Jemima Kiss

Olympics medal table

There was some kind of hoo-ha going on about how the medal tallies are being presented; should they be listed by the total number of medals, or by the number of golds?

I wondered if it should be done on a different kind of points system, so gold medals are worth three points, silver two and bronze one. That does push TeamGB down the list a little, but here’s how the top 20 would look as of today:

1 China – 111
2 USA – 97
3 Australia – 47
4 South Korea – 40
5 Germany – 39
6 France – 37
7 Russia – 36
8 Japan – 36
9 Italy – 32
10 Great Britain – 31
11 Cuba – 13
12 Czech Republic – 12
13 Slovakia – 11
14 Netherlands – 11
15 Romania – 10
16 Zimbabwe – 9
17 Azerbaijan – 9
18 Hungary – 9
19 Kazakhstan – 8
20 Norway – 8
21 DPR Korea – 8

Technorati Tags:

14 Responses to “Olympics medal table”

  1. dan Says:

    like you, i’ve been sucked into the olympics today, and have enjoyed watching GB be the best at some stuff. i’ve also been chewing over the stats during the lulls, and have noticed that, as of now, we have 17 medals, NONE of which have been won by somebody who was standing up at the time. (if the sailing hadn’t been called of, it would be 18.) with our prospects in the track and field, i wonder how long it will be before we have a fully upright medalist.

  2. Shafqat Says:

    Nice piece of analysis – this just makes much more sense than ordering by total medals or just golds (which makes NO sense to me). I’m surprised there is no ‘official’ ranking table that will determines the order of finishing by country at the end of the Games. Or is that ‘un-Olympic’ in spirit?

  3. Olympic games updates » Blog Archive » Olympics medal table Says:

    [...] Original post by Jemima Kiss [...]

  4. Will Knott Says:

    I know I’m basing this off today’s observer, but is there a table with the EU medal tally included?

  5. Jemima Kiss Says:

    I haven’t seen one, but maybe there should be. Perhaps you could knock one up?!

  6. BOKE Says:

    The statistical evidence is unequivocal:

    The top 9 are cheating. ;)

    (Now back to cleaning PEWs … tonight’s entropy arising from high school students rewriting the history of the sinking of the Titanic to include their friends and sexually-slurred enemies, and the writer and best friend as the designers of the ship… At least they’re not writing themselves in as Olympic gold medalists, although surely some are adjusting the stats by arbitrary fractions … just because they can. ; )

  7. Caitlin Says:

    That makes a lot of sense – it’s fair to weight the medals rather than just list overall medals or just gold. And it has the added advantage (to me) of bumping Team Aussie up. ;-)

    This is Michael Phelps’ year, which is why Australia won so many silver medals in men’s swimming.

    The Brits are doing brilliantly though, even if I’m sick of hearing about it!

  8. Caitlin Says:

    Interesting that there is such a big jump from GB with 31 to Cuba with 13. Suggests there are 10 serious players and then the also-rans? Or is that unfair?

  9. Neil Says:

    This does make some sense, but surely a gold is worth more than 50% more than a silver, and the difference between a gold and silver should be greater than between a silver and bronze. I believe in football there used to be two points for a win and one for a draw, and now there are three for a win and one for a draw to reward WINNERS. Also, in Formula 1 the winner is gets more than one point more than the second placed racer, I believe, but further down the rankings they are one point apart. (I just tried to run a table on a 4/2/1 points system, but my computer crashed. Will try to post one if it recovers.)

  10. Neil Says:

    For the record, on a four for gold, two for silver and three for bronze it’s not much different to the usual one:
    1 China 223
    2 US 208
    3 Russia 116
    4 GB 107
    5 Australia 86
    6 Germany 82
    7 Sourth Korea 66
    8 France 60
    9 Japan 53
    10 Italy 51

  11. BOKE Says:

    re: Gold

    I was watching kayaking … the “winner” “won” by 4 one/thousandths of a second.

    Let’s get this straight. If someone told me they beat me by 4 one/thousandths of a second… I would respond. No you didn’t. Don’t be an idiot. We tied.

    (If aliens from outer space just happened to have shot a one micron particle beam destructo ray along the finish line at head level for one instant at the moment of “victory” … BOTH the silver and gold winners would not have to worry about getting the medals over their heads.)

    And hey Phelps, you tied too. Cut that Gold in half.

    I.E., How much more should a Gold medal be worth than a Silver. How ’bout four thousandths of a point? (smiling but not kidding)

  12. Tom Says:

    To come in the top three is pretty amazing. I appreciate the summation, but I don’t think a gold is three times better than the bronze (or that the silver is twice the bronze). I don’t think 4/2/1 is right either – I’d go with something that shows all three as valuable (closer to the total medal count). Instead of nice whole numbers, let’s think in relative values. Maybe gold is 1 1/2 as good as silver and silver is 1 1/2 as good as bronze. The specific number aren’t important, but if we sastart at the same point with bronze =1 then silver = 1.5 and gold = 2.25.

    True, it would likely aid the US since the US had more silvers and bronzes, but if we’re going to narrow it down to one number I’d go with relative values. Maybe 1 1/2 is too big…maybe it’s too small.

  13. Jaisne Blue Sexton Says:

    Most of these stupid comments clearly reflect that none of you are athletes.

  14. JoshG Says:

    How about an inverse ratio per capita? The relative scale of medal value may matter less then.