Please Explain...

[Jackdaw33]

I might be being thick here, but that's not unusual. Just been looking at the Olympics medal table. I see that GB are second with 55 medals and China are third with 57. There must be some sort of points allocation for different types but I can't figure it out.

[waterboatman]

It's the number of gold medals that counts Jack.

[Jackdaw33]

I see! Thanks.

[ABerrant]

Total medal count is irrelevant.

First priority is total number of Gold.

If equal on Gold, then highest number of Silver.

If also equal on Silver, then highest number of Bronze.

If

[ubasses]

the silver and bronze are only taken into account when more than 1 country have the same number of gold.

[Jackdaw33]

All is becoming clearer. Thanks all.

[waterboatman]

You're welcome. :o}

[trt]

But Europe lead the medal charts, because it says so here, and you have to believe the Express?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/701448/Rio-2016-Olympics-European-Union-EU-Brexit-Ukip

[jno]

as ABerrant says. However, the USA just counts the total number of medals, so they think China is coming second

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/

[ABerrant]

"The only way the EU would win in a race is if there was a big pot of taxpayers' cash at the finish line."

Classic!

[Jackdaw33]

You couldn't make it up.

[Old_Geezer]

♪ It's not unusual to be... ♫

I'd have thought a Jackdaw would be well versed in the ways of bright shiny objects.

[jim360]

Some particularly stats-mad people might care to operate a 4-2-1 points system, or some such. It doesn't matter. By any measure, whether we are second or third in the medal table, it has been a wonderful Olympics for Great Britain.

[New Judge]

Yes, combining the medal tally for all 28 nations is but the thin end of a very thick wedge. This is amongst the delusions of grandeur that the Euromaniacs have. It may only be sport it’s also only the beginning.

“The website [which produced the table on behalf of the EU] agreed that the table was not quite fair on countries outside the EU.”

Er…you could say that. It's not too clever for those within it either.

On a far more serious note I read a suggestion somewhere that instead of Silver and Bronze medals being used as “tie breakers” to produce the table a points system (3 for Gold, 2 for Silver, 1 for Bronze) might be used instead. Examining the current table the only difference this would make to the top eight is that Germany would be relegated to fifth with Russia moving up to fourth.

[ichkeria]

"http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/701448/Rio-2016-Olympics-European-Union-EU-Brexit-Ukip"

Surely this is not the same Tom Parfitt who used to write for the Times.
Has he had a lobotomy if so?
"Team GB, which is ranked second in the actual table with 50 medals including 19 golds, does not appear on the EU's table at all."

Er, maybe that is because GB's medals are included in the EU total? Just a thought

[jim360]

"Combining the medal tally for all 28 nations ... is amongst the delusions of grandeur that the Euromaniacs have. It may only be sport it’s also only the beginning."

That may be so, but then so is this equally deluded attempt to link the GB team's performance as a sign of how good Brexit is, some have tried to claim...

https://twitter.com/DavidHadley1973/status/764908030345478148?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[HansUrbancka]

The EU does Not have a single team in the Olympics.

So the list produced on its behalf is rubbish.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/701448/Rio-2016-Olympics-European-Union-EU-Brexit-Ukip

Hans.

[Jackdaw33]

Subtract GB's total from the EU one and then see how they stand!

[1ozzy]

Who really gives a rats *** ;-)

[Jackdaw33]

No-one actually. All I wanted to know was how the table was worked out.

[New Judge]

"That may be so, but then so is this equally deluded attempt to link the GB team's performance as a sign of how good Brexit is, some have tried to claim..."

Quite agree, Jim. Utter nonsense.

"Subtract GB's total from the EU one and then see how they stand!"

The EU would stiill be top (56 Golds, or thereabouts)