Jump to content

2020 Olympics short list


Triffle

Recommended Posts

Y does it need to be a matter of "urgency" rather than the IOC *wanting* to go to Africa. The IOC certainly doesn't do anything that they don't want to do, & simply just scratching off Africa off the list & Rio preceding 2020 won't/doesn't change that aspect.

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

Y does it need to be a matter of "urgency" rather than the IOC *wanting* to go to Africa. The IOC certainly doesn't do anything that they don't want to do, & simply just scratching off Africa off the list & Rio preceding 2020 won't/doesn't change that aspect.

As I've expressed many times here before on the board (I'm even bored with re-stating it), I just think, rightly or not, or based on false perceptions or not, it's only natural that taking the games to a "new frontier", especially a new frontier in an area like South America or Africa that is really only emerging economically and socially compared to more established and prosperous regions, requires a bigger leap of confidence - or "risk" as many put it - than giving them to a Japan or Italy or USA or Australia. If I was an IOC member, I would probably be more comfortable in the lead-up to Rio if I knew that the one coming after it was in a "safe" set of hands like a Rome, than a relatively contentious choice like South Africa.

Take last year's Commonwealth Games. I'm sure Delhi seemed like a reasonably safe, if untried, choice for the games when they were chosen. But by the time the lead-up to them descended into farce, I'd bet my bottom dollar the CGF were relieved that the next edition they had up their sleeves was Glasgow rather than Abuja.

Now, I'm not saying that a Rome or Tokyo couldn't stuff up a games, or that Durban would necessarily be more fraught than the alternatives. But perception-wise, I'm sure many people would think that way (we still have many people here on the board who aren't convinced of Rio's has what it takes to succeed, yet few who think London is going to stuff-up). Similarly, while I'm sure there'd be many IOC members who would be comfortable choosing Durban for 2020, I'd be just as sure that there will certainly be members who would not, and would be more than happy to wait another four years or whatever (after already getting through 115 years without going to Africa), for the reasons stated above. It's Durban's task now to convince such people otherwise. And, yes, the session's a perfect opportunity to do so. But just simply thinking Durban's in the box seat because the last time around the IOC chose a new frontier is too simplistic. The 2016 race ended up being a race about new frontiers. But each race has its own dynamics and the biggest mistake would be to assume the same factors that decided 2016 will also dominate the choice for 2020. In the wash-up from the 2012 decision, there were plenty of people here who were willing to vehemently argue that the result and the field "proved" that only famed "alpha" cities had any chance of winning a bid. Now we seem to have a troop who are convinced that since the 2016 decision, being a "new frontier" is the secret ingredient to trump all others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that all of us here in this & other threads have expressed our pro/con points to the point of boredom on South Africa (or any Olympic bid race for that matter). Anytime a point gets reiterated for one side or another, the countering side has to reiterate theirs. That's not changing & will countinue to be boring 'til the IOC votes on the 2020 Games on Sept 7, 2013. So I guess that you'll be 'bored' 'til then. Just as we're divided here, surely the same kind of division exist within the IOC. So no one side leverages over the other until the time of the vote, which could go either way.

While granted, Delhi was far from stellar, Rio on the hand proved otherwise with the PanAms, & therefore the IOC could take some comfort of their readiness. The IOC took so much comfort that it didn't bother them in the least that FIFA was having their big hoorah in Brazil 2 years prior. South Africa at least has the World Cup under their belt & by no means is on the same level as an Abuja. And while Rome could shape up as the bid to beat, Tokyo is still up in the air. Even the JOC president is talking about Hiroshima if Tokyo doesn't want to bid. A move that could prove to be an advantage for Durban.

And again (this has also been reiterated by me & others to the point of boredom as well), of course no one here that's at least familiar with the bidding process thinks that the IOC is just going to "give it" to South Africa simply because it would be a new frontier. And of course every bid race is different & has it's own dynamics. And of course Durban would have to prove themselves & convince the IOC. But again, it also would be "too simplistic" to think that it's not possible simply because Rio is hosting the Games 4 years prior. Tokyo 64 & Mexico 68 comes quickly to mind. And considering also that 2012 was an anomaly of being the "alpha city" cat-fight, it doesn't look like that dynamic is going to be that much of an issue either for 2020 like it wasn't for the 2016 race. It remains to be seen which dynamic is going to rule 2020 & therefore we can all speculate to the point of 'boredom', since that what these boards are for anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But we also know by my "No 2 Cities w/ same Initials" axiom that Rome's goose is cooked, even before the bidding, for the simple fact that another "R" city WILL NOT follow Rio. So what'll it be?

What about

1968 Mexico City

1972 Munich

1976 Montreal

1980 Moscow

1996 Atlanta

2000 (Sydney) Australia

2004 Athens

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about

1968 Mexico City

1972 Munich

1976 Montreal

1980 Moscow

1996 Atlanta

2000 (Sydney) Australia

2004 Athens

Yeah, yeah, yeah. People here know...my theory starts AFTER the "M" phenomenon of the 70s. And what are the chances of that repeating? Probably 1,000 to 1.

