Jump to content

IAAF World Athletics Championships


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Gabba would need some of the seats taken out like the MCG and is only 42,000 anyway. Doesn't really cut it for a world championships.

Suncorp is too narrow, would need a track to be elevated over the seats, which would probably take up the entire lower level, so you'd be left with only 30,000 seats about. Not to mention it would be very expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the hell aren't the Americans considering a bid for the IAAF world champs? They are the most successful nation in athletics by far -- and so they're actually the natural host for the world champs.

I think for what the IAAF 'requests' in terms of facilities, hotel rooms, etc., US Track & Field can find no city that will put up a solvent World Track Championships -- with the main requirement being a state-of-the-art stadium.  UST&F likes to go to UC-Davis and/or Eugene for its annual meets; but these college settings are not big enough for the IAAF World Championships which would at least require a Denver, an Indiannapolis or Minn. to stage.  

We're barely getting one for the 2009 World Figure Skating Championships.  Plus, I think the "visa" thing is discouraging the cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gabba would need some of the seats taken out like the MCG and is only 42,000 anyway. Doesn't really cut it for a world championships.

Suncorp is too narrow, would need a track to be elevated over the seats, which would probably take up the entire lower level, so you'd be left with only 30,000 seats about. Not to mention it would be very expensive.

I think that's one way in which Valencia has a better chance this time round- they are offering a brand new, flashy stadium which will seat something between 55-70,000 for the championships. This would be more attractive to the IAAF, than a cricket ground with a track instilled.

This time the city hasn't got to compete with a world city liek Berlin, which has it's well-known, refurbished 1936 olympic stadium on offer.

If Brisbane was to offer a similar, brand new stadium, then it could beat valencia's bid easily as Australia (and the southern henisphere) have never hosted, whereas Spain recently hosted in 1999 with Seville.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gabba would need some of the seats taken out like the MCG and is only 42,000 anyway. Doesn't really cut it for a world championships.

Suncorp is too narrow, would need a track to be elevated over the seats, which would probably take up the entire lower level, so you'd be left with only 30,000 seats about. Not to mention it would be very expensive.

And what about the QSAC (former QE II) Stadium? It already hosted the Commonwealth and Goodwill Games and has a track. What's wrong with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gabba would need some of the seats taken out like the MCG and is only 42,000 anyway. Doesn't really cut it for a world championships.

Suncorp is too narrow, would need a track to be elevated over the seats, which would probably take up the entire lower level, so you'd be left with only 30,000 seats about. Not to mention it would be very expensive.

And what about the QSAC (former QE II) Stadium? It already hosted the Commonwealth and Goodwill Games and has a track. What's wrong with it?

That is what I like to know. Edmonton 2001 used its Commonwealth Stadium for the championships. From what I'm told, it seems this stadium in Brisbane has seen its heyday go by.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what about the QSAC (former QE II) Stadium? It already hosted the Commonwealth and Goodwill Games and has a track. What's wrong with it?

Brisbane's only real strength is the fact that Aus (and the southern hemisphere) have never hosted, so it would be taking the championships to new frontiers (like Edmonton in 2001).

But the problem is that it all comes down to what alternatives are on offer to the IAAF.

I'm sure that the stadiums in Brisbane are adequate to host a world athletics championships with some refurbishing done prior to 2011. Helsinki's 2005 stadium was nothing special, with only 40,000 seats (of which only 25,000) were available to the public, but it was adequate.

But if another city puts forward a bid with a brand new, visually appealing athletics stadium which can hold something around 60-80,000, then why should the IAAF pick Brisbane and settle for the bare minimum, when it can have better facilities in another city?

Why should the IAAF settle for just the bare minimum, when there's far better on offer? Why settle for a ham sandwich, when there's caviar on offer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gabba would need some of the seats taken out like the MCG and is only 42,000 anyway. Doesn't really cut it for a world championships.

Suncorp is too narrow, would need a track to be elevated over the seats, which would probably take up the entire lower level, so you'd be left with only 30,000 seats about. Not to mention it would be very expensive.

I think that's one way in which Valencia has a better chance this time round- they are offering a brand new, flashy stadium which will seat something between 55-70,000 for the championships. This would be more attractive to the IAAF, than a cricket ground with a track instilled.

This time the city hasn't got to compete with a world city liek Berlin, which has it's well-known, refurbished 1936 olympic stadium on offer.

If Brisbane was to offer a similar, brand new stadium, then it could beat valencia's bid easily as Australia (and the southern henisphere) have never hosted, whereas Spain recently hosted in 1999 with Seville.

Do you think Valencia is the one to beat? :oo: Sincerely, I prefer Madrid hosting the championships...  :rolleyes: Valencia is getting very refurbished with their new stadium, harbour and the city itself, like Zaragoza.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think Valencia is the one to beat?

Not necessarily. What i'm trying to say is that I think Valencia has a much better chance this time round. In the 2009 race, there was no way that Valencia was going to beat a world famous capital like Berlin, which was offering it's newly refurbished and iconic 1936 olympic stadium, which will also be used for the world cup final.

For 2011, so far there is no very strong bid, a bid which stands out or 1 city that is definetly going to win (like Berlin was for 2009)

Each of the 4 bids so far has problems associated with it, and a number of ifs and buts:

New Delhi - is the IAAF ready to go to India yet? I doubt it. It took the commonwealth games 15 -20 years to finally be awarded to India.

Brisbane - do they have a great/ sophisticated stadium to offer the IAAF? Are they planning a new stadium, are they prepared to  massively refurbish the 1982 commonwealth stadium? Thirdly, if they are planning to use the Gabba, how does the IAAF feel about having athletics in a cricket ground? (remember, Melbourne won it's 1956 olympic bid, with a brand new purpose-built athletics stadium, it was only when the plans didn't materialise that they laid down a track in the MCG for the 1956 games).

Daegu, South Korea - if they put forward Seoul, then this would be a very serious bid indeed, but not many people have heard of Daegu. Also would the IAAF want to pick a city which is geographically so near to 2007 host Osaka.

Yes- Paris was awarded 2003, followed by London being given 2005 (before they pulled out), by Daegu (S.Korea) has no where  near the world status of London.

Valencia- Spain has recently hosted with Seville, and it would be only 12 years difference between the 2 hostings. Again, Valencia isn't that well known around the world, despite being Spain's No.3 city. Also, after Berlin 2009, does the IAAF want a 2nd consecutive European city? But the strong point is that they have a brand new, visually appealing  stadium to offer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with Athletics in America is that, like the Olympics, the public thinks it only comes around every four years.  Television coverage in non-Olympic years is maybe 16 hours for the entire year.

Television coverage for the World's in 2001 was pretty good...2 hours a night (usually from 10 pm to 12 am) and 3 hours on saturday and sunday.  2003 wasn't quite as good (but I really don't remember how much there was), and 2005 was absolutely terrible, with just 1 hour a day for the entire event.

Part of the problem is that USATF does absolutely nothing to market or grow the sport.  The sad thing is that Track and Field is a huge high school sport in America and a potentially large base of people who are interested and can't get enough coverage or who would be interested and just aren't exposed to it.  

A World Championship in the United States would be great and do wonders for the sport here, but as someone said earlier, there are no stadia capable of hosting and no one willing to build one for something not an Olympic Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Amsterdam (the old olympic stadium) would be great.

250px-Amsterdam_Olympisch_Stadion.jpg

Maybey some temporary upgrade (about 20.000 seats), but then surely magnificent World Championships!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Amsterdam (the old olympic stadium) would be great.

250px-Amsterdam_Olympisch_Stadion.jpg

Maybey some temporary upgrade (about 20.000 seats), but then surely magnificent World Championships!

The stadium is way to small (22.500) and I can't see how they can expand it with enough temporary seats to make a good case. The only space for temporary seats are located near the track, however, you can't fit much more then a few thousand seats in there.

amsterdam_olympisch2.jpg

The stadium is a monument so I don't think they're allowed to alter the stadium permanent.

Daegu might not be a big name but they are the only current candidate city that has a great, 70.000 seater on offer:

daegu_wc2.jpg

I certainly wouldn't rule them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that the stadium built for the last World Cup?

Yes it is. Daegu World Cup Stadium. With a capacity of 68.014 seats it is just slightly smaller than the Olympic Stadium in Seoul (not used in WC) which is South Korea's biggest stadium.

daegu_wc1.jpg

daegu3wc2002.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the problem with Athletics in America is that, like the Olympics, the public thinks it only comes around every four years.  Television coverage in non-Olympic years is maybe 16 hours for the entire year.

Television coverage for the World's in 2001 was pretty good...2 hours a night (usually from 10 pm to 12 am) and 3 hours on saturday and sunday.  2003 wasn't quite as good (but I really don't remember how much there was), and 2005 was absolutely terrible, with just 1 hour a day for the entire event.

Part of the problem is that USATF does absolutely nothing to market or grow the sport.  The sad thing is that Track and Field is a huge high school sport in America and a potentially large base of people who are interested and can't get enough coverage or who would be interested and just aren't exposed to it.  

A World Championship in the United States would be great and do wonders for the sport here, but as someone said earlier, there are no stadia capable of hosting and no one willing to build one for something not an Olympic Games.

You have some kernels of truth there, splinter.  But looking at it another way, maybe it's only in the IAAF's head that thinks their sport is supremo, requiring 75-80,000-seat stadia to stage their championships.  

Maybe the fact that no major stadia in the US want to keep a full-time, state-of-the-art track is a reality of the market -- meaning, water seeks its own level?  However, the various indoor tracks around the US seem to do well enough.  

Speaking for myself, how many sweaty running heats can you really take?  ANd those 10,000m races are the MOST BORING to watch.  Give me a snowboardcross match or a beach volleyball match anyday.  I hope T&F --even tho it yields the highest number of medals for the US -- just withers away.  Most of its sports are quite anachronistic anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the problem with Athletics in America is that, like the Olympics, the public thinks it only comes around every four years.  Television coverage in non-Olympic years is maybe 16 hours for the entire year.

Television coverage for the World's in 2001 was pretty good...2 hours a night (usually from 10 pm to 12 am) and 3 hours on saturday and sunday.  2003 wasn't quite as good (but I really don't remember how much there was), and 2005 was absolutely terrible, with just 1 hour a day for the entire event.

Part of the problem is that USATF does absolutely nothing to market or grow the sport.  The sad thing is that Track and Field is a huge high school sport in America and a potentially large base of people who are interested and can't get enough coverage or who would be interested and just aren't exposed to it.  

A World Championship in the United States would be great and do wonders for the sport here, but as someone said earlier, there are no stadia capable of hosting and no one willing to build one for something not an Olympic Games.

You have some kernels of truth there, splinter.  But looking at it another way, maybe it's only in the IAAF's head that thinks their sport is supremo, requiring 75-80,000-seat stadia to stage their championships.  

Maybe the fact that no major stadia in the US want to keep a full-time, state-of-the-art track is a reality of the market -- meaning, water seeks its own level?  However, the various indoor tracks around the US seem to do well enough.  

Speaking for myself, how many sweaty running heats can you really take?  ANd those 10,000m races are the MOST BORING to watch.  Give me a snowboardcross match or a beach volleyball match anyday.  I hope T&F --even tho it yields the highest number of medals for the US -- just withers away.  Most of its sports are quite anachronistic anyway.

You are correct, baron.  But the way I see it, people won't come just because it is a track meet, but they will come because it is a huge international sporting event.  Americans didn't fill up 65,000 seat football stadiums, in 1994, because we are a soccer crazed nation, they came because it was it was the World Cup.  We love special events here in America.  

As for not being interested in endless sprint heats or the 10,000 meters, I can understand that.  I enjoy watching Track and Field, however, and would go if the World's were held in the U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for not being interested in endless sprint heats or the 10,000 meters, I can understand that.  I enjoy watching Track and Field, however, and would go if the World's were held in the U.S.

Oh, and I never understood the steeplechase races.  Why do they detour one or 2 times and jump into the puddle of water?  Just to cool their feet?  I mean with state-of-the-art tracks, I fail to understand the raison d'etre of the steeplechase races?   :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...