When should everyone get a medal?

[Hot Lunch]

Why should gold get a medal for only beating one guy?

Criteria for gold:
1. You beat someone
2. No one beats you

Criteria for silver:
1. You beat someone
2. Only gold beats you

Criteria for bronze:
1. You beat someone
2. Only silver and gold beat you

 

[drop bear]

Criteria for gold:
1. You beat someone
2. No one beats you

Criteria for silver:
1. You beat someone
2. Only gold beats you

Criteria for bronze:
1. You beat someone
2. Only silver and gold beat you

No. If you beat one person you should get bronze.

You need to beat at least 3 people to get gold

Or you didn't earn it.

 

[Hot Lunch]

No. If you beat one person you should get bronze.

You need to beat at least 3 people to get gold

Or you didn't earn it.

There's just one problem with this. If there's only two participants, the winner can't be third place - which is what bronze is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

He has done 'worse' than the guy that got the gold.

OK. …?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think I get what you are saying, but the person who gets silver did compete. Even though it was only one match, there was a competition, so there is a placement for each competitor.

If you want to go all the way down the rabbit trail, I have seen competitors get gold when only one person shows up. We do not do it that way.

Yeah, I understand that’s the reasoning. I just don’t agree. If I win no matches, I’d expect to win no medals.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because that was the deal made before the competition. If the organisers can't get 4 guys to compete. Then they don't deserve a medal.

Nobody’s talking about giving medals for running a competition, so that looks like a strawman.

The competitors do.

I disagree, in the case of a competitor who doesn’t manage to win.

Why should gold get a medal for only beating one guy?

In that case, at least gold bested everyone else in the division. Gotta draw the line somewhere, and with so many competitions having small divisions, it makes sense you’d often have folks medaling on only one or two matches.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No. If you beat one person you should get bronze.

You need to beat at least 3 people to get gold

Or you didn't earn it.

An interesting stance. That could be reasonably argued. I don’t know I’d agree, though.

 

[_Simon_]

I have been so darn confused the whole time reading this thread.

I'd be happy to just take bronze and leave...

 

[HighKick]

Yeah, I understand that’s the reasoning. I just don’t agree. If I win no matches, I’d expect to win no medals.

But you did show up, hopefully did your best to compete, and paid the tournament fees.
I totally get the sentiment and have been there more than a few times. I guess my best answer is to not show up for the medals, but to do your best and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[J. Pickard]

That goes to one of the points going about in this thread: what if you don't do better than your competitors, but still get a rank medal?

in what way? Like biased judging or just too few people in your division? If it's the latter, then anyone competing knows that if they got 3rd out of 3 or 2nd out of 2 then they got last place. Still seems simple to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

in what way? Like biased judging or just too few people in your division? If it's the latter, then anyone competing knows that if they got 3rd out of 3 or 2nd out of 2 then they got last place. Still seems simple to me.

It's the latter. Yes, they know they got last. To me, though, it doesn't make sense to award any medal to someone who doesn't do better than anyone. The medal is meaningless, at best.

Mind you, I'm completely on board with what I'd refer to as "commemorative awards" - things that are given simply for successfully participating in an event. They're nice mementos, and I have several. But if I went to a mud run and joined the competitive wave (many of them have those) and turned out to be the only over-50 competitor, I wouldn't expect to receive the gold medal for my class. I'd be happier if they said they'd use my time in the next younger class, or even the open class, to see if I'd place.

I'm sure there are some folks who would be upset about not receiving a medal if they were one of 3 competitors, even if they lost to both of the others. But I also don't really care. That feels like the same vibe as folks who gather meaningless MA ranks and "honors" and use them to talk themselves up. A competitive person is most likely driven either by the competition, itself, or by the prize/symbol given as a result of besting others in competition. I seriously doubt there'd be any substantial number of people complaining if a ruleset was used where you had to win against someone in order to receive any rank medal.

 

[HighKick]

It's the latter. Yes, they know they got last. To me, though, it doesn't make sense to award any medal to someone who doesn't do better than anyone. The medal is meaningless, at best.

Mind you, I'm completely on board with what I'd refer to as "commemorative awards" - things that are given simply for successfully participating in an event. They're nice mementos, and I have several. But if I went to a mud run and joined the competitive wave (many of them have those) and turned out to be the only over-50 competitor, I wouldn't expect to receive the gold medal for my class. I'd be happier if they said they'd use my time in the next younger class, or even the open class, to see if I'd place.

I'm sure there are some folks who would be upset about not receiving a medal if they were one of 3 competitors, even if they lost to both of the others. But I also don't really care. That feels like the same vibe as folks who gather meaningless MA ranks and "honors" and use them to talk themselves up. A competitive person is most likely driven either by the competition, itself, or by the prize/symbol given as a result of besting others in competition. I seriously doubt there'd be any substantial number of people complaining if a ruleset was used where you had to win against someone in order to receive any rank medal.

I can't think of a tournament I have been to where only one person showed up for a division to compete. Maybe in an older adult division That is the only scenario I can think of that would qualify for your "doesn't do better than anyone" assertion.
I do get the idea though. As a competitor, you want to compete. Whether than is 1 or 100. But unless you have a good way of knowing who is showing up for a tournament, it is just luck of the draw to me. Usually, for regionals or circuits you can get a good idea of your competition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can't think of a tournament I have been to where only one person showed up for a division to compete. Maybe in an older adult division That is the only scenario I can think of that would qualify for your "doesn't do better than anyone" assertion.
I do get the idea though. As a competitor, you want to compete. Whether than is 1 or 100. But unless you have a good way of knowing who is showing up for a tournament, it is just luck of the draw to me. Usually, for regionals or circuits you can get a good idea of your competition.

Look back early in this thread. I wasn’t the one who brought up the idea of there being so few competitors that everyone got a medal.