Jump to content

ScholaOsloensis

Members
  • Posts

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ScholaOsloensis

  1. Lol, you'd be surprised there's a growing anti-swedish sentiment out there . Can you imagine Pillan with some actual fuel on the fire? No seriously, if by whatever reason, you're a supporter of a swedish bid you need to look at the obstacles it faces: 1 - Needless to mention 2 - Reinfeldt and the minister of sports have been extremely lukewarm to say the least. They've basically already said no in more politeful ways, however, politics is dynamic, so it's not ruled out completely. 3 - Talk about low budget games! Currently, it's about 2/7 of the neighbouring country's budget and they are promoting themselves as "down to earth". The swedes would have to coin a different term to describe their money management, more like "down to rammed-earth", but point being, it's not realistic, and mr. Reinfeldt himself pointed this out: Make it realistic from the start; don't underfinance to gain false support.. Objectively speaking, I don't think it's strange that it's controversial given that the swedish bid has lots of supporters here despite Pillan's best efforts to prove otherwise, but it also has some major obstacles. From my POV, it's just not likely to happen.
  2. It's an interesting point you bring up..., so, Well, I think there's a difference here between summer and winter games. Frankly, summer games have always been compact, haven't they? I wouldn't look at compactness as the complete lack of a distance between two given events, as for instance the football stadias will likely be spread out. Rather, I'd say it's more natural with a positive definition, where compactness is simply "many (the large majority) events in the same place". So what I'm trying to say:-), is that compactness as an interesting problem is not something that I would usually relate to a summer games, since most of the events do take place in the hosting city. If the events are within one city (albeit in different parts), that would be compact for a winter games nowadays. And I think this notion has increasingly taken hold as the WG has adopted more of an urban feel, perhaps out of necessity because of the "ever-growing" nature of the games. A consequence of this - most of the times -, is that the outdoor venues will be spread around in the outland of whichever city we're talking about. Talking maybe distances between 30-150 km. So for the visitors of the games, that isn't very compact. So when someone can present urban games, which now seems to be a requirement ("at least 300 000" - someone mentioned here), where the large majority of the events, including outdoor, take place within city limits, there might be some sense in promoting them as compact, even though you'll hardly find a big enough city with the required mountain drop for the downhill/alpine events.
  3. Lol, well, wasn't there a jokes quota? You're right, I do get annoyed by some of your categorization and explanatory modes, and I think they're wrong in a very serious way (and not rational). I don't like all those things you attribute to me; I don't like being so intensely identified as part of a group, removing the individual from that group. I am touchy about that. What you've said and what I've said is there for anyone to read. The last posts have been humouristic, including the rants about your age, lol. I'm not worked up:-)
  4. Lol, I'm the paranoid one? Now you're downplaying what has essentially been an ongoing character assassination far out reaching the sports world. Your reference to the 30s can only be interpreted in so many ways, but enough about that. It's not like Godwin is a big deal, apropos humour.., which you caringly wondered if I knew what was. I'm terribly sorry to Rob for having contributed to derail this thread. I get a terrible itch whenever I encounter irrational girls (notice how I've not made french jokes!). I do think that some points were made somewhere in there about which principles the IOC should follow, and if someone disagrees it's because you're evil and I'm good. About the age, you stated "I was 20 in London", not "when you're 20", just to get that clear. And I don't have a problem with that, I wouldn't have cared the slightest unless you said that I'm so "fake it's a joke". No humour there. So you're getting older..a grown up. I get it. It sucks. It freaks me out too. I wake up screaming at night. And I'm a guy, so for a girl it must've been ten times worse. You're not perfect; I'm not perfect. You've mentioned your age multiple times already, so I understand there are complexes there. My sympathies. Now enough with this nonsense. @Yoshi. Lol. Glad to have been at your service:-) (PS! Humour alert.)
