Re: [新聞] 今天 times的報導(附翻譯)

看板Olympics_ISG作者a111156987 (燈泡)時間15年前 (2008/08/25 15:58)推噓9(9推 0噓 2→)

留言11則, 10人參與討論串1/1

※ 引述《LISTEN ()》之銘言： : 哭哭哭哭........... : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4601998.ece : Forget China's 100 medals. The real winner of the Games was... : ..................... : The loser is Taiwan. It has the 17th biggest economy in the world, but came a mere 79th in the medals table. 簡單中譯有錯請鞭 From The Times August 25, 2008 Forget China's 100 medals. The real winner of the Games was... If you take into account national income - the best guide to Olympic success - the Dominican Republic outperformed us all -Chris Dillow 忘了中國的一百面獎牌吧奧運真正的贏家其實是... 如果你把國家所得計算進去，多明尼加共和國才是真正的大贏家 Wasn't it a great Olympics for Team GB, as I suppose we must call them? Fourth in the medals table - beating the Australians - is a fantastic achievement, isn't it? 對英國隊來說這是很棒的一次奧運，我想我們必須這樣說?在獎牌榜上名列第四，還打敗了澳洲，算很棒的成績了，對吧? No. There is another league table, published recently by the World Bank, which ranks countries by national income. And this bears a striking resemblance to the medals table. Nine of the top ten countries in the medals table are in the top 15 of the World Bank table; the exception is the Ukraine. Across all 87 countries to have won a medal, the correlation between the medals ranking and the GDP ranking is 0.41 - far higher than you would reasonably expect by accident. 不，這裡還有另一種排行榜，世界銀行最近出爐一份國家所得排行，獎牌榜上Top10 的國家有9個在國家所得榜上是Top15，只有烏克蘭例外。縱觀87個有獲得獎牌的國家，兩個排行榜之間的相關係數市0.41---比想像中的還要高。 In this respect, the Beijing Olympics were not unusual. In a recent paper Hon-Kwong Lui and Wing Suen, two Chinese economists, showed that population and national income per person were “major determinants” of medals won in Olympics between 1952 and 2004. 從這個角度來看，京奧並沒有什麼特別。在一份由兩位中國經濟學家所做的論文中看來，自1954年到2004，國家人口和人均所得是影響奪牌最主要的因素。 The reason for this is trivially simple. The more people a country has, the more chance it has of producing a medallist. And the richer it is, the more able it is to invest in talent-spotting or in training facilities, and the more chance it has of its sports becoming Olympic events; as Matthew Syed pointed out in these pages, sailing gets lots of medals but kabaddi doesn't. 數據很繁瑣(所以不列)。國家人口越多，產生得牌運動員的機會也越多；而越富有的國家越有錢投資在有天份的運動員身上或是訓練設備，並且有更多機會將擅長項目塞進奧運，又所以帆船可以拿一堆獎牌，而kabaddi(譯os:這啥= =?)沒有。 Big economies should therefore get more medals than small ones. And they do. 大國應該要比小國能夠多拿一些獎牌，他們也確實如此。 This suggests a different way of judging Olympic success. We should compare a nation's position in the medals table to its position in the GDP table. 這裡想提供大家另一個方法來評斷這次奧運的成績，我們應該將一國的獎牌榜排行跟它的人均所得排行做比較。 On this basis, Britain's performance was no better than respectable. Our fourth place in the medals table is just one place better than our position in the national income table. The notable fact about British Olympians is their underperformance in previous Games rather than huge outperformance in these. 在這個基礎下，英國的表現並沒有比期待中的好。獎牌榜的第四名只比所得榜的第五名好一名。真正值得注意的是英國在前幾屆奧運較差的表現，而不是這次出色的成績。 By this measure, I'm sad to report, the Aussies did better than us. Their sixth position in the medals table is nine places better than their national income ranking. We can, though, take comfort in the fact that Germany - fifth in the medals table - underperformed relative to its economy. 在這個標準下，我必須很難過的說，澳洲表現得比我們(英國)好。他們在獎牌榜上排第6 ，但所得榜上只有第15。 So, who are the winners and losers by this standard? The winner is the Dominican Republic. Its one gold and one silver put it 47th in the medals table, while its puny economy is only the 179th in the world. Mongolia, Zimbabwe and Jamaica also did well. 所以，在這樣的標準下誰才是真鄭的贏家和輸家呢? 贏家是多明尼加共和國，1金1銀在獎牌榜上排名第47，但它弱勢的經濟只在所得榜上排第179名。蒙古，辛巴威跟牙買加也表現很好。 The loser is Taiwan. It has the 17th biggest economy in the world, but came a mere 79th in the medals table. 輸家就是台灣。世界第17大經濟體，卻只在獎牌榜上排名第79名。