Jump to content

2020 Olympics short list


Triffle

Recommended Posts

Bottom line seems to be... Put in the most compelling bid and win...period. That may mean, as so many wannabes whine, "we never hosted"! It may mean...."we have the most established history of athletic performance". It may mean...."we have contributed the most money to the Olympic movement". It may mean...."we saved the Olympic organization at their most fragile moment and we deserve consideration for that". It may mean...."we are a city that is established as one of the great world cities". It may and should mean..."we have the most feasible plan, and can afford to do it". It may mean..."we have a legacy plan that will benefit and encourage Olympism". ...but bottom line......just bid...and have the best (most compelling bid), and win. Don't blame countries with long histories of athletic achievement and world prominence for their successful multiple wins. I don't see anyone saying the best athletes should have a quota on golds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

how many time usa host? or France ?

Well, yeah...but look at it in the context of how long the USA and France have been members of the IOC -- together with 11 other nations, from the start!! So, certainly, over the course of 115 years, the older members will have had a chance to host more than other. WHen did Turkey and Spain join the IOC? Spain and Turkey coincidentally both first appeared in Stockholm 1912 (and then of course, Turkey together with Germany, Austria & Hungary were barred from the Antwerp 1920 Games because they were the Central Powers).

Furthermore, the USA and France, as you well know, are two of the only dozen or so countries that can host both Summer & Winter Games. Is it their fault that they are so geographically blessed?

Turks, Spaniards -- you have to understand that while there is full membership today, still there are certian criteria to be filled -- and you will concede that a Ghana or let's take a newer country in the Americas, Belize, CANNOT ever hope to host a S/WOGs in its form today. Such an event needs a society/country of a certain size to amortize the Games. As we have seen, for the smallish country of Greece, were it not for sentimental reasons, hosting 2004 was quite a stretch for them.

Plus, there is such a thing as a sporting record. If the Holy See were an actual country, how stupid would it be to send them a sporting event, much less an Olympic Games, of any sort if they have "0" sports tradition at all. That would be absurd (as the choice of Qatar 2022 is). So same thing as the countries that keep getting repeat hostings: the USA, Russia, Japan, AUstralia, UK, Italy, France, Canada, maybe Korea -- it's because they are major sport countries who have raised the heights of sport, therefore have great followings of the sport within their borders and can provide the proper, appreciative crowds to fill the stadia.

Stop crying...what about us? what about us? Well, when you have solid economies, have shown yourselves to have a great sporting tradition (rise to the top 12 world rankings), then your chances will conceivably improve. Occasionally, there are exceptions when you have a very ambitious IOC president, like Samaranch, who aborted the natural course of things when he hijacked the otherwise deserving victory of Paris 1992. Yet the Spaniards (especially the Castilians) seem to think that once was NOT enough!! They don't seem to get the hint that with the 2 defeats of 2005 and 2009, a great number of voters in the IOC seem to think that 1992 was enough for 50 years!!

If you really want to make every country eligible to host an Olympic Games, then cut down the sports to maybe 1; don't require an 80,000 seat stadium -- maybe one for 5,000 only...and so you could conceivably have 165 countries entering a bidding cycle!! Try running such a competition then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not the main reason, believe me. Maybe a 5% of the reasons for Madrid to bid is this you're pointing out, but there are several more reasons why Madrid wants the Olympics.

Well, first of all, let me correct the statement "the first Olympic games in Spain were not held in Spain but in Catalonia": the first Games in Spain were held in Spain. No matter what they want to make us believe. I can assure that more than 85% of Catalonians feel Spanish and want to be part of Spain. And from the other 15%, not everyone supports independence - basically only politicians and friends with their mysterious interests.

Now, IMO, the main reason why Madrid wants the Games as soon as possible is because they don't like being the most important European capital that hasn't hosted the Olympics yet. I guess they believe the Olympics would help to establish Madrid as reference in Europe and the rest of the world in terms of tourism, economy and sport.

