Which country has the best winning record for amount of competitions they have entered? For instance, if Vanuatu(a very small and relatively unheard-of country) sent it’s first Olympic athelete to a competetion and she won a gold medal, their winning average would be 100%.
What country has the highest?
I checked out a few websites, including the official IOC site, and couldn’t find anything with the figures you’re after. A good site for how many medals have been won by each country since the beginning of the modern Olympics can be found here, but in terms of numbers of athletes they only give games totals and do not break it down by country.
Also, you might need to refine your criteria a bit. You would not only need to know how many athletes competed, but also how many total events they entered. To use your own example, if Vanuatu’s single athlete entered one event and won one gold medal, that would be 100%, but if s/he entered three events and won one gold, shouldn’t that be counted at 33.33%? Also, are you only concerned with golds, or is there a sliding scale for silver and bronze?
The most common way of working out relative Olympic success that i have seen used in the past is to compare the number of medals won to the population of the country. I can’t remember who comes out on top in this list (in his book Sunburnt Country Bill Bryson suggests that it would be Australia, but even though i’m an Aussie i’m not sure about that), and i don’t have any links to such information. Sorry.
Liechtenstein is the smallest country to have a gold medalist (it was in skiing in 1976), so it’s a potential leader.
However, I agree that you need to work on the math.
Tonga had a silver medalist in 1996 (boxing), but Liechtenstein beats it in both medal achieved and smaller population (102,321 to 32,207). However, it may not have sent as many people because Liechtenstein is richer (thereby allowing it to train athletes better) and geographically closer to the games.
For an olympic superlative I present Cuba, which won one gold medal at Sydney 2000 for each million people of their population, a truly superior performance which no other nation could match.
Uhh, Tonga got 1 per 100,000 in '96, Liechtenstein got 1 per 30,000 in '76. Sorry to disappoint El Presidente.
Should there be a minimum entry number here? You know, like a baseball pitcher has to throw a certain number of innings before being in the running for best ERA, or a batter has to have a certain number of ‘at bats’? Should we say that a country has to have more than ‘x’ medals, or have competed in more than ‘y’ events? I’m not saying this must be done, only offering it as a suggestion.
And i was also under the impression that the OP wanted a more long-range historical picture that would give averages back to 1896. Is this the case, or are we looking for best performance in an individual Olympiad? And speaking of Olympiads, what about the winter ones? Counting them would surely knock out places like Australia, Cuba, and Tonga, although probably not Lichtenstein.
I am surprised that someone somewhere has not calculated this out before. I’m sure there must be some data on the net somewhere.
Um, sounds like a good idea, especially if it is to lend the element of fairness to the scoring, as it is in baseball. But should it matter? Smaller countries enter less competitions and therefore are limited to a smaller number of wins, but that does not necessarily mean a lower winning average. Are you saying that just because there are only so many gold medals and so many Americans(for example) that we are bound to have a lower winning average just because we compete in more events? Sounds reasonable.
Most assuredly. AFAIAC, a gold medal is a gold medal.
No, I would like to know the total of all Olympiads.
Back to the old “a gold medal is a gold medal” thing. Those countries who don’t compete in the Winter Olympics don’t have to worry about losing and messing up their average.
Honestly, I can’t really think about sliding scales right now. I spent all day in the sun and I’m dog tired. I’ll sleep on it.
Obviously Greece. Most of the original records have been lost but there is no doubt that we still have quite a bit of catching up to do.
Another consideration is which events to count.
In the early Olympiads, especially Paris 1900, and to a lesser extent St Louis 1904, there were many events associated with the games, such as singing, dancing, etc. Most events other than Athletics(Track & Field) have been omitted from the records. But is it fair to leave those out, but include synchronized swimming, or even chess, bridge, or [motor boating](http://www.chu-rouen.fr/jo/suppr.html#MOTOR BOATINGTOTAL)?
The hardest part of this whole endeavor is determining how many athletes competed for each country in each Olympics. The records are probably pretty good from 1948 to the present, but the Athens, Paris, St. Louis, and London games were all a mess.
The St. Louis games took place over several months during the World’s Fair and no one was ever quite sure what was an Olympic event and what wasn’t. And very few countries attended that Olympics.
It wasn’t until 1912 did the Olympics achieve a modicum of order. The world needed Scandinavians to whip everyone in to shape.
Any ideas on how team sports would be counted? Relay events?
For a large country, the worst winning percentage is probably held by India, which doesn’t win much outside of field hockey, although I don’t know big its contingent is. China sends bigger squads, but also wins a lot more frequently.
Wishbone pointed out:
Well, someone did. Here’s what you’re looking for: Per Capita Olympic Medal Table
Just as BobT predicted, this list begins tallying at 1948.
First is Liechtenstein, with 9 medals for 32,000 people, followed by East Germany (515 for 17,569,000) and Norway (235 for 4,452,000). Tonga is sixth, and Cuba is 19th.
I think a more accurate table would show the amount of medals per athlete entered, not population. That gives richer countries with low populations an inherent advantage because they can better train their athletes and afford to send them. Also, I’m pretty sure until the Melbourne games, all the Olympics were in Europe and America, hard to get to before jumbo jets and airports in the third-world countries were built.
True, except for Melbourne (1956), Tokyo (1964), Mexico City (1968), and Seoul (1988). And Sapporo (1972) and Nagano (1998). And obviously, it was much more difficult to get anywhere before the 1970s or so, although the point is certainly still true that it would have been more difficult for those from third-world countries.
gorewonfla wrote:
Sounds like you’re saying the Australia’s a third world country. Those of us from Down Under know that we can be a bit backward sometimes, but this is going to far. 
Seriously though, you’re right. Melbourne was the first Olympics to be held in the southern hemisphere, and even then the equestrian events were held in Europe (Stockholm, i think) due to Australia’s strict animal quarantine laws.
Maybe we should also take into account home field advantage, given that a few countries (Australia and the US most readily come to mind, but i’m sure there are others) seem consisently to win more medals on home soil.
Upon re-reading, gorewonfla, you’re absolutely right. I had inserted “Sydney” in my own mind rather than simply read “Melbourne.”
My apologies.
johnson, thanks for the link.
And which pharmaceutical company has the best winning record for the number of athletes using their products?
Don’t lose any sleep over it (this is my new handle, but gorewonfla won’t go away. check out the pit for why).