Batty wrote: raisindot wrote:
Watchman44 wrote:The American media seem to base the medal table positions on TOTAL medals won rather than the number of Golds.......
I would think that total medal count should be the determining factor. I'd think a country with 20 total medals and 1 gold is a lot more impressive than a country with 5 golds.
Bearing in mind that a gold medal represents being the best athelete in the world, why should a country with 30 golds be less impressive than a country with 35 bronzes?
Sheesh! I'll never understand Americans!
So, according to your logic, the country that wins one gold medal and nothing else is far more impressive than the country that wins no golds, 10 silvers and 20 bronze medals.
See, I tend to think that each medal represents the three best athletes are teams in the world, and that's what counts. No skin off my nose either way, since I'm from the country that won the most gold and the most medals period, and in generally since the Olympics have become home of mostly full-time professional athletes pretending to be amateurs for two weeks (i.e., basketball, tennis and soccer teams) that it's become mostly meaningless anyway. Inevitably, the countries that pump the most money into their athlete-building programs win the most, particularly if the focus on certain categories where you can wins lots of medals (i.e., track and field, swimming).