  5. My interpretation? You're the one concluding about my "general visions" about things, despite not knowing the slightest about it. There's only one way to interpret this, given the themes of your other criticisms/misconceptions. Let me introduce you to Godwin's law From wikipedia:
  6. Oh trust me, I don't care, but you accused me of being fake, so it's kind of an irony. In fact, in a different post you said you were 20 in London last year, so you're consistently lying about your age. I'll leave it you pondering why.. Nothing at all, except that you've lost the internet when you accuse the other party of being a nazi. Which is also ironic given your rhetorics of "not being deceived" "see through them" and the only group to legitimately be aware of, which your other comment can easily be interpreted as. "It's only yours". The deceitful and inherently evil scandinavians, beware of them! They're out to get you.. I would love to experience an Oslo olympics, but I'm not getting emotionally invested until it has governmental guarantees, which is not overwhelmingly likely, and until I see the final cost estimations. If that makes me a deceitful modest, then you're right! With that realization I guess I'll just have to throw myself off of a tall building or something. Oh well, now I broke my own promise again.
  7. And by this I refer to weighing the benefits to the costs. Of course I *want* the party.
  8. Right, so now I'm a nazi. Not going to dignify your ramblings with more responses. If you're not aware, being a local doesn't mean you actually want the olympics there, as the Munich referendum shows. I've met few as obnoxious and prejudiced as you. And by the way, not a good idea to lie about your age when it's on display in your profile. That is actually twice the last day. Take it as an advice from an old fox, less then a year older than you.
  9. They've indeed invested heavily already. A bad timing. I'm surprised they haven't tried to get more world cup events except the one nordic combined. Downside is perhaps size of the stadiums, but they could be expanded. And of course turnout and such things. Decent at the 2011 games, but that's not a high profile tournament. If IOC wants responsibility in unplowed terrain in Asia, Almaty would be an obvious choice.
  10. LOL:-) Well, I don't think it would really take away any of the challenges both of these bids face, but.. A funny idea.. In sports and, frankly, in general, these two countries are very competitive towards each other, and I guess even more so on behalf of the little brother, so that would create an interesting dynamics. US-Canada could be interesting. Maybe they should make one Olympics like euro 2020 in the future. Take a bunch of cities or villages around the world and give them one thing each. The big dogs can fight over the ceremonies. (US, Russia, China...), of course destroying all established concepts, but..big deal?
  11. No, I'm not saying that. I'm making the case that the middle way is somewhere where the most enthusiastic hosts get the games more often.Why? Because most winter sports are fragile and generally not that popular, and because according to my sporting values, participation in outdoor events is very important. To me, that is the olympics; the indoor events are always safe. I don't care if that's a traditional host or new. I'm not a fan of anything (other than the polish bid!). I'm making arguments for a case, namely that local support should be valued in bid assessments. Practically, I'm arguing against that the spreading should be valued above everything else. Why is that so controversial? My beef with you in the other thread is the same as the beef in this thread, namely that you explain any difference of opinion with a difference of human values. That is a dangerous route, if you consistently jump to that explanatory mode. Not because it's never wrong, but because it's idealism in its most extreme and perverted sense and when you have that in a societal context, you'll get bad results no matter how novel your initial values were. It's not rational. There's another possible explanation for the difference of opinion, which is a different assessment of the evidence, or the facts, or what you assume to be the facts. In our case, a combination of the above paragraph as well as a difference in a different kind of value which I don't know if you can even comprehend, after having tried to explain it. You attribute to me a sense of northern european superiority which is ridiculously wrong. You're saying that it's flat out wrong of me to think that there will be higher attendance in for instance Sweden than in Sochi (Russia is a big place. I like Russia..I want them to host. OK. Just to be clear) or in PC and not just that, you're saying explicitly that it's also morally wrong to assume that. And here's what I'm saying: This is not a normative question. It's not about moral or values; if I make it a value question, that's my error, but you don't know that. It's about the ability to technically count people that are attending something. Alternatively, the ability to make a qualified guess of a likely range of number of people that will attend events in two different places and hold these two places up against each other. It has nothing to do with freaking swedish superiority Why do you think I've been reading and googling articles about likely attendance numbers in Sochi? Because I want to know. Why do I want to know? Because I want it to be a people's party. Well maybe when you get two years older like me, you'll start not bringing your age into the discussion, feeling great about being able to teach me everything you know about the world and rather focus on what you know about the subject or in this case about me, which is nothing that implies that I'm ignoring three quarters of the world. You don't know anything about what I fear. Listen to yourself, for god's sake. I don't give a flying duck about scandinavian cliches, but would appreciate that you didn't automatically apply them to any scandinavian individual that you might bump into, including me. And that goes for all others cliches you surely must know and believe about all kinds of people groups from around the world. And again, MY PROJECT??, I don't have a project. I'm not part of a WE. I don't want to be a spokesperson because I haven't sorted my own feelings about the olympics yet and frankly I find it quite cringeworthy to go around advertising on an online board. I mean, what is your problem?