Madrid supported Barcelona 1992, and Barcelona has supported the recent Madrid bids, so rivalry isn't going that way. Troublemakers are really few people, but sadly, they're the ones who make the loudest noises.

Thank you for the reply, very nicely written and said

However I think reality is slightly less coloured in pink. All people from Barcelona I know (and I know many) are very clear about their being Catalonians and hating "Spain" (not the rest of Spain, just "Spain").

Also in your words there is the reason why: You think Madrid is the only big capital of Europe which did not host a SOG, but that's not the case. Besides since Spain has actually two main cities having host in one versus another really shouldn't make a difference.

It makes a difference because, deep down, you know Catalonia is not exactly in the spanish mainstream and an Olympic held there can only be a "Catalonia" olympic games (as it is everything else in Catalunia) rather than a "spanish" one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah...but look at it in the context of how long the USA and France have been members of the IOC -- together with 11 other nations, from the start!! So, certainly, over the course of 115 years, the older members will have had a chance to host more than other. WHen did Turkey and Spain join the IOC? Spain and Turkey coincidentally both first appeared in Stockholm 1912 (and then of course, Turkey together with Germany, Austria & Hungary were barred from the Antwerp 1920 Games because they were the Central Powers).

Furthermore, the USA and France, as you well know, are two of the only dozen or so countries that can host both Summer & Winter Games. Is it their fault that they are so geographically blessed?

Turks, Spaniards -- you have to understand that while there is full membership today, still there are certian criteria to be filled -- and you will concede that a Ghana or let's take a newer country in the Americas, Belize, CANNOT ever hope to host a S/WOGs in its form today. Such an event needs a society/country of a certain size to amortize the Games. As we have seen, for the smallish country of Greece, were it not for sentimental reasons, hosting 2004 was quite a stretch for them.

Plus, there is such a thing as a sporting record. If the Holy See were an actual country, how stupid would it be to send them a sporting event, much less an Olympic Games, of any sort if they have "0" sports tradition at all. That would be absurd (as the choice of Qatar 2022 is). So same thing as the countries that keep getting repeat hostings: the USA, Russia, Japan, AUstralia, UK, Italy, France, Canada, maybe Korea -- it's because they are major sport countries who have raised the heights of sport, therefore have great followings of the sport within their borders and can provide the proper, appreciative crowds to fill the stadia.

Stop crying...what about us? what about us? Well, when you have solid economies, have shown yourselves to have a great sporting tradition (rise to the top 12 world rankings), then your chances will conceivably improve. Occasionally, there are exceptions when you have a very ambitious IOC president, like Samaranch, who aborted the natural course of things when he hijacked the otherwise deserving victory of Paris 1992. Yet the Spaniards (especially the Castilians) seem to think that once was NOT enough!! They don't seem to get the hint that with the 2 defeats of 2005 and 2009, a great number of voters in the IOC seem to think that 1992 was enough for 50 years!!

If you really want to make every country eligible to host an Olympic Games, then cut down the sports to maybe 1; don't require an 80,000 seat stadium -- maybe one for 5,000 only...and so you could conceivably have 165 countries entering a bidding cycle!! Try running such a competition then.

its not just a glamour sporting past or an economical giant baron u know that too...even tough turkish olympic com. established at 1908 still one of the oldest ones in the world.. but i mean st else... cuba for example or hungary poland romania ... succesfull olympic medal collectors... better than many eu countries that host before or applying... not hosted yet.

if it depends on the economical power with the full pack of gold medals how people that much support SA ? just a new developing country and not a very very sportive one too also...the world is changeing with a speed of a f1 race car in a high way... power balances changing. old continent crushed to a wall desperetally, old foes becoming allies, the rulers of the world is changing... even USA is looking to asian giants mouths to act in diplomacy or economical issues. new regional and global powers rising both economical, cultural and in int. relations.

and more countries has a chance to upgrade sport facilities and their citizens learn sports is a major thing in their lifes. thats why i insist on new areas new countries need olympics more than the ones already hosted several times.. capito?

