Jump to content

2018 Decision Live Chat


Recommended Posts

You guys are making a mistake comparing Munichs lost with Chicago lost. Munichs bid was the BEST bid for Winter Games Germany can present. We can not choose another city for the next bid.

The US can do that.

And the best German bid got 25 votes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

But the Olympic experience in a Winter Games is completely different from the Olympic experience in a Summer Games.

I do agree though that the Olympic experience is one unlike any other. The 1936 Winter Games in Germany helped build the foundation for the great tradition Germany has in winter sports today, but that's hardly of any consolation for the Germans living today who weren't around to experience it in 1936. Germany is long overdue for another Winter Games, but as the Olympics is a rare commodity, it's hard to give the Games to everybody (Sweden and Switzerland are also due). I hope that Germany gets to host the Winter Games soon, but it's a fact that at least one of Germany, Sweden or Switzerland will have to miss out on hosting over the next foreseeable while. That's why it's important that even if one's country can't host, people as individuals really need to take advantage of experiencing the Games when their neighbour gets to host it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are making a mistake comparing Munichs lost with Chicago lost. Munichs bid was the BEST bid for Winter Games Germany can present. We can not choose another city for the next bid.

The US can do that.

And the best German bid got 25 votes...

Well, are wonderful little boy Tulsa from France would highly disagree with you. He says that Annecy was the "BEST" bid for 2018. Go figure.

And it's not a "mistake" to compare Munich to Chicago. Chicago was favored for a long while by pundits due to rotation, the quality of the bid & by other geopolitical factors. You're just saying that because the loss is poking at you like a thorn in your a@s. And actually, Chicago's bid was touted by many observers & in the media as being the "best" bid ever put forth by an American city.

And I disagree that the U.S. can just put forward "any" city. Since as you say, it requires a lot of technical assessments to determine which city is 'best' for the job. Simply because the U.S. has a slew of cities doesn't automatically mean that they could all do the job. Just look at the likes of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Birmingham, Alabama & the like. Those for examples, are a no-go to begin with. So, please. Let's stop with the double-standards already. It's nauseating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's stop with the double-standards already. It's nauseating.

And can you please stop with your reproaches? As I said: It's only natural that the defeat of one's own country's bid bothers someone more than the defeat of another country's bid.

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.

Precisely. But you need to give this word of advice to one of your fellow compatriots. It's always different when it's a losing bid from your OWN country.

It's the same thing no matter how you look at it. And yes, even though the United States has hosted the most Games than anybody else, that still doesn't make the loss any less disappointing or upsetting. Since just like Munich, Chicago & the USOC put in all their hard work & determination to the bid only to be tossed aside by the IOC with just 18 votes. Despite quite a few geopolitical factors the American bid apparently had going for it.

And perhaps you don't see the Winter & Summer Games as different. But it's quite apparent that the IOC does. And they're the ones that get to vote on the matter. And they vote accordingly. In the end, all of us here are just the observers of the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And can you please stop with your reproaches? As I said: It's only natural that the defeat of one's own country's bid bothers someone more than the defeat of another country's bid.

So does that make the losses any different though, no matter which country it's from? It shouldn't, & that's my point. Since any bid put forward, no matter by which country it comes from, puts in their HARD work & determination just the same as anybody else to simply be dismissed as "you can't compare" X-to-Y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't blame the Germans for feeling dejected. It's natural to feel like **** after losing a bid. I felt like this 4 years ago, FYI felt like this 2 years ago, and now the Germans and French are feeling the heartache. The chance of having your country host the Olympics brings out the best and the worst in a lot of us, and everyone ends up feeling like they and only they were the ones who deserved to win. But 4 years makes a huge difference, and if it's any consolation to the Germans, I think Munich is the early-on favourite to win 2022, and if all goes to plan, this pain they're feeling now will make things even sweeter in 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is: the IOC, for the most part, goes by CONTINENTAL ROTATION. Occasionally, they may break stride -- but for the most part, if you accept that geopolitics and the C.R. rule the game, that makes the pain of losing a little more bearable.

