A gold will always be infinitely more than a billion silvers, That's just how it works.

Everyone knows if they want to be ranked higher, they need to step up their game. 

The system is not broken.

If it makes you feel better, pretend a gold is worth 10,000 points a silver 100 points and bronze 1

that just makes no sense. i know that this is the system but it just makes no sense. it is destroying the worth of a second and third place hugely. the second and third place are worth almost nothing because of that system. no clue how someon can think a system which makes even the second place almost worthless is a good system just because they had this system alrady 100 years or so ago and won't change it. if we would have a point system for 100 years now no one would think a country with one fiorst place should rank higher than a country with 30 second places. i'm pretty sure you would also think that is a bad idea if you wouldn't know this system since you live. you are just used to it.

if someone really believes north kore was better these olympics than russia he has to have seen other olympic games than i saw but their place is saying exactly that, north korea was better until now^^

if we would have that system outside of the olympics, let's say one win and 49 losses in football would be better than 50 draws everyone would think the guy who believes that is crazy.

But...isn't that the point of the competition? First place is what everyone wants no? This is the height of competition, not a bunch of 9yr olds on Sport's day.

The old rules used to be "Gold of get the fuzz out" because that was what everyone wanted until they eventually introduced silver and bronze.

I've said it once before, I'll say it again.

ask ANY athlete what colour they REALLY want and they will all say Gold. If you start count silvers and bronze as the equal to Gold then Gold becomes meaningless and we might as well go back to the "gold or get the fuzz out" years, because that's esscentially what you are asking for.

who said you should count it equally? no one said it. gold is undoubtfully the most important medal and this wouldn't change if you would say gold get's as much points for the medal ranking than thee or four silver medals. NO athlete would have a problem with that. no gold winner would think "ohh no only 3x as much worth as the second place". it would change nothing except that countries won't get a higher rank who had maybe luck with one athlete jumping 1cm further than someone else from a country with 10 more athletes all winning silver in different sports.

and no, it is olympics, if the point of the olympics would be that just the first place is good we would see not 10k, we would see 500 athletes. great that the nations don't see it like that and send even people to that knowing they won't win gold. bad that countries don't get more respect for that decision giving at least second and third places a worth.

You are saying a country with 15 bronze should be above a country with only 2 golds...that's counting them equally...

Ask any athlethe who has won 5 or more bronze in a row, they will tell you they now want a Silver and would happily trade all their bronze for a silver.

Ask any athlethe who has won 5 or more silvers in a row, they will tell you they now want a gold and would happily trade all their silvers for a gold.

You used Russia in your example. Considering they used to top tables by winning a stupid amount of golds in previous olympics, do you think they are happy with only 3 golds? but stuck with more bronze and silvers than they can shake a stick at? No, they will be focused on that Gold tally and be upset it's so low.

no they aren't happy with only 3 gold because nothing else is worth anything with that system. that's what i always talk about. if you give silver and bronze a higher worth, athletes and countries winning that could be even more happy about that and someone winning gold would be still as happy as he was beofre. all it would change is that it would make more people more happy. omg damn that sounds bad.

i seriously don't get why we shouldn't make more people happy about their places without making the first one less happy.

and even with a point system i think an athlete would prefer 1 gold more than 10 silver but we would see better which country was really good. with the medal count we get unrealistic rankings.

it is olympics, if the point of the olympics would be that just the first place is good we would see not 10k, we would see 500 athletes. great that the nations don't see it like that and send even people to that knowing they won't win gold. bad that countries don't get more respect for that decision giving at least second and third places a worth.

They are happy with the Silver and Bronze but they want the gold, why? Because the gold is worth more.

It's like winning the lottery with 4/6 numbers, whilst you are happy with your 4 numbers, you can't help but feel you could have won 5/6 and the same for 6/6, therefore more money.

That's how this works.

If we give everyone who gets 4/6 numbers the same amount of money as those who get 6/6, then we might as well give people who got 1/6 because "that's fairer."

Well done Murray, s gold and silver, and that gives us 2 golds, 3 silver's and a Bronze for today!

Good job guys!

I know I shouldn't but I really want to boo Dwayne Chambers

And there is no confusion with the medals rankings. You don't like it, tough luck.

The gold is the ONLY medal. The others are consolation prizes and thus should not be counted.