Jump to content

2018 Decision Live Chat


Recommended Posts

I must say,I didn't expect Pyeongchang to take it on a landslide in the 1st ballot! Obviously there must have been a groundswell of opinion among the IOC to make it 3rd time lucky for the Koreans following the two earlier near-misses.Still,I had expected Munich at least to make it a bit closer than that!

Then again,the IOC has a bit of a history of rewarding Asian bids with first round landslides following earlier near-misses.I think of Beijing narrowly missing out to Sydney for 2000 and then sweeping all before it for 2008.Pyeongchang has now done pretty much the same.

Anyway congrats to the South Koreans.Sometimes persistence CAN finally pay off! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

BTW, who is that Theresa Roah? I was very impressed by her. But what is she? Like only 1/16th Korean or maybe married to a Korean?

I don't think this question was ever answered. Her father was a Korean diplomat and she grew up overseas, which is why her English was so good.

Theresa Rah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's also the physiogonomic nature of things. The alpine sports were made for & invented by the heavier, bigger European-type body; whereas say speedskating and a number of the ice sports are made for the smaller, more compact, swifter Asian-type body. So unless you do 2 categories in everything: heavyweight and lightweight, then the odds will always favor the one the sport was originally designed (and codified) for.

Now, if you throw in chess or card games, then it doesn't matter who is the bigger/smaller player. It's the brain and luck that will decide. ;)

Do you have any idea how racist this is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any idea how racist this is?

Only for overly-PC people...

It is the blunt truth. Is it racist to say that in gymnastics, the ideal body form is small and compact? Ask any gymnastics coach. That in basketball and volleyball, height is the winning factor (and that includes those who have Watusi blood since the Watusis of Africa are the tallest in their continent). Why is it that the Russians, the Americans and the Brazilians are the ones who dominate and keep winning all the int'l volleyball matches? Because that particular sport was designed (I am sure NOT on purpose) for taller people to dominate. You surely haven't heard of Indonesians or Filipinos or Mexicans being world volleyball powers, have you?

Same thing with rowing...people with longer limbs win over the shorter athletes. I'm sure if rowing was available to the Watusi peoples of Africa, they could give the Europeans and the Kiwis and the Ozzies a run for their money.

In Equestrian and Dressage, do you see the little Shetland ponies and miniature horses competing with the steeds and stallions and other thoroughbreds you see on TV? :blink:

In dog races, do you see the Chihuahuas and the dachshunds sharing the tracks with the greyhounds and the whippets? :blink::lol::lol:

There's NOTHING racist about that -- not unless you're in denial.

Like I have no problem telling you how double-standard the taboo use of the "N" word is...supposedly...yet ride the buses of San Francisco (as I used to when I lived in the City), especially those that head to and come from the project housing areas...and you will hear it with your own ears how African-Americans greet each other jubilantly with "Hey, n*gger" yet don't get chided or cuffed by anyone. But have a non-colored person say that, and immediately the mark of Satan is upon them. It's all a double-standard and it's liberal white people's guilt this stupid PC fancy plays on.

Maybe I should add now that at least in the newer snow sports -- the aerials, the half-pipes, the moguls, the BMX's, ski-jumping...the ideal longer-limbed athlete-type is no longer required. So at least in those newer snow sports, the playing field is levelled insofar as one body-type having better odds over another.

Jeez. Being PC is soooooo yesterday. I just happen to call a spade a spade, Jawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, it was 20 years since the games where in Asia and it was Korea's turn.

Well, if "It's so-and-so many years after the last Games in our country" had been a main factor in this election, then Munich should have won by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me, CAF. How "upset" were you when the U.S. lost out to Rio, mainly because they never hosted before? Or what if Munich or Hamburg had bid for the 2016 Summer Games & lost to Rio in the same smack-down fashion? 'I think that you wouldn't have written your sentence had Germany been in that race, too & lost'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am "upset" when the IOC considers new frontiers only - no matter if a bid of a traditional host is better or as good as another one...

It would have been better if the IOC hadn't shortlisted these traditional bids.

So you were 'upset' then, over Rio's victory, too, right? Not just Munich's??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I didn't think you did. So let's shred your stoopid racist argument then.

