Suchergebnisse

Absolute and relative rankings of Olympic success are uncorrelated to each other and measure success in quite different ways. The variables used in this study explain absolute success better than relative success. Furthermore, each type of success is better explained by different independent variables. The connection between economic resources, socialist economy and absolute success has been shown more or less clearly in previous studies (Novikov and Maksimenko 1972, Levine 1974). The superior sports performance of Protestants compared to others has also been demonstrated previously (Lüschen 1967, Seppänen 1970). Population density is surprising as a variable which is related to relative success. Also surprising is the lack of a connection in the present data between economic and population resources and relative success. One possible explanation for the latter finding is that absolute success is a measure of resources primarily. To be near the top in absolute scoring, a nation has to take part and be successful, not in one or two events, but in many of them. This requires vast sport resources. On the other hand, a smaller country with fewer resources may succeed relatively by training for only a few events in which the available sport resources can be used effectively, based on the nation's sport cultural traditions, its natural resources, etc. Relative success does not measure the amount of sport resources which a nation applies to the Olympic task, but rather the effectiveness with which available resources can be directed to achieve a nation's Olympic goals. Economic development and population are understandable factors in absolute Olympic success because of their implications for sport training. If sporting talent is distributed evenly among populations, those nations which are population-rich have naturally better possibilities (Grimes, et al. 1974), especially if they have the economic resources to exploit the advantages which a large population provides.