Jump to content

Aquatic

Members
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aquatic

  1. 26 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Other than Calgary having hosted in 1988 and Montreal having hosted in 1976.  If 1 of the arguments against the United States' Olympic hosting history is that they've hosted too many Olympics, wouldn't that same logic apply to a country the size of Canada hosting two Summer Olympics 20 years apart, with a Winter Olympics in between?

    No. Atlanta happened 12 years after Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City 6 years after that. Population size is irrelevant. That's not a law written anywhere.

    8 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

    Didn't offer big enough bribes?

    That's what I was thinking. You're also incredibly rude and not worth responding to. You're going on the Ignore list.

    26 minutes ago, FYI said:

    ...but will also give them an iconic setting to do it in (ala London 2012). And we all know that the IOC is all about image. 

    Ding ding ding. That's what I said in my first post in the other forum. That's what Imsaid SF would give the IOC, and they'd like that.

  2. 6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    We saw that logic play out for 2012 and 2016.  Not sure it's as strong here.  Yes, the U.S. has had more than their share of Olympics (as has Canada, especially relative to their population), but 3 of those wins came unopposed.  Atlanta had no business winning and blame the rest of the world for not having a worthy candidate then.  Salt Lake nearly won a vote less than a year after Atlanta won theirs.  There may or may not still be anti-American sentiment within the IOC that makes it tough for a US bid to win, but between 2024 and 2028, they're more than likely going to get 1.  Much like with `96, that's a matter of favorable circumstances that you can't fault the USOC for going after as opposed to sitting it out and letting another city have a chance for the sake of letting another city have a chance.

    What was wrong with Toronto in 1996?

  3. 1 minute ago, ejaycat said:

    Why not?  You've played it up otherwise.

    San Francisco has never hosted an Olympics before; if it had a very solid bid backed by 98% of the population (whichever Bay Area counties would be included in the poll), you don't think it could beat Paris?  

    The only thing a solid, viable, supported bid from San Francisco for 2024 might have done is make Paris wait until 2028. They originally weren't going to go for 2024, and then, Anne Hidalgo...

     

    If Paris did that in the face of a 2024 SF bid, then SF would have a very, very high chance. But head to head with Paris. No. 

    Rio > Tokyo > Paris > San Francisco has a nice ring to it though...

    The four cities passing the torch from one to the next in that order is kind of poetic.

  4. 4 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

    People argue for or against "continental rotation"; I'm not sure it really factors in, but if it does, I would think 2024 would be North America's turn.

    North America hasn't hosted a summer Olympics since 1996; since then, by 2024, we will have had one Australian Games, one South American Games, 2 European Games and 2 Asian Games... apart from a first African Games, and no country from Africa is bidding for '24, doesn't North America seem like it would be next?  

    Not when Paris, and France, who have waited 100 years for a summer games are bidding. The U.S. has had PLENTY.

  5. 6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Look at what the other options were for 2020 though.  A politically unstable Istanbul or an economically unstable Madrid.  That the Summer Olympics are returning to Asia so soon was less a choice and more a lack of options.  Hard to see a South American city finding themselves in similar circumstances.  And note about Buenoes Aires.. they're slated to host the 2018 Youth Olympics, so they had their eyes on the smaller prize rather than the big one.

    Or, they are preparing for 2028....

  6. 2 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Why wouldn't they want to host?  That's not desperation or greed.  That the U.S. has hosted as many Olympics as they have is a matter of circumstance.  Atlanta had no business winning in 1996, but none of the other bid cities in the running were worthy.  That U.S. cities got rejected for 2012 and 2016 was a matter of bad timing.  As FYI noted, South Africa has decided to hold off until 2032.  So if Paris wins 2024 (which I think they will, but it's far from a done deal, IMO), then who does that leave for 2028?  Much like 1984, that one may fall right into the USOC's lap and whatever city they put forward is going to be the winner.  Specific to this race though, would a solid bid from San Francisco in this 2024 showdown fare much better than LA?  I don't think they would.

    Re: 2024 and SF

    No, not against Paris.

  7. 3 minutes ago, FYI said:

    South Africa has already pleaged that they're not bidding until at least the 2032 Games. They want to get through their 2022 commonwealth games first & then take it from there. So they're outta the way. And if Europe likely wins 2024, then they're outta the way. South America would also be outta the way. And with Asia hosting the next three Olympic Games, then they'll be outta the way, too, for 2028. 

    So at this point, 2028 does seem like the most favorable for North America. The U.S. hosting the Games more than any other country doesn't help right now, especially when you factor in 1996. But those wouldn't be factors that would work against a U.S. 2028 bid, when considering all of the above. The only possible strong threat there could come from Canada.

