I saw that ranking and I like the idea behind it, but why use all medals? They should remove the silver and bronze and do a population per gold medal instead

Britain did amazing for such a small country

There is a ranking with only gold medals but why is that better? Expectations are often based (and success measured) on the total number of medals.

This is the ranking with gold medals per capita.

No worries. Guessing a comment about the 1908 Olympics in which only 22 countries competed in London and we basically won everything? I wonder about that because yes, we did indeed do well in those Olympics but times have changed, the events have changed, any Olympics before WW2 really be counted? Can any before computerised time tracking? Odd thing to think about.

I have a question to the USA folk, you and others if need be, as I always wondered something. Sure the USA are interested in the Olympics but how much? I ask this as one of your greatest ever competitors in the Olympics, Michael Johnson (whose 400m record was broken at these Olympics) is part of the BBC athletics team and has been for years. Infact he awesome at this job and I wonder why he doesn't do said job for an American company? (The BBC coverage would be so much better if they got rid of Denise Richards, she knows nothing and adds nothing to the analysis of events.

Well the list is already wrong though as the only medal Grenada won was silver and not gold.

The official ranking isn't sorted by total medals either, so why should this?

they go their for a root or 100 so roots mate.

Not all that much, really, I don't think.  At least, where I live.  It's nothing at all like when it was the USA against the USSR and people were hanging onto every single contest where we had a chance at a medal.  I know in the last polls, interest had dipped a lot.

There is also an issue with representation, where almost half our team came from just five states.

croatia 10 medals 5 or 4 gold

One of our best performances!

Thanks, you're welcome.