A fair medal table

One of the minor pleasures of these Olympics is watching GB climb steadily up the medal table until they are, at the time of writing, third.

However what is a fair medal table?

Most countries (ok ok ALL countries bar one!) and the IOC have a gold centred system with the order being rankings by gold then, within gold, silver and finally bronze. This can produce serious iniquities: to take an extreme example, should a country that has won, say 1 gold be ranked higher than a country that has won, say 10 silvers?

For instance, at present, Hungary has won 4 silvers and a bronze and is ranked below Tunisia which has won a solitary gold.

The US (and ONLY the US) have a total medals system where countries are ordered by the total number of medal won. Now, of course, this also can have anomalies: it would be crazy to consider that a country winning 51 bronze medals would be ahead of a country that wins 50 golds. But that is their way and at present it keeps them at the top of the medals table (surprise! surprise!)

So what is a fair medal table?

I don't think anyone would doubt that winning gold deserves higher ranking that winning a bronze so I have given each one a value, gold=3,silver=2 and bronze=1 so we have Bonetired's Olympic medal table .....

Country	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Points
China	39	14	14	159
USA	22	24	26	140
Australia	11	10	12	65
Russia	8	13	15	65
GB	13	7	8	61

However, I cannot see it catching on ...

Puts the Aussies above us ...

So gold=6, silver=2 and bronze=1 would do the trick......