Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

The US used to be the only country sending as many bids as they wanted, i think the last time the US was represented by more than 1 city was in the 60s, but not anymore due to new rules of the IOC? There were as many as 5 American cities bidding for the Games in the 50s i think.

Yeah, when things got more streamlined in the late 50s/early 60s, and when more of Asia, So. America, Africa was opening up (or setting up their NOCs), the IOC limited it to one entry (per season) per NOC.

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

The point is that the IOC is committed to maintaining a balanced variety of hosts and as a result the US should expect longer gaps between domestic Games. Consequently, they need to plan thoughtfully, particularly where a possible Winter bid is concerned due to its repercussions on Summer aspirations.

Longer than what, thought? I think we all know that what happened from 1980-2002, especially the 2 Summer hostings was a fluke. No one, especially the USOC, would expect that to happen again, but that's also a matter of 4 Olympics that create that history. To get 1 Winter and 1 Summer in relatively close succession (i.e. 10 years apart) is not an insurmountable task. You keep sayin that the IOC is committed to a variety of hosts.. if that's the case, why is traditional Asia hosting their 2nd Summer Olympics in 4 cycles where Istanbul would have given them that extra added variety. We can only say so much about the IOC's "commitment" to a variety of hosts because the voting patterns don't necessarily pan that out, especially on the Summer side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the recent voting patterns show exactly the opposite. The last three decades have each had only one new country host. Out of the last five SOG, not only have three been in countries that hosted before, they were in cities that hosted before. The IOC just voted a few days ago and rejected a perfectly capable host cities that is everything you claim they are selecting - new frontiers, diverse, etc. in favor of going back to Japan for the 4th time and Tokyo for the second.

I stated that the IOC is more committed to balance and parity in diversity now than they were previously. Current voting trends do uphold this. I'm sure you recognize that new frontiers are not the only way to achieve that objective. There's much more of an emphasis on continental rotation and variety.

No one country will host 2 Olympics between 2000 and 2020. The closest you get is Japan with its 22 year gap between Nagano and Tokyo. That's a big change from past history.

Yes, we've had repeat hosts, but I would hardly call them old stand-bys. Athens was a bold choice for the IOC. So were Sochi (first Russian Winter Games) and Pyeongchang (first Asian Winter Games outside Japan). Add to that Beijing and Rio, not to mention the oft verbalized desire to go to Africa and there's no doubt this IOC is all about balanced diversity. Even the more familiar hosts had long gaps between their previous Games (Australia, UK, Italy, Japan).

The exception to this comes from, of course, North America: Vancouver 2010. But even Vancouver was 22 years after Calgary.

Even the election of Tokyo is evidence that the he IOC is willing to break the traditional western mold a bit more by voting for back to back Asian Games.

I stand by my previous statement. Recent voting trends (approx. last 20 years) demonstrate a much clearer commitment to balanced global diversity than we've have seen previously. Within that window 22 years appears to be the minimum gap for repeat hosts (Canada, Japan).

This means that expecting 2 American Olympics within 10 years is highly unrealistic. Wonders never cease, but the USOC should be prepared for something closer to the 22 year gap we have been seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep sayin that the IOC is committed to a variety of hosts.. if that's the case, why is traditional Asia hosting their 2nd Summer Olympics in 4 cycles where Istanbul would have given them that extra added variety.

"Asia" is a rather awkward geographical construct. Although it counts as one "continent" it's a fairly arbitrary subdivision of a huge landmass. As a result, it's bigger than North and South America combined. As it happens, it also has a larger population than absolutely everywhere else combined (both China and India individually have larger populations than the total for the Americas). If, as expected, Asian countries outstrip others in terms of economic and technical development, the old Olympic powers must, to some extent, be pushed aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Longer than what, thought? I think we all know that what happened from 1980-2002, especially the 2 Summer hostings was a fluke. No one, especially the USOC, would expect that to happen again, but that's also a matter of 4 Olympics that create that history. To get 1 Winter and 1 Summer in relatively close succession (i.e. 10 years apart) is not an insurmountable task. You keep sayin that the IOC is committed to a variety of hosts.. if that's the case, why is traditional Asia hosting their 2nd Summer Olympics in 4 cycles where Istanbul would have given them that extra added variety. We can only say so much about the IOC's "commitment" to a variety of hosts because the voting patterns don't necessarily pan that out, especially on the Summer side.

I think this has ceased to be about facts for you, Quaker.

You know the IOC had a small pool of weak options to choose from for 2020. If you want to argue that Tokyo's win somehow means the US can get 2 Games 10 years apart, be my guest.

You could've made the same argument about either Madrid or Istanbul and Europe/Asia, but the IOC had to pick one of the three.

Of course continental rotation doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are technical, political, economic and environmental considerations to weigh as well. Without ignoring that other criteria, the IOC has made an obvious effort to move the Games around the globe.

As for the frequency of Asian Games, we're talking about a continent, not a country. It's the most populous continent in the planet. Three different countries will host. A greater level of frequency has occurred in both Europe and North America. Considering the slim field, I don't think Tokyo's election in any way signals that diversity is less of a priority.

As I said, if you want to claim support for your 2 American Olympics in 10 years plan, go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by my previous statement. Recent voting trends (approx. last 20 years) demonstrate a much clearer commitment to balanced global diversity than we've have seen previously. Within that window 22 years appears to be the minimum gap for repeat hosts (Canada, Japan).

This means that expecting 2 American Olympics within 10 years is highly unrealistic. Wonders never cease, but the USOC should be prepared for something closer to the 22 year gap we have been seeing.

Dude, even with your vary narrow criteria of the past 20 years you have an example of an Olympics in the US only six (6!) years after the US hosted. If you want to try and read the minds of IOC voters and think they won't do that again, feel free. But you can't claim the data back you up because the data shows the exact opposite of what you believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, even with your vary narrow criteria of the past 20 years you have an example of an Olympics in the US only six (6!) years after the US hosted. If you want to try and read the minds of IOC voters and think they won't do that again, feel free. But you can't claim the data back you up because the data shows the exact opposite of what you believe.

Please read carefully.

We're talking about voting trends and the votes take place seven years before the Games. The last 20 years if votes elected hosts for 2000-2020. The US did not host 2 Games six years apart between 2000 and 2020.

I drew a line in order to define "recent" trends. I think 20 years is a generous definition of "recent," particularly considering the rate of turnover in the IOC.

If you want to rely on 84-02 as precedent for 2 American Games in ten years, go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has ceased to be about facts for you, Quaker.

You know the IOC had a small pool of weak options to choose from for 2020. If you want to argue that Tokyo's win somehow means the US can get 2 Games 10 years apart, be my guest.

You could've made the same argument about either Madrid or Istanbul and Europe/Asia, but the IOC had to pick one of the three.

Of course continental rotation doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are technical, political, economic and environmental considerations to weigh as well. Without ignoring that other criteria, the IOC has made an obvious effort to move the Games around the globe.

As for the frequency of Asian Games, we're talking about a continent, not a country. It's the most populous continent in the planet. Three different countries will host. A greater level of frequency has occurred in both Europe and North America. Considering the slim field, I don't think Tokyo's election in any way signals that diversity is less of a priority.

As I said, if you want to claim support for your 2 American Olympics in 10 years plan, go ahead.

As if you're arguing "facts"? You're looking at trends and giving us the 2000-2020 window because it fits your argument. How convenient. All you have to do is extend back to 1996 and that gives you repeats with Japan and the United States. I'm not arguing that Tokyo's win supports my opinion. I'm arguing that you're "data" doesn't refute it.

For example.. you say Pyeongchang was a bold choice for the IOC. It was their 3rd bid (albeit after 2 near misses) and was the only non-European bid to follow a 2014 Winter Olympics. So again, to me, that's less about the IOC's desire to move the Games around the globe and more about them having the option to do so that they didn't have before.

