Obviously the gold medalist is the happiest being the winner, but that's not the question. Isn't the bronze medalist happier cause they're happy to just medal where as the silver medalist is less happy cause they just missed being the gold medalist?
Interesting consideration. I'm sure there are several aspects to this including the possibility that the silver medalist was originally ranked fourth but had the event of their lifetime. In this way, the silver medalist is possibly happier than the Gold medalist and the Bronze medalist is annoyed to have lost to someone ranked beneath them.
I agree with Tony... it's probably different on a case-by-case basis. For example, i play in a Billiards league. If i'm playing someone who's ranked worse than me, winning doesn't feel like such a victory. Someone who's close to me, and it feel pretty good... If i beat someone much higher than me (like i did last night, the highest ranked guy in the league and i destroyed him, too), it's the best night of the season! Obviously, in that case there's just a winner and loser, but I think it extends to your case as well, when your personal expectations come into play - beating your expectations feels great, meeting them feels good, and missing them feels like crap.
This. From personal experience ... I was the top seed in two consecutive track meets a long long time ago. I won the first meet and was thrilled. Not just because I won, but because I ran a personal best AND justified my ranking. The next meet I finished 3rd and was not happy. Not because I came in 3rd, but because I ran far slower than I expected to. I'd think most athletes (in individual sports like swimming or track, anyway) would tell you that performing at or above your expectations, regardless of finish, will feel better than performing below your expectations and losing.
