Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

Pol....

There are some real interesting questions burried in your post. Should cities that haven't hosted be favored over cities that have. Should the Olympics try to be less of a rich athlete / rich country sport?

But we aren't going to get to those given your laughable list. I think you fundamentally fail to understand what an Olypic host city needs. Now I'm a huge proponent of the IOC downscaling requirements to make it easier on a city to host. But even if they do that - and they probably won't - there's think you need. Appropriate weather for one thing. That knocks a big chuck of cities on of your list.

Even if you downsize the games significantly, you need a certain level of transportation infrastructure. Not a chance in heck some of those cities could host. Dubin????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without arguing about semantics regarding affirmative action, I will say that I am very much in favor of the Olympics continuing to become more inclusive. They are the largest international sporting event, the largest global gathering of people for 'friendly competition' and they should be treated as such. They should not be games run by and given to rich, developed countries and no others. As more countries and cities grow economically - and the developing world is growing at a speed far greater than the developed world which is a trend that won't stop for a very long time - more cities will become legitimately viable hosts.

And don't rely on straw men to justify your disagreement. The argument I made was that, so long as there are viable cities and countries which want to host the games and have the capacity to do so, I don't understand why countries - and especially cities - that have already hosted the games should receive them again. Now, a permanent ban - a one-time host policy - is probably too far. But I could see a rule that, say, host cities can't bid again until 50 years after they've hosted while host countries can't bid again for 25 or 30 years.

The fact is that the games continually go to a small number of rich, mostly Western, mostly European countries despite the fact that half the world's population is in Asia and about 90% of the world's population lives in the developing, non-Western World.

Finally, and here is where I take the most issue with what you said, you suggest that only a handful of cities and countries can host the games. You also seem to assume - and I could be wrong - that this isn't changing anytime soon, that the same cities and countries that were viable two decades ago will be the same that are viable two decades from now with few additions to the roster.

The next choice for a host city will be made next year and will determine the 2022 Winter Host. Three countries that have never hosted are among the 5 bidding. All three were viable options until Ukrainian politics boiled over into mass protests that threaten the very existence of the country's current regime. Poland and Kazakhstan are both fully capable of hosting and both are countries that have never held the games (throw in Slovakia, too, as it is part of the Krakow bid and also is a country capable of hosting the games but which has yet to do so). Thus, even with the Winter Games - for which there are far fewer viable host cities - there are many cities bidding that - if chosen - would become the first city in their country to host. When it comes to the Summer Games, the number of cities capable of hosting is much higher and the list won't remain static. Many cities in developing countries are growing rapidly and well - they may not be prepared to host the games if awarded them today and given 7 years to put them together, but the next open bid is for the 2024 Olympics - cities bidding for those games have 10 years to get ready. Since hosts are chosen 7 years before they actually host, one has to consider how ready a city is likely to be when bids are being made and when the host for a particular bid would actually hold the games. If we want to predict, say, the next 3 unannounced Summer Hosts we're looking at 2024, 2028 and 2032 - the last of which is almost 20 years from now. At the rate countries and cities are growing these days, it's silly to assume that cities currently seen as unviable will remain so that long.

So, below is just a quick list of cities I believe are currently capable of making a serious bid and which are in countries that have never hosted the games. Below that list is a longer list of cities that I believe would be able to host the Olympics by 2032/2036 (so, in roughly 2 decades) from countries that've never hosted. For arguments sake, I'm just identifying 1 potential host city per country.

Likely could host now & from countries never to have hosted the Olympics:

  • Singapore
  • Shanghai, China
  • Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • Taipei, Taiwan (although this is unlikely given Taiwanese-Chinese relations)
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Istanbul, Turkey,
  • Prague, Czech Republic
  • Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Montevideo, Uruguay
  • Lisbon, Portugal
  • Zagreb, Croatia
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Bucharest, Romania
  • Almaty, Kazakhstan
  • Krakow, Poland
  • Doha, Qatar
  • Dubai, UAE
  • Casablanca, Morocco
  • Lima, Peru
  • Budapest, Hungary
  • Riga, Latvia
  • Belgrade, Serbia
  • Ljubljana, Slovenia

Likely could host by 2040:

