luka

Well-known member
america a humiliating third in the medal table at the moment. track and field events will sort that out
but still nice to see.
 

Leo

Well-known member
some of the US's biggest names have not scored their expected Golds, definitely an off year.
 

luka

Well-known member
yes theyve fudged that by using a different system to the rest of the world. typically you assign rank based on the number of golds won
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
yes theyve fudged that by using a different system to the rest of the world. typically you assign rank based on the number of golds won
It is hilarious isn't it? They always used the ranking by golds system until one year they got knocked off the top and then they switched to this system without batting an eyelid.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
It is strange that the different medal tiers are weighted equally in that leaderboard. Seems to defeat the purpose of having different tiers.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
A nation with 50 bronze would appear superior to a nation with 49 gold.
 

Leo

Well-known member
wouldn't the proper way be to assign point values per medal: 5 for gold, 3 for silver, 1 for bronze (or whatever). winning a gold would rank higher than winning a few bronze medals.

but that raises the question: is being the world's best in one competition more of an accomplishment than being among the best in the world in a number of competitions?
 
Last edited:

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
wouldn't the proper way be to assign point values per medal: 5 for gold, 3 for silver, 1 for bronze (or whatever). winning a gold would rank higher than winning a few bronze medals.

but that raises the question: is being the world's best in one competition more of an accomplishment than being really good in a number of competitions?
I agree, thats what I meant by weighted. I would think that 5/3/1 would work fairly enough. And yeah I think the two accomplishments just reflect different things.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
wouldn't the proper way be to assign point values per medal: 5 for gold, 3 for silver, 1 for bronze (or whatever). winning a gold would rank higher than winning a few bronze medals.

but that raises the question: is being the world's best in one competition more of an accomplishment than being really good in a number of competitions?
Well I personally that a system such as that makes more sense. At the moment if you have two countries and the first has ten golds in total, but the other country has nine golds, eighty-three silvers and, four hundred and twenty five bronze ones, then the first one would rank higher in the table of ultimate athletic achievement, which to my mind is utterly ludicrous and makes a mockery of the whole thing from top to bottom, totally devaluing all of the medals and meaning that the event is a shocking disgrace and an insult to the word sport.
Whereas, what the Americans did in suddenly changing the system that they used to score it so that it was different from the one that everyone else was using but which had the crucial advantage of moving them back to the top, is an absolutely hilarious hissy-fit worthy of Trump himself, in fact it's more like the Reagan administration reclassifying tomato sauce as a vegetable - apparently if they can't win under the new system they are looking at either reclassifying fourth places as medals or possibly reclassifying Chinese athletes as American, whatever it will take to stop the steal. Either way the US has disgraced itself in the most embarrassing of ways, making a mockery of every ideal they wee supposed to stand for and reducing every single person from that country to worthless scum I'm sorry to say Leo, nothing personal I am sure you understand.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Leo

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
wouldn't the proper way be to assign point values per medal: 5 for gold, 3 for silver, 1 for bronze (or whatever). winning a gold would rank higher than winning a few bronze medals.

but that raises the question: is being the world's best in one competition more of an accomplishment than being among the best in the world in a number of competitions?
2 points for a gold, -1 for a silver and -3 for a bronze. Go big or go home.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I wonder when was the first time that someone came up with that idea - the thing i am calling "reclassifying" above. When something wasn't how you wanted it, or how it was supposed to be, who was the first evil genius who realised that, although the obvious and mundane solution was to go to the thing that wasn't right and change it so that it was right, you could in fact save yourself a lot of time and effort by counting things differently, with that different way of counting things specifically designed to ensure that the thing that was causing you a problem by failing to pass muster in the ugly obsolete old system would pass in the sexy new one. And you would have solve the problem!
You know there is a saying which is something like... it was a terrible day when someone first realised that spotting that something was undervalued was just as profitable as creating value... not a very catchy saying admittedly. But it seems that inventing the wheeze above was similarly catastrophic and tends to go unmentioned.
 
Top