  12. Yea, what I said, once again: I named some countries where the interest in most winter sports generally is high; not which countries that are "fit to host". The US is a huge country, it has winter and it's very competitive, but the general interest for some/many of the specific sports in question is not high, but in fact quite low. This is not something I have a reason to be happy about, and hopefully it will change one day. I don't mean to be condescending about that, how could it possibly be interpreted as that? We're talking about insignificant, curious, small niche sports. What do you mean? How can you possibly deduce anything about my "fellowship" with the swedes? Can't you see that you're projecting? I've been highly critical of the Stockholm bid, to the degree that I don't think it's even 1 percent likely to win. ("not going to happen"). I've had lengthy discussions about it, discussing its weaknesses with others from completely different parts of the world, who had much more positive views. See, this is the concept, sometimes a differing opinion doesn't have anything to do with which human values you subscribe to, or which (false) category you belong to. That is your error of thought; that is your categorization, My favourite bid is the polish bid. You're applying your prejudices/views of a group to me as an individual and removing the individual from the group. I'm making a point here, as I'm sure you understand. You asked why not?? And there are reasons. That's it. I was criticising the "spread the games wherever it's possible at all costs"-strategy, which you clearly supported. That would include southern games, some of which are undoubtedly technically possible (technically, not economically or to the best of the athletes or sports) and they would offer fantastic scenery. Yet I hold that the olympics should value the body of sports that it serves, and that serves it, and that also means catering to the core markets from time to time.
  13. I'm talking about specific events, just to be clear, not the complete image of these games. Summarised, they were both of course very successful, joyful and enthusiastic games, not to step on anyone's toes. They are powerhouses. IMO much better than Torino, which was very disappointing.
  14. About the US/Canada. Needless to say, these have been great past and will be great future hosts of the WG. However, the local support for many sports aren't really that high. There's no controversy here. There's no bashing. Soldier Hollow, Whistler.. few people. That's it. Not much enthusiasm. That's it. If in the future, only indoor+snowboard should count, then fine. You don't know the first thing about me. Why the hell does where I come from have anything to say? Why do you put me in a tribal category based on my opinion, which I have made reasons for that are not out of tribalism? Why do you keep talking about my priviliges? Again, you have no idea what I study, You have know Idea where I work; where I travel, what my voluntary work is, which political party I support or where I stand on world issues. What you're implying is hurtful because it's the opposite of what I think and how I live my life. This is about the sports. A swede isn't my fellow anymore than someone from Ethiopia, and I try to avoid US/them-categories, which you obviously don't. You're the racist; you're the bigot. YOU; not your group; not your country; not your whatever, but individually YOU. A WG in the southern hemisphere would be problematic because the large majority of the sports have the world cup as sporting basis. This world cup runs from november to march. Basically everyone that competes in the olympics at the higher levels follow this schedule. A southern hemisphere winter games would have to be held around the northern summer. Needless to say; that's problematic because 1) The athletes will already have been through a long season. Competing at the highest level again after two months is not something that can be done. Is there a solution? 2) Athletes would probably go straight into competition from training. That's not ideal. 3) The countries where these sports have a big TV following would be in a different mode. 4) This means less sponsor revenues and less money for sports that already struggle These are realities; not "northern superiority". If there is a way to overcome this, I'd gladly see WG in the southern hemisphere. I'm trying to be realistic here. It doesn't mean that I hate Australia. I'm making an argument based on sporting values; it doesn't have implications for my views on human values. My God, some people..
