TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The one that places team GB highest. No point saying otherwise.
The one that places team GB highest. No point saying otherwise.
Always bringing up the rear, eh?
Seriously, I think the "medals per capita" is a decent and overlooked system. The fact that China was able to generate 49 gold medal athletes out of the billion or so citizens it has isn't really amazing. Don't misunderstand me: the performances are, but the fact that the country is leading the gold medal count shouldn't be surprising. They should be leading the medal count, as well.
Mike
I use medals per capita, if that is the case Australia is winning followed by Canada.
So, what does the winner get?
I actually go by gold medal count. Silver and bronze are good and all, but you only really win gold.
Absolutely. Silver is meerly a consolation prize given to the 1st loser, and bronze isn't even considered a precious metal.
"I wish these hard-working athletes got 'the real thing'," said Jon Nadler, a senior analyst at Kitco Bullion Dealers. "But the medals are worth more than their weight in gold anyway."
In 2004, Polish swimmer Otylia Jedrzejczak auctioned off her gold medal from the Athens Olympics for $82,599 and donated the money to a Polish charity helping children with leukemia. The Polish Mint made her a replica of her medal.
Not sure what that means, if anything, about who's actually "winning". But I just can't equate a gold in some sports with others. Ping pong and boxing, for instance, would be two sports where the medals don't seem to carry equal "weight".

You wanna say that to the table tennis players?![]()