but its a bid and voting system is st else ... hope the best bid wins and hope it will be a new land for IOC

hope u understand what i try to say ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it depends on the economical power with the full pack of gold medals how people that much support SA ? just a new developing country and not a very very sportive one too also...the world is changeing with a speed of a f1 race car in a high way... power balances changing. old continent crushed to a wall desperetally, old foes becoming allies, the rulers of the world is changing... even USA is looking to asian giants mouths to act in diplomacy or economical issues. new regional and global powers rising both economical, cultural and in int. relations.

and more countries has a chance to upgrade sport facilities and their citizens learn sports is a major thing in their lifes. thats why i insist on new areas new countries need olympics more than the ones already hosted several times.. capito?

but its a bid and voting system is st else ... hope the best bid wins and hope it will be a new land for IOC

hope u understand what i try to say ...

ANyway, 'New Frontiers' isn't really a new thing anymore. In the last 60 years or so, it goes as far back as 1956 when the distant city of Melbourne was picked (over Buenos Aires). Then, it comes back every now and then when conditions are right). So...we've had 1968 - Mexico; 1988 - Seoul; 2008 - Beijing; 2010 - RSA for World Cup; so even a Durban 2020 isn't really 'New Frontiers' anymore); Rio 2016; and of course the biggest ??? of all - Qatar 2022. (Actually, even St. Louis 1904 must have been a 'New Frontiers" site for the totally Euro-composed IOC back then.)

I'd say Durban's best calling card would be "The Last Unplayed Continent" and that is a legitimate claim. I mean FIFA beat the IOC to the African continent, so it seems there is no other choice--especially if Durban will prove that it is ready and capable--but to go there in 2020!!

As for Istanbul, you have to time it right!! Maybe 2024 might be MORE suitable for Istanbul-- as a EUro entry! Or if you do it as an Asian bid, 2028 since the "8"s are reserved for Asian cities!! What is the saying: all good things come to those who wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not just a glamour sporting past or an economical giant baron u know that too...even tough turkish olympic com. established at 1908 still one of the oldest ones in the world.. but i mean st else... cuba for example or hungary poland romania ... succesfull olympic medal collectors... better than many eu countries that host before or applying... not hosted yet.

if it depends on the economical power with the full pack of gold medals how people that much support SA ? just a new developing country and not a very very sportive one too also...the world is changeing with a speed of a f1 race car in a high way... power balances changing. old continent crushed to a wall desperetally, old foes becoming allies, the rulers of the world is changing... even USA is looking to asian giants mouths to act in diplomacy or economical issues. new regional and global powers rising both economical, cultural and in int. relations.

and more countries has a chance to upgrade sport facilities and their citizens learn sports is a major thing in their lifes. thats why i insist on new areas new countries need olympics more than the ones already hosted several times.. capito?

but its a bid and voting system is st else ... hope the best bid wins and hope it will be a new land for IOC

hope u understand what i try to say ...

Emre I think it's a mixture of things. For WOG the main obstacle to hosting is actually having winter sports realisicly viable complex, that is achievable now (but things are changing) in just a handful of countries clustered around the alps, in north Europe, in north America and some places in far east

for SOG it's even more complicated. Capabilities of hosting depends on:

1) brutal size of the economy which can withstand spending 4-5 billion € in a waistful show. Only 20-30 countries qualify right now

2) size of the city: you also have to have a realistically large and well developed city (above 2.5 million, informally) with at least good level of infrastructures (airports, mass transit, hotels etc). For example Durban barely, but just barely fits in the cathegory. Maybe actually it does not

3) a influential voice in sport world (a mixture of IOC members, successful sport records etc)

4) a tradition of influence in world affairs, and good connections with the world

5) a stable political, economical landscape which does not allow for big "surprises" int he years running towards the games

etc etc

Many countries (including the ones you named) do not fit any or most of these criteria. Turkey (now) does but untill recently it was too poor, too small a economy, to unstable a country to host the olympics even thought always had the weight as a country and a large and infrastructured city (Istanbul) to host the games.

