Jump to content

Geography


Recommended Posts

Guest ryan04
ok this bothers me how can people say the Vancover 2010 hurts NYC 2012, and the IOC dose not like to award the same continet area for two games, look at Athens and Torino there next door to each other, NYC and Vancover are 3,000 miles apart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this has been discussed soooo many times.....and I know people will respond saying "Europe has more countries, makes up more of the IOC, etc, etc." and that is why Europe can host more.....quite honestly Vancouver was very good for NYC...because if they hadn't gotten it, it would have brought Toronto into 2012 (which could have played the same cards as Paris about bidding a million times before and never bidding again and have won, pushing NYC or a USA Olympics way back)....or Canada could have come back for 2014 which would have also hurt NYC 2016....at least now Canada has their Games for a while, basically giving NYC a huge boost for 2016, even if Toronto does chose to bid, because it is unlikely they will win....

Also, in addition to this, Vancouver really doesn't hurt NYC 2012 has much as some like to say....if they lose I don't see it being really because Vancouver is hosting 2010....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the two twelve year olds kiss each other's behinds.

Look at the 2010 vote....How Vancouver won, and How Peyongchang lost...Then tell me that Vancouver 2010 has nothing to do with Tuesday's vote.

You Can't

Game! Set! Match! JD

Look at the 2010 vote....How Vancouver won, and How Peyongchang lost...Then tell me that Vancouver 2010 has nothing to do with Tuesday's vote.

It's on Wednesday. You're not that far behind us are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way, you're kinda right. New York losing 2012 wouldn't really be solely because Vancouver won 2010. But NY certainly does have a slight disadvantage because of it. But at this point in the race, New York's bid has become so questionable that the IOC really doesn't need to use Vancouver as a sole reason to deny New York 2012, but Vancouver is in the background.

And really, some people just need to stop comparing Europe with North America. It's not the same thing. Not everything is so "black-&-white".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the two twelve year olds kiss each other's behinds.

Look at the 2010 vote....How Vancouver won, and How Peyongchang lost...Then tell me that Vancouver 2010 has nothing to do with Tuesday's vote.

You Can't

Game! Set! Match! JD

JD I am not 12....are you?.......you attack everyone now?....go away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albertville - Barcelona - Lillehammer

All European three times in a row, with one bid from another continent in each election. (Anchorage, Brisbane, and Anchorage again.)

Europe really does have an advantage, especially over the Canada/US combination. I suppose we have to imagine Canada and the US, as well as high profile Pacific countries like Australia, China, and Japan, as all part of "Olympic Europe" or one mega-continent of countries that can readily host games, instead of focusing on the intercontinental travel of the games, because right now Europe is the only continent with several nations who can host summer and winter games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the two twelve year olds kiss each other's behinds.

Look at the 2010 vote....How Vancouver won, and How Peyongchang lost...Then tell me that Vancouver 2010 has nothing to do with Tuesday's vote.

You Can't

Game! Set! Match! JD

and also if the 2010 vote was really geared to eliminate any North American bid, then why did PC almost win?....I can see where you are comming from with how quickly Salzburg was eliminated...but you have to remember North America was almost left open, because the vote was very close....

and fine if it will be Athens 2004, Torino 2006, Paris 2012, and European City 2014 that is fine, because it gets Europe out of the picture for quite some time...which is fine with me...I say let's get it over with....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vancouver is only a part of the forumula that result in a loss for New York.

That formula:

First time bid + 3rd time Parisian bid + problematic stadium deal + Vancouver 2010 + potential US TV contracts for 2016 + Rogge's desire for "New Frontier Games" for 2020 (multiplied by huge financial gains from 2010, 12 and 16) + IOC preference for repeat bids - Europe 2016 = NYC 2016

But really...Geopolitics, schmeopolitics.  Its a minor factor, even in North America.

Look at this chain of Games:

Montreal 76 - Lake Placid 80 - Los Angeles 84 - Calgary 88

12 years non stop North American Olympics, nicely bookended by Mexico 68 and Atlanta 96.

Hell, both versions of the 1976 Games were intended for North America before Colorado voters denied funds for the Denver Games.

Fact is there are currently only 3 continents that can host the Winter Games and that limits the choices if you go strictly on geopolitics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall, at the end of the day if NYC loses 2012, they will be the only losing city in this race that will be able to quickly brush themselves off again and with the USOC's blessing 9which is likely for at least one more race) bid again, becomming pretty much the Paris of 2012...NYC I doubt will have any problems waiting just four more years....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall, at the end of the day if NYC loses 2012, they will be the only losing city in this race that will be able to quickly brush themselves off again and with the USOC's blessing 9which is likely for at least one more race) bid again, becomming pretty much the Paris of 2012...NYC I doubt will have any problems waiting just four more years....

Well, not exactly true.

If NYC does win, any of the other 4 cities stand a good chance of hosting 2016.  Well, maybe not Paris as they may not have the appetite to chase it a fourth time.  London would be the one for 2016 to watch if 2012 goes Stateside.

But if Europe does win, NYC is prime picking in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall, at the end of the day if NYC loses 2012, they will be the only losing city in this race that will be able to quickly brush themselves off again and with the USOC's blessing 9which is likely for at least one more race) bid again, becomming pretty much the Paris of 2012...NYC I doubt will have any problems waiting just four more years....

Well, not exactly true.

If NYC does win, any of the other 4 cities stand a good chance of hosting 2016.  Well, maybe not Paris as they may not have the appetite to chase it a fourth time.  London would be the one for 2016 to watch if 2012 goes Stateside.

But if Europe does win, NYC is prime picking in 2016.

Not to mention cities like Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Nairobi, etc., any of who may throw their hats into the mix of 2016. If by chance one of those bids is good, or considered average or slightly above average compared to other shortlisted cities (if they do make the shortlist), the sheer prospect of expanding the Olympic horizons will give them an edge.

I personally think New York will have a disadvantage after 2012, being that as it will go to a sprawling metropolis and something else entirely may be the flavour of the week afterwards. For instance, each of the 2012 cities is using quite a bit of multiculturalism and "mosaics of diversity" as a platform, so 2016 may head the direction of more regional characteristics, like San Francisco or Houston. This can easily be applied to the technical side of things. If the predicted trend is for a new stadium with less destruction/relocation plans, Houston may be the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first of all you are all over the place...yes some bids may come forward from new fronteirs...but I think it is very questionable how far they will get...Also, NYC will not be at a disadvantage for the reason you said (that has to be one of the most ridiculous reasons I ahve heard)....and as I have said before I highly doubt the USOC will go with another city or go through that election process again, they have already hinted at keeping NYC for 2016 at least, and for good reason....cities usually do not win on their first bid, and NYC does have a strong technical bid....and you idea of a replacement is Houston?....hahaha now I know you don't knwo what you are talkng about....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall, at the end of the day if NYC loses 2012, they will be the only losing city in this race that will be able to quickly brush themselves off again and with the USOC's blessing 9which is likely for at least one more race) bid again, becomming pretty much the Paris of 2012...NYC I doubt will have any problems waiting just four more years....

Well, not exactly true.

If NYC does win, any of the other 4 cities stand a good chance of hosting 2016.  Well, maybe not Paris as they may not have the appetite to chase it a fourth time.  London would be the one for 2016 to watch if 2012 goes Stateside.

But if Europe does win, NYC is prime picking in 2016.

Not to mention cities like Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Nairobi, etc., any of who may throw their hats into the mix of 2016. If by chance one of those bids is good, or considered average or slightly above average compared to other shortlisted cities (if they do make the shortlist), the sheer prospect of expanding the Olympic horizons will give them an edge.

I personally think New York will have a disadvantage after 2012, being that as it will go to a sprawling metropolis and something else entirely may be the flavour of the week afterwards. For instance, each of the 2012 cities is using quite a bit of multiculturalism and "mosaics of diversity" as a platform, so 2016 may head the direction of more regional characteristics, like San Francisco or Houston. This can easily be applied to the technical side of things. If the predicted trend is for a new stadium with less destruction/relocation plans, Houston may be the choice.

Wow...some actual insight...Good Work!!!

Now, some right back at ya...

I think that the idea of expanding can only go so far....And I think that its best bet is in South Africa in 2020..AFTER that country hosts the World Cup in 2010.

I think the concept of throwing Capetown or Johannesburg the Games in 2009, prior to that World Cup is absurd.

I still am not really sure about Rio...either....meaning that 2016 basically comes down to the safe bet..over the "new frontier safe bet" following a successful 2010 World Cup.

I think I see: Paris - NYC - Johannesburg/Capetown with Pariseans hissing and whistling during the NYC part of the 2012 Closing Ceremony

Also....it will be very interesting to see if these Stadiums for the Yanks, Mets, Giants, and Nets actually get built....it would really bolster the bid in my opinion..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is from one of my posts a few days ago. I'll be adding a few things into it.................

Geopolitics was the primary reason why Beijing won 2008, it again was the primary reason for Vancouver 2010 two years ago today, and it will be repeated on Wednesday.

Vancouver won because of those European cities who wanted to bid for 2012? Voting for Vancouver would kill any hopes of Toronto 2012 and would be a big blow to NYC 2012. To some extent as some others have said here, Vancouver did do NYC a favour by killing Toronto but note that NYC still is wounded because the purpose of voting for Vancouver was 1) to get TORONTO which would have been the frontrunner in 2012 and 2) to wound NYC. The final saga of the 2010 soap opera is about to end. Yes, 2010. Not 2012. 2012 began all with 2010. Geopolitics.

