Friday, 3 August 2012

A fairer basis for Olympic Medals table: Weighted point count

An Australian swimmer is devastated that he "only" got a Silver medal.  A Chinese breaks down because he has "let down his nation", because he "only" got Silver.  Bloggers everywhere, including China, are decrying the obsession with Gold.  Of course no athlete wants to be second.  But the handwringing, the tears at not getting Gold, are in large part because of the scoring system, the Medals table at the Official Olympic site, no less, where all that really counts is Gold.
But given that so many of these Golds are won by the slimmest of margins, why do we so diminish the achievement of Silver and Bronze.
There's a simple solution and I don't know why we don't see more (or indeed anything) written about it.
Score countries by points, based on the weighted average of Gold, Silver and Bronze. Gold = 3 points, Silver = 2 points and Bronze = 2 point.
If we ranked our medal table on that simple -- and I would argue, fairer -- system, the results up to close of business last night are:

By contrast the official Medal table is:

Declaration of interest: I'm not American, so I have no agenda to get the USA to the top of the list.  But who could argue that it's fairer for the US to be (just) in front of China, with three more medals overall and equal number of Golds.  Equally, what's to argue about in putting Australia (total medals 11) in front of South Africa (total 3).

This would mean that a Silver medallist would know that s/he's helped the country by 2 points, rather than feeling that s/he's left the country down by not achieving Gold, the only medal that counts, the way the table is now constructed....