So yes, I will continue to play that 2 Olympics 10 years apart is POSSIBLE, as opposed to virtually impossible. You have offered up very little to suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's think about this "Can the US host twice in ten(-ish) years?" question in other terms:

As it stands now, North America will go at least 28 years without hosting a Summer Olympics. The longest it's ever gone without hosting them is 36 years (1932-1968), a pretty exceptional era during which time two Olympics were canceled. I think it's pretty likely that they will be back in North America by 2032 or at the very least 2036 and I imagine that most of us would agree with that assessment. So who will be hosting that edition of the Games?

If the US doesn't host the WOG in 2026, I think it's the US, hands-down. That's a long time for the country that contributes the most money to the IOC, that tops the medal count (depending on how you look at it, obviously), and that has the most soft power in the world to not have hosted. However, if the US does host the WOG in 2026... (and here's where people will disagree with me until they're blue in the face, because that seems to be the M.O. around here) I still think that it'll be the US. :lol:

Why? Many posters keep making the same two assumptions on here: a) If a North American host is not the U.S., they'll have to go with Canada because B) Mexico is not capable of hosting the games. I'm not sure either assumption is correct.

A) What would be the IOC's interest in going to Toronto? Recent host cities have all had something extremely unique culturally to offer: Athens and London being firm parts of the Western tradition, Beijing/Rio being "new" and exotic, Tokyo being both the world's largest city and of the very singular, Japanese tradition. Toronto is a lovely city in a very stable country, which is indeed something the IOC values, but I'm not convinced that it has that special spark that screams "I'd be an exciting host." For example, what would the opening ceremonies look like? I worry that they'd have the same Native American/First Nations theme that Atlanta, Salt Lake, and Vancouver all had (and I'd bet Calgary though I didn't watch those Olympics). Put another way, why do you think Canada went with Montreal in 1976?

My point here is this: if the IOC gets around to North America on the unofficial rotation and the options are Toronto, giving America two games within 10 years, or waiting a few more years for the US to host, I'm not convinced that they'll go with the Canadian option.

B) I can't see Mexico being awarded the Games at the moment due to the drug cartels, but this is only a transient problem (ten years ago, it wasn't nearly as big an issue) and I think it's highly likely that they'll become a capable and exciting host sometime in the next 20-30 years. I'm not saying it's gonna happen, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Mexico hosted a SOG before Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about voting trends and the votes take place seven years before the Games. The last 20 years if votes elected hosts for 2000-2020. The US did not host 2 Games six years apart between 2000 and 2020.

And in the last 20 years the IOC had no trouble selecting a host city in a country that had hosted six years before. If you are going to insist that both the first and the repeat occurrence occur between a specific 20-year period that you have selected, that's an extraordinarily narrow criteria.Remarkably, if you open up your criteria just one Olympiad, you actually do find a counter example.

The other thing to remember is that the US *is* different. Using objective criteria... population, wealth, Olympic influence, Olympic success, potential hosts, etc. the US should expect to host more often than other nations. There's good reason the US has hosted more than anyone else, and in more cities than anyone else (and we haven't even used our biggest city yet.) While the US will host less often in the future, it's still likely to host more than anyone else.

If you want to insist that only the most recent data is relevant, look at the last two selections. Both to repeat host countries with cycles of 22 and 30 years. The US has every reason to believe it could be selected to repeat with even less of a gap.

Of course, the US will only be selected if it submits the best bids. That's what the IOC will go by.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worry that they'd have the same Native American/First Nations theme that Atlanta, Salt Lake, and Vancouver all had (and I'd bet Calgary though I didn't watch those Olympics). Put another way, why do you think Canada went with Montreal in 1976?

If the IOC was fine picking Atlanta, Salt Lake and Vancouver, I think they'll be fine picking Toronto.

