Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think any predictions of the U.S. winning less than 90 medals in London are off base.

Just something Athensfan spins up to justify his misplaced, far-fetched hope that the U.S. should wait for a Summer Games before a Winter One. What fallacious thinking.

Also, if anything, the U.S. couple won Bronze at the Tango World Championships (Salon category) in Buenos Aires yesterday, behind the Colombian and Venezuelans couples. Go USA in TANGO!!

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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....

Just to poke more holes in the gloom and doom U.S. predictions for London, the IAAF Worlds wrapped up today with the U.S. winning 25 total medals (12 gold, 8 silver, 5 bronze). That's an improvement over the 22 medals in Berlin 2009 (10 gold, 6 silver, 6 bronze) and the 23 medals in Beijing 2008 (7 gold, 9 silver, 7 bronze), and it's the second-best performance ever for the U.S. at Worlds, behind Osaka 2007. The U.S. performance is even more remarkable considering that some key stars like Gay and Wariner were injured, and the U.S. won no medals in the men's 400m hurdles or shot put, where they can usually count on winning 2 of the 3 medals. USA Track & Field has said that they're shooting for 30 medals in London, and I don't think 26-30 medals is unreasonable given the U.S. performance in Daegu. At any rate, based on the swimming and track worlds alone, I think any predictions of the U.S. winning less than 90 medals in London are off base.

Aside from the medal totals, it should be noted that only 2 other countries (Russia and Kenya) won as many total medals as the United States won gold medals. So where the article Athensfan linked to mentioned how other countries are started to catch up to the US, I don't know where they see that happening. It's certainly not in swimming or track where the United States is as strong as it's ever been. Still looking for a reason to believe the United States won't top the medal count in London because we haven't found one yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the medal totals, it should be noted that only 2 other countries (Russia and Kenya) won as many total medals as the United States won gold medals. So where the article Athensfan linked to mentioned how other countries are started to catch up to the US, I don't know where they see that happening.

I think the only event in which that happened in Daegu was in the men's 400m, with Kirani James of Grenada winning the gold. The U.S. had only 1 finalist in that event, whereas in the past they've almost always had 3 and have won at least 2 medals. Unless LaShawn "ExtenZe" Merritt is cleared to compete in London next year, it's very likely that the U.S. will not win the 400m for the first time since 1976.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2028 is Tokyo? The "8" pattern is going strong and Asia is likely.

2024 is a race between Toronto/USA.

I think 2024 will be in North America, unless Africa bring forth a bid for it. However, the USA is going to make up its mind in whether it wants the 2022 Winter or 2024 Summer Olympics. The same could be said for Canada, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to poke more holes in the gloom and doom U.S. predictions for London, the IAAF Worlds wrapped up today with the U.S. winning 25 total medals (12 gold, 8 silver, 5 bronze). That's an improvement over the 22 medals in Berlin 2009 (10 gold, 6 silver, 6 bronze) and the 23 medals in Beijing 2008 (7 gold, 9 silver, 7 bronze), and it's the second-best performance ever for the U.S. at Worlds, behind Osaka 2007. The U.S. performance is even more remarkable considering that some key stars like Gay and Wariner were injured, and the U.S. won no medals in the men's 400m hurdles or shot put, where they can usually count on winning 2 of the 3 medals. USA Track & Field has said that they're shooting for 30 medals in London, and I don't think 26-30 medals is unreasonable given the U.S. performance in Daegu. At any rate, based on the swimming and track worlds alone, I think any predictions of the U.S. winning less than 90 medals in London are off base.

I'm pleased with USA Track and Field's performance. As I said, this is an area where I hope to be proven wrong. (Though I have to say, the men's 4x100 relay needs to get their act together.) As for losing out in shotput and 400m, there were also surprise medals such as the triple jump and the women's 1500.

I hope this success is sustained through 2020 and beyond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles would at least have to make some sort of compelling case, no doubt (something ala London). Like maybe expanding on the light-rail system, or something like London's East End project. But they can't do the "we have everything ready" montra since that ain't gonna fly, unless the IOC is forced to again like they were for '84.

