Derris is right.
My display of zealous nationalism over the "results" of these Winter games was retarded.
By the way, when I googled that shit, this is what I found.
Quote:
"I believe each country will highlight what suits it best. One country will say, 'Gold medals.' The other country will say, 'The total tally counts.' We take no position on that."
—IOC President Jacques Rogge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_medal_tableAs the IOC does not consider its sorting of nations to be an official ranking system, various methods of ranking nations are used.
The gold first ranking system described above is used by most of the world media, as well as the IOC. However, in the United States it is more common to publish medal tables ordered by the total number of medals won,[8][9][10][11][12] although the gold first ranking has been used on occasion,[13][14] including in the official report of the 2002 Winter Olympics, the most recent Games held in the United States.[15] This difference in rankings has its origins in the early days of the Olympics, when the IOC did not publish or recognise medal tables.[2] Before 2008, the difference in ranking system received scant notice, since in recent Olympic history the country that led in total medals also led in the gold count. China and the U.S. bucked this trend at the 2008 Summer Olympics, topping the gold and total medal tallies respectively.[16] Other exceptions are the 1896, 1912 and 1964 Summer Olympics when the United States finished first in gold medal count but second in the overall medal count. In an August 24, 2008 news conference, IOC President Jacques Rogge confirmed that the IOC does not have a view on any particular ranking system.[7]
Another ranking system in use is the per-capita ranking, where the number of medals is divided by the population of the country.[17] However, using this ranking system, it is impossible for a country with a large population such as China or the United States to top the rankings.[18] In 2008 for example, China would have had to win 8,011 medals to have finished first, an impossible feat.[18]
Systematic rankings based upon a weighted point system with the most points awarded to a gold medal have also been devised. In 1908 the British press invented a ranking system based on tallying, awarding gold medals 5 points, silver medals 3 and bronzes 1.[16] In 2004, a system awarding 3 points to gold, 2 points to silver and 1 point to bronze was used by the Australian Geography Teachers Association.[19] In response to the 2008 controversy over medal rank, a New York Times article on the subject listed a points system, with 1 point awarded for every bronze medal won, 2 points for every silver medal, and 4 points for every gold medal won.[20] Using this measure, China was listed above the United States.[20]
