59
submitted 10 months ago by Nath@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

I stumbled across a sports article from a US publication and thought it interesting that it showed the USA leading the medals table.

Instead of the regular table that gives weight to Gold, silver and bronze, they just see total medals.

I sorta like it. Celebrating all medal winners equally is nice. It feels a little like fudging the numbers, though.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Aradina@lemmy.ml 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It is fudging the numbers. It's an odd thing they do to stir up nationalism or something.

[-] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

And in the end it was all a bit for naught - since they now top the table using a normal measure anyway.

[-] gumnut@aussie.zone 24 points 10 months ago

American exceptionalism at its finest.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago

Happy cake day!

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's absurd. I can see having an issue with the official system, for example if one nation got 2nd in literally every single event the official system would put them near the bottom of the table, which is a little unfair. But giving equal weight is so, so much worse. I saw a meme the other day showing American swimmers on the 2nd and 3rd place podium and an Aussie in 1st, with a headline to the effect of "America beats Australia in swimming". You don't celebrate them all equally because they didn't perform equally. The logical extension of that would be to sort merely by number of participants each country had. Which is absurd. Gold needs to be worth more than bronze for a system to even be worth considering.

A points system could be reasonable. My view is that 1 gold should be better than 2 silver, so 7-3-1 points is where I'd start. That would change the top from CN, FR, JP, AU, GB, SK, US, to FR, CN, US, AU, JP, GB, SK, if I've done my calculations correctly. You get the same order currently if you do 10-4-1 as points. But the conventional system is pretty good anyway.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I found the meme I mentioned above. Thank the gods for never closing old tabs 🙃

[-] Nath@aussie.zone 8 points 10 months ago

Ha! I love it!
Ok, so maybe not all medals are equal after all.

[-] Zess@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That is an Australian person making a joke.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

Sorry for the late reply. Just cleaning up old tabs…

But anyway, yes. That’s correct. Obviously. But it’s also the natural implication of counting total medals rather than golds or a well-balanced point system.

[-] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 14 points 10 months ago

That's cause Americans are much like ruasians. They think they're the best and unstoppable.

China should always be at the forefront of medal totals. They have such a huge population to pick from their best should be up there.

[-] palitu@aussie.zone 7 points 10 months ago
[-] Nath@aussie.zone 18 points 10 months ago

They only have two sports in India. Cricket and not-cricket. Of the two, cricket gets most of the money and almost all of the attention.

[-] palitu@aussie.zone 3 points 10 months ago

Hahaha, There is that.

[-] dgriffith@aussie.zone 3 points 10 months ago

I wonder how medal tally per capita would work out. Surely Australia would be up there. 🤔

[-] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 3 points 10 months ago

That would be a really interesting metric.

America get one medal per every 9,008,108people

Australia gets one medal per 1,444,444 people

China is one medal per 58,833,333 people

So Australia is doing pretty well. I can't be bothered doing it for any more countries right now though

[-] Nath@aussie.zone 5 points 10 months ago

I played with something like "medals per capita" once during the London Olympics. When you put them into that metric, Australia definitely punches above its weight, but I think New Zealand did even better.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 10 months ago

So that's objectively a worse measure then. We need a measure where were the best. Not NZ, not UK and not China or USA.

How about medals divided by average population density inversed, lol.

[-] CEOofmyhouse56@aussie.zone 7 points 10 months ago

It's awesome seeing them and Great Britain below us on the real medal tally.

[-] Nath@aussie.zone 12 points 10 months ago

Don't get too excited, the water events will finish soon and our medal tally will slow right down. Happens every time. 😁

[-] CEOofmyhouse56@aussie.zone 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah I know but it's nice at the moment.

[-] skittlebrau@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Don’t they do this every year? They count total medals or total gold - they switch to whatever metric puts them at the top.

[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

As an American, it's not surprising.

We have to fudge the medals score just like we fudge the healthcare score and the education score and the poverty score and the equality score and the freedom score. I just don't understand why medals are on that list.

We still have the biggest billionaires, right?

[-] MHLoppy@fedia.io 4 points 10 months ago

I was wondering what the context for this Chaser article was.

[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago

They also send the most athletes.

[-] pendulous@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Aren't tables typically sorted by the total column? Plus on the US one you can sort by any column, unlike the other one.

[-] Daerun@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Not in competitions with medals; those are most commonly ordered by gold medals.

[-] Zess@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Medal count alone doesn't even mean anything. How many events has the country participated in? 20 medals in 20 events is impressive, 20 medals in 100 events is not as impressive.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Total medals and total golds are both bad sorting measures. It should be a simple point system, gold > silver > bronze. Maybe 4/2/1?

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 10 months ago

yeah I mean except for some exceptions where the gold blows everyone out of the water so often the difference between the medal holders is basically luck.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
59 points (95.4% liked)

Australia

4301 readers
177 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS