Jump to content

Athensfan

Members
  • Posts

    8054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by Athensfan

  1. This statement is incredibly angry and off-putting. The IOC ought to say "mea culpa." Instead they're lashing out at the Norwegians. This isn't going to fix anything and it shows just how out of touch they really are.
  2. If I were the IOC, I'd pick LA over Rome in a heartbeat. Italy is still struggling economically and is known for graft and corruption. The three-cycles out of Europe is no argument because now we've got three consecutive Games in Asia and Europe is CLEARLY disenchanted with the IOC. By contrast, the Americans have been bending over backwards to win the IOC's favor. Turning down a third consecutive American bid (from the only one of the top three cities the IOC hasn't already rejected) would alienate the Americans and trample on the good faith they have shown with the revenue deal, renewed leadership, etc. If ever there was a time the IOC needed the US in their corner, this is it. Plus, LA looks very likely to produce fun, innovative, cost-effective and profitable Games. To me it's a no-brainer.
  3. I understand that SOGs are YOUR plan B. But let's be honest, you champion some pretty fringe perspectives. In what world is "more prestigious " not also "more glamorous?" Oscars are more prestigious and more glamorous than Independent Spirit Awards. And why are we even talking about "glamour" as it relates to Olympic Games? This is an international sporting event, not a gala benefit for the Metropolitan Opera. "Glamour" doesn't apply here. That's why I picked a word that made more sense: prestige. You seem to believe only Summer athletes sweat. I'm not sure what world you're living in. Sports are sports, no matter what season holds the competition. Summer Games are much larger, with more sports, more athletes, greater diversity of competitors, and superstar athletes who are far more recognizable and better paid than their Winter counterparts. Historically speaking, the Summer Games play a far bigger role than Winter Games with nearly all the major watersheds in Olympic history occurring at Summer Games, not Winter Games. You prefer Winter Games for your own idiosyncratic personal reasons. That's fine, but please don't act like there is some empirical "correctness" to your position because there isn't. And by the way, why am I off of your ignore list? You put me on with such flamboyant fanfare. I'd just assume you return me to it. LD, the US CANNOT regroup that quickly. Look how many years they've spent preparing for 2024. They're not going to throw something together for 2026 in just a few months. If the US bids for and loses 2024, the soonest they'll bid for Winter Games is 2030. Personally, I think a 2028 Summer bid is more likely.
  4. I think it's totally possible that Paris, Rome, Berlin/Hamburg will all sit out the race. Paris is unenthused, clearly preferring a World Expo, and the mayor seems pretty negative about the Games. Rome's financial situation is not improved and the government doesn't seem enthusiastic. Germany appears to be set to host Euro 2024 and by Olympic law cannot host the Games in the same year. Maybe one or more of them will turn things around, but at this point I see no reason to expect a bid from any of them, much less all three.
  5. Because, of course, Winter athletes don't sweat. Just stupid. Uh, the real world. SOGs are clearly more prestigious. No contest. The sun shining on the Acropolis and glinting off the Aegean is pretty magical. Depends on the setting.
  6. ^^LOL. This is why I don't participate in these crazy things. A four-act play! Honor choir! How is the world still turning?! Is it any wonder that GB is deteriorating?
  7. This was interesting: Musing on the commercial atmosphere of the Atlanta Games, Gary Smith of Sports Illustrated wrote, "When you select, for cash and convenience, a landlocked city with little vestige of its past, one whose identity is tied to the mega-corporations it has enticed, in a country full of enterprising scrappers-over, say, Athens, which just happens to be the birthplace of the Olympics, not to mention of Western civilization, and the locale where one might look to plant the Centennial Games if ideals were what was at stake-well, then, don't you deserve all the plywood and tent poles you get?" (Source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/events/1996/olympics/weekly/960729/opencer.html) - See more at: http://www.southernspaces.org/2006/whatwuzit-1996-atlanta-summer-olympics-reconsidered#sthash.iVTso0tM.dpuf All hail Atlanta's "fabulous" plywood and tent poles! This was charming too: When the Closing Ceremonies were over, Crumpacker stated bluntly in his final "'Packer's Journal" entry, "I'll miss Atlanta like a boil on the butt." In spite of these Games' organizational problems, "The athletes and their performances rose above the corporate clutter and county-fair schlock of downtown Atlanta like a brightly colored hot-air balloon. Above it all." Source: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/At-last-looking-at-Atlanta-in-rearview-mirror-3130462.php) - See more at: http://www.southernspaces.org/2006/whatwuzit-1996-atlanta-summer-olympics-reconsidered#sthash.iVTso0tM.dpuf In other words, any success Atlanta enjoyed was the result of the athletes performances, not the lackluster organization. So, Zeke, I'm still waiting for your proof that the IOC loved Atlanta. You've got plenty of examples from me. "Cheap and tawdry" "plywood and tent poles" "boil on the butt." Yet still you claim the IOC wasn't disappointed. Sounds a bit insane, frankly.
  8. Here's a review of Atlanta written on the 10 year anniversary that specifically addresses the shortcomings and Samaranch's awkward "praise" as you call it. I'm sure you'll just bury your head in the sand and dismiss this as well, but for those posters who actually want to learn something, I think they'll find it interesting: http://www.southernspaces.org/2006/whatwuzit-1996-atlanta-summer-olympics-reconsidered
  9. I didn't call it "regret." That was someone else. I've clarified that twice and you insist on attributing it to me anyway. If you read that link you also read that the European commission described the Atlanta Games as "cheap and tawdry." Lousy village accommodations, bad food, bad transportation. You are choosing to ignore cold, hard proof that the IOC wasn't happy with Atlanta. You are being willfully blind and pig-headed about Samaranch as well. Was he going to stand up in the CC and say, "Boy, these Games sucked. You really screwed up"? Of course not. The IOC has to protect their own brand. The absence of @best ever" was noticeable at the time and everyone commented on it. Watch the video and gauge Samaranch's demeanor. Incidentally, not saying "best ever" about LA, was purely political. It was the height of the Cold War, LA followed Moscow, the IOC couldn't say "best ever" about LA without straining the tensions that had already caused two boycotts. You're entitled to be a myopic stick-in-the-mud, but I'm entitled to bid you "adieu." And I do.
  10. Not if you ask the IOC. And frankly "only three instances" is a lot. That doesn't even include the ones that WEREN'T documented.
  11. There are a lot of errors in your post. Tokyo is revising their venue plan so that it is more diffuse, partly to ease congestion, partly to reduce expense. Rio's venue plan was by far the most spread out of all the 2016 bidders and had the longest travel times for athletes. This was cited as one if the biggest weaknesses of the bid and obviously the IOC decided it wasn't a problem. Madrid did not lose because of the location of the sailing venue. It's an inland city and making an exception for sailing is not a big deal. Consider sailing in Weymouth for London 2012 or equestrian events in Hong Kong for Beijing 2008. Finally, citing a single far flung sport is not a fair measurement of the overall compactness of a plan that includes 23 sports. It's possible that very little will change with Agenda 2020, but it's also possible that there could be a meaningful change in direction. That's why we have to wait to hear the final report. Contrary to your statement, the IOC has made it very clear that they want Olympics to be NATIONAL affairs. They expect government support at the national level. They poll nationally to gauge support. The USOC has acknowledged that this is a priority and seeks to offer a truly national bid. This message has filtered down to the bid cities and that's why LA's leaked document kept referring to "America's Games." That said, for the time being Olympic venues are concentrated in and around cities. However, it is possible that Agenda 2020 will result in the acceptance of more spread out venue plans. In fact, I think that's highly likely. Whether the IOC will ultimately vote for that type of bid is another question. I do agree that Boston is small and compact and there is not a lot of room for new construction. The stadium certainly presents a huge challenge that Boston seems unlikely to meet. None of that, however, justifies your claim that the USOC made fools of themselves by short listing Boston.
  12. Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympic-games-maligned-atlanta-meets-targets-1352491.html
  13. I gave you two examples. And Samaranch's "most excellent" was a very glaring departure from the "best ever" he applied to every other Olympics. I'm not going to be able to find that Rogge quote for you because that was at least 7 years ago. And no, Atlanta did not create the model going forward. No one else has turned their Olympic park into a flea market for tacky local street vendors. No one else has plastered their sponsors' logos so liberally over the Games. The model you are probably referring to is that of corporate sponsorship. It was pioneered by LA84, not Atlanta, and it successfully revived the Olympic movement and provided a model for the future that is still in use today. No one complains about corporate sponsorship because it's essential. That was not Atlanta's problem. I said in my post that I wouldn't necessarily argue that the IOC "regretted" choosing Atlanta, but that they were disappointed with the results. If you believe that the IOC loved the Atlanta Games, provide evidence. "Examples please."
  14. If you want to say "I had a great experience in Atlanta and I wouldn't trade it for the world" that's totally fair. But you can't claim they were empirically "fabulous" when the IOC and most of the rest of the world disagrees. Face it, there hasn't been an Olympics since Atlanta where athletes failed to arrive in time for competition because the organizers failed to manage the transportation properly. As for your jab at Athens: I think Athens was potentially the most beautiful Olympics to date in terms of OC, look, venues, music and general ambiance (Acropolis, Aegean, etc.). I don't believe in the "best ever" analysis of any Games because all Olympics have strengths and weaknesses. The extensive delays, cost overruns, non-existent legacy planning, specter of 911, increased security, low ticket sales for some events, Kenteris/Thanou fiasco -- all those stole some shine from Athens' Games. Nonetheless, I am very thankful I was there and I think Rogge's pronouncement that the Greeks staged "unforgettable, dream Games" was well-deserved.
