Jump to content

Why Chicago Needs To Win


Augie4040

Recommended Posts

[quote

Big deal if Chicago doesn't have another opportunity to host for a while. Paris hasn't hosted in 85 years, Rome in 49 years and Tokyo in 45 years and they are 3 of the world's most famous cities.

Let's keep that in mind next time Melbourne places a bid. Besides, Chicago's NEVER hosted, while Paris, Rome & Tokyo HAVE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This argument is a bit weak. If Chicago wins, it wins on its own merits. The US will always have opportunities to host the Olympics, but they are not owed a free ride. There are 200+ countries in the Olympic movement and about 30-40 of those have the resources and capabilities to host the Olympic Games. As more Olympiads are hosted, as more nations develop and stabilize their economies, as more cities gain international profile and organize international events, there is no reason to not expect that there will be a more varied selection of cities hosting the Olympics.

I never saw Beijing as a risky bid. Politically, perhaps, but the age of boycotts is over. The People's Republic of China was going to ensure that any Olympic Games hosted in their country would be exceptionally organized.

And FYI makes a good point. The World Cup is big, but spread out and only one sporting event. That one sporting event also just happens to be a part of the 27+ sports found in the Olympic program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should clear something up.

I wasnt saying CHICAGO SHOULD WIN. I was saying that if it EVER wants to host it has to win 2016 or it will be several decades before Chicago or even the US could put forth a winning bid.

the whole reason for this thread was to express that I think chicago would do an excellent job and it would be very VERY good for the city, but that if it looses in 3 weeks, that may be it for the US until the late 20s or 30s.

As far as saying Chicago was due the olympics, I was just saying that the US is the largest consumer of Olympics, wether it be viewership or buying those ROOTS hats from the 2002 Salt Lake Games. And I just feel that after all of the American sponsorship and viewership, that the US should have some home turf games, actually GO to the games rather than just watch on TV.

The only reason I would say the US should never get another Olympics is due to the Coca-Colafication of the 1996 Atlanta Games, that was horrid. That was an atom bomb of commericalization being dropped on that poor city.

I would liek to see Chicago get it, but Rio is just too tempting to pass up.

It would be better for the movement and the excitment of a new culture in the spot light.

This Chicago RIo delima I have would be ended if in 3 weeks the IOC(pulled a FIFA) and just came out and said "Chicago wins 2016, but we're gonna go ahead and give Rio 2020."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time the U.S. would place a bid, though, the same "weak" argument would come up that the U.S. has hosted too many Games already. That new & emerging cities are gonna be on the landscape soon.

What those arguments sounds like, is that Europe & North America are never to host again then, since you know, with all the 'new & emerging cities' & all. The IOC won't be interested any longer in the traditional places of the past.

And if we're gonna judge by how long a city has "waited", then the IOC should've voted for Paris for 2012 instead of London. After all, Paris has waited by FAR the longest & is *still* waiting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if we're gonna judge by how long a city has "waited", then the IOC should've voted for Paris for 2012 instead of London. After all, Paris has waited by FAR the longest & is *still* waiting!

That argument is quite convincing. Paris is perhaps due another opportunity and would no doubt have won 2012 had they had a more compelling final presentation in Singapore. However, neither a Paris or London Olympics were within living memory for most people (even within the aged IOC) and both bids were described by the Evaluation Committee as "of a very high standard".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that. Yeah they may have all put in "so much time and energy", but that doesn't mean they deserve it equally. Clearly Rio is the most deserving bid because South America has never hosted; why then would a nation which has hosted EIGHT olympics be as deserving.

Firstly, lets get this out of the way. All 4 bids are deserving because they put the money and energy into it. You have to take that mindset, otherwise we might as well just put in continental rotation and be done with it. Chicago is as deserving as Rio which is as deserving as Tokyo which is as deserving as Madrid.

----------------------

Augie4040:

Firstly, thanks for your PM. I think you'll find the answers to your questions in it in my response to your first post....

I would love for Rio to win the 2016 games, and I don't want to be a snotty American, but America is DUE. We put soo much money into the Olympics and the IOC gets most of its revenue from the US, and if that means Chicago beating out a cooler Rio games than I think thats how it should be, AMerica needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF),

America does give the Olympic movement a lot but that attitude won't get you or USOC anywhere. They know the rules of the bidding process, nobody is forcing the US to put that money forward and a US Olympic bid has to win on its merits just like the others.

I'm afraid I have to chuckle a little at that a little. I can hear other people from other parts of the world using the same argument. Assuming the US gets the games based on your argument we'll then hear from some Spaniards:

"Once you've given Madrid the games in 2020, the only major European capital not to have them, then you can give those new frontiers theirs (which I'm 1000% in favour of by the way)"

And in 2024 another supporter of another city will come up with another reason why new frontiers can wait another 4 years (so long as, of course, their city wins; otherwise it's 8 years or 12 years or 16 years)

The point being, a new frontier will upset the odds whenever its wins and whoever it wins against. By using the above argument though it looks like you're trying to circumvent the process and unwilling to hear any arguments as to why anyone but Chicago should win this time around.

The Games should be used to break new grounds, but if Chicago doesnt get 2016 it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME until Unite States or even Chicago ever have a prayer of winning the Games.

I see no evidence that the IOC will adopt a new frontiers mindset. I'm still of the opinion that a Rio victory in 2016 will do much more harm than good to a Cape Town victory in 2020.

I wouldn't rule the US out in the near future if Chicago fails to win; but it's up to USOC to make sure they put forward a strong enough bid in 2020/24 to compete - if they put forward Tulsa or some other mid-tier city they only have themselves to blame when they don't. So, it's still very much in the US' hands.

Im just saying with FIFA giving the 2010 and 2014 WC to South Afirca and Brazil and vey likely a non-european nation the 2018 WC, the IOC wil want to follow suit and give newer countires a shot at the games Rio, Cape Town, Dubai, Bangkok, etc, that there is a VERY real chance that 2016 will be America's best last hope for a long time.

What FIFA does has no bearing on the IOC. I've stated before that actually the 2014 world cup could be to Rio's disadvantage because the IOC won't want their showpiece event to be seen as the follow up to a world cup. Actually, it's VERY UNLIKELY that FIFA will award the 2018 world cup outside of Europe; and if they do it'll be to somewhere like the US or Australia, not the developing countries whose bids you fear. England is the hot favourite for that particular tournament.

----------------------

So, in conclusion Augie4040, whilst we both share the hope that Chicago wins our reasons for hoping they win are very different. If their bid was less interesting I'd support someone else as I don't think the US is owed, where as it seems you'd support the US come what may (which is fair enough as you're American). I'd also, as I've said, strongly disagree that a Chicago failure would mean the US is out of the picture for a while. The US will always be in a strong position (as long as they put forward their best hand) and those who have most to lose from a Rio victory are actually other new frontiers whose own hopes will be pushed back.

I hope Chicago wins but hearing an American worrying about the future, when you have so much going for you compared to almost any other country on earth, comes across as defeatest. Your country's problems in getting a future games are small fry compared to most cities in the world. Count your blessings is my advice, enjoy the race, and worry about the future when it happens. Chicago's in with a real shot this time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument is quite convincing. Paris is perhaps due another opportunity and would no doubt have won 2012 had they had a more compelling final presentation in Singapore. However, neither a Paris or London Olympics were within living memory for most people (even within the aged IOC) and both bids were described by the Evaluation Committee as "of a very high standard".

And when did Chicago host last that it's still within living memory for most people (cuz I don't recall)? London & Paris have at least hosted, whereas Chicago has not.

I could definitely see light in the argument at hand had the USOC chosen Los Angeles instead of Chicago for their 2016 candidate. But with a city that's never hosted an Olympics & with North America not have hosted a Games in 20 years by 2016, I don't think it's "too much". Especially when since 2000 we've had 2 Summer Olympics in Europe & 2 in the Asia/Pacific Region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when did Chicago host last that it's still within living memory for most people (cuz I don't recall)? London & Paris have at least hosted, whereas Chicago has not.

Not ALL Olympic events would be within Chicago - it is a USOC bid - an United States' bid. The US athlete's competing at a Chicago Games would all march into the Opening Ceremony last (not just athletes form Chicago) and have the advantage of home support. It's the President of the United States that would declare the Games Open (not the Mayor of Chicago). It is the national anthem of the United States that would play at the Ceremonies (not My Kind of Town). It's a United States bid for the Olympics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Olympics are now awarded to a country & not a city?? Okay. <_<

And btw, London & Paris have hosted twice, I might add. Chicago - 0. And London, excuse me, the U.K. is going to be hosting for it's THIRD time in 2012. That's one too many times really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... and none in Latin America.

That would be incorrect, my friend. In case you've forgetten, Mexico City is in Latin America & they hosted in 1968.

And how many Latin American bids have there been since then? Not that many really. And certainly only a couple that have the potential to actually host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality yes - despite the majority of events being held in the same place. It's quite naive to think otherwise.

Maybe in Europe that would be the perception, since the size of the countries there are like the size of our states here. The Atlanta Games certainly didn't do much "Aww" with people in New York, Chicago or L.A., the same way they probably did in Georgia. And I'm sure they wouldn't do much to the other cities which ever U.S. city is hosting at the time. But it would also be quite naive to make such a comparison when, for example, the U.K. only has a fraction of the population that the U.S. does.

Don't get me wrong, I'm also an advocate for new & exciting places to host the Olympics, but Rio's Olympic plan is not that great compared to the others. Their venue plan is too spread out & they already have another mega-event planned just 2 years before the propsed Olympics. As Rob has said here before, we could get over-Braziled in such a very, very short time span.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but they contrived to screw up their last bid. I can't see NYC returning to the scene of its last humiliation any time soon, especailly since there's no realistic stadium project in the offing that can be used for the Games like there was up until a month before the vote in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2016 it will have been 20 years since Atlanta and 14 since Salt Lake.

I believe the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset, Looking forward to giving the games to South America, Africa, and SE Asia.

If Rio doesn't win it will surely get 2020 or 2024. Cape Town, Rio, and Mumbai, will be on the short list well into the 2030s.

Chicago on the other hand wont be on anyones shortlist ever again. The very rumor that Tulsa, Oklahoma is bidding for 2020 shows how little faith the USIOC has in getting another summer olympics in the next 20 years.

I would love for Rio to win the 2016 games, and I don't want to be a snotty American, but America is DUE. We put soo much money into the Olympics and the IOC gets most of its revenue from the US, and if that means Chicago beating out a cooler Rio games than I think thats how it should be, AMerica needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF),

The Games should be used to break new grounds, but if Chicago doesnt get 2016 it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME until Unite States or even Chicago ever have a prayer of winning the Games.

it very well could be:

2016 Rio

2020 Cape Town

sure they could give Amsterdam 2024 but 2028 will be Cairo or Bangkok or something odd.

I love this idea. I support Rio 2016 and Cape Town 2020 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I would really love to hear the Chicago team giving this speech to the IOC. It would make this a done deal to Rio.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with this run for the new frontiers and the comparison with the WC bids.

New frontiers will only be accepted if they build a clear and solid bid. It would have to be a legacy that would outshine the risk that those cities carry. The only reason why Rio's bid went so far is that it addresses many issues that are critical for the city transformation. A Rio win could boost other frontiers, such the success of Beijing did to Rio, but it could also postpone some candidates like Cape Town.

Regarding the WC, you cannot compare the frontiers. 2014 WC is not in a frontier. Latin America has hosted the WC on a regular basis since its creation. The first WC was in Uruguay, the 4th in Brazil, the 7th in Chile and the 11th in Argentina. The 13th would be in Colombia, but it withdrew and gave it to Mexico (host of the 9th and 13th WCs), so South America is also a regular for this event. The economic crisis that wiped the region during the 80's kept the WC away from there. The result was the continental rotation LA/Europe was turned into Frontier/Europe. FIFA '94 and 2002 were both frontiers. So is 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dubai 2020 is also possible. By this time all Dubai infrastructure will be built including the Olympic Land.

09dubai.2_650x421.jpg

ArtclDtaPg_794de68998444421991933226a240b29_1.1.jpg

olympics%202.jpg

Dubai_Sports_city_01.jpeg

This looks amazing. i just hope Dubai will field every spot they can with women athletes. I also hope Sharia law doesnt force them to wear long clothing in track and swimming competitions. Saudi Arabi will be very embarassed b/c they dotn allow women athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America is due is really saying America is entitled. Entitled--or a sense of being entitled--doesn't win OG anymore. Ask Pyeonchang, ask Paris.

You want the Games? Do the work; make your case; put up a bid so compelling IOC members will happily vote for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...