Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's still debatable, cuz you still had Osaka & Istanbul in the 2008 fray, which both were sidelined in favor of Beijing. Had the Chinese not been in the picture, those two would've faired better, especially Osaka. Plus, who knows who else would've stepped in with the absence of China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time the "technically best" bid actually won the Olympics? Besides, technically best is a little debatable, given China has a far greater pool of wealth than Canada - so even if it wasn't "technically best" compared to Toronto in 2001 - it certainly was by 2008. I would say that Beijing's absence wouldn't automatically equate to Toronto, although its chances would have markedly improved.

Listen, it's all speculation. I believe that in the absence of Beijing and Sydney, Toronto would have provided the best bid and incentive to win. Osaka may have taken a large chunk out of the votes because of geography, and Paris may have also posed heavy opposition based on the strength of their bid. Toronto would not have won based on "techincal merit". I am simply basing this on the quality of the remaining bids had Beijing not been there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO Sydney/Beijing would have gotten one or the other.

It is hard to say, according to info I've come across, Jeff Kennett (Premier of Victoria 1992-1999) had some pretty ambitious ideas and was pushing quite hard to the AOC for Melbourne to go on as the Australian candidate for 2004, if Sydney fell in its quest for 2000. A Melbourne 2004 bid in the Kennett era would have been far more brash than the comparatively unsexy, but highly competent, 1996 bid. However, either Melbourne or Sydney, I'm not sure how either would have fared against the pity and sentiment vote Athens received - especially with Rome, Cape Town AND B.A. in the mix. Australia's "our turn" case would have been greatly diminished.

In saying that, I think if Sydney was bidding for 2020 (and to a slightly lesser extent, Melbourne), it would be a significant frontrunner against the current group. I almost wish it was - I'd love to experience all that excitement of the 1990's, now, as an adult, and with the Olympics in a new, more advanced era.

Listen, it's all speculation. I believe that in the absence of Beijing and Sydney, Toronto would have provided the best bid and incentive to win. Osaka may have taken a large chunk out of the votes because of geography, and Paris may have also posed heavy opposition based on the strength of their bid. Toronto would not have won based on "techincal merit". I am simply basing this on the quality of the remaining bids had Beijing not been there.

Again - when was the last time an Olympic bid won on "technical merit"? Osaka might not have even bid, with 2000 in Asia. Yes, all speculative, but I think some other global giant would have seized the opportunity (maybe Rio? or South Africa 2008, instead of the 2010 WC?) Toronto would have been the best technical option against most cities, but it would have been a sitting duck for any location with sentimental merit - something Toronto has little to no appeal, which has always been a strong point in Olympic bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osaka might not have even bid, with 2000 in Asia.

Perhaps, but it still didn't stop Tokyo bidding for 2016, despite 2008 in Asia already. Plus, the reason Osaka bid in the first place, was bcuz of the Nagano 1998 high the nation was experiencing at the time.

Yes, all speculative, but I think some other global giant would have seized the opportunity (maybe Rio? or South Africa 2008, instead of the 2010 WC?) Toronto would have been the best technical option against most cities, but it would have been a sitting duck for any location with sentimental merit - something Toronto has little to no appeal, which has always been a strong point in Olympic bids.

agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again - when was the last time an Olympic bid won on "technical merit"? Osaka might not have even bid, with 2000 in Asia. Yes, all speculative, but I think some other global giant would have seized the opportunity (maybe Rio? or South Africa 2008, instead of the 2010 WC?) Toronto would have been the best technical option against most cities, but it would have been a sitting duck for any location with sentimental merit - something Toronto has little to no appeal, which has always been a strong point in Olympic bids.

Again, this is based upon the same bidding cities in 2008 without Beijing. Obviously, this is a very unrealistic scenario, because Beijing winning would have affected the bidding cycle, and I would anticipate that Sydney would bid again in 2008. Bidding in 2004 would have been too soon after a devastating loss, similar to how Beijing didn't jump back in after losing in 2000. If Toronto had been up against Sydney however, I would expect Sydney to be a more favourable selection because Australia has gone so far between Olympics. Sure, we may have seen Rio or Durban/Cape Town, but I highly doubt that with South Africa having come off of a loss in 2004, and a country from South America having gained the least amount of bids in 2004, those cities would have won in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard to say, according to info I've come across, Jeff Kennett (Premier of Victoria 1992-1999) had some pretty ambitious ideas and was pushing quite hard to the AOC for Melbourne to go on as the Australian candidate for 2004, if Sydney fell in its quest for 2000. A Melbourne 2004 bid in the Kennett era would have been far more brash than the comparatively unsexy, but highly competent, 1996 bid. However, either Melbourne or Sydney, I'm not sure how either would have fared against the pity and sentiment vote Athens received - especially with Rome, Cape Town AND B.A. in the mix. Australia's "our turn" case would have been greatly diminished.