Now things have changed and Turkey will - soon or later - get its first SOG.

BTY: do you have potential locations for WOG by any chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Istanbul, you have to time it right!! Maybe 2024 might be MORE suitable for Istanbul-- as a EUro entry! What is the saying: All good things come to those who wait? Or if you do it as an Asian bid, 2028 since the "8"s are reserved for Asian cities!!

for me 2024 is a better year for Istanbul cause its the 100th year of turkish republic...

about new frontiers IOC is somewhat take a risk and back to its warm docks after that again.. im not so optimist about 2020 will be in Durban or Istanbul. altough Istanbul has a bit higher chance than Durban i think tokyo can get it.

Emre I think it's a mixture of things. For WOG the main obstacle to hosting is actually having winter sports realisicly viable complex, that is achievable now (but things are changing) in just a handful of countries clustered around the alps, in north Europe, in north America and some places in far east

Now things have changed and Turkey will - soon or later - get its first SOG.

BTY: do you have potential locations for WOG by any chance?

yeah.. turkey is the highest level country in europe. we have many ski resorts and cities can handle the organisation. altough we will host winter universiade 8 days later in erzurum..

here is a adv. clip of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However I think reality is slightly less coloured in pink. All people from Barcelona I know (and I know many) are very clear about their being Catalonians and hating "Spain" (not the rest of Spain, just "Spain").

Also in your words there is the reason why: You think Madrid is the only big capital of Europe which did not host a SOG, but that's not the case. Besides since Spain has actually two main cities having host in one versus another really shouldn't make a difference.

Well, Barcelona, as a big city, is where most of the 15% I said before live. But Catalonia is much more than Barcelona: apart from it, there are 3 other provinces and, as weird as it may sound, the less important the province, the more Spanish its people feel... BTW, I also know some Catalonian people and I've never heard them say they hate Madrid or Spain. There's rivalry, of course, like in any other country, but not really important (for most of the people).

And one more thing: it's not me who said Madrid is the only big European capital without SOGs but the Madrid officials and the bids organizers. It's true I have to agree. Considering the top-5 European capitals are London, Paris, Rome, Madrid & Berlin, it's clear Madrid is the only one left. Barcelona is quite important, too, but we can't deny it's not a European capital - here's where the rivalry begins :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the top-5 European capitals are London, Paris, Rome, Madrid & Berlin,

Uhmmm...conveniently forgetting Moscow, are we?? :blink: I mean...it's only the capital of the 2nd strongest nuclear power AND of the largest country on the planet--spanning 8 time zones??

So if we take out Madrid, then the top 5 European capitals already have ALL hosted an Olympics...therefore Madrid should not feel so insecure anymore -- since it's out of the Top 5!! :lol::lol: So it's envy and insecurity more than anything else on Madrid's part that the 2nd Spanish city has already hosted an Olympics whereas the capital has NOT.

Why doesn't Madrid go for an Expo instead? Best the one Sevilla hosted in '92??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am, but (---) I fully support Rome2020. Support thought is not blind: we have some strengths (like a airport which is actually already an hub with almost 40 million passengers and a city that does not need to dock any cruise ship to meet any room requirements from the IOC) but Italy's bid (which barely escapes the PIGS classification) has some weakness too

Besides these will be the problems any western bid from 2020 onwards will have with the emerging (emerged?) world. USA and EU will have to adapt to a very, very different landscape tomorrow (today?)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not that optimistic about Rome neither (for other reasons though).

My previous comment may have sounded sarcastic about your criticism towards Rome but that's because you started your first post mentioning a Rome-Milan debate. Then you turned out to be serious and you pulled out a valid point that surely needs attention as the bid proceeds.

isnt it too early for rome after torino ?

