the US measure their rank by total medals. if this was the first time they reported this way i would have said they are bitter, but since they've done this for a while i dont see anything wrong with it. the IOC reports it both ways. of course one country will promote the one showing them on top.
and for those arguing about a points system, the difference between gold and silver could be a hundredth of a second. why should that gold be worth 20 and the silver be worth 5?
also, people forget that china and the US had many athletes that finished nowhere near the top 3. so what i propose is taking all the race times won, sets/goals/points/ranks scored, wieghts lifted, distance jumped/thrown, etc by every competitor, averaging them or weighting them somehow and then figuring out which country did better overall. u would probably have a country like tunisia out in front by far.
and for those arguing about a points system, the difference between gold and silver could be a hundredth of a second. why should that gold be worth 20 and the silver be worth 5?
also, people forget that china and the US had many athletes that finished nowhere near the top 3. so what i propose is taking all the race times won, sets/goals/points/ranks scored, wieghts lifted, distance jumped/thrown, etc by every competitor, averaging them or weighting them somehow and then figuring out which country did better overall. u would probably have a country like tunisia out in front by far.