Your 2nd example doesn't count because Sydney was the hosting city (not Australia). After Moscow, There have been NO consecutive host cities that start with the same initial -- so therefore it does follow some sort of odds frequency logarithm that Rome will probably NOT follow Rio. It was explained fully in a previous post. (I'm too lazy to dig it up.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, yeah!! People here know...my theory starts AFTER the "M" phenomenon of the 70s. Your 2nd example doesn't count because Sydney is the hosting city (not Australia). After Moscow, There have been NO consecutive host cities that start with the same initial -- so therefore it does follow some sort of odd frequency logarithm that Rome will probably NOT follow Rio!! It was explained fully in a past post!!

and since Athens, cities have started with a letter higher in the alphabet than the city proceeding it..spooky. dry.gifdry.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

and since Athens, cities have started with a letter higher in the alphabet than the city proceeding it..spooky. dry.gifdry.gif

So that puts Tokyo, Tulsa or Tashkent in the box seat for 2020. Durban, Doha or Dubai have no chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, yeah. People here know...my theory starts AFTER the "M" phenomenon of the 70s. And what are the chances of that repeating? Probably 1,000 to 1.

Your 2nd example doesn't count because Sydney was the hosting city (not Australia). After Moscow, There have been NO consecutive host cities that start with the same initial -- so therefore it does follow some sort of odds frequency logarithm that Rome will probably NOT follow Rio. It was explained fully in a previous post. (I'm too lazy to dig it up.)

You have a weird voodoo science view here. Bet you believe in Horoscopes too... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is with Delhi you don't actually know until you see their plan. They could score well using many existing venues, but without being able to guarantee good travel times or a low feasibility factor in many areas could impact its chances.

Same with Istanbul and travel times or Games concept.

In the case of Durban, while there are challenges in terms of accommodation, unlikely to get the city above a 7, at least its a safe, very compact concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally I've found a serious article from Spain talking seriously about the possible rivals for the 2020 Olympic Games. It's nothing new, and it only names the possible cities, but there are 9 (well, 10, because they consider Madrid is bidding), more than expected here. With online translator:

THE POSSIBLE RIVALS

So far, no city has presented officially its candidacy.

In Spain, Valencia has realized some movement, though his mayor, Rita Barberá, has supported that it does not want to compete against Madrid, and that would study a candidacy if Madrid was not doing it. This it is also the desire of Francisco Camps, president of the Autonomous Government of the Valencian Community. In fact, Rita Barberá had this week a meeting with the president of the COI to value the possibilities of an eventual candidacy. A meeting, which a today Gallardón has not had, and that yes took place before other two foolhardy attempts.

There is foreseen that there are several European candidates, provided that in 2016 the Games will be celebrated in another continent.

After knowing the designation of Rio de Janeiro as host in 2016, the president of the Italian Olympic Committee declared that the hour of Italy had come, and that would present a candidate in 2020. The above mentioned organism chose Rome (ahead of another candidate, Venice) for the above mentioned candidacy.

In the rest of Europe, the Town hall of Budapest approved that the city was appearing, as Baku, in Azerbaijan.

In Russia, the governor of Saint Petersburg also has announced the intention of throwing a candidacy, though this one might be also for 2024. Nevertheless, the Russian option hits with the opinion of the president of its Olympic Committee and with that Russia is already going to organize the Winter Olympic Games in 2014 and the football World Cup in 2018, but this would not be a problem for the IOC, since Brazil organizes the football World Cup and the Olympic Games in 2014 and 2016.

The great mystery is Paris, although it seems that it is not going to present candidacy.

Then there is the option of Istanbul, which already one has presented in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012, and she might be a strong rival since the COI might open the Olympian movement for the Arabic world, something that the leaders of Doha (in Qatar) reproached the COI in 2008 after eliminating to this city of the Olympian career.

Precisely Doha might return to appear, according to its persons in charge.

In Africa, and sheltered by the success in the organization of the last football World Cup, South Africa might present a candidacy. It would be the city of Durban. The mayor of Madrid already added that the city had to think about it very much if an African city was appearing, since they have never hosted this competition and one does not want to repeat the bad experience of the 'Olympic map' that Rio de Janeiro showed to gain the 2016 Games.

In North America, it seems that The United States will not present a candidate, but Canada would. Toronto might be its chance, after the good organization of the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver.

In Asia, it seems Tokyo will return to repeat candidacy.

