and some go by total medals it just dpends which one you look at
The medal count system was actually developed by US newspapers, I believe back in the 1930s. There is a strange story behind it.
Before coming out with the medal count, US newspapers used a scoring system similar to track meets. For example gold was worth about 10 points, silver 9, bronze 8, 4th 7, and so on down to 1 point for 10th place. That sold American newspapers, as the US dominated using that system.
As it was, other nations began to catch up, even though the US was winning a good amount of medals. Casual sports fans were not too interested in the Olympics unless the US was winning (something similar to today) big, so not as many papers would be sold.
To cut off all those athletes from other nations who weren't in the top 3, the newspapers replaced the old scoring system with the medal count. Once again American athletes dominated the statistics, and paper sales increased.
That later came back to bite the US, as they eventually would have done better had the old track-meet style of scoring been kept. Sill, it seems the medal count is here to stay.
I personally think the track-meet style is a much more accurate measure.
The usual answer given by us non-Yanks is that it allows you to be top of the table, but given you also use it when it keeps you off the top that seems flawed.
Both ways of doing it are ridiculously flawed, though as it's of zero importance really it doesn't matter. In the US way a country with 11 bronzes ranks about one with 10 golds, which is ridiculous, 10 golds is a better achievement than 11 bronzes. In the other way a country with 20 silvers and 20 bronzes would rank below one with a single gold, which is equally ridiculous, 40 medals is a better achievement than 1.
I suppose the US way is closer to the Olympic ideal that it's the taking part that matters as it recognises all medals equally, but then, the other way is closer to the reality that it's the gold people care about. I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of it. But like I said, it's of no real importance, the Olympics are about competition in individual events and the IOC forbid official rankings of countries. Medal tables are just for interest, so pick the way that interests you most.
There is no official medal count order by the IOC. The US has always counted total medals, the rest of the world counts golds first, then silver, then bronze
They dont, its really total wins but gold medals are tiebreak. The U.S has the outright lead by like 7-8 i think.
As long as I can remember, the USA has given credit to their silver and bronze medalists by counting total medals. I think the total medal count is great, plus is pisses off the crybabies and whiners that get mad the USA doesn't count the say way they do, that's just a big ol' bonus.
It doesn't depend on country, it goes by the reporting agency.
The official London 2012 website lists it by gold medals, and so do any local news reports where I live (Los Angeles).
There is only one winner, the silver and bronze are consolation prizes. You can have all the silver and bronze but you still do not have a winner if there is no Gold.
Sometimes the ways we do things are different. We drive on the right side of the street. We don't use metric system. We use Fahrenheit instead of Celsius. Etc. We like it our ways. But what the heck. We don't mind if the rest of the world does not follow us. But we do mind when people try to force us to be like them.
Because we want the accomplishments of the Silver and Bronze medalists recognized too and to count for something.
lol @ Simon, it's been used since before Beijing, the world just didn't take notice until 2008
Why do other contries count gold medals, but US count total medals?
(up until yesterday, China had more gold medals than USA, but less overall medals)
so everywhere else China had #1 and US was #2
but in the USA, it was reversed
American media have done it that way since I was a kid (in the 70s)
The US were dirty about being beaten in the 2008 games so they changed the counting system for propaganda purposes. They should get over it, they used to get their asses whipped by the USSR and East Germany and look where they ended up...
because they're pathetic.