As for Montreal, it was picked because it wasn't a superpower at the height of the cold war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's think about this "Can the US host twice in ten(-ish) years?" question in other terms:

As it stands now, North America will go at least 28 years without hosting a Summer Olympics. The longest it's ever gone without hosting them is 36 years (1932-1968), a pretty exceptional era during which time two Olympics were canceled. I think it's pretty likely that they will be back in North America by 2032 or at the very least 2036 and I imagine that most of us would agree with that assessment. So who will be hosting that edition of the Games?

If the US doesn't host the WOG in 2026, I think it's the US, hands-down. That's a long time for the country that contributes the most money to the IOC, that tops the medal count (depending on how you look at it, obviously), and that has the most soft power in the world to not have hosted. However, if the US does host the WOG in 2026... (and here's where people will disagree with me until they're blue in the face, because that seems to be the M.O. around here) I still think that it'll be the US. :lol:

Why? Many posters keep making the same two assumptions on here: a) If a North American host is not the U.S., they'll have to go with Canada because B) Mexico is not capable of hosting the games. I'm not sure either assumption is correct.

A) What would be the IOC's interest in going to Toronto? Recent host cities have all had something extremely unique culturally to offer: Athens and London being firm parts of the Western tradition, Beijing/Rio being "new" and exotic, Tokyo being both the world's largest city and of the very singular, Japanese tradition. Toronto is a lovely city in a very stable country, which is indeed something the IOC values, but I'm not convinced that it has that special spark that screams "I'd be an exciting host." For example, what would the opening ceremonies look like? I worry that they'd have the same Native American/First Nations theme that Atlanta, Salt Lake, and Vancouver all had (and I'd bet Calgary though I didn't watch those Olympics). Put another way, why do you think Canada went with Montreal in 1976?

My point here is this: if the IOC gets around to North America on the unofficial rotation and the options are Toronto, giving America two games within 10 years, or waiting a few more years for the US to host, I'm not convinced that they'll go with the Canadian option.

B) I can't see Mexico being awarded the Games at the moment due to the drug cartels, but this is only a transient problem (ten years ago, it wasn't nearly as big an issue) and I think it's highly likely that they'll become a capable and exciting host sometime in the next 20-30 years. I'm not saying it's gonna happen, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Mexico hosted a SOG before Canada.

Here's the big problem I see with that, Geographer: the IOC does not choose the hosts for a decade at one sitting. They can only choose between the bids presented to them for one cycle at a time. It appears highly probable that Toronto will bid for at least one of the next three cycles. If Toronto bids and the US doesn't and the IOC feels like North America is overdue, Toronto could well win -- especially if they are up against a weak field composed of the likes of Doha and Madrid. The IOC is not going to pass on a Toronto bid if they believe it to be the best available option in a given cycle. They aren't going to say "We should say no to Canada because the US might bid semi-soon." They're especially unlikely to say that if the US is already in the process of organizing Winter Games.

Yes, the Summer Games will return to North America by 2032. That means that if the US hosts 2026, they somehow have to grab Summer Games before the Winter version even takes place. NO WAY.

As for Mexico, have you been? I just met someone this week who is the daughter of a wealthy Mexican and was kidnapped and held for ransom last month. The criminals are running the country. The economy is a disaster. There is no way Mexico hosts Olympic Games any time soon.

And finally, Zeke, you have been around way too long to believe that the best bid wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made here about a potential Toronto bid. Yes, the Canadian Olympic Committee seems focused on hosting a Summer Games in Toronto before hosting another Winter Games. But what if Toronto decides to bid for 2024 and/or 2028 and gets knocked out in the first or second round of voting? Will the political and economic interest remain for another bid in 2032? I don't think we can assume that it will. Also, what if the field for 2026 or 2030 (if 2026 doesn't go to the U.S.) is especially weak and the COC changes course and decides to go for a Winter Games instead?

