At the Tokyo 2020/'21 Olympics, Team GB competed in 28 sports and medalled in 18 of them. No other team won as many medals across such a varied range of sports, not even the USA, China or the ROC. Coming 4th in the medal table wasn't bad either (behind only the two giants and the host)
i can't lie when we started really slowly (and in my eyes at the time bottled golds in the hands of bradley sinden and bianca williams with the taekwondo) I thought tokyo wouldn't be that great, at least compared to the borderline miracle that was rio, but we ended up doing really well, and medalling in 18/28 sports is a fantastic achievement that i think we can definitely do similarly well in in paris next year. the national lottery stepping in in 2000 really saved us from our shambolic efforts of the past few years (only 1 gold in 96 and finishing 32nd or something like that), and we've really built on that since
Hey iv seen a ranking done by someone else on ytube I forgot the link but after his calculation it was new Zealand that topped all nations for its per capita and performance in the recent summer and winter games, although highly populated countries that compete will naturally end up with more medals, but n saying that it was new Zealand and some other countries that trumped all, due to the small population of those countries and the amount of athletes or lack there of that competed for those countries, interesting
@@copyright_colin nobody cares about the so-called impressiveness-whatever, the only thing everyone understand is the official medal table, and China topped it (second in this year)
Netherlands benefited from a slightly diverse athletes pool (having folks from the old colonies and Ethiopian roots. Germany doesn't have similar cases, since Germany didn't had colonies (except a tiny size of Namibia, which they quickly lost). ___ In general, I have to give Netherlands a tonne of credit.
This video needs to explode and have millions of views. :) I noticed Australia doing exceptionally well in Tokyo based on their population so I googled a bit and found this vid and your older vid with the binomial formula. This is how fair judgement is applied to reasoning about results. Everyone is so obsessed with US and CHINA, sometimes Russia, that they oversee the great success of smaller nations. I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR AUSTRALIAN OVERLORDS! :D
Swimming in general have too many medals. Not all countries can have fancy Olympic size swimming pools and facilities. Dressage is not a sport. Take that out. The horse us dancing, that's all.
Even with the historical background, I don't see a reason why you would give 0 points for nazi Germany when tallying up the scores. There;s no need for grudges (even if they are totally valid) in statistics, I think.
@@liamengram6326 that’s not even a remotely valid comparison. Czechoslovakia literally split into 2 different and smaller countries. Nazi Germany pre ww2 had the exact same borders as modern day Germany. Just because a different political party was in control of the country doesn’t mean it’s a different country. According to your logic Afghanistan is now a different country because the taliban is running it instead of the previous government? That makes 0 sense.
@@johky Well, that's not true either? Branching off your response, if Czechoslovakia were to reunite, what would happen then? They restore their practically useless earlier medal that couldn't even be truly counted in proportion to the modern amount of events? Would they add the medals of Czechia and Slovakia together? It's tumultuous territory friend, and your argument with the Taliban is interesting nonetheless. If the Confederacy managed to break off from the US, or even take all their territory in modern day or something, would we give them all USA medals?
@@doomslayerobama yes they would combine the medals if Czechoslovakia were to reunite. Just like he did in the video for East and west Germany. Because then it would be the same situation. And just because the earlier medals may have been more obscure doesn’t mean we don’t count them, again according to the video. I’m basing my assertions on the video provided because that is the context for the conversation. Context matters.
@@Lizzie-ob6nx You meant that Australia missed the 1948 Winter Olympics. Also, neither Australia nor Greece took part at the Winter Games in 1924, 1928 and 1932.
I'm German and very happy with that result :) I was kind of expecting that we would be up there because we usually do pretty well in both summer and winter games, but actually top spot is a great achievement. Very proud
Germany are doing great on both winter and summer, because Germany is rich country with huge population. Also Germans are one of the most discipline nations (along with Japan) in the world. No surprise there. Also if we count non-olympic sports (Auto-sport, e-sport, exotic sports like Sumo, Bodybuilding, etc.) Germany will still holds N1 postion.
@@vasiljambazov its not just because of the discipline and population its also that sport is just a big thing in germany and basically everyone is in a sport club here
@@vasiljambazov germanys 80 million isn't a huge population, if you compare it with china and india over a billion or usa with over 330 million 😅 i'd call it a decently sized population 😂
Nothing against Germany today. But they only made #1 because East Germany’s totals were included. A nation more notorious for doping athletes than Russia is today.