HOST CITY VOTE 2010

City                 Round 1          Round 2

Pyeongchang         51                   53

Salzburg               16                    -

Vancouver            40                   56

Explain where those 16 additional votes Vancouver got from Round 2 came from. The only explanation is that they were from Salzburg, and all 16 votes were European, after the bid was eliminated the votes were transferred there. The two additional votes Pyeongchang got in Round 2 were from Austria after their country was eliminated.

The forty votes Vancouver got in the first round already had some 2012 votes. That's a lot of votes for Europe 2012. The Pyeongchang votes came from sympathy over the whole North and South thing (and possibly from vote buying? :P  as it didn't make sense).

HOWEVER as I have said many times before as well as what I've said above, 2014 and 2016 could also neutralize NYC from those Europe 2012 votes or may do more than just neutralize. Europe 2014 would vote for NYC as they obviously need to get Europe 2012 out of the way in order for Europe to get 2014. Europe 2016 is also the same. There's also those European bids that will be eliminated on Wednesday, they will vote for NYC.

I agree with JD to some extent and at the same time I find the whole argentak "multiculturalism and sprawl city" thing ridiculous.

At best, NYC would be at second place. I don't see everything I have said above enough for NYC to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If New York F***ing City has difficulty landing the Olympic Games on its first bid with all its infrastructure, wealth and experience in staging global events, how can you even consider they would get usurped by a city from Africa?  Losing to Paris or London is honourable.  Losing to an African city is unfathomable.

Africa is not currently in a position to stage the Olympics.  What do you think today's Live 8 concerts were about?  Yes, they were targeting their message about Africa to a meeting being held next week - just not the one in Singapore.

But of all the African cities, Cape Town and (to a lesser extent) Johannesburg are in a position to be in position.  The 2010 World Cup is the test for South Africa and these cities in particular.  Couple that a trio of big marketing successes for the Summer Games of 2008, 2012 and 2016 and the IOC will be better suited to consider a South African Olympics.

South America could also be in there for a poke, but I think they might have to wait longer because the economies of Argentina and Brazil (the two prime candidates) aren't as stable as that of mineral rich South Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever, when trying to use geopolitics or geography in these cases. Since the Winter and Summer Olympics are now separate by alternating each other every 2 years, it is almost impossible to have a continent NOT to host "consecutive Games." Athens 2004 and Torino 2006 is a classic case here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever, when trying to use geopolitics or geography in these cases. Since the Winter and Summer Olympics are now separate by alternating each other every 2 years, it is almost impossible to have a continent NOT to host "consecutive Games." Athens 2004 and Torino 2006 is a classic case here.

Again, continental transference only makes sense when it is North America or Asia, because only a few nations in each are able to host. Europe is "immune" from this phenomenon because of its huge multinational structure in finances, media, sports, etc. It makes little sense to have a situation like where the summer games bounce around the select few who can host in Asia and the winter games in the two who can host in North America. Europe's number of nations who can host is staggering by comparison.

If the theory of transferring of continents really exist Europe would be broken down into parts in order to match numbers with N. America and Asia. For instance, southeastern Europe, western Europe and the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Alps, Mediterranean, or any number of combinations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If New York F***ing City has difficulty landing the Olympic Games on its first bid with all its infrastructure, wealth and experience in staging global events, how can you even consider they would get usurped by a city from Africa?  Losing to Paris or London is honourable.  Losing to an African city is unfathomable.

Africa is not currently in a position to stage the Olympics.  What do you think today's Live 8 concerts were about?  Yes, they were targeting their message about Africa to a meeting being held next week - just not the one in Singapore.

But of all the African cities, Cape Town and (to a lesser extent) Johannesburg are in a position to be in position.  The 2010 World Cup is the test for South Africa and these cities in particular.  Couple that a trio of big marketing successes for the Summer Games of 2008, 2012 and 2016 and the IOC will be better suited to consider a South African Olympics.

South America could also be in there for a poke, but I think they might have to wait longer because the economies of Argentina and Brazil (the two prime candidates) aren't as stable as that of mineral rich South Africa.

I am glad that there's someone else on this board other then myself, and the Baron who knows something about this whole process...That'sNotMyPuppy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, JD...its a couple of things.  I've watched these things since 1988.  I'm twice the age of the average Gamesbid teeny bopper.  And as they have informed me today, I'm an Olympic whore who is perched on a high horse.

But other than that, I guess it comes down to reason over passion.  Reason is responsible, cheap but profitable.  Passion is wreckless, expensive and takes decades to pay off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, JD...its a couple of things.  I've watched these things since 1988.  I'm twice the age of the average Gamesbid teeny bopper.  And as they have informed me today, I'm an Olympic whore who is perched on a high horse.

But other than that, I guess it comes down to reason over passion.  Reason is responsible, cheap but profitable.  Passion is wreckless, expensive and takes decades to pay off.

please read my PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...