But you were advocating for the equivalent of participation trophies. If 4 people show up, and there's four trophies, everyone gets one for participating.
When should everyone get a medal?
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
Hot Lunch
Master Black Belt
Personally, I have no problem with "participation trophies." Contrary to popular belief, they're not some new thing that was invented to placate "whiney Gen Z" children. Below is the 1896 Olympics Participation Medal:
If Olympic athletes from 1896 weren't above participation awards, then no one is. Once again, no issue with participation awards.
It's a problem when placement awards that were not designed for participation end up becoming de facto participation awards. People want to earn them; not get them just for showing up.
If Olympic athletes from 1896 weren't above participation awards, then no one is. Once again, no issue with participation awards.
It's a problem when placement awards that were not designed for participation end up becoming de facto participation awards. People want to earn them; not get them just for showing up.
HighKick
Master Black Belt
No, not at all. Three trophies, gold, silver, and bronze. I was very clear on that with the exception of the couple of years we tried something different and if failed spectacularly.
Isn't your analogy very different from a division with 25 people all getting a trophy?
Yes, it would stink to be the fourth guy in a four-person division (been there) but there is something to learn from it.
So if three people show up, all three get trophies? AKA they get trophies for participating?
I might seem like I'm being a nitpicky, but that happens fairly often. And from my experience it getting a bronze with two other people in my division certainly felt like a participation trophy. Actually felt worse.
HighKick
Master Black Belt
I am not sure I understand. Only one medal each. Never more. Yes, if it is only three people, all get a medal.
"If you are not first, you are last." Ricky Bobby.
J. Pickard
Brown Belt
This seems like a simple question to answer to me, but maybe I'm just old. If you place, then you get a medal. If you don't then you don't get a medal. It doesn't matter the number of competitors, do your best and train hard and if you do better than your opponents then you win. If you don't, then you go back and train harder to win next time.
HighKick
Master Black Belt
I don't follow. Two competitors mean one gold, one silver.
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?
Not in my opinion. He can't earn it in that situation - there's simply nobody for him to prove his stuff against to earn it. One guy gets to do that, and he gets the gold one.
But why?
HighKick
Master Black Belt
That is the number of competitors in a specific division. The winner of the match gets gold, the loser get silver. What other option is there?
HighKick
Master Black Belt
This should never happen if judging and scoring are done correctly (sans the 'everyone gets a medal' idea).
I think this would also fall under the "any given day" category.
Maybe you are having a good day and you competition was having a bad one. Maybe you simply 'got lucky'. Assuming everything else is correct and equal (rules, judging/scoring and such), sometimes it just works out that way.
If you are a competitor in a circuit where you have to compete at specific tournaments to accrue points, you will see or have this happen to you at some point. It almost always factors out in the end.
I think something's missing here. You are stating that the loser gets a medal if there's only 2 competitors, while also saying no one should get a medal if they do worse than all their competitors. These statements are in direct contradiction with each other.
Your sans part might be different, but I'm assuming that's referring to participation trophies, which you've already made clear you view as a separate thing.
That anyone who wins - or up to the 3 top competitors - gets one. Why should I get silver for being in last place, and besting nobody?
But that’s exactly what happens in the scenario in your other post: one competitor loses his only match, and gets silver. He has not done better than anyone.
HighKick
Master Black Belt
He has done 'worse' than the guy that got the gold.
HighKick
Master Black Belt
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.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
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.
The competitors do.
Why should gold get a medal for only beating one guy?
