medal counts, the worldwide consensus seems to be that only Golds count.
Media in the US seem to prefer total medal count.
What do you think? Should only golds count, all medals count, or should there be a weighted ranking? (eg: Golds count for 5, Silvers 3, Bronzes 1, etc)?

Since the PRC and US tied in the Golds (40 each), should other medals serve as tie-breakers?

Interesting question that I have been asking myself also.
A weighted ranking would seem fair to me.

 

[fastpitch17]

I don't think it matters one way or the other except maybe for national bragging rights for those interested in such things. Those medal awards are for achievements performed by individuals be they one or part of a team. That is all that should really matter.

 

[Helpful Herbert]

All that matters for Indonesia is that they got more medals than Malaysia. Which they did. So job done.

 

[jstar]

India has not been doing so well either…

 

[Bob]

All that matters for Indonesia is that they got more medals than Malaysia. Which they did. So job done.

And Singapore