(譯os:冏) There is a pattern here. The countries that punched above their economic weight in these games - which include North Korea, Cuba and Uzbekistan - are in many cases nations not renowned for their peace, political stability or respect for human rights; Jamaica is no place to be if you are a homosexual. Many of the losers have a better record. 這裡有個共通點，那些在獎牌榜表現比經濟好的國家---像北韓、古巴、烏茲別克--- 並不以和平、政治穩定或對人權的尊重聞名。如果你是個同性戀者，牙買加也不是你該去的地方。輸家反而有更良好的紀錄。(譯os:這是找台階下嗎?= =) This vindicates Harry Lime's theory. As he said in The Third Man, warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed gave us Michelangelo, da Vinci and the Renaissance while 500 years of democracy and peace in Switzerland (35th in the medals table and 22nd in the GDP table) produced only the cuckoo clock. (Even this was wrong; the cuckoo clock was invented in Germany.) 這印證了Harry Lime的理論。他在The Third Man裡提到，戰爭、恐怖行動、謀殺和流血促成了米開朗基羅和達文西還有文藝復興，對比在500年民主與和平中只留下布穀鐘的瑞士(獎牌榜35th，所得榜22th)(甚至這也是錯的，布穀鐘其實是德國的) Excellence in the Olympics, then, is no sign of a wider flourishing of a nation. Gordon Brown might care to consider this before celebrating the British results. 但是，在奧運出色的表現並不是國運昌隆的指標。Gordon Brown(英相)在慶祝英國的好成績前必須先思考一下這個。 There is an even stronger pattern. The 2008 medals ranking is similar to the 2004 ranking. The correlation between the two is a hefty 0.8. The ranking in the Athens games alone explains, in the statistical sense, three-fifths of the variation in the Beijing rankings. Of the countries to have “medalled” most - including team GB - moved fewer than ten places in the rankings between 2004 and 2008. 這李還有另一個更大的共通點。2008的獎牌榜和2004的獎牌榜非常相似，它們之間的相關係數是很高的0.8。雅典的排行解釋了北京五分之三的不同。(譯os:這句我不太懂...) 這些獲得最多獎牌的國家中---包括英國---在04和08間的名次變動都少於10。 In other words, history matters. A nation with a culture of winning medals tends to continue doing so; nations with no such culture find it much harder. 換句話說，和歷史相關。一個傳統上能贏很多獎牌的國家仍然繼續保持(很多獎牌) ，而傳統上贏不了太多獎牌的國家會更難得牌。 There is a lesson here for anyone running any large organisation. Big groups - nations, firms, government departments - have history, traditions and culture that heavily influence their chances of success or failure. These cannot easily be overridden by the mere will of a leader. 這裡有一門課是所有領導者需要學習的。大團體---國家、公司、政府部門---有它們各自的歷史和傳統，深刻的影響它們的成功或失敗。這不是少數有企圖心的領導者可以改變的。(譯os:這是說台灣會冏一萬年嗎?= =...剛好給體萎會解套) You have probably got an objection to all this. When Chris Hoy sat on his bike on the starting line, he did not look at his rivals and think: “I come from a richer nation than most of those guys; this'll be a cinch.” Instead, he focused upon giving all he could. 你可能不同意這些。當Chris oy 騎著他的腳踏車在起點預備的時候，他不會看著他的對手然後想"我來自一個比這些人富有的國家，所以這會是一場簡單的比賽"，反而是全神灌注的發揮自己。 And this is the point. From the point of view of the individual competitor, Olympic success is about skill, training and dedication - and, arguably, perhaps even natural talent. But from the point of view of the nation, success depends upon history and economics. 這就是重點。從個別競賽選手的觀點來看，奧運的成功在於技巧、訓練和努力，以及--- 仍有爭論的---天份。但從國家的觀點來看，勝利來自於歷史和經濟。 In other words, overall outcomes are not necessarily merely the result of individual motivations added together. Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please. 換句話說，所有的結果都只是個人積極所累積成的。人類創造了自己的歷史，但不是為了討人歡心。 (Chris Dillow is an economics writer at the Investors Chronicle and blogs at stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com) ---------------------------------------- 前面還好後面整個是............= = 這篇要是給體萎會那些人看到又可以拿來說嘴了但人家的基礎就是好我們很多訓練設備和人力一直都很充沛就算沒有特別建設也還是比我們強但不是這樣就放棄啊看看蘇姊這樣就放棄自己去撞豆腐吧 -- ╭──────╥────────────────╥────────────╮ │██████║ ┌╮ ─╮ ╭ ─╮ ╭╮ ╭ ╭╮ ─╮ ╭ ─╮ ╭ │ │█Ψ████║ ╞╯ ╭┤ ┼ ╭┤ ├╯ │ Ψ ││ ╭┤ ╭┤ ╭┤ │ │ │██████║ ┘╰ ╰└ ┘ ╰└ ╰┘ ┘ ┘┘ ╰└ ╰└ ╰└ ┘ │ │────────────────────────────────────┤ │-----------The one who is always positive, and never give up.-----------│ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 125.229.172.181 ※ 編輯: a111156987 來自: 125.229.172.181 (08/25 15:59)

→

SNLH

08/25 16:00, , 1^F

08/25 16:00, 1^F

推

echovan

08/25 16:04, , 2^F

08/25 16:04, 2^F

推

pure0612

08/25 16:04, , 3^F

08/25 16:04, 3^F