I also don't think it's a total certainty that the Summer Games will return to North America by 2032. Even if Europe and Africa split 2024 and 2028, I could see a scenario in which Shanghai bids for 2032 and promises to throw another $40+ billion at the Games. I certainly do not think that China should host another Summer Games before North America, but I'm not so certain that the IOC would be willing to turn down another $40 billion party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the big problem I see with that, Geographer: the IOC does not choose the hosts for a decade at one sitting. They can only choose between the bids presented to them for one cycle at a time. It appears highly probable that Toronto will bid for at least one of the next three cycles. If Toronto bids and the US doesn't and the IOC feels like North America is overdue, Toronto could well win -- especially if they are up against a weak field composed of the likes of Doha and Madrid. The IOC is not going to pass on a Toronto bid if they believe it to be the best available option in a given cycle. They aren't going to say "We should say no to Canada because the US might bid semi-soon." They're especially unlikely to say that if the US is already in the process of organizing Winter Games.

Yes, the Summer Games will return to North America by 2032. That means that if the US hosts 2026, they somehow have to grab Summer Games before the Winter version even takes place. NO WAY.

As for Mexico, have you been? I just met someone this week who is the daughter of a wealthy Mexican and was kidnapped and held for ransom last month. The criminals are running the country. The economy is a disaster. There is no way Mexico hosts Olympic Games any time soon.

I disagree that future bids aren't on the mind of IOC voters when deciding who hosts the next Olympics, as do many people on this forum judging by recent conversation. There were a number of people this last go-round who thought that people might vote against Madrid (or to a lesser extent Istanbul) to put Europe in a better place for a 2024 Games. So if Toronto is bidding in 2032 and North America hasn't hosted in 36 years, I don't think they're necessarily going to give it to Toronto just because North America is "due."

And yes, I have been to Mexico. I've worked there, thankyouverymuch. From that, I'll say that 1) Mexico City is very different (re: more secure) than the rest of Mexico (which I don't believe any city other than the capital could physically host... I laugh at the idea of Guadalajara) and 2) my point was that the danger of the cartels could diminish in the next twenty or thirty years, just like it wasn't as big an issue twenty years ago.

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made here about a potential Toronto bid. ... Also, what if the field for 2026 or 2030 (if 2026 doesn't go to the U.S.) is especially weak and the COC changes course and decides to go for a Winter Games instead?

I think this is extremely likely. If Toronto doesn't win in 2024/28 (and I don't think it can, really), then I see the Canadian NOC saying, "Oh well. Let's stick to the Winter Games, which we're particularly suited to athletically and which our populace really connects with."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that future bids aren't on the mind of IOC voters when deciding who hosts the next Olympics, as do many people on this forum judging by recent conversation. There were a number of people this last go-round who thought that people might vote against Madrid (or to a lesser extent Istanbul) to put Europe in a better place for a 2024 Games. So if Toronto is bidding in 2032 and North America hasn't hosted in 36 years, I don't think they're necessarily going to give it to Toronto just because North America is "due."

And yes, I have been to Mexico. I've worked there, thankyouverymuch. From that, I'll say that 1) Mexico City is very different (re: more secure) than the rest of Mexico (which I don't believe any city other than the capital could physically host... I laugh at the idea of Guadalajara) and 2) my point was that the danger of the cartels could diminish in the next twenty or thirty years, just like it wasn't as big an issue twenty years ago.

I think this is extremely likely. If Toronto doesn't win in 2024/28 (and I don't think it can, really), then I see the Canadian NOC saying, "Oh well. Let's stick to the Winter Games, which we're particularly suited to athletically and which our populace really connects with."

I understand what your saying about Toronto not winning. There is a difference between a capable city and a cultural city. The Olympics needs a city that has both and Toronto doesn't. Economically I also think the US is more appealing, were not afraid to go all out, every games we have hosted have 1. revived the movement or 2. celebrate Olympic values. Canada's only summer games was economic disaster and I think that Canadians would be afraid to back another summer bid with Toronto after the failures of 96 and 08 and the Big Owe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what your saying about Toronto not winning. There is a difference between a capable city and a cultural city. The Olympics needs a city that has both and Toronto doesn't. Economically I also think the US is more appealing, were not afraid to go all out, every games we have hosted have 1. revived the movement or 2. celebrate Olympic values. Canada's only summer games was economic disaster and I think that Canadians would be afraid to back another summer bid with Toronto after the failures of 96 and 08 and the Big Owe.

