Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
baron-pierreIV

Winter 2022

Recommended Posts

I think what will determine 2020-22 is how 2020 plays out, PLUS maybe how the economies of the U.S. and Europe play out leading to 2015 when 2022 is selected. While the Winter Games will be self-paying for the most part and are extremely successful whether held in No. America or Europe, how things go + how the US-IOC revenue-sharing issue is resolved, might also be a boost for a sooner-rather-than-later US Winter bid.

If unresolved, it had a negative effect on 2012 and 2016, then a resolution MIGHT also just have an immediate, positive effect on the 2022 race. The eminence grises of the IOC might still hold sway over the younger 'uns.

With that said, the IOC overwhelmingly chose PyeongChang for 2018 so they can more than likely send 2022 back to Western Europe.

I think this was also a reward for PC's we-die-trying m.o., regardless of the 2022 race fallout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love for Reno to be thrown in the 2022 race as a sacrificial lamb against European heavy weights, and then have Denver come in to take 2026, even with its negative history. :lol:

Ha ha, u're so funny. If Reno would allow it. If anything, it's Denver which has to expiate its 1976 folly before they are to become credible again. Why should another city the fall for their stupidity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should another city the fall for their stupidity?

Stupid is, as stupid does sir...

forrest_gump-10691.jpg

Edited by Soaring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly believe any US bid for 2022 would be taken seriously, but the IOC has shown no concern for awarding Europe back-to-back summer and winter games. Recent history shows Athens/Torino, and Albertville/Barcelona/Lillenheimer.

So I think it will come down to who is able to pull the strings of the IOC members the hardest. Certainly, the Swiss and German bids will be strong. On the other hand, the pull to finally let the Americans win again could be strong to.

Now if a Euro city gets 2020 AND 2022, then it really opens the field for 2024 to Africa, Asia and N. America.

The IOC had no choice in 1994 other then to go to Europe. Athens and Torino were after 4 non-European games. So it balances out.

I cannot imagine the IOC going to St. Moritz/Davos. It is too small. I think the only European bid that could give the Germans a good push would be Salzburg or Grenoble/Lyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true. The IOC could have gone to Anchorage for 1994 but instead obviously favored to go to Scandinavia with either Ostersund, which was regarded as the favorite for those Games, or Lillehammer. So they did have a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true. The IOC could have gone to Anchorage for 1994 but instead obviously favored to go to Scandinavia with either Ostersund, which was regarded as the favorite for those Games, or Lillehammer. So they did have a choice.

And Anchorage opened second best with 23 votes. Sofia only had 17; so Sofia dropped out after Round 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true. The IOC could have gone to Anchorage for 1994 but instead obviously favored to go to Scandinavia with either Ostersund, which was regarded as the favorite for those Games, or Lillehammer. So they did have a choice.

Wasn't old enough when this happened, but wouldn't the lobbying for Atlanta 1996 already have begun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't old enough when this happened, but wouldn't the lobbying for Atlanta 1996 already have begun?

I wasn't old enough myself, but in doing some quick research.. Lillehammer was chosen as host in September 1988 (right before the Seoul Olympics). Atlanta was chosen as the USOC's nominee for the 1996 Olympics in late April of 1988 and that host vote didn't occur until September of 1990. So yes, the lobbying had begun, and in reading a couple of articles, it seems that a lot of people had started to sour on Anchorage. The original push was based on it being equidistant from both Europe and Asia, but the idea of building facilities and training venues that far away from the continental United States started to look impractical. Remember also at the time, Atlanta's bid was considered to be a long shot as they were expecting stronger competition than they got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't old enough when this happened, but wouldn't the lobbying for Atlanta 1996 already have begun?

Well, it's obvious that at that time, the USOC was up for getting both the Winter & Summer Olympics. Keep in mind, that even after Atlanta won their 1996 bid in September of 1990, the USOC still went ahead with Salt Lake City's 1998 bid. And Salt Lake still came in 4 votes behind Nagano for the 1998 Winter Games. So Atlanta beggining their lobbying for their bid prior to Anchorage & the 1994 didn't seeem to matter since nabbing both sets of Games was the USOC's strategy at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI do you think the IOC was going to have NA-Europe-NA-Europe-NA?