    I could see a return to South America if Buenos Aires had a sold bid. Not that they're bidding. My only point being that I don't think Rio would preclude a return to South America in 2028. The Summer games are back in Asia in Tokyo in the same amount of time after they were in Beijing.

  8. 19 minutes ago, Jesse Saenz said:

    SF Bay area is just not prepared to host an Olympics anytime soon.

    LA has been Olympics ready for decades now.

    Paris is still the favorite and many of the polls so far show it as the likely winner, but since LA's bid is shaping up to be a real serious contender, it is going to go down to the wire. My guess is that LA, California, and the US will do their best to pull a London 2012 on the IOC at the last possible minute.

     

     

    There's no way in hell the IOC would choose L.A. over Paris. If I'm wrong when the time comes, I'll eat my words and say that I was wrong, but, I don't belive I am.

    If South Africa bids, for 2028, they will beat L.A. If San Francisco had a sold bid, they would beat L.A. If Chicago came back, they'd beat L.A. Anyone can beat L.A. L.A. only wins when A) There's no other choice or B ) No other viable choice.

    Also, I'm not sure why the USOC has such desire to host anyway. To me, even the USOC seems desperate. The USA has had so many olympic games (summer and winter) in such a short timespan (in terms of Olympic years). Sit down and wait a hundred years like Paris has. So greedy.

  9. 11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Not sure.  Your point is still based on an "if."  I'm aware you specifically noted that in your first post, but you're right, how am I supposed to argue a point based on a hypothetical that you're creating to make it not wrong. 

    That said, I don't think the IOC isn't so sour on Los Angeles as you believe.  It's probably not the most desirable pick right now, but that's because they were there in somewhat recent memory.  That discussion has been going on here for years now, whether or not LA could present a 2024 bid that would interest the IOC.  That's a tough sell for an event that only happens once every 4 years in 1 city/country.  But whatever.  You think the IOC looks unfavorably upon LA.  I don't care, I just think that's a bad assessment.  Let's agree to disagree.

    Yea, maybe I did goad you a little bit to post in the LA thread after you started elsewhere.  Funny thing, so did another poster, who I won't call out, said he'd like to see that as well.  Then you came here on your volition with another post to rip on LA (maybe that's an objective opinion, but no one gets the benefit of the doubt on that one here) that at least 2 people responded to before I did, including one specifically encouraging other posters to engage with you.  If you're not a fan of forum drama and getting people riled up, don't post an opinion that borders on trolling on a site that feeds off of pissing contests like that.  Like I said, welcome to GamesBids!

    I didn't make up a hypothetical just to make it "not wrong". The USOC has expresssed the same sentiment themselves, regarding SF. Those two statements that you made and agreed with (quoted above) is all I've been saying all along.

  10. 20 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Oh , you are definitely new to GamesBids.  Welcome to where everyone here is either supports and defends a city or else they must be completely against it.  I don't have a dog in this one either.  I'm from New York, so I could imagine if I was here back in 2005 that no one would give me the benefit of objectivity.  I'm not arguing with you because I'm trying to defend the honor of LA.  I'm arguing the point because I think it's wrong.  That's flattering that you looked back at my history here to try and get to know me.  Trust me, this is nothing compared to some of the pissing contests that have gone on here.  There are far more angry people on here than me.  Stick around here long enough and you'll get to meet them.

    My point is not wrong. In fact, FYI summed it up better than I did.

  11. 10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Memes are extremely immature.  So are analogies with cheesy sexual innuendo.  Should I guess you're a teenager?

    Again, good for you and your analogy.  I disagree.  That's not an attack on your or me trying to make this personal.  You posted an argument.  I posted a counter-argument.  And now this is a point of discussion that involves other posters who have their own opinions.  Are you still sure I'm the one who is trying to create forum drama here?

    Yes, I'm sure. When the L.A. people didn't respond to what I said the way you wanted them too, you did it yourself. You even wanted me to post in this forum what I posted in another forum just to get the L.A. people riled up. Yes, I'm very sure.

  12. 2 hours ago, ejaycat said:

    That could be said for a number of cities that had failed bids, but later eventually hosted.  LA would not have been the default city for 1984 had Tehran not dropped out---and, the USOC chose LA over NYC for 1984.  So, one can say that it was the USOC that chose LA as a 1st choice, and ended up being the deciding body for who would host 1984.