You know, I've heard this mentioned by Melburnians here - and it may well have been Kennet's plan. But it also flies in the face of Coates' comments during the 2000 campaign that if Sydney lost, it would be Oz's last bid for a while, saying it would be hard to muster enthusiasm again after three losses. Okay, that may have been gamesmanship, but he was quite firm during the campaig.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but do the stars come out to play and be seen in a :Vancouver" party? Nope. they just go up there to work but they still live AND party in LA.

Isn't that because Vancouver is supposed to have an awfu night life? I've heard of many people going there who've not had great things to say.

Toronto and Montreal, on the other hand. I loved montreal, I've heard Toronto is wild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that because Vancouver is supposed to have an awfu night life? I've heard of many people going there who've not had great things to say.

Toronto and Montreal, on the other hand. I loved montreal, I've heard Toronto is wild.

Idk about Toronto but Montreal was 2nd behind Belgrade, Serbia as the party cities of the world if I remember correctly. This is so off topic but who cares lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that because Vancouver is supposed to have an awfu night life? I've heard of many people going there who've not had great things to say.

Toronto and Montreal, on the other hand. I loved montreal, I've heard Toronto is wild.

I think Whistler has a pretty good night life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always heard Spain has the best nightlife cities. And Boston is among the best in America! ^_^ clubs/bars/restaurants

I'm sorry but I need to call BS on that one.. really? Las Vegas, New Orleans, Miami, New York, Los Angeles. Beyond that, Chicago and San Francisco are in there. Smaller cities like Nashville and Austin and Memphis are well-known for nightlife. So that's already 10 cities right there I'd put ahead of Boston. Maybe it's the New Yorker in me, but I have trouble taking the nightlife in a city all that seriously when many places start shutting down by 1am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I need to call BS on that one.. really? Las Vegas, New Orleans, Miami, New York, Los Angeles. Beyond that, Chicago and San Francisco are in there. Smaller cities like Nashville and Austin and Memphis are well-known for nightlife. So that's already 10 cities right there I'd put ahead of Boston. Maybe it's the New Yorker in me, but I have trouble taking the nightlife in a city all that seriously when many places start shutting down by 1am.

here its actually 2am. i dont disagree with u, all those places sounds amazing. its not BS, the city has a great number of young people and super crowded pubs all around town. We are also very close to Providence RI it feels like a part of Boston area. its a matter of personal taste. city offers great fun day/nightime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here its actually 2am. i dont disagree with u, all those places sounds amazing. its not BS, the city has a great number of young people and super crowded pubs all around town. We are also very close to Providence RI it feels like a part of Boston area. its a matter of personal taste. city offers great fun day/nightime.

Personal taste is fine, I won't argue with that. And I don't doubt that Boston has a lot of great nightlife. But (and this isn't directed just as you).. as much as I know the Boston crowd here wants to talk up their city, I think it's an unnecessary stretch to call it "among the best in America." If your comparison is to say "those places sound amazing" and to say how close you are to Providence, I'd hardly consider that a main selling point for Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how Tulsa's 'nightlife' ranks! :lol:

:lol: LOL

I think that either SFO, LA, NYC or Chicago present more impact on the IOC and more presure in other bidders... In Atlanta's times olympic races where more traditional, so representing a powerhouse country was the only impact needed. Now everything has changed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think that the most important point is which city will put a bid forward but who will be head of the bidding committee. We should not discuss whether it will be LA or Dallas or NY but whether it will be Mitt Romney or someone else.. :)))))))))))))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think that the most important point is which city will put a bid forward but who will be head of the bidding committee. We should not discuss whether it will be LA or Dallas or NY but whether it will be Mitt Romney or someone else.. :)))))))))))))

u serious? :rolleyes:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think that the most important point is which city will put a bid forward but who will be head of the bidding committee. We should not discuss whether it will be LA or Dallas or NY but whether it will be Mitt Romney or someone else.. :)))))))))))))

Forget Mitt. Who's gonna sign up Mike Lee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...