I’ve just seen a story about the booing and bottle throwing. Completely out of order, whoever was doing it.
1 Like
I agree. I have French friends and we take the mickey out of each other good-naturedly.
Unfortunately there are an awful lot of xenophobic brits.
1 Like
There are a heck of a lot of xenophobic French people!
2 Likes
To be fair, as far as I’m aware, US newspapers have always ordered it like this.
1 Like
Surely you have to reward winning, not consistent nearly-rans.
Ask an athlete, which would they prefer, 10 bronze/ silver or 1 gold.
I’d take 1 gold and I think a lot would too!
Same here. You only have to see the disappointed on the athletes face when they narrowly miss gold.
At least the Second Amendment that the all the MAGA crowd are so proud of is boosting their medal count
But they also measure things by lengths of football fields and other objects “It’s as big as 2 fridges”
Can confirm, would rather have the gold. 
Source: Was an athlete and got as far as the 2012 Olympic Trials for 200m
1 Like
So bearing in mind this is just a bit of fun, assigning points to Gold/Silver/Bronze a la football style, the top 20 would be slightly different:
Versus the official:
JUST FOR FUN.
1 Like
Much fairer method. R-
1 Like
Personally I think it should remain ordered by gold medals.
It’s not supposed to be balanced for the sake of fairness. You either won or you didn’t. 2nd and 3rd are runners up prizes. 
5 Likes
Also not sure if Olympics is fair. They don’t restart every time there is a cycling crash. And medals are lost even when crashes aren’t the person who loses outs fault. They have a card system but it doesn’t rectify consequences just (hopefully) prevents further issues.
You could say the same about most sports, including football. There’s a recognition on drawing a game there.
On the whole either system gives a similar outcome so gaining Gold is still very much the way to outrank other countries, but it just allows for (what I think) is a little more equity within the games.
It’s more noticeable further down, where you might get a country who for whatever reason do pretty well at a ton of sports and are completely beaten by one country who does one sport very well. I do think personally there’s a value in recognising that, and not just always the countries with the largest pockets able to fund a large variety of sports super well.
Anyway like I said, just a bit of fun, nothing to get too serious about. Even the IOC don’t actually have an official way of ranking - it’s entirely up to you how you do it.
In fact from 1908-1936 the official table was weighted (various points used including 5-3-2 points per medals awarded).
If anyone wants to have a deep dive into various methods, there was an excellent article in the Guardian:
1 Like