Toronto is far from winning 2024, but logic dictates the COC will go with a summer games until it exhausts Toronto out two more times just like last time Toronto bid. I do not think 90% support for a 2020 bid in economic worse times = afraid of going to bid for the Summer Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's only summer games was economic disaster and I think that Canadians would be afraid to back another summer bid with Toronto after the failures of 96 and 08 and the Big Owe.

I expect that the impact of Montreal's financial disaster will continue to lessen over time. When the 2032 host is chosen in 2025, almost 50 years will have passed since the Montreal Games. More recent in public memory will be any potential financial problems with the 2015 Pan-Am Games, as well as the money spent on a 2024 and/or 2028 bid. In general, I think a Summer Games in Toronto is going to be a tough sell to the city's population, and I doubt there will be much interest in repeated bids if Toronto has to make successive bids in order to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what your saying about Toronto not winning. There is a difference between a capable city and a cultural city. The Olympics needs a city that has both and Toronto doesn't. Economically I also think the US is more appealing, were not afraid to go all out, every games we have hosted have 1. revived the movement or 2. celebrate Olympic values. Canada's only summer games was economic disaster and I think that Canadians would be afraid to back another summer bid with Toronto after the failures of 96 and 08 and the Big Owe.

Really hope this thread isn't about to turn into yet another United States vs. Canada debate, as if there haven't been enough of those already.

Beyond that.. What exactly is "go all out"? Do other countries not go all out? Do other countries not celebrate Olympic values? Don't really get that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect that the impact of Montreal's financial disaster will continue to lessen over time. When the 2032 host is chosen in 2025, almost 50 years will have passed since the Montreal Games. More recent in public memory will be any potential financial problems with the 2015 Pan-Am Games, as well as the money spent on a 2024 and/or 2028 bid. In general, I think a Summer Games in Toronto is going to be a tough sell to the city's population, and I doubt there will be much interest in repeated bids if Toronto has to make successive bids in order to win.

The pan ams are remarkably under budget and a report came out over the past week sayong what a boost to the economy they will be. An olympics in any western democratic country is going to be a tough sell in the beginning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what your saying about Toronto not winning. There is a difference between a capable city and a cultural city. The Olympics needs a city that has both and Toronto doesn't. Economically I also think the US is more appealing, were not afraid to go all out, every games we have hosted have 1. revived the movement or 2. celebrate Olympic values. Canada's only summer games was economic disaster and I think that Canadians would be afraid to back another summer bid with Toronto after the failures of 96 and 08 and the Big Owe.

I don't mean to be rude - but literally everything you contribute to this forum is mostly misguided and irrelevant.

How was Beijing a failure? How was Atlanta a failure? And despite 1996's shortcomings, how is this of any concern to Toronto?

How were the financial problems faced by Montreal in 1976 of any issue to any future Toronto bid? Different cites, different times.

There are many issues with a near future Toronto Olympic bid, but it is none of the above.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude - but literally everything you contribute to this forum is mostly misguided and irrelevant.

How was Beijing a failure? How was Atlanta a failure? And despite 1996's shortcomings, how is this of any concern to Toronto?

How were the financial problems faced by Montreal in 1976 of any issue to any future Toronto bid? Different cites, different times.

There are many issues with a near future Toronto Olympic bid, but it is none of the above.

I think he meant Toronto's failures for 1996 and 2008.

And Mr.Berham capable and cultural certainly fits Toronto idk what you are getting at there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm gonna say it and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thinking it..

Anyone else find it interesting that mr.bernham joined the forum right around the same time that BR2028 disappeared from existence. And that mr.berhham just happened to find another site referencing a Baton Rouge 2028 Olympic bid? Quite the coincidence, isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...