Average height for American males 1.76m, for Brazilian 1.70m, no stat available for Russians. Average height for Japanese men 1.71m; for South Korean men 1.74m. Average height for Dutchmen 1.84m, German men 1.8m. South African men 1.69m, Malawian men 1.66, Cameroon 1.71.

The reasons some countries dominate in certain sports is because the sports are well supported. AND because athletes there have better access to healthcare, good food, and education. ANY country with more than 50 million people will produce enough tall people for volleyball--and enough compact ones for sports like gymnastics.

So the US is advantaged because of genetics for volleyball, yet somehow manages to excel in artistic gymnastics as well? So much for genetics.

Same thing goes for hockey (taller means more powerful strokes, if fit) and short track (shorter means better turns, if fit). Canada's a powerhouse in both.

So you're making things up based on nonsense that positions an entire people's abilities in certain areas based on ethnicity or race. Aside from being wrong, it's stoopid and ignorant.

Only for overly-PC people...

It is the blunt truth. Is it racist to say that in gymnastics, the ideal body form is small and compact? Ask any gymnastics coach. That in basketball and volleyball, height is the winning factor (and that includes those who have Watusi blood since the Watusis of Africa are the tallest in their continent). Why is it that the Russians, the Americans and the Brazilians are the ones who dominate and keep winning all the int'l volleyball matches? Because that particular sport was designed (I am sure NOT on purpose) for taller people to dominate. You surely haven't heard of Indonesians or Filipinos or Mexicans being world volleyball powers, have you?

Same thing with rowing...people with longer limbs win over the shorter athletes. I'm sure if rowing was available to the Watusi peoples of Africa, they could give the Europeans and the Kiwis and the Ozzies a run for their money.

In Equestrian and Dressage, do you see the little Shetland ponies and miniature horses competing with the steeds and stallions and other thoroughbreds you see on TV? :blink:

In dog races, do you see the Chihuahuas and the dachshunds sharing the tracks with the greyhounds and the whippets? :blink::lol::lol:

There's NOTHING racist about that -- not unless you're in denial.

Like I have no problem telling you how double-standard the taboo use of the "N" word is...supposedly...yet ride the buses of San Francisco (as I used to when I lived in the City), especially those that head to and come from the project housing areas...and you will hear it with your own ears how African-Americans greet each other jubilantly with "Hey, n*gger" yet don't get chided or cuffed by anyone. But have a non-colored person say that, and immediately the mark of Satan is upon them. It's all a double-standard and it's liberal white people's guilt this stupid PC fancy plays on.

Maybe I should add now that at least in the newer snow sports -- the aerials, the half-pipes, the moguls, the BMX's, ski-jumping...the ideal longer-limbed athlete-type is no longer required. So at least in those newer snow sports, the playing field is levelled insofar as one body-type having better odds over another.

Jeez. Being PC is soooooo yesterday. I just happen to call a spade a spade, Jawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am "upset" when the IOC considers new frontiers only - no matter if a bid of a traditional host is better or as good as another one...

It would have been better if the IOC hadn't shortlisted these traditional bids.

So you were 'upset' over Chicago's loss, too, right? Not just Munich's??

And what about Annecy?? I don't think that you're too upset over their loss, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am "upset" when the IOC considers new frontiers only - no matter if a bid of a traditional host is better or as good as another one...

It would have been better if the IOC hadn't shortlisted these traditional bids.

But you know...France was a "new Frontier" too in 1900. The US was "new frontier" in 1904, the U.K. in 1908, etc., etc. At one time or another, each NEW country was a "New Frontier." PC didn't really say "New Frontier" so much since Seoul already was an ex-Olympic host, as "New Horizons" -- bringing the WOGs to a new section of an already 1x Olympic host. I mean, Germany's had its Winter Games in 1936, why begrudge a new nation their turn??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't "upset" about PyeongChang victory - I was dissapointed that Munich hadn't have a chance, which is something different (in my point of view)

Not really. It's the same thing but in a different context. And you keep EVADING the question. So did that make you upet then that Chicago didn't "have a chance", either? Or are you JUST upset since it was only Munich??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you were 'upset' over Chicago's loss, too, right? Not just Munich's??

And what about Annecy?? I don't think that you're too upset over their loss, either.

