Tweet
I'm not sure if there is a good measure in this area.
Any sort of raw medal count is unfair to small countries.
Medals per capita is not good because it is difficult for large countries send teams proportional to some smaller countries. Snoopy pointed out that medals per athlete isn't very good.
Rating medals with a different value doesn't make sense to me. (note: I'm having trouble putting the reason into words. This example is the best I can do to explain, but it may be hard to understand) Imagine the number of male runners in the world, which is a HUGE number. Saying that the accomplishment of the person who is faster than all but one is only 2/3rds the value (or even 99% of the value) of the accomplishment of the fastest male runner is ridiculous. To compensate for all the people you'd be better than with a silver or bronze, the values of silver and bronze would have to be so close to gold that it gets rid of the point of giving different value to medals.
Since just getting to the Olympics is a huge accomplishment, maybe the number of athletes or athletes per capita would be a good measure, but total athletes is, like medal counts, unfair to smaller countries. Athletes per capita is, like medals per capita, unfair to large countries since it is difficult for them to wield proportional teams.
Ultimately, it is like Baseball stats. Many different statistics are needed to know a players skill and there many different opinions about which are the most important.
When it comes to this, there are even opinions about whether or not any of these measures matter. IMO, there is a reason why the IOC makes no sort of medal count. On NBC about a week days ago, they said something like "The medal count is ultimately pointless, but in case you were wondering here it is." Unfortunately, they just seem to be showing it now and I even saw a "total medal count vs. gold count" debate on MSNBC 
Any sort of raw medal count is unfair to small countries.
Medals per capita is not good because it is difficult for large countries send teams proportional to some smaller countries. Snoopy pointed out that medals per athlete isn't very good.
Rating medals with a different value doesn't make sense to me. (note: I'm having trouble putting the reason into words. This example is the best I can do to explain, but it may be hard to understand) Imagine the number of male runners in the world, which is a HUGE number. Saying that the accomplishment of the person who is faster than all but one is only 2/3rds the value (or even 99% of the value) of the accomplishment of the fastest male runner is ridiculous. To compensate for all the people you'd be better than with a silver or bronze, the values of silver and bronze would have to be so close to gold that it gets rid of the point of giving different value to medals.
Since just getting to the Olympics is a huge accomplishment, maybe the number of athletes or athletes per capita would be a good measure, but total athletes is, like medal counts, unfair to smaller countries. Athletes per capita is, like medals per capita, unfair to large countries since it is difficult for them to wield proportional teams.
Ultimately, it is like Baseball stats. Many different statistics are needed to know a players skill and there many different opinions about which are the most important.
When it comes to this, there are even opinions about whether or not any of these measures matter. IMO, there is a reason why the IOC makes no sort of medal count. On NBC about a week days ago, they said something like "The medal count is ultimately pointless, but in case you were wondering here it is." Unfortunately, they just seem to be showing it now and I even saw a "total medal count vs. gold count" debate on MSNBC
Comment