@@upbeatproductions7614 no, we don’t care about female athletes, ours can keep losing to yours all the time and that’ll be perfectly fine. In Europe we care about men’s sport only. Things would get concerning if you started performing in international sports, for example becoming a top 20 football nation in the world or having the first world class tennis player since Sampras.
I thought about the original video today and decided to look it up, I found it loved it as always and then clicked on the channel to see what has happened since then and delightedly found this video as the follow-up right there! You did amazing back then and yet your video quality (and sound) has massively improved in this time... Musings you are very much a-Musing(s) me with your videos!
Some context for the many medals East Germany won. East Germany had a very well developt state sponsered doping program. Often athletes would be doped without their knowledge by their trainers.
Well there has also been a large doping sceme in the west, with some even saying it was bigger than the east‘s (ill edit in a source Later if u need oke :D)
@@fensti7917 ok show me the proof? Most cheating in the west is individual and not team based but i am more than happy to check iut what you are saying
Every country that does well in the Olympics always gets accused of mass doping. Your allegations about mass doping in East Germany hold no more matter water than similar allegations about extreme doping in the US. Both are possible, and doping from both countries has most likely happened to some extent on an individual level, but the notion that there was some sort of 'mass doping agency' operating in East Germany is completely unproven. The fact that you are stating made up and unproven allegations as though they are hard proven fact, greatly diminishes your objectivity and credibility. It makes you appear as though the reason you state false things as fact, is simply because you hate the thought of a nation that you strongly disagree with, actually had so many people who were highly motivated and given plenty of opportunities due to progressive human development policies, so that their people could train and practice and ultimately perform well and win medals for their country.
I think after this olympics, you are probably going to bandwagon onto false allegations of 'mass doping in China' after China handidly defeats the US in terms of total gold medal count.
Hungary is the best compared with its population. Or maybe some micro state like the Bahamas is better, and Finland is better, but Hungary is very close to Finland and Finland collected many gold medals in the beginning, and nowadays Finland is not so good, but Hungary was always very good. Sweden is also very good per capita. I think these 3 not micro-state countries are the best. ( In summer Olympics.)
I'm late, but I feel like the Norwegian success should be noted to have been the case also early on when Norway was far less wealthy than today. So although modern day success could be said to have been influenced by money, but that isn't the case for the early dominance.
It might be able to, it is just really hard to adjust for fairly. Does the alps outweigh the largely uninhabited northern finland? Should we adjust for average snowfall pr square kilometre or maybe median temperature in the winter months? Should culturall difference come into play? All different ways to adjust, all with probably different results. Statistics be hard yo xD
In some cases a country with a relatively small population is dominant in a sport that happens to have good Olympic medal availability while not being a factor in just about every other sport. Does it make sense for them to rank high when they have zero diversity (particularly when they dominate a sport most of the world doesn't care that much about)? Examples: Winter Olympics Netherlands - By far the GOAT of speed skating (121 out of 130 medals are from speed skating), but does it make sense for them to be in front of Germany for example which has far more diversity in the sports its medals come from? If you were to do a Winter Impressiveness-o-meter by sport the Netherlands would demolish everybody in speed skating (and be somewhere in the mix in short-track) and be a non-factor virtually everywhere else, but Germany would do well in multiple sports. Almost everywhere else in the world either doesn't have a speed skating program or it is a very niche sport relative to others. In the Netherlands it dwarfs other sports in importance. Summer Olympics Jamaica - Sprinting (totally dominant for a while now). But a complete non-factor for medals in anything outside of short distance track events. All the countries around them in the Summer rankings have way more diversity. Sprinting at least has much wider participation around the world than speed skating. Australia is helped quite a bit by swimming happening to have more events and therefore more medal availability than other sports. They do have more diversity than the other examples though. EDIT - I see you've addressed the issue of medal availability per sport in another video.