Like I have already said I was more dissapointed that Munich didn't have a chance at all - well, I think Annecy's bid had charme...

I am more upset that the IOC pretends that all shortlisted cities have the same chance - when the general policy of the IOC is to explore new frontiers it shouldn't shortlist cities of countries which had hosted in the past or long time ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I didn't think you did. So let's shred your stoopid racist argument then.

Average height for American males 1.76m, for Brazilian 1.70m, no stat available for Russians. Average height for Japanese men 1.71m; for South Korean men 1.74m. Average height for Dutchmen 1.84m, German men 1.8m. South African men 1.69m, Malawian men 1.66, Cameroon 1.71.

The reasons some countries dominate in certain sports is because the sports are well supported. AND because athletes there have better access to healthcare, good food, and education. ANY country with more than 50 million people will produce enough tall people for volleyball--and enough compact ones for sports like gymnastics.

So the US is advantaged because of genetics for volleyball, yet somehow manages to excel in artistic gymnastics as well? So much for genetics.

Same thing goes for hockey (taller means more powerful strokes, if fit) and short track (shorter means better turns, if fit). Canada's a powerhouse in both.

So you're making things up based on nonsense that positions an entire people's abilities in certain areas based on ethnicity or race. Aside from being wrong, it's stoopid and ignorant.

Oh, get over your moral PC-high-horse. It's YOU who twisted my original post.

Certain sports DO FAVOR certain body types. What DA **** is wrong with that assertion?

Ya know...whatever...u're such a prissy Miss PC, so deal with it however u want.

It's NOT worth my time. And as I said I SPIT on any prissy overly PC-zealots like yourself. SSSPPPPPPPTTTT!!

I'm out on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. It's the same thing but in a different context. And you keep EVADING the question. So did that make you upet then that Chicago didn't "have a chance", either? Or are you JUST upset since it was only Munich??

Well when you blame me that I evade your question - I have to tell you that you evaded my first question too.

No it is general, but you should have recognised that in my previous posts since I talked in general about the IOC policies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little surprised how upset the Munich supporters are, I mean this was a first bid from Munich, and I think they can improve it in the future.

Like I have already said I was more dissapointed that Munich didn't have a chance at all - well, I think Annecy's bid had charme...

I am more upset that the IOC pretends that all shortlisted cities have the same chance - when the general policy of the IOC is to explore new frontiers it shouldn't shortlist cities of countries which had hosted in the past or long time ago

But if the "new frontier" cities turn in poorer plans or fall way behind in public support or stumble for many other reasons, there would be plenty of room for any bid to rise to the top and win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well when you blame me that I evade your question - I have to tell you that you evaded my first question too.

No it is general, but you should have recognised that in my previous posts since I talked in general about the IOC policies...

I didn't evade a question from you, since all you did was make a generalizing comment over my initial post to someone else.

I, however, asked you a direct question several times. And your lack of answering only demonstrates to me, sorry to say, a double-standard to say the least. And that I find to be "disappointing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so. When South Korea has never hosted a Winter Olympic Games before, & Germany has.

South Korea had its last Olympic Games in 1988. Germany had its last in 1972. So whose turn was it really to host Olympic Games again? I just don't distinguish that much there between Winter and Summer Games, it's the Olympic experience that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I may throw in my two pennies worth regarding the Chicago discussion: Well, I didn't feel good about Chicago being snubbed the way it was either. I expected them to get to the final round of voting at least.

But I also have to say that it didn't make me as emotional as Munich's defeat now. And I guess that's only natural -- one always feels the most intense about one's own country's bids. And additionally (although I found it unfair and incomprehensible that Chicago was eliminated in the first round already) I didn't consider it that outrageous that Chicago didn't get the Games. The USA have hosted four Olympic Games over the course of the last 40 years, while Germany has hosted only one edition. And the USA have hosted for the last time only nine years ago, while it's 39 years for Germany (even Munich's rivals Korea with Seoul 1988 and France with Albertville 1992 are better off in that regard).

Anyway, it makes no sense reproaching other members like "So you're angry about your bid's loss -- were you already angry about my bid's loss back then?". As I said, one always feels more intense about one's own bids -- but that doesn't mean that one is indifferent to the fate of other bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...