  15. It would be very cool to have the Olympics in Vladimir Smirnov's home country. He will prob have a major role in promoting the bid, I'd guess. Almaty/Astana held the 2011 winter games. They're also staging the 2017 winter universiade. They've already invested 1,2 billion usd probably in hopes for an eventual winter olympics. Of the asian competitors, Almaty is clearly my fav. Lots of off topic in many threads.. I'll take this in the Almaty thread.
  16. Lol, I read this thread from the start. "It's not paranoia if they're really after you"
  17. Wow, you like to make people fit to your prejudices. As for Baron, my 'understanding' stems from reading his posts over a longer period of time. I don't think it's a controversial thing to say here. Sorry if Baron took offense, but he's usually on both sides of that particular dynamic. I know that he's quite big on figure skating though, so thumbs up for that! That initial sentence was perhaps unfairly polemic towards him, but if so, let me know Mr. Baron! Most of your points are already adressed, but here we go. Okay, so you want to spread the winter games all over the world, as much as possible. Just to get that straight. That leaves room for a lot of spreading. Many places can possibly stage winter games, including in the southern hemisphere. You criticise me for being obsessed by spectator numbers, but isn't that what it's about? What's a party without people? How would London look like if there were tens of thousands of empty seats? If no one showed up? There's always a scandal whenever there are some empty rows in the world cup. But since these are the winter games, people don't seem to care about that aspect. That strikes me as extremely arrogant. You'd rather be satisfied by an idea, than by real accomplishment, real participation and real joy. As I've already said, I'd love for the WG to spread around the world, on the premise that there is real interest. Russia has real interest. Poland has real interest. South Korea has some interest in a very limited number of sports, specifically short track speed skating, in which it absolutely excels, but I love what Korea is doing with their Hockey team. If they manage to create real interest for more sports, then it can be a model for future experiments. I'm not saying that attendance is the only thing that matters, but for sure, it's something that you need to consider as it's an extremely important and obvious proxy for whether the olympics has real, popular support and enthusiasm. My god, it's not advanced logic. How can you claim participation and enthusiasm when people don't show up at all? This is the reason why the IOC wants the WG in the traditional region, even though it doesn't fit the algorithm of equal geographical variation. For me and you, this might very well be a juggling of fuzzy ideas and ideals, but there are some very small sports we're talking about here, that are trying to survive. Trying to renew sponsor deals; Trying to get TV time. They're frustrated that they travel the world to fight in the most prestigious events.. and then.. nobody shows up. Nobody cares. It doesn't work and it's not good for TV. One Olympics isn't going to spread ski culture, for instance, or culture for speed skating or luge. More fundamental and long-lasting approaches are necessary for that. If there's no basis for interest without an olympics, it's not a basis with an olympics, but if there is a basis an Olympics can create a spark, But you need the basis beforehand! The Olympic ideals are mostly words. The olympics is a sporting party + a little fuzzyness, just like the WC. It's about prestige, joy and a people's party, and it's about friendliness. It's not about world peace. It's not about revolution. I believe in spreading the sports, but a single Winter Olympics is not at all an guarantee for that to happen and the risks are quite severe for the smaller sports, all of which are "olympical sports", as opposed to ice hockey for instance, which will do well no matter what. It's not necessary to be extreme to empathize with this point. It is, however, extreme to always oppose a WG in the region where people care about most sports and will show up for most sports and will create a party for