The Coliseum I think could be used again. But no doubt they'd still have to refurbish it. 2024 would still make a good 40 years away from '84, so by this point, I think the time-line would start to become a bit more acceptable for a 3rd L.A. Games. It just depends if the IOC is finally ready to come back to the U.S. again. But I'd still say that they'd ask themselves that question regardless of which U.S. city were making the Olympic pitch again.

I'd love to see LA host again.

I think the Coliseum should serve as the Olympic stadium because of its history, but I agree that the stadium would need major renovation and the addition of some sort of roof. Whether or not such renovation is possible politically remains questionable. A new NFL stadium is unlikely to function as a potential Olympic stadium since it's probably not going to be able to accommodate a track (like all the other NFL stadiums in the country).

There are several big challenges to LA Games though.

1.) Lack of Olympic parks. The IOC is accustomed to tight clusters of venues and LA is not going to be able to offer much of that.

2.) Transportation. LA is arguably the most automobile-dependent city in the world -- something that isn't going to go over well with the IOC. However....if LA could use another Olympics as an excuse to radically improve mass transportation, those improvements could become one of the most valuable Olympic legacies in history (and a great selling point for the bid). That's a big "if" though.

3.) Unlike the great European capitals, or even Chicago, New York or San Francisco, LA is not very tourist friendly. You have to know where the hot spots are and there's a lot of mediocrity to weed through in between.

Finally, I do not believe that 2024 is too soon for the next American Summer Olympics. I think the IOC could well choose to return by that time, but I think they would be less inclined to do so if the city were Los Angeles. Chicago and NYC may or may not be interested, but I think either one of them would stand a greater chance of winning 2024 than LA. I do think LA would be a serious threat by the 30s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, I do not believe that 2024 is too soon for the next American Summer Olympics. I think the IOC could well choose to return by that time, but I think they would be less inclined to do so if the city were Los Angeles. Chicago and NYC may or may not be interested, but I think either one of them would stand a greater chance of winning 2024 than LA. I do think LA would be a serious threat by the 30s.

The issue with LA is what type of legacy would another Olympics leave on the city? We've seen over many years what the 1984 games did, but I'm not sure what another Olympics would mean, especially since I think the IOC would reject the idea of holding a 3rd Olympics in the same stadium.

As for 2024, it's absolutely not too soon for another Summer Olympics in the United States. Since Atlanta, Asia will have hosted at least once, Europe will have hosted at least twice, Oceania and South America will have each gotten one, so that only leaves out Africa. If they're not in the mix for 2024 (even if they are, what about after that), I don't see why the United States has to wait so long after that.

I've brought it up before, but NBC has set a bad precedent by largely paying a king's ransom to the IOC with little regard to where the Olympics are held. That might need to change before the IOC opens their eyes towards the need to put an Olympics back in North America, especially since we're looking at no less than 12 years between Vancouver and whatever follows. Either way, if the USOC bypasses 2022, they should start working towards 2024, even if they have to be cautious in the face of a potential South African bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with LA is what type of legacy would another Olympics leave on the city? We've seen over many years what the 1984 games did, but I'm not sure what another Olympics would mean, especially since I think the IOC would reject the idea of holding a 3rd Olympics in the same stadium.

As for 2024, it's absolutely not too soon for another Summer Olympics in the United States. Since Atlanta, Asia will have hosted at least once, Europe will have hosted at least twice, Oceania and South America will have each gotten one, so that only leaves out Africa. If they're not in the mix for 2024 (even if they are, what about after that), I don't see why the United States has to wait so long after that.

if the USOC bypasses 2022, they should start working towards 2024, even if they have to be cautious in the face of a potential South African bid.

Why would the IOC refuse a 3rd Olympics in the same stadium? The Coliseum has fantastic Olympic history. It's an iconic structure. It's arguably the ONLY stadium in the USA capable of hosting Olympic athletics. If it got a major facelift and a beautiful new roof, I see no reason at all why the stadium would be a weak point. What's the point of having an Olympic legacy if you're supposed to ignore it when the Olympics return? I think the IOC would actually value echoes of the past reborn and renewed in the 21st century.

