Only Good as Golds?

Blogs · Liveblogs · Capture Kansas · Widgets · Desktop Alert · In the Community · My Rewards · Contact Us

Home · Local · U.S. & World · Weather · Sports · Political · Money/Stocks · Blogs · Meet the Team · Jobs ·

Mr. Food Recipes · KS Prep Zone · Shopping Plaza · Classifieds · Coupons · Programming · 13 On Your Cell

Only Good as Golds?

Topic Author: Melissa Brunner

Posted: Aug 18, 2008

Replies Posted: 6 comments

Save

Email

Print

Yahoo

digg

Recent Blog Topics

Campaign Season Already?!

Career Change - What would you do?

The Kids Play with Their Christmas Gifts

Frosty Findings

New Year's Resolutions

Post Your Comments

Only Good as Golds?

Here's a discussion that's been going on in our newsroom and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. In the quest for Olympic domination, is it who wins the total medal count that matters or who wins the gold medal count? I say all medals matter - after all, you're among the top three in the world - even better if you have more than one person from your country among the top three! But others say it's being the best that proves you're the best. Still others suggest some sort of point system for each medal color, so that if you clean up on the silvers, you could still best a country that won a bunch of golds but nothing else. What do you think? And isn't this whole medal-count thing contrary to the Olympic spirit anyway?!

Posted by: BW Location: Seneca
The Olympics are about national pride, not what color or how many the US brings home. It's awesome the US is being so well represented by atheletes of great character. Hope the rest of the games go well for all the athletes!

Posted by: Don Location: Manhattan
Winning is important, but it must become secondary to striving to achieve personal goals. This is the cardinal principle for understanding motivation in sport: Athletes must see success in terms of achieving their own goals rather than surpassing the performances of others. {Rainer Martens} With Respect'

Posted by: Don Location: Junction City
If points are/were awarded for each type of medal, just like in Track & Field meets in high school, then an overall champion would be crowned. Also the competition for the GOLD would even out some and make the other medals more valuable. That would cause most of us to value the silver and bronze as much as the gold. Perhaps a 3,2,1 point system could/should be used in the next few years in lesser meets and then implemented in the 2012 Olympics if proved successful. This is something that the IOC needs to take a look at in their Winter meetings. Gold isn't the ONLY thing valued and shouldn't be in my mind!!

Posted by: Jan Location: Manhattan
I think it is the spirit that an athlete plays that counts because you have to have a pride in your country. I agree with you about the medal count being contrary to the Olympic spirit. But if we have to have a power it should be done on a point system with medals together. But then it makes me wonder about the countries that only send a handful of athletes. Is that fair to them?

Posted by: Connie Neiberger Location: Oskaloosa
I think that really the spirit in which you play the games is more inportant then the medal.. If an athlet gives his or her all that is what really counts.

Posted by: Bri Location: Emporia
I think the point system is a good way to make both ways of the medal count work together, but I do think that the Olympics are more about national pride than winning anyway.