Another great video! Love the analysis! A problem I can see with combining east and west germany at the end though is teamsports and placement rules. Where others nations only have the possibility to send 1 team or a certain number of athletes, the two combined have more possibilities for medals (then again in the early years this was the case even more). I don't know if or how significant this would alter the overall standings and just shows the difficulty of the task you've taken upon yourself. Hopefully this video will help your channel grow and I look forward to seeing the Tokio analysis in a few months!
But if you put such high value on medals, then being divided should be a disadvantage, because you cant combine the best athletes in one team. Instead you have to divide them in two teams, which makes the single team much weaker and only half as likely to win a medal.
Norway, population just 5 million has some 576 medals Bangladesh, population 170 million - has NONE As i've mentioned elsewhere, investment is a big issue. I don't believe athletes are naturally better in some countries - rather I think developing countries invest less in sports because they have more pressing issues
As a Briton, I am proud of our Olympic success. But it is time we changed our national team to 'Team UK' Great Britain is merely our main island. It would be like calling the Philippines team 'Team Luzon' The United Kingdom is the name of this country and it is time our Olympic committee reflected that.
In Atlanta in 1996, Team GB got just 15 medals. In Rio 2016 we got 67. It is thought that after a nation hosts an Olympics the investment goes up. This is also true of China and Australia.
@@rogdedodge7258 I see where you're coming from, especially with the Australian brilliance in swimming and other 'water events' like sailing, especially, though I think it's fair to remember that Team GB came 2nd in Rio 2016 above China (on gold medals at least, just shy of surpassing the Chinese on total medals as well), 4th in Tokyo 2020/'21 (in which Australia came a very respectable 6th) and Team GB came 4th in Beijing 2008 as well as coming 3rd in London 2012, in the final Olympics medal tables of those Olympiads. In the Tokyo 2020/'21 Olympics, Team GB won a higher total tally of medals than the hosts Japan (whom were especially boosted in gold medals by a) home field advantage b) what we could call some 'generous' judging going on in some events (not only Team GB was disadvantaged by this, but several other teams) c) more importantly how Japan dominates sports like Judo and banked a lot of medals from that (like 12 medals, of which 9 were gold, all from Judo alone) Japan got a lot of medals from other martial arts like wrestling as well. All big countries have banker sports so to speak, and some smaller ones too, though I'd argue that the Judo was a huge banker so to speak for Japan - it was literally 1/3 of their gold medals. More encouragingly for Team GB, they were the _only_ team at Tokyo 2020/'21 to win medals in as many as 18 different sports. Many of which, highly varied, it must be said. Their was a lot of British talent in things as different as skateboarding to sailing, dressage to diving, BMX freestyle (and racing) to breaststroke, mixed relay swimming to Boxing. A couple of older GB 'banker' events like rowing let Team GB down, though this was made up for by unexpected success in things like weightlifting, BMX and most impressively of all (in my opinion at least) the boxing. Team GB's boxers did the best they've ever done in the history of the common use of the name 'Team GB' (used formally since 1996/2000 Olympics cycle, with the creation of UK Sports funding in 1996, in response to the fairly appalling performance for Great Britain on balance, in Atlanta 1996, when they came 36th place, dark days for Britain at the Olympics when we only won 1 Gold in the rowing, keeping the golden thread going - Britain, having won at least 1 Gold in every Olympiad since they began in the modern Olympics) More importantly than that, British boxing came 2nd in gold medals behind Cuba, which is really impressive as Cuba focuses heavily on boxing at the Olympics, as their main medalling breadwinner. Moreover, Team GB's boxers drew level 1st place in the boxing with the ROC in Tokyo 2020/'21, on total medal count, both with 1 more than Cuba. Cuba just got the better of the gold medals in the boxing. Britain won 2 gold, 2 silver and 2 bronze in the boxing (Cuba won 4 gold and 1 bronze) There were some pretty close fights there as well. Note: this was the best British boxing performance at the Olympics for 101 years. Fair play to them. This helped make up for a shocking lack of gold in the rowing (which was extra controversial. This was not only because Team GB's rowers had about five 4th places, which was very painful for them, but also because the rowers always tend to get the best funding, with over £26 million per year - some sports like BMX had _absolutely zero_ funding and yet brought home a gold and a silver (and the silver could easily have been a gold; with the qualifying rides showing Kye Whyte come 1st just before the final race - in which