wouldn't the proper way be to assign point values per medal: 5 for gold, 3 for silver, 1 for bronze (or whatever). winning a gold would rank higher than winning a few bronze medals.
but that raises the question: is being the world's best in one competition more of an accomplishment than being really good in a number of competitions?
Well I personally that a system such as that makes more sense. At the moment if you have two countries and the first has ten golds in total, but the other country has nine golds, eighty-three silvers and, four hundred and twenty five bronze ones, then the first one would rank higher in the table of ultimate athletic achievement, which to my mind is utterly ludicrous and makes a mockery of the whole thing from top to bottom, totally devaluing all of the medals and meaning that the event is a shocking disgrace and an insult to the word sport.
Whereas, what the Americans did in suddenly changing the system that they used to score it so that it was different from the one that everyone else was using but which had the crucial advantage of moving them back to the top, is an absolutely hilarious hissy-fit worthy of Trump himself, in fact it's more like the Reagan administration reclassifying tomato sauce as a vegetable - apparently if they can't win under the new system they are looking at either reclassifying fourth places as medals or possibly reclassifying Chinese athletes as American, whatever it will take to stop the steal. Either way the US has disgraced itself in the most embarrassing of ways, making a mockery of every ideal they wee supposed to stand for and reducing every single person from that country to worthless scum I'm sorry to say Leo, nothing personal I am sure you understand.