As for legacy, if you read my above post, the biggest potential legacy could be in the area of transportation. Whether that would actually come to fruition is another question. Also, LA offers plenty of opportunity to promote sport among at risk youth in a manner that would leave a lasting human legacy.

The legacy question is a big one for any established city -- particularly in the U.S. The legacies of all the recent Games are questionable at best -- quite a lot of white elephants. I do think London will have one of the best Olympic legacies ever, but few cities are going to be ripe for that sort of transformation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the IOC refuse a 3rd Olympics in the same stadium? The Coliseum has fantastic Olympic history. It's an iconic structure. It's arguably the ONLY stadium in the USA capable of hosting Olympic athletics. If it got a major facelift and a beautiful new roof, I see no reason at all why the stadium would be a weak point. What's the point of having an Olympic legacy if you're supposed to ignore it when the Olympics return? I think the IOC would actually value echoes of the past reborn and renewed in the 21st century.

As for legacy, if you read my above post, the biggest potential legacy could be in the area of transportation. Whether that would actually come to fruition is another question. Also, LA offers plenty of opportunity to promote sport among at risk youth in a manner that would leave a lasting human legacy.

The legacy question is a big one for any established city -- particularly in the U.S. The legacies of all the recent Games are questionable at best -- quite a lot of white elephants. I do think London will have one of the best Olympic legacies ever, but few cities are going to be ripe for that sort of transformation.

Los Angeles already has an Olympics legacy though, one that hasn't exactly died out since the `84 games. So it is really going to further that legacy to renovate a nearly century-old stadium, to put the track back in (only temporarily of course) rather than the IOC going to a new city like Chicago and leaving a brand new legacy there just like they did with Atlanta. My read on it is that it doesn't require a complete transformation of a city since, like you said, most of the world's alpha cities aren't looking for that.

I feel like Los Angeles is the ultimate Olympic back-up site, that they could step in with just a few years' notice and have virtually every facility they need all but ready to go with minimal improvements needed. But the United States being the large and diverse country that it is, does it really make sense to come here for a 5th Summer Olympics and have it be in the same city for the 3rd time? Los Angeles has built numerous new venues since the `84 Olympics, not to mention that the subway system is continuing to expand, all of this without an Olympics on the horizon. So just as New York is pushing ahead with the construction of new stadiums without having landed an Olympics, what's in it for Los Angeles when there's probably at least 2 or 3 cities very capable of hosting an Olympics and adding themselves to the list of cities to have hosted an Olympics.

Bottom line.. if the USOC can't offer up anything more appealing than Los Angeles bidding for a 3rd Olympics less than half a century after the last one, something is not right with that picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As strong as Chicago's 2016 bid was, I still feel like a strong New York bid would be most likely to win the next U.S. Summer Games. When the IOC was "encouraging" the U.S. to bid for 2020, several IOC members were mentioning New York, not Chicago or LA. I'd prefer Chicago myself, but I think the IOC is more familiar with New York and would be more willing to go there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As strong as Chicago's 2016 bid was, I still feel like a strong New York bid would be most likely to win the next U.S. Summer Games. When the IOC was "encouraging" the U.S. to bid for 2020, several IOC members were mentioning New York, not Chicago or LA. I'd prefer Chicago myself, but I think the IOC is more familiar with New York and would be more willing to go there.

I still question what their plan would be, namely the main stadium. It's obviously not going to be in Manhattan unless there's a major change of heart (and it's no longer an option to use the stadium for football after the games) and I can't see a temporary stadium being built in Queens. I'm sure the IOC would love to come here, but I don't see NYC being able to put together a viable plan to make it work, especially after the less-than-spectacular bid we put together in 2005 and especially with all the sports-related construction that has gone on in the past few years, much of which would be of little benefit to an Olympics. If there's a major international sports event here in the next 20 years, I'd bet it'll be the World Cup because that this area is ready for today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line.. if the USOC can't offer up anything more appealing than Los Angeles bidding for a 3rd Olympics less than half a century after the last one, something is not right with that picture.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

There's nothing to say that a country has to rotate between cities. If it's a quality bid, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Just because LA has hosted before doesn't mean they're incapable of presenting the best plan of any US city. It doesn't automatically relegate them to "back-up" status.