his tactics on the guy who he beat in the direct previous qualifying race, were used back against him on the line by the exact same guy he beat, could have gone either way) Team GB heartbreak in rowing aside, they made up for it in other areas. If Kye ran his race identical to the one which got him into final race, then the rowing guys would really look silly with zero gold medals. Because Shriever and Whyte literally got 0 money or proper support from UK Sports, who are pretty 'Darwinian' with funding. i.e. do well/prove yourself, you get some dosh; fail, and you either lose funding proportionate to the total annual funding pot, or perhaps get none at all. Up-and-coming sports get pretty hard deals with that because a little more help could go a long way. It's strategically effective the national lottery funding model, though it makes it hard for smaller sports to make a name for themselves when the giants like rowing and swimming get so much attention. I heard the Team GB rowing budget was cut 10% instantly after their performance, and that an inquiry was launched into what went so wrong for them. Been a bit of a punch-up in the press over it, immediately after it happened anyway (quickly dying down, but it still happened) Basically, recriminations and trying to work out what went wrong. But to me, it just looks like they sat on their laurels and underperformed perhaps as a result of the pandemic, but other countries didn't seem so badly impacted by the latter (then again, Britain has had one of the worst ordeals with the pandemic, globally, in the top 10 worst hit) Team GB competed in 28 sports and medalled in 18 of them. No other team won as many medals across such a varied range of sports, not even the USA, China or the ROC. Basically medals from 2/3 of the sports they competed in, with some of the sports they _didn't_ medal in, being real 'no hoper' situations e.g. with Team GB's water polo team not qualifying etc you know, stuff like that where they never stood a chance anyway) I'd say Team GB is 'up there' with the best. Maybe not on per capita per medal but that gets overstated a whole lot. e.g. it's a lot easier for a smaller team to win say, 10-20 medals, than a middle sized team to win 30-40 medals, or a even a big team to win 50-60 medals. Team GB had originally hoped to go over 70-75 medals after 67 medals in Rio 2016. However, they revised this down to below 60 medals in light of the difficult circumstances and the way so many sports were mysterious going into them (by which I mean, because of disrupted sporting calendars as per the impacts of the pandemic, there were an awful lot of sports where they were essentially 'flying blind' with mostly guesswork to guide them, with a lot of events having been cancelled in Summer 2020 last year) This meant they had to throw their tactics out of the window on some events because they were blatantly obliged to become outdated by the elapse of time and the lack of more recent events to gage where they stood. It added more tension and uncertainty - and I sincerely believe this was shown most in rowing. That said, I still thing they mostly f'd up because of the air of complacency and the victory streak since 1996/2000. [1/2]
@@rogdedodge7258 [2/2] In any case, Australia is definitely one of the top team nobody can deny it. Yes, of course you'll say Australia has a smaller population. Yet look at the weather and the way the vast majority of the Australian population clings to the coastal margins of a few areas of the landmass. It's fairly obvious that some sports in Australia are more 'at home' in a coastal Pacific-Oceania subtropical climate, where there is so much heat and sunshine so many days of the year. Britain is a North Atlantic island archipelago with a maritime temperate oceanic climate, where we should be in snow tundra conditions at 60 degrees N of the equator if not for the Gulf Stream and air masses bringing more warmth to our islands via the global Aeolian and ocean current cycles moving all over the planet in slowly shifting patterns. We have a lot of rain, an underestimated amount of sunshine (cos of the memes about the British weather and rain; mostly, it's overcast with plenty of rain at times sure, though this gets exaggerated way too much sometimes, as though we're fecking Kamino or something lol) I mean, yeah it can be rainy a lot here, but as I say, most days it's just like the weather is schizophrenic and changes four or five times a day with a lot of it being sampled. It can go from hailstorms to beating rays of sunshine, belting rain squalls to absolutely dull as dishwater skies. A lot of the time there will be grey skies over the UK. That said, it really depends. Go to the Isles of Scilly in Summer (I've done this) and you'll see Mediterranean weather which is almost uncomfortably hot by British standards. Go there in Winter (which, I have not done and probably will never do) and you'll see Atlantic storms lashing their granite rocks. Go to West Scotland (e.g. Troon; I have done this) and you'll still find palm tree like Yucca plants in people's front gardens. But it might still snow on you like it did when I went there. It depends. I've