most sports, on the basis of idealism of spreading the 'joy' around the world (which joy?). There's a middle way here. And I'm not saying definitely where that way goes, but I am definitely saying that part of that middle way is not automatically disqualifying the traditional nation, which ever that is, on the basis of it being a traditional winter sports nation, because if you do that enough times, you're killing the sport. As I've said, the WG is a collection of niche sports. These have proven not be spreadable around the world to large degrees despite the best of efforts. Therefore, the ideal of spreading the sports need to be balanced with the interests of those who already care about the sports. The Olympics is supposed to be a party. The summer games are always a party; the winter games are not. It has nothing to do with european superiority or some of that nonsense that you like to suggest; Torino 2006 was arguably one of the worst WG in terms of enthusiasm and participation. Now I feel that I've been so clear about my view, that I would appreciate less suggestions from you that this is some kind of nationalistic or regional game of winning. Which I believe you've suggested earlier too. I really care about these sports, and I'm actually very saddened to see that some of these sports are losing grip also in our region. This is also why I've already expressed my support for the polish bid in the polish thread. I've expressed my support for the Munich bid. The swedish bid is not going to happen, so not much to talk about there, and I can assure you I feel no obligation to support the swedes out of tribalistic reasons, which you seem to bizzarely suggest without the slightest knowledge of me. As for the bid from my own city, I've barely spoken about it normatively, but provided information about the referendum etc. I have no interest in being a spokesperson even though I have selfish reasons to want it here; if the mentioning of attendance in 52 is too tribalistic and superior-acting, then I will refrain from doing so in the future:-) I'll probably cry of joy the day we can stage world cup events in these various sports (skating, skiing, biathlon, ski jumping, luge etc) in Asia or Oceania, and people will actually watch on TV, more nations will be competitive and people will show up. But sometimes I like to think that I live in the real world.
  18. Oslo could use Norefjell, but travel time will be shorter or just about the same to kvitfjell. Also, better facilities.
  19. Just out of curiousity:-) When it comes to the winter games, could you give an example of "exciting, creative or great"? I'm genuinely interested in what you have in mind and why Stockholm wouldn't offer that given that they do build all these outdoor venues (sadly (depends on POV), not going to happen). What have the narratives been for the previous hosts: Vancouver, Torino, Salt Lake City? What are they for the competitors from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Poland/Slovakia and China? I don't know how many great WG narratives there are or have been. Sweden is a traditional winter sports nation with enthusiastic crowds, haven't yet hosted though applied 6 times. Just look at how many forumers here that want it in Sweden. That's not a bad narrative.. There's also the urban ski metropol part though questionable since Stockholm doesn't host outdoor events or have much ski terrain. There aren't that many possible winter olympics narratives. There's a kiwi living in Molde that's very active online (SSC, airliners.net etc. I'm sure he's got a user here as well), and he always argues that New Zealand should host the WG. Now that would be a narrative. But how great an olympics would it really be? There are endless problems. Scheduling and local interest being two obvious ones. Åre-Stockholm 600 km.. (400 miles)
  20. Nothing would make me happier than a city like Almaty (and the region) or even the whole of China truly taking part of the winter sports world:-) That would benefit the sports, create tougher competition, not to mention give some hard earned $$$$. I just don't know how realistic it is.. The skiing world is pretty much desperate to draw enough attention and sponsors even in central europe.
