There’s been a lively discussion, here and elsewhere, about which version of the medals table is a better way of ranking countries’ achievements at the Olympics.

Reuters goes with the “gold standard”, if you like, which has put China out in front almost from the start. Other, mainly American outlets go with the “total number of medals” tally that puts the U.S. on top.

It’s been interesting to hear so many different points of view, and suggestions for different, weighted systems of formatting the table (see the original piece here).

A lot of people like the idea of different points for gold, silver and bronze, while I’ve enjoyed the notion of combining that weighting system with a per capita bias. That was suggested to me by Greg Stutchbury, a colleague from New Zealand, and it worked out that top of the medals table would be New Zealand. Strange, that.

Still, we’re sticking with the gold standard and on that basis I can tell you that China are now assured of first place. Greg has done the maths and as of this morning the U.S. can no longer catch the hosts. There are still enough medals up for grabs, but the U.S. are not in contention in enough of the events to make up the ground (see the table to the right of this page for the up-to-date tally).

So congratulations China. It is a mighty achievement, given that they did not win a single Olympic gold medal until 1984. It just shows what a massive population and absolute dedication to a goal can achieve.

PHOTO: Zhang Yining of China kisses her gold medal after defeating compatriot Wang Nan in the women’s singles table tennis final at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games August 22, 2008. REUTERS/Joe Chan

Americans looking at the medals table to the right of this blog, or on the official Games website, might be surprised to see the host country topping the chart with 39 gold medals and 68 in total.

The New York Times website, meanwhile, has the United States on top with a chart-leading 73 medals in total, 23 of them gold.

We at Reuters rank nations by the number of golds. It’s the way the IOC does it and, according to Reuters sports editor Paul Radford, it’s the way that makes most sense.

Here’s what Paul had to say when I asked him about it:

Reuters serves international clients across the whole world and most of them want their medals tables prioritised by gold medals. It seems that it is mainly North America which takes a different attitude and where the total number of medals is the criterion used.

I can’t see the logic of the total medals system at all. That means giving the same value to a bronze medal as you would to a gold. If you look at the expression on athletes’ faces as they just finish second or third, it’s often one of disappointment that they did not get gold and the chance to call themselves Olympic champions; it’s less often delight at being a silver or bronze medallist unless they started as rank outsiders.

Some people say the silver medallist is the first of the losers. I think that’s a bit harsh personally but you can take the point. Look at it another way. If Michael Phelps had won six golds and two silvers, would anyone have described that as a greater achievement than Mark Spitz’s seven-gold medal haul? The answer is clearly not.

So we’ll stick to the logical order of running our table in gold medals order. If that puts China first and the United States second, then so be it. Our aim is to be objective and favour no nation above any other.

Do you agree? Let us know in the comments.

PHOTO: A combination photo shows Michael Phelps of the U.S. holding each of his eight gold medals in the swimming competition at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. REUTERS/Staff