been all over the UK and sometimes you'd think we're at a much lower latitude. I was walking Kinder Scout last Summer in June and oh my word, the sun really was blistering that day and there was next to no shade on that hillside. Felt like I was being slow cooked in an open air barbecue. The uphill walk was pretty gruelling for me and the weather was horrendous. I literally wanted it to rain to cool me down a bit. Ran out of water and started to feel sketchy at times on the way back down because of how exhausted I was getting. Stereotypes about British weather can be misleading. Britain showcases a tonne of weather patterns and we have a lot of variety crammed into our smallish islands. I genuinely think this adds to the character of the quirkiness of how Britain can just perform well in a tonne of different sports. You'll have dudes and dudettes surfing in hot weather in one part of the country while lads and lasses are training in a lake or river somewhere more typical, in nearly freezing cold water, most months of the year (though it can get really dangerous some months) There'll be a team whizzing around the Velodrome in Manchester while around Portland in the South, on the Jurassic Coast, you'll see people sailing. I know a lot of countries have a lot of variability to offer training options, and yes Team GB and others go abroad a lot to train at higher temperatures, higher altitudes and in more extreme conditions, but Britain has enough variety to form a very strong training home base as it is. Further training abroad of course happens a lot, more or less in different sports, though in a tonne of ways the UK provides much of what it needs anyway. Obviously a lot of indoors sports aren't bothered by this anyway, but Britain has plenty of options for training in numerous outdoors sports/open air stadium venues etc. This helps keep Britain competitive. More than competitive. Charlotte Worthington who won that stunning gold in the women's BMX freestyle event, was given: - the grand total of *0* funding And yet won a gold anyway. Moreover, she had to work in a Mexican restaurant in Manchester to fund her own training in between shifts at work. She didn't get an easy go of it compared to how some other Olympians (cough rowers cough) were spoilt monetarily. Raw talent and opportunity alone, can be all an Olympian needs. Money helps, though.
ThePalaeontologist I will take time to read all that, I applaud your Patriotism. Brits invented half the sports so there's no doubt your a fine sporting culture. Australians take it up a notch, Aussie culture is based on sport and racism, sometimes I don't know what to kick mate lol But seriously, if you took the time to write it, I'll read it in a few hours and give a better response.
@@rogdedodge7258 Well, I type fairly fast and had a bit of time so it's alright ha I honestly wasn't really writing it with Patriotism in mind, it was more just being fair and giving credit where it's due. I am passively patriotic though I'll grant you ha but I would never disparage or downplay Australian sporting prowess. British sporting obsessions and traditions spread throughout the old Empire and the Anglosphere diverged and produced it's own contributions. For a long time, for instance, there was a great rivalry in the Olympics, between British and Australian cyclists in the Velodrome events. These days I think the rivalry is more accurately described as being between Britain and the Netherlands, though if you've heard about how many bicycles are in the Netherlands, you'd wonder how that didn't happen sooner. But Australia had been so good at the Velodrome in the past decades that they basically were Britain's main opposition in most of the cycling at the games. However, as I say, the Netherlands and others like Germany have now started to want to encroach on Team GB's dominance in many cycling events, and things have changed. For instance, it's a far harder sport than it was in say, 2008 or 2012 - when Britain really was pretty much untouchable in the Velodrome. These days, nearly a decade after London 2012, it's far more competitive with the field being full of talented Australian, Dutch, German and other top cyclists from all over the world. Team GB wins a lot in the cycling. It has been one of Britain's 'banker sports' for a long time now. However, for sure, it'd be wrong to just point that out without holding up a very vibrant green and yellow-gold looking mirror, and acknowledge the success of the Australians. Not so much these days, but they are still a serious adversary (though the main rivals now to the Red, White and Blue riders of Team GB, are clearly those from the 'Orange Army' of the Dutch) Australia is still smashing it in the swimming pool (though in fairness to Team GB, they won even more medals in the swimming pool at Tokyo 2020/'21, than their cyclists did in the racing events - though it was pretty much even if we include the BMX medals too) The British are a great sporting nation. Yet Australia will always be a solid team and I would be really surprised - like, immensely, genuinely confused - if they ever fell out of the top 7 let alone the top 10 Olympic games