3 ms·

I think you stumbled on a great idea! Ranking each country by the sum of the normalised reciprocal of their placements in events. I think that would be pretty

I think you stumbled on a great idea! Ranking each country by the sum of the normalised reciprocal of their placements in events. I think that would be pretty cool. Ranking by gold or ranking by total medals in my mind remain terrible ways to rank.

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Again, silver and bronze are consolation prizes, so extrapolating even further from there is a fool's errand. Some sports (including most of the team sports) don't even allow countries to field multiple entries, with the strong implication that those other places don't matter. Tournament-based sports at the Olympics don't even bother to define a ranking after fourth, and many sporting events outside the Olympics don't even bother determining ranking after second and only go as far as second because it's needed to determine who is first.
- jszymborski 5y ago
  To quote the Big L, "that's just, like, your opinion man". I, for one, think we do an incredible disservice to the athletes that perform to not acknowledge other places. When an athlete manages to beat an Olympic or World record and comes in second by a hair, I think its pretty silly to state "other places don't matter". First place is better than second is better than 8th is better than 11th. If these places didn't matter, why would we bother keeping record of standings? I just don't get the "Gold or last" mentality.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    Because that way of thinking encourages sending hundreds, thousands, or millions of competitors and because (as shown by sports that don't allow one country to win multiple medals) the organizers of the sports don't think those other places matter either. We don't try to determine the world rankings of people who failed to qualify for the Olympics, nor should we try to determine the rankings of teams that fail to qualify from group play into elimination rounds of the Olympics, nor should we try to rank teams that are eliminated from elimination rounds that haven't played each other. They're top athletes, but the point of each Olympic sport is to determine the best. Any additional ranking computed beyond that is purely arbitrary.
- getlawgdon 5y ago
  If you think a silver at the olys is a "consolation prize" then you have never spent a moment in any type of real athletic competition, let alone been among the best of the best on the planet.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    The level of competition does not change the definition of the phrase. If you think it does, you have never used a dictionary before, let alone understood my comments.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

Again, silver and bronze are consolation prizes, so extrapolating even further from there is a fool's errand. Some sports (including most of the team sports) don't even allow countries to field multiple entries, with the strong implication that those other places don't matter. Tournament-based sports at the Olympics don't even bother to define a ranking after fourth, and many sporting events outside the Olympics don't even bother determining ranking after second and only go as far as second because it's needed to determine who is first.

jszymborski 5y ago
To quote the Big L, "that's just, like, your opinion man". I, for one, think we do an incredible disservice to the athletes that perform to not acknowledge other places. When an athlete manages to beat an Olympic or World record and comes in second by a hair, I think its pretty silly to state "other places don't matter". First place is better than second is better than 8th is better than 11th. If these places didn't matter, why would we bother keeping record of standings? I just don't get the "Gold or last" mentality.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Because that way of thinking encourages sending hundreds, thousands, or millions of competitors and because (as shown by sports that don't allow one country to win multiple medals) the organizers of the sports don't think those other places matter either. We don't try to determine the world rankings of people who failed to qualify for the Olympics, nor should we try to determine the rankings of teams that fail to qualify from group play into elimination rounds of the Olympics, nor should we try to rank teams that are eliminated from elimination rounds that haven't played each other. They're top athletes, but the point of each Olympic sport is to determine the best. Any additional ranking computed beyond that is purely arbitrary.
getlawgdon 5y ago
If you think a silver at the olys is a "consolation prize" then you have never spent a moment in any type of real athletic competition, let alone been among the best of the best on the planet.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  The level of competition does not change the definition of the phrase. If you think it does, you have never used a dictionary before, let alone understood my comments.