As long as there's enough distance from '84, LA's a totally valid option. The legacy that is apparent today is going to be far less so in 20 years.

As for the next US Summer host, my pick is still Chicago. The IOC might think they would prefer the Games in NYC, but I strongly believe they'd be much happier with the end result of Chicago Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing to say that a country has to rotate between cities. If it's a quality bid, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Just because LA has hosted before doesn't mean they're incapable of presenting the best plan of any US city. It doesn't automatically relegate them to "back-up" status.

As long as there's enough distance from '84, LA's a totally valid option. The legacy that is apparent today is going to be far less so in 20 years.

There's nothing that says a country has to rotate, but there's nothing that says the IOC has to rotate continents either, yet we know how they feel about that. This isn't a mid-size European country with only 1 or more 2 alpha cities we're talking about, this is the United States. If the IOC sees Los Angeles again, they're going to question why no other city in the United States is capable and/or willing to host an Olympics and then they're going to ask what's going to make this Los Angeles Olympics different from the previous ones. As baron would say, what's their story? If the USOC is selling it as a cost-effective option where most of the infrastructure and venues are in place (to their credit, they do have a number of new sports facilities that weren't around in 1984), that's 1 thing. But I still think the IOC is going to want something better from the United States, even if we're talking 20 or so years down the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a temporary stadium at Flushing Meadows? I'm not sure what the post-Games use would be, though, unless they could find a way to make it part of the tennis center.

Considering how I ripped that concept from Chicago, I don't think I would be any higher on it for New York. There's plenty of space there, but a lot of it is public parkland, so with the footprint a stadium of that size would require, I doubt it would fly. Even though it's not exactly the center of the city, I have no issue with Flushing Meadows being the main hub of activity for the Olympics, but whereas the 2012 bid (at least the original one) called for transportation upgrades and a much needed expansion to the Javits Center (not to mention that the stadium would have been a part of that expansion), it doesn't seem like the best sell if the whole plan is based on a somewhat temporary stadium in Queens rather than something that could be viewed as much more useful for the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a temporary stadium at Flushing Meadows? I'm not sure what the post-Games use would be, though, unless they could find a way to make it part of the tennis center.

That's just half of the key part. You need to situate a (new) Olympic stadium, perm or temp, CLOSE to the Olympic Village--the way London and I think, Sochi, are doing it. That seems to be the winning combination for a Summer bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As strong as Chicago's 2016 bid was, I still feel like a strong New York bid would be most likely to win the next U.S. Summer Games. When the IOC was "encouraging" the U.S. to bid for 2020, several IOC members were mentioning New York, not Chicago or LA. I'd prefer Chicago myself, but I think the IOC is more familiar with New York and would be more willing to go there.

Chicago is way better than NYC, by the way NYC is tge most famous city un the world they dont need the olympics. I've been 2 times in Chicago, (in 2009 by the way....) its an amazing city! :D i will totally suport a Chicago's bid

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that says a country has to rotate, but there's nothing that says the IOC has to rotate continents either, yet we know how they feel about that. This isn't a mid-size European country with only 1 or more 2 alpha cities we're talking about, this is the United States. If the IOC sees Los Angeles again, they're going to question why no other city in the United States is capable and/or willing to host an Olympics and then they're going to ask what's going to make this Los Angeles Olympics different from the previous ones. As baron would say, what's their story? If the USOC is selling it as a cost-effective option where most of the infrastructure and venues are in place (to their credit, they do have a number of new sports facilities that weren't around in 1984), that's 1 thing. But I still think the IOC is going to want something better from the United States, even if we're talking 20 or so years down the line.