teams, for many Olympiads to come. It's hard to be definitive about 'which Olympic Games were the best', but the general consensus regarding Sydney 2000 is that is was one of if not the greatest Olympiads of all time, with positive messaging and hopeful, naturalistic themes, entirely appropriate for the dawn of the new millennium. It's a perfect time capsule of the Year 2000 as well, in many regards. It also showcased a lot of the first major steps in recognising the integration of the white Western/British style/British descended/other European descended white and Latin peoples etc, being more united with the Aboriginal Australian population, with themes of increasing mutual respect between, at the time, long disparate groups with a lot of bad beef going back a long time. Though I was too young to fully appreciate the 2000 Olympics at the time, and barely watched any at the time, with my first really substantial TV experiences with the Olympics being more or less the Beijing 2008 games though I had watched bits of the 2004 Athens games too as a kid, the first games I knew much about was the Sydney games (from the build up to the 2008 games) Sydney 2000 didn't spend as much as Tokyo 2020/'21 or London 2012, nor did it have the immense scale of the 2008 Beijing games or the historic symbolism of the Athens 2004 games. It was the first Olympiad of the new millennium and it was always seen as a more exotic games. China was immensely angry at the time, or so I read about this in long retrospect, at Australia winning the bid. They wanted badly to usher in the new millennium in terms of the Olympics and win the bragging rights of doing so with their constant bids for 2000. Older attempts by Athens to host a games, were honoured for 2004, so China was yet again delayed. Beijing 2008 was 8 years late in the eyes of a lot of Chinese politicians and Chinese Communist Party members whom wanted to basically do what they did in 2008 (show off a distorted image of modern China, with a glorification of China at every step, glossing over immense human rights abuses and massive tyranny on a grand scale) Thankfully Australia hosted the 2000 games as a more out-of-field, 'exotic' and 'different' alternative than simply giving it to another American or European city. I mean, don't get me wrong, London 2012 was spectacular and of course I'll personally see it as the best games to date. However, we must be honest about that analysis and remember where the Sydney 2000 games fit in the context of how the London 2012 games were such a huge success too. The bidding process and the way the Australians handled that, and the organising of the Sydney 2000 games, was _highly_ inspirational to the British equivalent in the years leading up to London 2012. We take London 2012 for granted now because it happened, and I'm not trying to say it was all down to being inspired by how good the Australians managed things from the bidding stage to the very end of the closing ceremony, of their games a dozen years earlier. Even so, it _must_ be remembered that the British bidding teams used the Australian model so to speak, as their most relevant, recent up to date modern games. Sydney was the first 21st century Olympiad. Inevitably, Britain looked to both Sydney and Athens most for inspiration leading into the 2012 games. The Australians had overcome serious doubts and a lot of a critical stink kicked up by the very displeased Chinese bidding teams - and Chinese state run media - whom were angry that Australia took the win for the 2000 games over them. Athens was pretty much a shoe in after Sydney because they'd been trying a long time (so had Britain to be fair) to get the games back. China's greedy attitude must have pissed the right people off because Australia won the final vote in the bidding. In context, China has only been going to the Olympics since the 1980's, so they were kind of effing immensely cheeky to be constantly _demanding_ China host the Olympics. Yes, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) had a lot to gain by giving the games to China, to expand the Olympic movement in general, but this would cast a long shadow on the games in a lot of ways. China has spent nearly two decades shifting from a middling team towards wanting to be no 1 all the time. They surpassed the USA in medals in the 2008 Beijing games (though, having home field advantage, and hurling staggering amounts of state capital into it, that was hardly a surprise) There is just something cool about Australia getting the 2000 Olympic games because it's like, 'get in China can gtfo' lol China wanted it for vainglorious showboating. Australia wanted it because they deserved it. It was important. And the efforts of the Australian bidding teams impressed the British so much, that inevitably, there was a lot of inspiration found in Australia's success. Ironically, this went in tandem with a new movement in the rise of Team GB and the founding of UK Sport in 1996. After Great Britain & Northern Ireland's miseries in the Atlanta 1996 games, UK Sport was created to remedy this as much as possible by providing serious and stable funding to many sports across the