>If you take, say, a decathlon, then the winner is the guy who did consistently well, maybe only coming 3rd in every event, and not necessarily being best in any. Now, if we say a gold medal is worth 3 points, a silver 2, and a bronze 1, then say one nation at the end had earned just 2 gold medals, and another 7 bronzes, which nation has a better sports record, ie which would come higher in the tables?
>
>I've often thought this when viewing the medal tables. I think the golds trump any no. of silvers then bronzes, but it doesn't seem right to me.
Depends upon how you define "Better" and that's really a personal preference
IMO.........2 Silvers is better than 1 Gold, but 2 Gold is better than 3 Silver.
How to factor in the Bronze?????
Don't know. 2 Silvers is better than 1 Gold, but 2 Bronze is not better than 1 Silver.
Seems as if the trick is to come with a weighting (5 3 1???? 5 4 1???? etc) to represent the relative values better
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only