Torino's were forgotten games, remember? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Barcelona, as a big city, is where most of the 15% I said before live. But Catalonia is much more than Barcelona: apart from it, there are 3 other provinces and, as weird as it may sound, the less important the province, the more Spanish its people feel... BTW, I also know some Catalonian people and I've never heard them say they hate Madrid or Spain. There's rivalry, of course, like in any other country, but not really important (for most of the people).

And one more thing: it's not me who said Madrid is the only big European capital without SOGs but the Madrid officials and the bids organizers. It's true I have to agree. Considering the top-5 European capitals are London, Paris, Rome, Madrid & Berlin, it's clear Madrid is the only one left. Barcelona is quite important, too, but we can't deny it's not a European capital - here's where the rivalry begins :rolleyes:

I have a somewhat different opinion of what a european great capital is...I think it's any continental-level city which Barcelona surely is. Also Milan (even more) BTW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhmmm...conveniently forgetting Moscow, are we?? :blink: I mean...it's only the capital of the 2nd strongest nuclear power AND of the largest country on the planet--spanning 8 time zones??

So if we take out Madrid, then the top 5 European capitals already have ALL hosted an Olympics...therefore Madrid should not feel so insecure anymore -- since it's out of the Top 5!! :lol::lol: So it's envy and insecurity more than anything else on Madrid's part that the 2nd Spanish city has already hosted an Olympics whereas the capital has NOT.

Why doesn't Madrid go for an Expo instead? Best the one Sevilla hosted in '92??

That's not the point, mainly, because Moscow isn't usually seen as a European capital like London or Paris. However, the top-5 was only an example, but even if Moscow was in that top-5 (which I doubt), Madrid would still be the most important European capital without the Olympics.

And regarding the Expo, if you think Barcelona 1992 was too early for Madrid 2020, you should know that Zaragoza hosted in 2008, so that's even closer than the Olympics.

I have a somewhat different opinion of what a european great capital is...I think it's any continental-level city which Barcelona surely is. Also Milan (even more) BTW

Then we differ here. By European capitals I mean the capitals of each of the countries in Europe. Therefore, Milan, Barcelona, Munich, St. Petersburg, etc. would not be considered as European capitals ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the point, mainly, because Moscow isn't usually seen as a European capital like London or Paris. However, the top-5 was only an example, but even if Moscow was in that top-5 (which I doubt), Madrid would still be the most important European capital without the Olympics.

Then we differ here. By European capitals I mean the capitals of each of the countries in Europe. Therefore, Milan, Barcelona, Munich, St. Petersburg, etc. would not be considered as European capitals ;)

What's it seen as then? an Asian capital? Moscow is undoubtedly a European capital (and among the top 3 most important with London and Paris). Who are the people that apparently don't see it as European? the Spanish i suppose.

You've also contradicted yourself, referring to the countries of Europe and mentioning St. Petersburg; which is in Russia, which you have indirectly classified as a European country, whose capital is Moscow which therefore must be European!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No... I don't know how to explain myself... -_-

Moscow is a European capital, indeed. What I was saying is that when people speak about European capitals they don't always refer to Moscow. And I know Moscow is an important city in an important country, but the size or power of the country don't make it the most important in Europe - IMO, London and Paris, at least, are better, and I'd add more cities here.

Anyway, that's not the point either. I was explaining that the Madrid bid team said they were the most important European capital that hasn't hosted the Games yet, and Moscow being there or not doesn't change anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's it seen as then? an Asian capital? Moscow is undoubtedly a European capital (and among the top 3 most important with London and Paris). Who are the people that apparently don't see it as European? the Spanish i suppose.

You've also contradicted yourself, referring to the countries of Europe and mentioning St. Petersburg; which is in Russia, which you have indirectly classified as a European country, whose capital is Moscow which therefore must be European!

St. Petersburg is in European territory, designed by Tsar Peter the Great to be the European Capital of the Russian Empire. Moscow is old Russia, part of a Russia that was historically not considered European but on the periphery of Europe just like the Ottoman Empire. Futhermore you are being overly simplistic with regards to a transcontinental country like Russia. For instance Kazan is in Russia but is not in Europe.