sporting spectrum, to take the Olympics more seriously and professionally. Team GB as a moniker is, in a sense, 'only 6 Olympiads old'. Before that, the term didn't exist, at least officially. There is this whole branding and advertising aspect to Team GB. I literally have Team GB clothes, flags and bunting. This wasn't so formalised prior to 1996. Team GB was a _deliberate_ idea in 1996 to unify the British athletes under a more driven banner, which looked in on itself and took mutual pride in the success of the entire team sent out to any games thereafter. Rather than it being more an assemblage of independent amateurs as before, in wildly inconsistent fields, both in terms of funding and successes, the 'Team GB' motivational branding was meant to make everyone take pride in each other's performances and see it more as a collectivised effort than ever before. Of course this had been spiritually a thing in British teams going out there before, but it was more compartmentalised prior to 1996. Team GB was a name chosen to show themselves and the world they were fighting together, side by side, rather than more complacently. The team performance as well as the individual performance, took priority. In my opinion, this positive upsurge in British sports, with better funding backing, starting with over £63 million GBP in the 2000 games, made the newly rebranded Team GB look for inspiration in the next games after Atlanta 1996; Sydney 2000. Without even _trying_ to inspire the British, the Australians couldn't help but inspire the British, because the new Team GB spirit and movement had formed after the relatively disastrous games (for Britain) of Atlanta 1996. The first instalments of lottery funding pumped new lifeblood into an ailing and misguided British sporting world as it had once been (so overly fixated on football superstars and Formula 1 racing etc) [1/3]
High Gdp per capita= more medals This is the real formula. No money to feed our population, then how are we supposed to spend money on sports. Our economy will be good after 2050 , that time we will win more medals.
@@hyena5313 india's economy sure as hell ain't as bad as you're making it out to be, and your argument has one fatal flaw, our population might increase manifold along with the gdp by 2050, which will negate whatever progress we make with regards to gdp in that period. So what will your excuse be then?
It's only in the USA where they rank nations by total medals, everywhere elso they rank nations by total gold followed by total silver followed by total bronze
@@shake4259 “per capita” is also irrelevant. What should matter the most is how many athletes compete. You’ve sent over 200 athletes more than China this year and still got only 1 gold more. The only country in history to have as many athletes participating as the US is the Soviet Union and we all know they dominated the Olympics like nobody ever has and will. Both Summer and Winter.
I guess the next thing to think about is availability. Which would make this impossible. For example in the winter games the Netherlands would grade lower, because of the large amount of speed skate rings. But at the same time it has no mountains ( effectively ). And Jamaica hypothetically if they had won a medal with bobsleight that would/should skyrocket them. Just a thought :D
The state of Norway was never poor though (except under Danish rule when they sometimes siphoned funds from us) However the *people* were pretty "poor" before the end of WW2 because everyone either lived on the coast and had a boat or had a farm to sustain themselves without need for luxuries. Norwegians were hunter-gatherers for way longer than almost any other populace outside of Africa and south east Asia.
You MUST remind people that until 1992 America did not use professional athletes!! Now go back and recalculate all those countries medals and I think you’ll find that the USA is far ahead of the “field”. 🇺🇸🇨🇱
The impression score is still not a good metric. Don’t forget a fact that each country has a limited quota of players it can send to Olympic, so strictly speaking, the impression score still does not solve the problem entirely. To understand, you can simply assume EU is a nation and competes in the olympics, then in every sport, they can only send 1-3 players instead of Germany sending 1-3, France sending 1-3 etc. A direct consequence will be EU score will hugely decrease in this scenario as 1) population increased hugely, with competitive countries and less competitive countries mixed; 2) chance of losing medal hugely increased as only 3 players will compete instead of 100 players, and we all know sports is a place with high variance(any thing can happen). Honestly, it would a hard counter-factual problem and deserve more deep dive.
I think Austria is pretty impressive. They are pretty good particularly in winter sport. They are a small country that is very dominant in categories like skying.
i think it is more accurate to counth the best all time by using data post WW2. before then there is far too much bias for host nations and geopolitics. and most countries neglected the games because they were not seen as a big deal yet.