What does this have to do with "the IOC 'not' having a choice" for 1994, though? So every other North American Winter Games in not okay but consecutive European Winter games are (not to mention Euro Winter/Summer/Winter)?

And besides, why would that scenario be so hard to imagine when the Winter Olympics mainly rotate between North America & Europe (with the ocassional Asian sprinkling in between).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with FYI 's statement about the US and Canada not being comparable. I still think that if the US gets the next North American Winter Games Canada will be chosen as the next North American Summer host.

I also think the economic crisis is capable of totally scrambling all of the predictions on these boards -- no matter how logical they seem today. If things go badly enough we might even see 2022 or 2024 go back to China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this have to do with "the IOC 'not' having a choice" for 1994, though? So every other North American Winter Games in not okay but consecutive European Winter games are (not to mention Euro Winter/Summer/Winter)?

And besides, why would that scenario be so hard to imagine when the Winter Olympics mainly rotate between North America & Europe (with the ocassional Asian sprinkling in between).

Mostly because Anchorage was not a reasonable bid. Most media I have read from the time indicate as much. Anchorage was never a serious choice and it would have been hard to finance and it would be a huge white elephant. Anchorage is in the same boat as Birmingham, Sofia, Belgrade, Buenos Aires and Cape Town from that time. Cities that were 'in the finals' but realistically had no chance of winning. Hence the IOC had no choice in either of those contests but to choice between the realistic European bids. And again you are mixing summer and winter. The IOC wasn't going to go 16 years without going to Europe for the Summer Games. 1992 was heading to Europe and with only Brisbane as competition there was nothing to stop it. And the IOC balanced out the decade by giving the next 4 Olympics to non-European cities. And when it comes to the Winter Olympics, yes its more reasonable to have two secutive games in different regions of Europe then to bounce them around the Western Cordillera. Do you honestly think it is reasonable to have the US host 2 winter Olympics in a 14 year period?

I agree completely with FYI 's statement about the US and Canada not being comparable. I still think that if the US gets the next North American Winter Games Canada will be chosen as the next North American Summer host.

I also think the economic crisis is capable of totally scrambling all of the predictions on these boards -- no matter how logical they seem today. If things go badly enough we might even see 2022 or 2024 go back to China.

Unless something major happens by the time Rio (or even Sochi) open this is going to be behind us. And the IOC has already given strong indications to China to not bother until at least the 30's.

Edited by faster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly because Anchorage was not a reasonable bid. Most media I have read from the time indicate as much. Anchorage was never a serious choice and it would have been hard to finance and it would be a huge white elephant.

Anchorage is in the same boat as Birmingham, Sofia, Belgrade, Buenos Aires and Cape Town from that time. Cities that were 'in the finals' but realistically had no chance of winning. Hence the IOC had no choice in either of those contests but to choice between the realistic European bids.

And again you are mixing summer and winter. Do you honestly think it is reasonable to have the US host 2 winter Olympics in a 14 year period?

And since when does sustainability matter so much to the IOC? All of the bids that they have chosen within the last decade are bids that leave off huge white elephants. And these are all things that are also mentioned in most media that is out there today about the Olympics. Annecy (which even neige that was on here during the 2018 race can attest to), Salzburg & even Munich provided much more practical bids, but the IOC looked the other way. And sustainability is an issue that is brought up against Ostersund nowadays, by other members here, but yet on the other side of the fence, has it's staunch supporters. Which I would see it as more of an issue nowadays since the Winter Olympics have grown by virtually 50% since 1994.

The difference with Anchorage & all those other cities that you're listing, is that (as Baron also mentioned) Anchorage wound up with even more votes than the favorite Ostersund in the first round, & still managed to keep them, unlike those other cities in their respective races. So that would seem to suggest that Anchorage was more of a contender than some gave it credit for (ala Madrid). And all of Sofia's votes went to the Scandinavian cities. So that just indicates that the IOC favored to go to Europe moreso than anything else. Anchorage's only bad deal was timing, even though continental rotation was in their favor.