Mind you by all geographical and political definations Moscow is indeed in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly

it's OT but the borders of today's world are shaped more by culture and civilization than by the (rather meaningless sometimes) continental borders.

North Africa has hardly anything in common with subsaharian Africa and much more in common with the middle east. Russia is a continent on its own, while "Europe" is just western europe ie, nowadays, basically the european Union and its proxies (balkans, nordic countries).

Moscow therefore is pretty much surely in "continental" europe but for all other aspects it's not, it's in Russia which is neither Europe nor Asia, but a independent civilization (with its own neighborhood)

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what about Turkey and Istanbul... asia or europe sirs?

I think, Istanbul, because of its muslim heritage, and the greater part of it really on the Asian land side, is MORE Asian than European. Had it stayed Christian, it definitely would be classed as European. IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what about Turkey and Istanbul... asia or europe sirs? :rolleyes:

geographically belonging to both, culturally to the middle east (not Asia as a whole). Turkey I think is a split country which is trying to pretend to be european (not being accepted) while should take again it's much more natural role of leader of the Middle east and north Africa

Anyway North Africa, near east (Turkey, Greece, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Palestine) and middle east all belong to one "universe" of civilizations that predates history. This area has been always interconnected and had few or no connections with other civilized areas (India, China, the americas and subsaharian Africa) making it one "cultural" area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a bit complicated ... turkey considered as a european country and power till 19.th century with Paris degleration. member of all euro zone sport federations, in EU parliament, member of erasmus and other educational scientific projects in EU, hosting euro champs, was a european capital of culture, win eurovision once... but europeans see Cyprus and Israel more part of europe than turkey... even their lands totatlly in asia :)its true that just mostly muslim population frightened europeans and never see the truth, turkey is more european than many other eu countries.

"my lonely and beautiful country" as nuri bilge ceylan said while he honored as the best director at 61th. cannes film festival.

but i wonder. if IOC really picks cities from continents where they but Istanbul? asia or europe? or they make this separation politically or geographically ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a bit complicated ... turkey considered as a european country and power till 19.th century with Paris degleration. member of all euro zone sport federations, in EU parliament, member of erasmus and other educational scientific projects in EU, hosting euro champs, was a european capital of culture, win eurovision once... but europeans see Cyprus and Israel more part of europe than turkey... even their lands totatlly in asia :)its true that just mostly muslim population frightened europeans and never see the truth, turkey is more european than many other eu countries.

"my lonely and beautiful country" as nuri bilge ceylan said while he honored as the best director at 61th. cannes film festival.

but i wonder. if IOC really picks cities from continents where they but Istanbul? asia or europe? or they make this separation politically or geographically ?

Istanbul I think would be considered europe by the IOC, again I think "Asia" is a term that hardly fits any country in the middle east which belongs much more to the mediterranean cultures than to Asia (which is much more a regione that covers the far east, rather than all geographical Asia)

BTW: Cyprus is considerd europe because it has a european (ie: christian) culture, while Turkey does not. The hard truth, but the truth nonetheless

Link to post
Share on other sites

Istanbul I think would be considered europe by the IOC, again I think "Asia" is a term that hardly fits any country in the middle east which belongs much more to the mediterranean cultures than to Asia (which is much more a regione that covers the far east, rather than all geographical Asia)

BTW: Cyprus is considerd europe because it has a european (ie: christian) culture, while Turkey does not. The hard truth, but the truth nonetheless

yeap ı know a new eu member also.. but the island is an asiatic land.. not european as geograpichly...

but they IOC dont have any list as euro or other continents list for cities as i know... or in bidding process they include a information like

exp:

PARIS

location; france, europe..

do they?

if so rio s a new continent without olympics must not work cause whole american continent is just 1 piece. not divided into 2

. and again if so why there is 1 ring on the flag for america...

so continental orientation is not a very important thing but the cultural arena is more important at decisions with geo.. right?

im really confused now... :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...