Also true.

Though even looking in hindsight, Munich going for 2018 wasn't that bad of a move. If I'm in charge of the German Olympic committee (or whatever they're called), and all I see is little ol' Pyeongchang standing between me and getting 2018, I'm going to try, continental rotation be damned. You can't just let Pyeongchang grab the reward unopposed, you have to make them sweat and work for it. It's not like Munich had NO chance for 2018. But in the end, you have to enter the 2018 race realizing that continental rotation and Sochi 2014 will put you at an inherent disadvantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC is the worst choice than IOC could do to 2018... No supporters, No atmosphere, bad weather condition (No snow) and no knowledge to organize winter event... Definitively, never PC could be a great host, and the legacy could to be a financial disaster to Korea. Moreover if Athletes criticism the snow and sport conditions and if the show isn't good, everybody will know Korea isn't a good winter destination...

Everybody joke when I speak but I know lot of thing about winter event, and I think PC is very risky to host WoG... You can't buy the weather condition or the knowledge. Now Korea has 7 years to receipt the world, I hope they could work their knowledge... I want a good show, I'm not sure to have a good show... Germany or France will be better host to WoG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also true.

Though even looking in hindsight, Munich going for 2018 wasn't that bad of a move. If I'm in charge of the German Olympic committee (or whatever they're called), and all I see is little ol' Pyeongchang standing between me and getting 2018, I'm going to try, continental rotation be damned. You can't just let Pyeongchang grab the reward unopposed, you have to make them sweat and work for it. It's not like Munich had NO chance for 2018. But in the end, you have to enter the 2018 race realizing that continental rotation and Sochi 2014 will put you at an inherent disadvantage.

What I'm saying is that surely Annency and Munich knew that 80% odds were it was going Asia's way. In the 2016 round, a little part of me knew that if Chicago got it, it was too good to be true. So there was always that little voice inside me telling me that what my heart wished for (even though I wasn't really all that jazzed by Chicago's plan), wasn't going to be the reality of the situation.

Get over it, Tulsa. 63 voters DON'T see it that way. U and maybe 3 other people who can't vote anyway, did. You can cry and throw tantruma all u want, it ain't CHANGING a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also true.

Though even looking in hindsight, Munich going for 2018 wasn't that bad of a move. If I'm in charge of the German Olympic committee (or whatever they're called), and all I see is little ol' Pyeongchang standing between me and getting 2018, I'm going to try, continental rotation be damned. You can't just let Pyeongchang grab the reward unopposed, you have to make them sweat and work for it. It's not like Munich had NO chance for 2018. But in the end, you have to enter the 2018 race realizing that continental rotation and Sochi 2014 will put you at an inherent disadvantage.

And this is what the USOC thought too, at the beginning of the 2016 campaign. Rio, at the start of the race, was virtually a non-issue. So the all the USOC was looking at was Tokyo & Madrid (& maybe somebody else) standing in their way, & both of them were hampered by continental rotation, especially Madrid. It wasn't 'til way into the campaign that Rio was making big-time strides & in the end, took the Games from everyone that was opposing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is what the USOC thought too, at the beginning of the 2016 campaign. Rio, at the start of the race, was virtually a non-issue. So the all the USOC was looking at was Tokyo & Madrid (& maybe somebody else) standing in their way, & both of them were hampered by continental rotation, especially Madrid. It wasn't 'til way into the campaign that Rio was making big-time strides & in the end, took the Games from everyone that was opposing them.

Oh man, I thought Chicago was a shoo-in at the start of the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I admit I was a bit deflated by Munich's performance. It was after all one of the few bids since I've been at GamesBids where I had a real emotional commitment to it. But, now that a few days have passed, I'm actually very pleased PC won - if I hadn't been so personally supporting Munich, the new frontier and global sharing factor of PC would have probably led me to support them as my number one (and nature and Tulsa would have pushed me into that camp eventually anyway).