  21. Well I understand that you don't take a particular interest in the sports themselves. And this spreading the games around to the world is a very good idea for the summer olympics and for other events such as the FIFA world cup, since these are truly global events with pretty much a global interest, and where you can realistically expect lasting effects. Is it realistic to expect that XC, ski jumping, biathlon, luge etc etc are going to be popular sports in South Korea after 2018? Heck, even in winter sports nations such as Sweden where skijumping is a non-sport and Norway where luge is a very small sport (Germany dominates completely here), it's not realistic to expect a sudden surge of popularity for whichever sport happens to be not popular. The winter olympics is such a niche event in comparison, but there are some people who care about the sports, they're not many and most of them live in the same part of the world. Is it so wrong to do the sports and the games the service it is to actually stage it a place where people give a ****? Vancouver was decent, it's been worse no doubt.., but the biathlon events saw like 3000 spectators or something, and all of them in the stadium, not a single person stood along the "circuit". It's a disappointment when the enthusiasm doesn't even come close to match your average world cup event (which there are like 20 of each year) for the majority of the sports. I think it's more arrogant not to issue this problem, than to suggest that the games could be held in parts of the world (maybe like 10 countries? scandinavia+finland (not a likely host), germany, austria/switzerland, to some degree the US and Canada, poland could def be something, huge interest for ski jumping and Kowalczyk has been very popular, Japan is a stretch, though some interest there is) Russia is one of these countries, but Sochi isn't exactly where most world cup events have been held. Unless they're going to fly in people from other parts of the country, this will also be a quiet olympics. For Norway I agree it's a real shame that the other nordic countries that take interest haven't hosted and doesn't look likely in 2022. Finland has the altitude issue and we know how it's gone with Sweden, but to be frank....94 does come into play, but not so sure if it's negative seen from the perspective of the IOC. These are old people. They remember 94 (I for the most part don't though I've seen footage of course, I was 4 and lived in Hamar). 52? Come on, no one outside of the host city/country has any idea what was going on back then. The olympics have been in the alps countless of times without it really being a good argument against going back. To put it this way, in 1952, 120 000 people showed up for the individual skijumping event. If that can be repeated, it would be of higher value for the problematic winter games, than say.. 500 people holding hands in Almaty and the users of gamesbids forum finding the idea of winter games in Kazakhstan or China fresh, exciting and dynamic. Please, by all means, if there's interest, there's a way, but it would be extremely sad if the winter games turns into a prestige event for certain regimes because of the Olympic name rather than actually interest in the sports.
  22. Uhm, this comment has really nothing to do with the point of the out-of-context quote. ---- But anyways, Stockholm will formally declare their intent! So congrats:-) That should be exciting. They will go through with further reviews before they decide to apply for government guarantees.
  23. Sweden can definitely win internationally when they find the right configuration, also over Oslo. I just don't find the current plans for Stockholm realistic at all sadly, neither practically nor financially. I believe they will not bid before the 14th, but that they will try again with Östersund if Oslo loses or doesn't get gov support. Read: Guessing wildly
  24. Well, it's not going to happen. The day you'll see two ski jumping hills with 30 000+ capacity on the back side of a 100 metre artificially extended hill in Stockholm (+ all the other brand new venues that don't really fit into the landscape), I'll do handstands all the way to the swedish olympics. I don't understand how 'practical' comes into play.. I'm much more optimistic for Östersund/Sthlm/Åre some time in the future, when it's acceptable with three centres out of necessity.
  25. Well, I would say a second main weakness not taking gov support into the matter, is the fact that of all the outdoor venues only the ones in Åre (Downhill, Super G, giant slalom) are ready, or even exist. That's it. Also, there's no speed skating stadium. If all those venues are going to be up to date olympic standards, big enough and all that jazz, it's going to cost a ton of money. It's not like in vancouver where very few bothered to show up for these events, people are coming from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany etc.. tons of people. Hundreds of thousands. It costs money and I don't know how practical it would be, seeing as Sweden actually have winter sports facilities in other parts of the country. I thought this was the situation and signal we didn't want to send... building most things from scratch. If only Sweden could combine Stockholm (everything indoor) with one traditional centre like Östersund, it could be something. That's not realistic, so in the future I'm afraid we're looking at more spread out games for (most) of the traditional winter hosts. All events taking place at established winters sports places. I don't see any other way to lower the cost or seek more practical solutions. You'll never see a europe where many (not even) large cities have winter sports facilities in the city. There's really only Oslo, and Stockholm could be added to the list although it would cost a ton of money and it doesn't have the most suitable terrain.
×
×
  • Create New...