  • Bangkok, Thailand
  • Santiago, Chile
  • San Jose, Costa Rica
  • Panama City, Panama
  • Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Mumbai, India
  • Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
  • Durban, South Africa
  • Tangier, Morocco
  • Kiev, Ukraine
  • Libreville, Gabon
  • Gaborone, Botswana
  • Tunis, Tunisia
  • Manila, Philippines
  • Guatemala City, Guatemala
  • Guayaquil, Ecuador
  • Baku, Azerbaijan
  • Colombo, Sri Lanka
  • Muscat, Oman
  • Accra, Ghana
  • San Salvador, El Salvador
Now, not all of those cities may sound appealing to you - but I assure you that the citizens of those cities and countries would be very happy to receive the games and all of these cities have rich cultures, histories, landmarks and other notable features making them particularly interesting world destinations. These cities are all well integrated into the global economy and most have extensive transportation and communication infrastructure, with many having decent sports complexes. Moreover, the cities/countries on list 1 are stable enough and have the funds and rule-of-law to implement the games while those on list 2 could possibly pull it off today, but are more likely to be considered good candidates in a decade or two after.

Should we really let the US have their 8th Olympics when none of these countries have ever hosted? Should Canada host for their 4th time? France for its 5th time? Japan will host it's 4th games in 2020. Maybe Italy deserves its 4th?

Seriously?

Your post is TOO LONG. Anything worth saying can be said with much more brevity.

I think your list is ridiculous too. Apart from the fact that Shanghai is in CHINA (remember 2008?), there are problems with almost every city on your list, not least among them the fact that most have never even bid and have no plans to.

That list shows me you haven't done your homework and need to study up quite a bit. I'm not going to waste time reading verbal diarrhea that doesn't even serve an educated premise.

I've seen clueless kids on GamesBids barely into their teens post more viable "likely future hosts" lists than that one.

AMEN!!

This guy's grammar may be better than Tony's, but their logic is on a par with each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see Lisbon, Dublin, or Copenhagen get the Olympics (Prague is too historic to tear stuff down to build a stadium) but I question if they are really big and powerful enough. If we are going to say that Boston, Seattle and Minneapolis are too small then so are Dublin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Lisbon, etc.

I really do think that splitting off a spring or fall variant of the Olympics is the logical thing to do to reduce the size and expense to manageable levels while also giving the IOC more revenue. Then developing countries and beta cities could host the "third Olympics" and have their chance to shine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that already called the Youth Olympics?

I'm not certain if that was a joke or not, but no.

CLASSIC OLYMPICS (individual/ancient sports)

Ceremonies in athletics stadium.

aquatics (swimming & diving)

archery

athletics

boxing

canoeing

equestrian

fencing

gymnastics

judo

rowing

sailing

taekwondo

weightlifting

wrestling

MODERN OLYMPICS (team/modern sports)

Ceremonies in football stadium.

aquatics (water polo & synchronized swimming)

badminton

baseball

basketball

cricket

cycling

field hockey

football

handball

rugby

shooting

softball

table tennis

tennis

volleyball

This might be a dumb idea, but it fixes a lot of the problems facing current bid cities. You cut down the athletes needed as well as the venues. And you don't need a track-equipped stadium for the modern version of the games, which is the single biggest problem for a lot of cities and a massive problem for any future American bid. You can argue that this doesn't preserve the feel of the Olympics, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

which city will be USA's bid for 2024??

Personally I doubt any city will.

Los Angeles seems like the only city that is even possible, and California's economy is still a concern. They are also facing a massive drought that may last several years and prove a serious distraction during the bidding period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain if that was a joke or not, but no.

No, I wasn't joking. I believe that's very definitely one of the main purposes (beyond fostering youth sport) of the YOGS_ - to give developing countries and beta cities their chance to host and shine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain if that was a joke or not, but no.

CLASSIC OLYMPICS (individual/ancient sports)

Ceremonies in athletics stadium.

aquatics (swimming & diving)

archery

athletics

boxing

canoeing

equestrian

fencing

gymnastics

judo

rowing

sailing

taekwondo

weightlifting

wrestling

MODERN OLYMPICS (team/modern sports)

Ceremonies in football stadium.

aquatics (water polo & synchronized swimming)

badminton

baseball

basketball

cricket

cycling

field hockey

football

handball

rugby

shooting

softball

table tennis

tennis

volleyball

This might be a dumb idea, but it fixes a lot of the problems facing current bid cities. You cut down the athletes needed as well as the venues. And you don't need a track-equipped stadium for the modern version of the games, which is the single biggest problem for a lot of cities and a massive problem for any future American bid. You can argue that this doesn't preserve the feel of the Olympics, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

Seriously, I think they're attacking en masse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as though New York City (which in my opinion is America's strongest candidate) and Chicago don't want to Bid, I would say America's best bet and strongest Bid is with Los Angeles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I think they're attacking en masse.

Don't worry. I'm sure your brand of constructive criticism will soon drive away the new posters you profess to dislike so much.

Seeing as though New York City (which in my opinion is America's strongest candidate) and Chicago don't want to Bid, I would say America's best bet and strongest Bid is with Los Angeles.

My personal concern isn't the size of the city but the venues. If Boston could find some way of making a 90,000 track stadium work I'm sure the USOC would put them forward as a US bid. But almost no city in the USA has a need for that kind of stadium. Even London wasn't able to retain its athletics track for the Olympic stadium.

Going forward I would be surprised if any American city other than Chicago and Los Angeles bid for the summer games in the next couple of decades. New York is a possibility if they used the world's fair site, but New Yorkers don't seem to actually want the Olympics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a dumb idea, but it fixes a lot of the problems facing current bid cities. You cut down the athletes needed as well as the venues. And you don't need a track-equipped stadium for the modern version of the games, which is the single biggest problem for a lot of cities and a massive problem for any future American bid. You can argue that this doesn't preserve the feel of the Olympics, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

You offered it up, so yes, I will say it's a dumb idea.

Going forward I would be surprised if any American city other than Chicago and Los Angeles bid for the summer games in the next couple of decades. New York is a possibility if they used the world's fair site, but New Yorkers don't seem to actually want the Olympics.

It's not that New Yorkers don't want the Olympics. The word I'd use is ambivalent. NYC took its shot in what was the right time and place for the city, we swung and missed and now we're moving on. If someone can come up with a plan that works for the city, they'll put it forward. But such a plan is probably not going to come together anytime soon. And again, in that regard, I don't think too many people in this city care either way about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as though New York City (which in my opinion is America's strongest candidate) and Chicago don't want to Bid, I would say America's best bet and strongest Bid is with Los Angeles.

Will you please cite an article that quotes any New York City official or any one from the USOC who say New York doesn't want to bid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you please cite an article that quotes any New York City official or any one from the USOC who say New York doesn't want to bid?

He was just saying that based on the facts. De Blasio doesn't seem like the mayor to do so. Also NYC hasn't said anything regarding the olympics lately. Trust me I would love to see the Olympics in NYC they will do a magnificiant job but sadly I don't think they are going to bid.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You offered it up, so yes, I will say it's a dumb idea.

That's fine. But why?

Right now we are caught in a three way struggle between host cities and countries which are frightened by the cost of the games and the venues becoming white elephants, the IOC which wants revenue, and the various sports federations which want their sports added/retained. The only want to satisfy all three groups is to spin off a third category of Olympic games.

You could satisfy the host cities by cutting sports, but that would reduce revenue for the IOC and anger the sport federations, so it won't happen. Or we can continue to let the games grow in size and expense and watch more and more democratic countries decline to bid for the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you please cite an article that quotes any New York City official or any one from the USOC who say New York doesn't want to bid?

You obviously pick and choose what part of the forum you have read. Roughly, 90 per cent of members have said New York are highly unlikely to Bid in other words. When I said a New York City Games in 2032 would be good, people said New York won't bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not good enough for him. He want concrete, cold hard facts &/or "evidence" that New York won't bid. In other words, something "official" from the city of New York &/or the USOC. Damn any hypothesis that any of us might have, based on what is, or isn't, already out there to base our opinions on. It's what we went through here with Chicago until the mayor there finally said hell "NO", we won't bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2032 seems to be like a good time for the US, and even maybe NYC. The next two Olympics will probably be hosted in Europe and South Africa. Also, by 2032, will the NYC football teams' leases be up? So they'll be looking for a new home?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...