## View Poll Results: Should medals be evaluated at the olympic?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
• Yes

7 87.50%
• No

1 12.50%

# Thread: Should medals be evaluated at the olympic?

1. ## Should medals be evaluated at the olympic?

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

I don't agree with the phrase that "one gold medal is worth more than 1000 silver medals". Discuss....

2. I think it should be a little more compact:
G = 2
S = 1.5
B = 1

that way there's a little less space to fill, 1G = 3B is too much IMO.

3. IMO it would have to vary depending on margin of victory.

If you absolutely crush the competition then you could do 3-2-1 or 2-1.5-1 because there is a very clear distinction. But in cases like Michael Phelp's 100m Fly Gold... if a Gold is 3, then that Silver is like 2.99.

4. Originally Posted by AndyChrono
IMO it would have to vary depending on margin of victory.

If you absolutely crush the competition then you could do 3-2-1 or 2-1.5-1 because there is a very clear distinction. But in cases like Michael Phelp's 100m Fly Gold... if a Gold is 3, then that Silver is like 2.99.
I don't agree with your margin of victory theory.

A gold win will always be superior to a silver win despite how close the results were.

5. Originally Posted by pandamao
I don't agree with your margin of victory theory.

A gold win will always be superior to a silver win despite how close the results were.
The gold is still superior in my system as well.

6. Originally Posted by warlock110
I think it should be a little more compact:
G = 2
S = 1.5
B = 1

that way there's a little less space to fill, 1G = 3B is too much IMO.
I think 1 gold medal is worth more than 3 bronzes. Every competitor goes there to win.

In a romp like Usain Bolt, the gold certainly should be worth a lot more than 3 of Walter Dix's eeking past the #4 guy.

7. Giving more points for silvers that are "closer" to golds will be harder for "subjective" sports like gymnastics, figure skating, diving, etc.

I like the point ssytem, but I agree that it should be tweaked so that it's not completely linear.

8. Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
I think 1 gold medal is worth more than 3 bronzes. Every competitor goes there to win.

In a romp like Usain Bolt, the gold certainly should be worth a lot more than 3 of Walter Dix's eeking past the #4 guy.
alot of country will like to trade their gold for a crapload of bronze, sure it's worth more but not 3X more than a bronze, it depends on how you think, some people like to be the best, and some others just want to be in the "elite" group.

9. And I wouldn't trade 6 bronze medals for 1 gold.

Only the gold medal guy can say that nobody beat him. That alone is worth more than the silver and bronze.

10. Financially speaking, one gold medal is worth more than 5 bronze medals. The one-gold medal winner will easily get lot of contract for commercial, advertisement, ect... On the other hand, the five-bronze medals winner will be hard to get any commercial contract or advertisement...

11. You can't compare a silver/bronze to a gold. First will always be first. Silver and bronze are handed out for a nice try, but you are not the best when it counted.

I agree on how they rank it - the number of golds, then if they are equal come down to silver.

12. Originally Posted by Trien Chieu
Financially speaking, one gold medal is worth more than 5 bronze medals. The one-gold medal winner will easily get lot of contract for commercial, advertisement, ect... On the other hand, the five-bronze medals winner will be hard to get any commercial contract or advertisement...
Many athletes don't do it for the financial aspects...at least I don't think they do. It's about getting a personal reward for your hard work and training and earning honor for your country.

13. Originally Posted by 999roses
Many athletes don't do it for the financial aspects...at least I don't think they do. It's about getting a personal reward for your hard work and training and earning honor for your country.
And for that reason, many of them are just happy to be at the Olympics and are grateful just to be in the opening ceremony.

But I feel gold medals should be valued much higher, because it's the only medal where you can say that you proved you were the best in the world.

14. I think world-record breakers should get bonus points on top of the gold. Gold medallists can't really say they're the "best in the world" until they beat the previous record. They can only say they are CURRENTLY the "best in the world".

15. Originally Posted by AndyChrono
The gold is still superior in my system as well.
Not really.

Your system is based off of points. Are you saying, certain points will get you a gold or what? Or are you saying, you are a certain point Gold or a certain point silver?

Gold is gold, silver is silver ... no matter how close or far it was.

16. Originally Posted by 999roses
I think world-record breakers should get bonus points on top of the gold. Gold medallists can't really say they're the "best in the world" until they beat the previous record. They can only say they are CURRENTLY the "best in the world".
But that should only be the case if the world record was set in the exact same situation. There are a lot of factors that go into the proverbial 'perfect storm' that results in a world record.

In terms of the Olympics, barring injury, you are pitting yourself against the very best in the world. If you win gold, you proved that there is no one better.

17. Commercial? not really, they don't get alot of that stuff, most of them get 1 or 2 if they're super popular and then that's it. Most of the commercial go to the pros of their country's favorite sport (in case of the US they normally give them to football, baseball, and even tiger wood lol).

Like I said, some people like to be the best, while other just want to be in the elite group, most people are happy to win a medal, if you're trading 6 bronze for 1 gold it'll make alot more people happy. Look how happy the medal winners are, sure gold is great, but just to win a medal they have to beat a crapload of people that are just slightly less unfortunate then they are.

PS: I can't believe one vietnamese girl made through her heat for the 100m dash, that chick must be the fastest chick in Vietnam.

18. Originally Posted by warlock110
PS: I can't believe one vietnamese girl made through her heat for the 100m dash, that chick must be the fastest chick in Vietnam.
Have you seen the times posted in the women's sprints?

There are high school guys posting better times consistently. In state championships like Texas and Florida (amongst larger schools), you would need times like a 10.3 or 10.4 to have a shot at winning. The world record for women's 100 meters 10.49 (set 20 years ago; and no one else has come within .16 seconds of that mark).

Track and field, unfortunately, is not one of the sports where racial and gender equality is common. Those of West African descent dominate the sprint events; those of East African descent dominate the long distance events.

Everything below that elite level is a crapshoot. So I'm not surprised she qualified. Now, if she performs well in the finals, color me super impressed.

19. Originally Posted by pandamao
Not really.

Your system is based off of points. Are you saying, certain points will get you a gold or what? Or are you saying, you are a certain point Gold or a certain point silver?

Gold is gold, silver is silver ... no matter how close or far it was.
You seem to be confused over the thread topic.

We're not talking about medal counts, but rather how much the medals are worth compared to each other. Obviously, from a financial standpoint, the Gold is far and away the best. From an accomplishment standpoint though, the difference can range between total domination like Phelps in the 400 IM to a fingernail like Phelps in the 100m Fly. Assigning static numbers to each medal would imply that the performance of the 2nd place guy relative to Phelps in the 400 IM was the same as that of the Serbian guy relative to Phelps in the 100m Fly which makes no sense (unless you are of the Gold or nothing persuasion).

20. There is still an absolute figure assessed when considering gold/silver/bronze. Gold means no one beat you, silver means 1 person beat you, and bronze means 2 people beat you.

There are a lot of factors that come across with each figure, but the fact remains that gold is what everyone is ultimately gunning for when they enter into the final. They may be happy with silver, but the ultimate goal is gold. Therefore, I feel gold should have significant precedence over silver, regardless of the margin.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts