OneTimeOnly Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 If Tiger and Phil Mickelson are going at it in 2016, I see no reason why golf will not be sticking around. Gold should not be in the Olympic Games for the same reason that Soccer and Tennis do not belong: The Olympic Games are not the pinnacle of these sports. Get all three out, please. In addition, Golf is BOOOOOORING to watch on television, OR in person! You know why the announcers are always whispering when Golf is on TV? So they don't wake up the people at home sleeping in front of their televisions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Gold should not be in the Olympic Games for the same reason that Soccer and Tennis do not belong: The Olympic Games are not the pinnacle of these sports. Get all three out, please. Fat chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 I know that baseball and softball were eliminated before the Oct. 2nd vote. I was just saying that some people here (including myself) saw the decision to not reinstate baseball and softball as a warning sign of things to come for Chicago's bid. I realize though that it was the executive board who made that decision, not the IOC as a whole. Like I said, I understand the reasons for eliminating the two sports, but I was disappointed in the decision (I guess calling it a "bad decision" is a bit much). I felt worse for the sport of softball since the Olympics truly was the epitimy of success (plus the sport was creating in Chicago). Baseball had more decks stacked against it, and sadly softball was tied to the sport, and the two sports had issues because of gender balance as well. I myself don't care to watch golf, but am looking forward to seeing some rugby 7's. I agree, I think softball was hard done by. It at least fitted the traditional amateur ideal of the games for me. baseball I never cared for in the games though. Gold should not be in the Olympic Games for the same reason that Soccer and Tennis do not belong: The Olympic Games are not the pinnacle of these sports. Get all three out, please. In addition, Golf is BOOOOOORING to watch on television, OR in person! You know why the announcers are always whispering when Golf is on TV? So they don't wake up the people at home sleeping in front of their televisions! We don't always see eye-to-eye, but I'm 100% with you on that (you even make the same golf/gold typo I usually do) . I'd have been quite happy to see softball stay at the expense of golf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Fat chance. There is precedent for tennis not being there, although for a different reason, and Golf could easily get booted. Soccer you might have a harder time getting rid of, but not impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY20?? Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 The Games is the pinnacle of doubles Tennis, only time when a player like Federer bothers to play in a doubles draw. I mean, he acted like he won another Grand Slam when he won the Gold in Beijing with Warwrinka. And it's not like the Olympic singles tournament is just another event on the tour. It's not the pinnacle of sport, but it's definitely something top players aspire to winning. A number of them have said they will stick around to have a chance at 2012 or beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Tennis will stick around as long as the best players in the world are committed to playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 The Games is the pinnacle of doubles Tennis, only time when a player like Federer bothers to play in a doubles draw. I mean, he acted like he won another Grand Slam when he won the Gold in Beijing with Warwrinka. And it's not like the Olympic singles tournament is just another event on the tour. It's not the pinnacle of sport, but it's definitely something top players aspire to winning. A number of them have said they will stick around to have a chance at 2012 or beyond. The grandslams are the pinnacle of tennis for everything. And who cares if Federer deigned to play in a doubles draw Suddenly that makes the Olympic Games the pinnacle of doubles tennis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 There is precedent for tennis not being there, although for a different reason, and Golf could easily get booted. Soccer you might have a harder time getting rid of, but not impossible. So you're on the IOC now? What evidence is there for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 So you're on the IOC now? What evidence is there for this? Where is the evidence for what? I've posted my opinions here. Like everyone else does. STFU or put me on ignore, LIKE YOU PROMISED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 LOL, so what exactly are you basing your opinions on then? And you were mildly tolerable up to this point, hence me peaking in on your posts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY20?? Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 The grandslams are the pinnacle of tennis for everything. And who cares if Federer deigned to play in a doubles draw Suddenly that makes the Olympic Games the pinnacle of doubles tennis? Yes, the fact that the Olympic Games is the time when the most people pay attention to doubles and the time when the most top players enter a double draw and are excited about it arguably makes the Games the pinnacle of double tennis. Also, the entire presence of tennis in the Olympic program isn’t’ taken as another event on tour by top players; but a unique event to aspire to win and to stick around for, an event that means something more than playing for yourself. Any reason or cause to take tennis out of the Games at this point would come from mere scheduling, not level of prestige or reception by players. With all this said, I don't need a condescending tone, a rolleyes smiley, nor the occasional bold italics combo to communicate and support my thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Yes, the fact that the Olympic Games is the time when the most people pay attention to doubles and the time when the most top players enter a double draw and are excited about it arguably makes the Games the pinnacle of double tennis. Also, the entire presence of tennis in the Olympic program isn’t’ taken as another event on tour by top players; but a unique event to aspire to win and to stick around for, an event that means something more than playing for yourself. Any reason or cause to take tennis out of the Games at this point would come from mere scheduling, not level of prestige or reception by players. With all this said, I don't need a condescending tone, a rolleyes smiley, nor the occasional bold italics combo to communicate and support my thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Then let's leave doubles in the games and get rid of the rest. But really, just get rid of it altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Then let's leave doubles in the games and get rid of the rest. But really, just get rid of it altogether. How about not? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim856796 Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 For a city that has failed horribly in its bid. New York City is one of the "big four" cities of the world. The others of the big 3 (London, paris, and Tokyo) have already hosted. But it has never hosted an Olympic Games, and is very unlikely to do so in this century. Their plans to use the Mets Stadium as the main stadium a la Atlanta, I hated that plan. That stadium later became Citi Field. The venues that new York has right now are Madison Square Garden, the ustA National Tennis Centre, and the Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey. Available venues that are currently proposed include the Brooklyn Arena (Barclays Centre) and a reconstructed Nassau Coliseum. A proper main Olympic Stadium must be proposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 and is very unlikely to do so in this century. Ah, so you have an infallible crystal ball and/or a direct connection w/ Nostradamus?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 Ah, so you have an infallible crystal ball and/or a direct connection w/ Nostradamus?? I agree that nobody can say for certain what the future holds, but the stadium is a big problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bythebay Posted May 15, 2010 Report Share Posted May 15, 2010 Anybody see Iron Man 2? A lot of the movie was centered around a fictitious expo in flushing meadows. It looks to me they were almost showing how an Olympic park could look like in that site, albeit a little over the top. That is the only location in a major city in the US where a feasible Olympic park can be built similar to the ones in Beijing, Athens, Sydney, Barcelona, etc. Maybe a lot of the venues would have to be temporary, but atleast the land is available for it to be constructed on and is served by mass transit, with a few permanent venues already in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 17, 2010 Report Share Posted May 17, 2010 Anybody see Iron Man 2? A lot of the movie was centered around a fictitious expo in flushing meadows. It looks to me they were almost showing how an Olympic park could look like in that site, albeit a little over the top. That is the only location in a major city in the US where a feasible Olympic park can be built similar to the ones in Beijing, Athens, Sydney, Barcelona, etc. Maybe a lot of the venues would have to be temporary, but atleast the land is available for it to be constructed on and is served by mass transit, with a few permanent venues already in place. I know. That is why NYC is on top of my list. Plus they can also build more venues and probably the OV on the Jersey side. Staten Island would be too remote. Or not unless La Guardia will be closed anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted May 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Chicago didn't have a stadium either, so NYC would just have to propose a mostly temp stadium, but have a stronger legacy plan ala London. My top five cities in the U.S. to host a SOG are: Chicago New York San Francisco Boston Seattle If Chicago doesn't bid in the future, I would want NYC to be next in line then. It would be going with a repeat bidder, and I think it has a better chance at beating Toronto in a battle between N. American cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Chicago didn't have a stadium either, so NYC would just have to propose a mostly temp stadium, but have a stronger legacy plan ala London. My top five cities in the U.S. to host a SOG are: Chicago New York San Francisco Boston Seattle If Chicago doesn't bid in the future, I would want NYC to be next in line then. It would be going with a repeat bidder, and I think it has a better chance at beating Toronto in a battle between N. American cities. Seattle would be interesting although there would need to be significant upgrades to the Key Arena. Qwest Field could host the opening and closing ceremonies as well as soccer. Also, Seattle has an advantage compared to those other cities in not having to build a track and field stadium from scratch because there's one at Husky Stadium. Husky Stadium can also double as a soccer venue if necessary. I have no idea what Safeco would be used for since baseball and softball are no longer Olympic sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Seattle would be interesting although there would need to be significant upgrades to the Key Arena. Qwest Field could host the opening and closing ceremonies as well as soccer. Also, Seattle has an advantage compared to those other cities in not having to build a track and field stadium from scratch because there's one at Husky Stadium. Husky Stadium can also double as a soccer venue if necessary. I have no idea what Safeco would be used for since baseball and softball are no longer Olympic sports. Seattle's way tooooo congested (I think even more than Boston) and smallish. I mean the 1990 Goodwill Games had to be split with Spokane and Tacoma. It is a nice area, but Seattle is a B city. How does it compare to other alpha cities. Altho that may have a charm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) Seattle would be interesting although there would need to be significant upgrades to the Key Arena. Qwest Field could host the opening and closing ceremonies as well as soccer. Also, Seattle has an advantage compared to those other cities in not having to build a track and field stadium from scratch because there's one at Husky Stadium. Husky Stadium can also double as a soccer venue if necessary. I have no idea what Safeco would be used for since baseball and softball are no longer Olympic sports. If Husky Stadium isn't redeveloped, expect it as the main Olympic stadium for any Seattle bid. - Oh well, nevermind! Edited May 18, 2010 by Lord David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 I know. That is why NYC is on top of my list. Plus they can also build more venues and probably the OV on the Jersey side. Staten Island would be too remote. Or not unless La Guardia will be closed anytime soon. The OV on the Jersey side of what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Seattle is a fantastic city, but I doubt they'll ever bid for the Games. The two biggest reasons: 1.) Geography makes transportation a huge challenge. Baron is right, it's a small, very congested area. And that's without an Olympics. 2.) Seattle is nothing if not eco-friendly. The city is populated with tree-huggers and I doubt that they would ever embrace the level of construction that would be required for an Olympic Games. Truly a wonderful city, but not an Olympic host. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.