And I'm not mixing summer with winter anymore so than anyone else on here. People are always doing it, even the pundits & media outlets. It's almost the nature of the beast. However, I do it much less than most people, tbh. Since I don't think the 2 different types of Games should be intertwined as much as a lot of people like to intertwine them. Yeah, the IOC wasn't going to go 16 years without going to back Europe. But yet, somehow, the same reasoning can't be applied to the Alps, even if 2020 falls in Europe too (now how is that not mixing summer & winter games)? The IOC is also not going to have that long of a stretch without Alpine Games.

Was it reasonable to have Canada, a country 1/10 the size of the U.S. host 2 Winter Olympics in a 22-year time frame? And I'm sure a similiar questioned was asked about Atlanta, only a mere 12 years after Los Angeles, but yet looked who wound up hosting 1996. So my answer is yes. I honestly do think that it would've been reasonable, at the time, for 2 U.S. Winter Olympics in a 14-year time frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since when does sustainability matter so much to the IOC? All of the bids that they have chosen within the last decade are bids that leave off huge white elephants. And these are all things that are also mentioned in most media that is out there today about the Olympics. Annecy (which even neige that was on here during the 2018 race can attest to), Salzburg & even Munich provided much more practical bids, but the IOC looked the other way. And sustainability is an issue that is brought up against Ostersund nowadays, by other members here, but yet on the other side of the fence, has it's staunch supporters. Which I would see it as more of an issue nowadays since the Winter Olympics have grown by virtually 50% since 1994.

The difference with Anchorage & all those other cities that you're listing, is that (as Baron also mentioned) Anchorage wound up with even more votes than the favorite Ostersund in the first round, & still managed to keep them, unlike those other cities in their respective races. So that would seem to suggest that Anchorage was more of a contender than some gave it credit for (ala Madrid). And all of Sofia's votes went to the Scandinavian cities. So that just indicates that the IOC favored to go to Europe moreso than anything else. Anchorage's only bad deal was timing, even though continental rotation was in their favor.

And I'm not mixing summer with winter anymore so than anyone else on here. People are always doing it, even the pundits & media outlets. It's almost the nature of the beast. However, I do it much less than most people, tbh. Since I don't think the 2 different types of Games should be intertwined as much as a lot of people like to intertwine them. Yeah, the IOC wasn't going to go 16 years without going to back Europe. But yet, somehow, the same reasoning can't be applied to the Alps, even if 2020 falls in Europe too (now how is that not mixing summer & winter games)? The IOC is also not going to have that long of a stretch without Alpine Games.

Was it reasonable to have Canada, a country 1/10 the size of the U.S. host 2 Winter Olympics in a 22-year time frame? And I'm sure a similiar questioned was asked about Atlanta, only a mere 12 years after Los Angeles, but yet looked who wound up hosting 1996. So my answer is yes. I honestly do think that it would've been reasonable, at the time, for 2 U.S. Winter Olympics in a 14-year time frame.

Well, even though Pyeonchang received 53 votes I couldn't see them hosting (with no experience and all) just two years after Beijing. Considering IOC members were lining up Western European bids for 2012, it only left Vancouver as the main option. If Sochi had bid for 2010 maybe they could have won.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mixing summer & winter games again, which is something faster mentioned in his post.

Yes I am it was done intentionally, because when Vancouver was awarded the games it was solely done so a 2012 host could be a Western European Country. If Salzburg had won wouldn't Moscow or New York been the favourite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm well aware of the 2010 geopolitical vote, thank you. Which is preciesly why I meantioned that PyeongChang was mainly awarded 2018 akin to a simliar European scenario for 2022. But I was told that I was mixing winter & summer Games again.

And besides, the question was if I honestly thought that a 14-year gap between U.S. Winter Olympics was "reasonable", & not about Vancouver's winning circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly because Anchorage was not a reasonable bid. Most media I have read from the time indicate as much. Anchorage was never a serious choice and it would have been hard to finance and it would be a huge white elephant. Anchorage is in the same boat as Birmingham, Sofia, Belgrade, Buenos Aires and Cape Town from that time. Cities that were 'in the finals' but realistically had no chance of winning. Hence the IOC had no choice in either of those contests but to choice between the realistic European bids. And again you are mixing summer and winter. The IOC wasn't going to go 16 years without going to Europe for the Summer Games. 1992 was heading to Europe and with only Brisbane as competition there was nothing to stop it. And the IOC balanced out the decade by giving the next 4 Olympics to non-European cities. And when it comes to the Winter Olympics, yes its more reasonable to have two secutive games in different regions of Europe then to bounce them around the Western Cordillera. Do you honestly think it is reasonable to have the US host 2 winter Olympics in a 14 year period?