You didn't have a category showing athletes who compete for one country, but do nearly all of their training in another one. A large number of athletes from all over the world live and train in the United States, but compete in the Olympics for their birth nation. In fact, many foreign athletes attend universities in the United States and compete on their athletic team, receiving training from American coaches, and getting competitive experience within the U.S. intercollegiate system. If you credit those competitors' medals to the U.S., how does that impact the totals?
Jesus Christ what kind of logic is that? That’s by far the most delusional sports opinion I’ve ever read. So Messi should play for Spain because he trained and learned the most about football there? In my country there are barely any ice rinks so our Olympic gold medalist in speed skating had to move and train in Germany. Does it mean he should represent them? Sure, let’s make the Olympics for coaches or steroids suppliers now
@@hristo5689 It's clear that you didn't pay attention to what I wrote. Go back and read it again and see if I ever said that any athlete should do anything. Hint, I didn't. I did point out that the video poster did not include a very specific category in this video that nobody thinks about. It would be very interesting if it was included just for reference in a video that's about what countries win the most medals at the Olympics. I contend that many athletes who compete in the Olympics would not be nearly as competitive if they did not live and train in the U.S. for years. Simply put, if the U.S. was an ocean and never existed as a landmass or a country, many successful athletes from all over the world would never have won medals at the Olympics. Therefore, the countries they compete for would not have those medals on their tally sheets. Notice that I never said the U.S. should get those medals, just that it would make an interesting thing to show the numbers as if they did in a column for reference.
@@deezynar I understood you in 100%, otherwise I wouldn’t call your opinions delusional. “without the US many successful athletes from all over the world would never have won the medals at the Olympics” When do your delusions stop? Some athletes simply go abroad as the conditions are way better. Doesn’t mean they wouldn’t achieve the same success training in their own country, they would just have to work harder what many of them does anyway. Some of them simply decides to take the more convenient path. Also, you’ve just admitted that living and training in the US makes it WAAAY easier for an athlete to become world class. By your logic all American athletes were privileged with better programs and preparations than the rest of the world. That means that athletes who got developed in their own countries and beat the American athletes are by miles more impressive than American athletes winning another 999th medal in swimming. Sounds about right to me.
I think if you replaced GDP with Olympic programs and spending in the sports it would be more accurate because thats probably a more precise measure for both the countries wealth. But also their success. Besides that this was another good one. Glad me subbing to you years back on the first video brought this video to my attention because ive wondered since that video how much had changed
Yeah and how does he calculate for countries like China and Russia where they pick kids from a young age to train in those sports as basically part of their education. Or even furthermore where countries like Russia have full teams of scientists coming up with steroid protocols or even developing new novel anabolic compounds that can't be tested for to keep their athletes juiced up while maintaining some ability to pass all drug testing.
The Netherlands definitely deserve a mention. They have a lower population than Australia yet does well in both Olympics. On the other hand, Finland's success in the Summer Olympics is largely historical, nowadays they barely do well lol (hell, their last Summer Olympics gold was back in 2008)
Yeah. As a finn it was a bit depressing to watch Finlands decline in the ranks in this video. Even in the Winter olympics Finland hasn't done that well in the last few olympics. And now in Paris, Finland had it's first Olympic games without a single medal. Clearly something needs to be done in the athletic community in Finland but most likely all that is going to happen is a lot talk and coffee drinking by the higher ups in the Finnish athletic federation and probably few useless new jobs for their buddies or some politicians.
It should take into account how many people have the opportunity or likelyhood to be able to do a Winter sport. Relatively few US citizens do Winter sports compared to Summer, for example; whereas, high percentages of nations such as Norway do Winter sports.
But this logic also works in reverse, where countrys like Norway, Russia and Canada performe worse in the summer olympics because of long winters and snow wich makes it harder to practise summer activetis. Amoung the countryes in the world the USA sould have some of the best benefits because of the size and location, where parts of the country experience cold winters optimal for the winter olympics while other parts of the country is optimal for summer olympics.
It would be super interesting to see if anything changes if you factor the number of medals per discipline (swimming, cycling, relays etc) and included the Paralympics. Great vid though.
@@ctx9796 Not true - just look at the last 3 Olympic and Paralympic medals table and you will see that poorer countries medal much higher. The countries that have not performed well in the Paralympics is due to those countries that hide away their disabled citizens. China only dominated the medal table since 2008, as the denied that China had any disabled citizens.