  15. No, that's not true. You're misunderstanding and incorrectly diagnosing what happened. Atlanta's problem was more that bus drivers didn't know where to go when, bad directions, poorly thought out routes/Olympic lanes. That's a transportation issue, not a traffic issue. If Atlanta had planned better, they could've used the exact same venue layout without having had all the transportation problems. LA had a spread out venue plan and no traffic problems. In fact, spreading out the venues typically REDUCES congestion because you don't have such a high volume of people trying to get into the same small space. We know you enjoy being the iconoclast, but the Centennial Games were by far the worst Olympics in recent memory. It's pretty universally agreed. Just like Athens produced a phenomenally artistic OC despite your claim that it was garbage. Cue vitriolic insults.
  16. It was the only Olympics Samaranch did not declare "the best ever." I also read a quote from Rogge years ago (during the 2016 bid process) where he said flat out "The Atlanta Games, those were not good Games." I don't know that it's fair to say the IOC "regrets" choosing Atlanta, but I think it's totally fair to say they were disappointed by the Games that resulted. Based on my impression of the media coverage of the time, I'd say they had good reason.
  17. They weren't disappointed in Atlanta because of the venue plan. They were disappointed in the cheesy commercialism and organizational deficiencies. Clearly, the world wants to move towards sustainable, cost-effective approaches. Like it or not, the IOC is going to have to start considering more responsible venue plans (unless they're willing to stick with Russia, China and the Middle East). That will mean fewer parks. It is possible that the 2024 field will be so weak that any US candidate would win. I am not making that prediction, I'm just saying it's not totally out of the realm if possibility. The biggest challenges are likely to come from France, Italy, Germany and potentially South Africa. All of them are looking questionable right now. If none of them bid, the US bid will be free to do things a bit differently. That could end up birthing a new model that could be very good for the Games.
  18. That's not necessarily true. For starters , no one knows exactly what the IOC wants because we don't know the results of Agenda 2020. Next, you don't know what Boston showed the USOC to get them on the shortlist. You also don't know the degree to which Boston has since revised those plans. Finally, being on the shortlist is not the same as being the candidate. The IOC will submit the single best option IFthey think it can win. There's a possibility they won't bid at all. The shortlist was just about whittling down the list to the most viable handful. Whether or not you personally believe Boston has what it takes is irrelevant. Based on the available options, the USOC felt they were one of the strongest possibilities. You don't have enough information to intelligently dispute that decision. It is entirely possible that, despite being on the short list, Boston could be deemed incapable of winning by the USOC. Conversely, the bid could be better than you think and may play into criteria established by 2020. I'm not a Boston supporter, but do think your post is ill-considered and lacks factual basis. I also have to say that it's becoming increasingly clear that you enjoy making sweeping negative proclamations in an incredibly overbearing way. Just what we need. [sarcasm.]
  19. Certainly seems probable. I'm ok with that. It will be time to go back to Germany soon, but 2022 would've fit much better in the rotation than 2024. I'm sure we'll see more German Games before too much longer.
  20. Does ANYONE see a reason to increase this person's post quota? I don't. Insufferable.
  21. There's no problem with the logic at all. The IOC can only work with the polling data they have. What evidence do you have to prove the Kazakhs and Chinese do not want the Games? Just because those countries are not known for free speech does not necessarily mean the IOC's polls are wrong. It certainly doesn't mean those countries are equally opposed to the Games as Norway. That's the huge flaw in your "logic." I fail to see how there is any logic whatsoever to awarding the Games to people who clearly don't want them just because the country allows free speech. What good is free speech if the government ignores its people? "Let's reward Norway's free speech by giving them Olympics that most people don't want." Yeah, that makes sense. I know you derive some sense of identity by playing the iconoclast, but this is just foolish. Get it together.
  22. I will be disappointed no matter who hosts. I don't "hate" any of the bids. Oddly enough, I would probably be most upset if Oslo won. It's by far the most appealing locale, but THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE GAMES. It would be flat out wrong for the IOC and the Norwegian government to ram the Olympics down their throats. Both Beijing and Almaty are dismal options. If I were voting, I'd just pick the bid whose team seemed easiest to work with. That's something we can't know from a distance.
×
×
  • Create New...