Anyway, that wonderful perspective of hindsight really paints a pretty clear picture that it was PCs time. It's understandable that Munich (as well as Annecy) supporters would be disappointed, but at least in Munich's case it really wasn't like it was a disasterous result. 25 votes when the tide of sentiment was so strongly in favour of PC, and when not even the European members were solidly behind their own continent's bids, wasn't shabby - it's indeed a great foundation for a future bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I admit I was a bit deflated by Munich's performance. It was after all one of the few bids since I've been at GamesBids where I had a real emotional commitment to it. But, now that a few days have passed, I'm actually very pleased PC won - if I hadn't been so personally supporting Munich, the new frontier and global sharing factor of PC would have probably led me to support them as my number one (and nature and Tulsa would have pushed me into that camp eventually anyway).

I find it disappointing that two trolls have such a power, while there were also so many reasonable Munich supporters here. And I view that "new frontiers" thing differently. I actually detest that the main focus for the election of major sports events' hosts nowadays is whether it will bring the highest possible profit and whether one can possibly discover a new market. And one doesn't have to go to "new frontiers" all the time when one cannot have exactly the feeling that this push will also be good for the athletes. The athletes are my main interest -- they shall have great Games, since they are the core of every Olympic Games, and not the tycoons and marketing guys and what have you. If Korea had proven so far that it can fill its venues for winter sports competition, I would be OK with that choice. But as long as I have the pictures from the 2009 Biathlon World Championships in my mind, I simply can't rejoice in and relax about the prospect of Pyeongchang hosting the 2018 Games.

Anyway, that wonderful perspective of hindsight really paints a pretty clear picture that it was PCs time. It's understandable that Munich (as well as Annecy) supporters would be disappointed, but at least in Munich's case it really wasn't like it was a disasterous result. 25 votes when the tide of sentiment was so strongly in favour of PC, and when not even the European members were solidly behind their own continent's bids, wasn't shabby - it's indeed a great foundation for a future bid.

I view that differently as well. 25 votes were the same number Salzburg received for 2014. I think such a number is a slap in the face, in a race of which everyone said or suggested that it is terribly close with at least two extremely strong bids. So I'm in doubt whether that result is really a good foundation for 2022 -- or rather a warning.

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.

I had to come back here.

As I said, Gariwang primeval forest is a belated issue now in South Korea. I can't understand. Over the past decade had not been an issue at all in Korea. But, Belated issue after 6 July. And, Co-host along with North Korea that claims have been raised. If so, downhill course could create in North Korea for protect primeval forest. But I think, ZERO probability.

And, Incheon Airport to Pyeongchang railway road 68 minutes claim has no evidence. Not possible straight-line distance and the distance of 245km, Gangwon's high geography. Considering this, many people say up to more 1 hour 30 minutes. 68 minutes is possible when we get direct into 210km per hour speed, or must build a second airport railway, at this point the budget is doubled (7 billion USD).

I am confident that the 2018 Pyeongchang the worst financial, environment Olympics and the worst atmosphere for athletes. The Olympics has degenerated into a tool for development of land in Asia, Africa, South America's POOREST countries. Stupid IOC members and politics, money wins. Sport, Olympic spirit and the players lost. Baron Coubertin would be sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's easy to conflate the OWG and Olympism. The latter is a much broader movement and things like sport culture, youth and unity. All of these align with the PC bid very well.

I don't think anyone can argue the PC bid isn't worthy of hosting the Games--if anything Annecy's isn't--or that the IOC would award Games to a host city they were uncertain about. Certainly not after Athens.

So it's not strictly a question of "which is the strongest bid?". Rather it's more "of the bids that would deliver excellent Games, which one has the potential to make a great contribution to Olympism?"

Though in this case the question is the same to both: PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...