My understanding of Anchorage (and again, this is all from research, I'm not old enough to remember when they were bidding) is that the USOC chose it because they viewed it as a potential training ground that was equidistant from both Asia and North America. After they lost the 1992 vote and as they started getting closer to the `94 vote, the USOC started to realize the remote location wasn't as smart as it had originally seemed. And more than that, the folks in Anchorage saw what Calgary had spent and what Albertville was planning on spending and realized their budget (originally they had hoped to spend no more than around $300 million) wasn't going to cut it and their idea of a low cost Winter Olympics wasn't going to work out as planned.

The flip side of the argument, and I've brought this up plenty of times before.. take that same Anchorage bid and put them in another race and would they have won? I'm not offering an answer to a hypothetical like that, but as we well know, who you're going up against and the geo-politics of a bid race have as much to do (if not everything to do) with who the winner is than just how good the bid is. If the USOC had offered up Salt Lake them, might they have won? Another hypothetical that we can't answer. But once again, I think a lot of us here tend to put way too much weight on continental rotation and "timing" than the actual voters do when the day of decision comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of us here tend to put way too much weight on continental rotation and "timing" than the actual voters do when the day of decision comes.

I think that's very much on the voters' mind. I just can't picture a new IOC member on voting day thinking: ohmigosh, how am I going to do this? Just pick the one with the pretty pictures? The one closest to me? I know I'll NOT vote for the one the assprick beside me is voting for. :blink:

A number of them I'm sure have the mindset that they must be portioned out continentally than not. Or at least I'd like to think so.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Not only that, but doesn't continental rotation & timing go hand-in-hand with geopolitics? I mean how can that be viewed as "putting too much weight" on the issue when the IOC, since WWII, has gone out of their way to rotate the Games between the continents when given the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's very much on the voters' mind. I just can't picture a new IOC member on voting day thinking: ohmigosh, how am I going to do this? Just pick the one with the pretty pictures? The one closest to me? I know I'll NOT vote for the one the assprick beside me is voting for. :blink:

A number of them I'm sure have the mindset that they must be portioned out continentally than not. Or at least I'd like to think so.

^Not only that, but doesn't continental rotation & timing go hand-in-hand with geopolitics? I mean how can that be viewed as "putting too much weight" on the issue when the IOC, since WWII, has gone out of their way to rotate the Games between the continents when given the choice.

Because a lot of people tend to look at the results and think that certain things won't happen. How many people are lowering Tokyo's chances for 2020 because of PC 2018? I'm sure we could find some other similar examples, and at the risk of catching flack for "mixing winter vs. summer" (and I think it's a very valid point since those votes are clearly .. how close was Salt Lake to winning 1998 in what would have immediately followed Atlanta? How close was Beijing to winning 2000 after Nagano? Or PC nearly getting 2010 after Beijing 2008? A couple of votes either way and we're starting about a completely different story. It goes to intoronto's point.. PC may have lost, but they got 53 votes to Vancouver's 56. That means if 2 voters accidentally hit the wrong button, then everything plays out differently, and while you could argue that choosing Vancouver was part of a measure to hurt NYC 2012's chances and help the 4 Euro candidates, that's how slim the margin was.

So yes, while there is certainly a mindset that there needs to be an element of continental rotation, when Jacques Rogge says it doesn't preclude a bid from a given continent in a given cycle, he means exactly that. Of course there's always going to be geopolitics and that often times it's more influential than the quality of the bids themselves. I just think certain theories don't always follow logically like "the IOC balanced it out by giving the next 4 Olympics to non-European cities" or "I couldn't see PC winning just 2 years after Beijing." There may be no award or consolation for finishing in 2nd place, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something from the voting results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...