     

     

     

    The year was 1977. What was NYC like in 1977? Go watch some old film of NYC in the 1970's. FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD. Also, remember that 1977 was the Summer of Sam as well. And the blackout. And the looting. And the violence. And the Bronx had been burning for a while too. Would you have chosen NYC? It really wasn't even an option.

  13. 1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

    57211706.jpg

    You were the one whose very first post was to call LA unattractive and ugly and then liken them to the fat girl who you settle for as your sloppy seconds.  And I'm the one who this is personal for?  You sure sound like you want San Francisco to host (to use your words) " IF all the pieces can fall into place."  You keep making a case for this hypothetical "ideal" city, but it doesn't exist in reality.  So yea, what is there to argue about? 

    Although I do not agree with your first point.  LA is not a last resort city that will only get selected if no other options exist for the IOC.  If you feel that way, more power to you.  I disagree with that premise.  Again, you're the one who came into an internet forum with an opinion.  If you take that disagreement personally, I don't really care.

    My post about L.A. is a good analogy of how I view L.A. and it's relation to bidding for the Olympic Games.  And that was directed at L.A. and their Olympic committe.'It wasn't directed at anyone personally here. 

    You're a very angry person, at least in here. It must give you some pleasure.

    And the meme's are really immature. Are you an adult?

  14. 32 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    I have to ask again.. are you unaware that the Bay Area has bid for each of the past 3 Olympics that the USOC has put up a candidate and got passed over every time?  It's really 4 times since the USOC went back to replace Boston for 2024.  If they wanted San Fran and didn't want Boston, then how come Boston was the original pick?  When Boston then fell apart, why did the USOC tell San Fran that they'd rather work with LA.  The way you keep ripping on LA begs me to ask the question.. are you butthurt?  Cause you kinda seem a little butthurt.  In your analogy where LA is the unattractive fat girl, what does that make the Bay Area?  The lesbian who's never been penetrated?  I supposed Boston then is the cute looking chick who actually has a penis and how did everyone not spot that!

    The USOC chose LA.  Over San Francisco.  Get over it.  You can tell us all you want about how the IOC would never choose LA if they have another option, but that sounds like the butthurtitis talking.  Everything you say about LA being ugly and San Francisco being beautiful may be true, but that doesn't make the Bay Area actually better suited to host the Olympics.  If they had their $hit together, then maybe.  But they don't.  LA does.  And there's a pretty good chance the next U.S.-hosted Olympics will be there.  Chances are, it won't simply be because of a lack of options.

    You know what's really funny? Going back and reading other posts of yours...First you argue with the L.A. people in favor of Paris, and then when someone else argues that another U.S. city is better suited than L.A. you become virulently an LA. defender. You really just like arguing with people. And the more acidic in tone, the better. You really like it that way. It's kind of sick.

  15. 13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    I have to ask again.. are you unaware that the Bay Area has bid for each of the past 3 Olympics that the USOC has put up a candidate and got passed over every time?  It's really 4 times since the USOC went back to replace Boston for 2024.  If they wanted San Fran and didn't want Boston, then how come Boston was the original pick?  When Boston then fell apart, why did the USOC tell San Fran that they'd rather work with LA.  The way you keep ripping on LA begs me to ask the question.. are you butthurt?  Cause you kinda seem a little butthurt.  In your analogy where LA is the unattractive fat girl, what does that make the Bay Area?  The lesbian who's never been penetrated?  I supposed Boston then is the cute looking chick who actually has a penis and how did everyone not spot that!

    The USOC chose LA.  Over San Francisco.  Get over it.  You can tell us all you want about how the IOC would never choose LA if they have another option, but that sounds like the butthurtitis talking.  Everything you say about LA being ugly and San Francisco being beautiful may be true, but that doesn't make the Bay Area actually better suited to host the Olympics.  If they had their $hit together, then maybe.  But they don't.  LA does.  And there's a pretty good chance the next U.S.-hosted Olympics will be there.  Chances are, it won't simply be because of a lack of options.

    First of all, I don't have a dog in this race, just an point of view. SF has not been "passed over" evry time. SF withdrew for 2016. And what is this immature "butthurtitis" bullshit? You're making an assumption that I care. That I'm hurt the USOC didn't choose SFO. I don't want SF to host unless it has a viable bid with citizen support. SF has either never been viable due to stadium issues, or, it's not had citizen support. If itmhad those things, SF would be the USOC's choice without question.

    Do you agree that the IOC would probably choose another city over Los Angeles, given a choice?

    Do you agree that the USOC would choose SF given it had a viable bid with support?

    Yes? Then what are we arguing about? 

    Also, why are you so angry and nasty in tone in your posts? You like discussion forum drama and arguing. It's like it's personal with you. Chill.

