The Soviet Union in 1976 won
13 Gold medals and 27 overall. Don't know how many of those were "Russia" medals though. There were fewer medals to win ( fewer events overall ) back then so it could be argued that it was more difficult however, there were also far fewer nations competing as well.
2002 Salt Lake, Norway Norway, 13 Gold medals. The US finished 3rd behind Germany.
The thing is... if you spend enough money on enough athletes you're more likely to have more podium finishes. Overall medal counts can arguably be easier to "buy".
Gold medal winners are much more difficult to nurture. It's much more difficult to nurture a spirit of championship.
The thing with Silver and and Bronze as they are arbitrary cut-off points. In some sports, the top 10 finishers are Champion caliber.
Look at Hockey. There are probably 4 fantastic teams this year that deserve recognition.
Women's Figure skating there are 3 or 4 champion-level skaters. ( Though it could be argued that it was really a battle between Asada, the technically more difficult overall program and Yuna with her clean and effortless style in an almost as difficult program ).
Gold medallists are unique in that they sit on the top of the pile. Usually ( not always ) the best athlete who can also not crack under pressure does win.
Any opinions on what it is easier to "buy"? Gold medals or Overall medals?
The problem is that we can't do a Gold medal + honorable mentions ( which change depending on the results ) because it would be completely subjective.
Remember the look on the American Women's faces when they won Silver?
Remember Plushenko's face with Silver?
Mao Asada?
etc. etc.
Threaded Mode