So, to sum up, these are the applicant cities for 2020 according to the article, in alphabetical order:

1. Baku, AZE

2. Budapest, HUN

3. Doha, QAT

4. Durban, RSA

5. Istanbul, TUR

6. Madrid, ESP

7. Rome, ITA

8. Saint Peterburg, RUS

9. Tokyo, JPN

10. Toronto, CAN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm...

1. Baku, AZE - NAH!!

2. Budapest, HUN - But their City Council already said NO.

3. Doha, QAT - Perennial fools or dreamers?

4. Durban, RSA

5. Istanbul, TUR - Turkey's economy seems better than Spain's

6. Madrid, ESP - They always need some losers.

7. Rome, ITA

8. Saint Peterburg, RUS - Nah. 2014 would kill its chances.

9. Tokyo, JPN - If they have money to spend.

10. Toronto, CAN - Nah. 2010's too recent and the PanAm costs are already spiraling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm...

1. Baku, AZE - NAH!!

8. Saint Peterburg, RUS - Nah. 2014 would kill its chances.

9. Tokyo, JPN - If they have money to spend.

10. Toronto, CAN - Nah. 2010's too recent and the PanAm costs are already spiraling.

1. Baku, who? :P

8. Not only that, but the 2018 WC, too. The Russian OC president seems to have a black & white mentality that if Brazil did it, so can Russia. He forgets that the IOC has already given them the priviledge with Sochi & is also another big burden in addition to the WC which Brazil did have.

9. Unless it's Hiroshima. Then Japan is done for.

10. Agreed. And all the original Olympic naysayers would balk at talks about yet another Olympic bid when the PanAms already wayyy behind budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7. Rome, ITA

10. Toronto, CAN - Nah. 2010's too recent and the PanAm costs are already spiraling.

:blink: :blink: :blink:

I still don't get this "too-soon-after-X" way of ruling out possible candidates at the first glance.

Spain and Canada are both affected, but at the same time, the United States and Italy have no problems with it :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think? Hiroshima or Tokyo?

There will have about 6 or 7 cities...

Rome

Madrid

Hiroshima

Durban or another south africa city

Busan (If PC loose)

Dubai (why not)

Berlin (If Munich loose)

New Delhi ?

Istanbul ?

Doha?

Krakow?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink: :blink: :blink:

I still don't get this "too-soon-after-X" way of ruling out possible candidates at the first glance.

Spain and Canada are both affected, but at the same time, the United States and Italy have no problems with it :unsure:

Because Spain and Canada are middling countries (both of less than 50,000,000 each) compared to the US and Italy (both population-wise and medal-standings).

By 2020, Torino would've been 14 years past...already an acceptable distance between the smaller WOGs and a larger SOGs (of which by 2020, their last one was 60 years ago. Spain would be trying for a 2nd SOG after only 28 years. Athan, compare yourself to your BIGGER neighbors -- older members of the IOC: by 2020 France (last summer - 96 years ago!!); Germany -(last summer - 48 years ago!!); Russia (last summer - 40 years ago); and here comes Spain (#6 in terms of pop in Europe) -- and you get a 2nd SOG after only 28 years?? :blink: Isn't that a little greedy?

That's why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Exactly.

Not to mention that Italy has 5 IOC members (the most of any other country) & are very influential, in particular Mario Pescante.

And what "I still don't get is this" constant black & white/apples to oranges mentality that some people have, that simply because 'abc has done, then y not xyz'. It's not that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By 2020, Torino would've been 14 years past...already an acceptable distance between the smaller WOGs and a larger SOGs (of which by 2020, their last one was 60 years ago. Spain would be trying for a 2nd SOG after only 28 years. Athan, compare yourself to your BIGGER neighbors -- older members of the IOC: by 2020 France (last summer - 96 years ago!!); Germany -(last summer - 48 years ago!!); Russia (last summer - 40 years ago); and here comes Spain (#6 in terms of pop in Europe) -- and you get a 2nd SOG after only 28 years?? :blink: Isn't that a little greedy?

But here you're talking about Summer Olympics only while you ruled out Toronto because of a Winter Olympics. It changes many things, take a look:

France (28 years), Russia (6 years), Italy (14 years)... If only Summer Olympics are taken into account, then Toronto would be 44 years after last SOG in Canada.

I understand you think it might be too-soon-after for some candidates, but, please, apply the rule the same way for everyone.

Greedy? Well, call it as you want. I wouldn't consider a Busan bid greedy, the same about Madrid (but I wasn't really talking about Madrid in the last post). This is greedy in my opinion: Lake Placid 1980, Los Angeles 1984, Atlanta 1996, Salt Lake City 2002. 4 Games out of 13! That's 30%, and I don't mind where these cities are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States isn't running for 2020, though. So it's pointless to even mention it. Italy, on the other hand, IS running. Which has 5 IOC members in it (moreso than anybody else). Is better at the Summer Olympics than Spain & Canada. And last hosted the Summer Olympic Games in 1960, vs 1976 for Canada and most recent in 1992 for Spain. Apples & oranges, as usual. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...