  16. 2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

    I would think the IOC would like tons of viable cities. If it were viable to host the Olympic Games on Mars they might want that over LA. But what can one do it a city is not viable? SF just isn't that right now, but anyone could imagine how incredible a Bay Area Olympics could be. In my opinion it's not a matter of if when speaking of SF, it's a matter of when. 

    The never in history has LA been anyone's first pic is far from the truth though. If that were the case it would have never exploded to 18 million people from just a few hundred thousand in 100 years. It's very existence is in direct conflict with your stupid assessment because that's pretty much what it is. 

    L.A. has never in history been anyone's first pick for an Olympic games. Not sure how you extrapolated that into anything else.

  17. 7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    What do you mean if there was one?  The USOC had the Bay Area as an option for their 2012 bid.  Passed them over for New York.  The Bay Area was back at it again for 2016, but withdrew due to failed negotiations with the 49ers over their new stadium.  And now we have the 2024 bid, where San Francisco was passed over not once, but twice by the USOC.  You keep telling us San Francisco is the USOC's ideal choice (are you stating that as a matter of opinion or fact?), but if San Francisco doesn't have the goods, it's irrelevant.  The USOC's ideal choice is the city that gives them the best chance at winning the IOC's vote.  Right now, that city is Los Angeles, not San Francisco.

    You can make this a hypothetical about where the IOC would rather go if they had their choice.  Unfortunately, they don't get to pick who does or doesn't bid for the Olympics.  You're darn right they know LA is capable.  And I think the IOC is pretty grateful for what LA gave them in `84.  They may not love the city, but they certainly love what they did for the Olympics.  Not going bankrupt and not having a major terrorist incident were a pretty big deal.  Given their druthers, would they like to see another city in the US offered up as a candidate for the Olympics?  I'm sure they would.  But "always" as a last resort is 2 times, 1 of which was nearly a century ago.  Good for your analogy.  Under the right circumstances, the USOC probably would take San Francisco over LA.  In the real world however, LA is far better suited to host an Olympics than San Francisco is because LA has the technical means to pull it off and has their act together.  San Fran does not and it's not because they weren't in the running in the first place.  At the end of the day, that's all that really matters.

    I mean exactly that. If there was one. L.A. is and always will be "second choice city". For everybody. USOC, would rather field SF, over L.A. Even Boston was not who they really wanted. They wanted SF. IOC will always want somewhere else other than L.A. given other good choices. Nobody wants L.A. as a first pick. Never in history has L.A. ever been anyone's first pick. That's what I am saying.

    I think also you like Forum discussion drama and like to argue for the sake of arguing.

  18. On 9/21/2016 at 6:50 PM, Quaker2001 said:

    L.A. helped save the Olympic movement in 1984.  We all know they were the only choice the IOC had, but the results speak for themselves.  Yes, that is a really bad analogy.  Remind us.. how many Olympics has the Bay Area hosted?

    I'm not sure what your question at the end has to do with anything? SF is the USOC's ideal choice and I'd bet my last dollar the IOC would leap at an SF bid if there was one. I personally don't care if the USA doesn't host a Summer Olympic games until 2096. However, I stand by my analogy. L.A. has always been the city of last resort for the IOC. The Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games really thinks the IOC loves L.A., just because they hosted in 1984 and the games didn't go bankrupt. Yes, the IOC was happy a games happened that year, but I really don't believe they are eternally grateful or see LA. as an ideal host city. They know L.A. is capable, that doesn't mean they love the place or want to return. As long as they have a choice, they won't.

    • Like 1
  19. 5 minutes ago, Ikarus360 said:

    With the current crisis in Europe, and seeing that an european city has resigned from the race using economic issues as a justification, I think the L.A. bid will get much stronger now. I don't mean to say Paris has zero chances, only that now both cities have the same posibilities of winning. 

    More like Europe's chances got bigger, while L.A.'s road just got a lot harder.

  20. 2 hours ago, FYI said:

     

    If the IOC wants to gamble, they'd have a much better shot placing that type of bet with L.A. Like it's been said before, but the IOC could have its cake & eat it, too, with Paris 2024 & L.A. 2028 (totally opposite of what a certain buffoon at a certain L..A. newsppaper says).

    Of course. Because L.A. is always willing to be sloppy seconds or the city of "we have nowhere else to go". Which is what L.A. always has been. Has L.A. ever been a first choice for the IOC? Never. L.A. is the fat girl that thinks the high school stud really likes her, but in reality, she's just the one that's always desperate, and lapping at the studs heels, and is willing to put out when the stud has no other options.

×
×
  • Create New...