I do not know why, but in the unspoken Olympic medal ranking, the ratings are made exclusively for gold medals (see the attached file for the arrangement of countries at the Rio de Janeiro Olympics). Even the total number of medals is not taken into account. So, China, which won 70 medals, is only in the third place, behind the UK, which has 67 medals. Only because the UK has one more gold medal.

     I consider this principle of ranking wrong.

     It is not right that silver and bronze medals are completely ignored in it. This means that we should not take into account the victories (though not the gold ones) of our remarkable athletes, such as Vassiliy Levit, Yeldos Smetov, Zhazira Zhapparkul, Adilbek Niyazymbetov and others.

     Long, exhausting labor, blood and sweat of athletes were just crossed out.

     Is this fair?

     I think that it is more correct to take into account all medals in the team rating, but to evaluate them differentially. For example, consider a gold medal as three points, silver as two, bronze as one. Then all the medals, albeit to varying degrees, will multiply the country’s total score in the overall ranking.

     I altered the table according to this principle, and this is what happened (see the second table in the same file).

     The lower part of the first ten has changed a lot. France overtook Japan and rose to the 6th place. South Korea slid from the 8th place to the 10th. But most importantly, Kazakhstan rose one step ahead of the Uzbek brothers. I think that’s fair. Yes, they have one more gold medal. Just one. But we have three more silver medals and two bronze medals. In the overall standings, no doubt, we must stand a step higher.

     So I congratulate all of us with the 21st place in the team medal standings!

     P.S. In fact, the above rating is unofficial. It is not on the website of the International Olympic Committee. But there is an unofficial medal ranking (at least, Google shows it on demand). Someone makes it every time and always counts only gold medals. We must put an end to this and introduce a new, correct calculation! )))

Comments: 0