Barozi said:
Mike_L said:
There is a ranking with only gold medals but why is that better? Expectations are often based (and success measured) on the total number of medals.
This is the ranking with gold medals per capita.
| Rank |
Country |
Gold Medals |
Population |
Population
per Gold Medal |
| 1 |
Grenada |
1 |
110,821 |
110,821 |
| 2 |
Bahamas |
1 |
353,658 |
353,658 |
| 3 |
Jamaica |
4 |
2,705,827 |
676,456 |
| 4 |
New Zealand |
6 |
4,432,620 |
738,770 |
| [...] |
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
Denmark |
2 |
5,580,516 |
2,790,258 |
| [...] |
|
|
|
|
| 28 |
United States |
46 |
313,382,000 |
6,812,652 |
|
1: Well the list is already wrong though as the only medal Grenada won was silver and not gold.
2: The official ranking isn't sorted by total medals either, so why should this?
|
1: They must have overlooked that Grenada's medal was of silver. Tbh I didn't notice either.
2: Don't know their reasoning. You could ask them. It's just a different way to meaningfully compare performances of large and small countries. So... why shouldn't it?