The thing is, who else is left? Dallas? Houston? Boston? TULSA?? :P Even you're arguing that you can't see New York coming up with a workable plan in the near-term, & if Chicago is still not interested, then that only leaves Los Angeles out of the alpha players. The USOC can't force cities to bid.

And I happen to agree with Athensfan, if a 3rd Los Angeles Games would have a potential compelling project (ala London), then I don't see why the IOC would be automatically turned-off. And no, the old "we have everything ready to go" mantra ain't gonna sell. I already mentioned that earlier. Most of us here already know what kind of projects make those old-fogies over there in Lausaunne drool over themselves with frenzy. Worked for London for a 3rd Games. And yeah, it doesn't mean that it would automatically win it for L.A. but there's precedence & the fact that the U.S. will be going 20 years, & counting, without a Summer Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion I would suggest the USA whole heartedly go after the 2022 Winter Games (be it with Reno-Tahoe or Denver) and then go directly after 2024. There is no guarantee that we would win 2022 just as there is no guarantee that South Africa would win 2024! Admittedly, if SA submits a competent bid they will be difficult to beat after FIFA 2010's success. I see the major stumbling block to a 2024 USA win to be the issues with a stadium and if the USA were to put together an exciting bid, one that could entice the IOC away from the new frontier of Africa. NYC just built 3 new stadia, 1 in New Jersey for the Jets and Giants, and new homes for the Yankees and Mets. How could another new stadium be justified? Chicago faces a similar issue, what could a new stadium in Chicago be used for after the games?? Kind of a waste to build a temporary that will for the most part go unused after the games. Los Angeles is in need of a new stadium, however the need there is for a stadium for an NFL team to be lured to LA. Can a stadium be designed that could be used for both Olympic Track and Field and then be adapted to be on par with the new NFL super stadia????? Los Angeles would be my 3rd choice in the USA behind NYC and Chicago but I feel that it is the most pragmatic choice. They would need to put together a knockout bid in order to beat some of the cities mentioned that would be their competition. Also is the fact that both 2022 and 2024 bids coming from cities in California a concern?? Probably would be in this case.

OK, let the tirades begin!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Can a stadium be designed that could be used for both Olympic Track and Field and then be adapted to be on par with the new NFL super stadia?????

2. Also is the fact that both 2022 and 2024 bids coming from cities in California a concern?? Probably would be in this case.

1. There is a way. Both the New York 2012 and San Francisco 2016 bids were betting that way. However, the SF 2016 bid showed a better compromise way. But the jerk Jeff York moved the stadium to Santa Clara therefore not making a SF-based plan viable.

2. What r u talking about? 2024 would only happen if 2022 failed. And why are you assuming that the 2024 would be from California? Yes, a 2022/26 bid might be from California.

If Durban bids in 2024, it would be foolish for any other city on the planet to bid. A ridiculous waste of money and time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Durban bids in 2024, it would be foolish for any other city on the planet to bid. A ridiculous waste of money and time.

Then Paris will bid. :lol:

Edited by hektor
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, who else is left? Dallas? Houston? Boston? TULSA?? :P Even you're arguing that you can't see New York coming up with a workable plan in the near-term, & if Chicago is still not interested, then that only leaves Los Angeles out of the alpha players. The USOC can't force cities to bid.

And I happen to agree with Athensfan, if a 3rd Los Angeles Games would have a potential compelling project (ala London), then I don't see why the IOC would be automatically turned-off. And no, the old "we have everything ready to go" mantra ain't gonna sell. I already mentioned that earlier. Most of us here already know what kind of projects make those old-fogies over there in Lausaunne drool over themselves with frenzy. Worked for London for a 3rd Games. And yeah, it doesn't mean that it would automatically win it for L.A. but there's precedence & the fact that the U.S. will be going 20 years, & counting, without a Summer Olympics.

How about San Francisco? I've mentioned Philadelphia although their interest level seems to be pretty low at this point. I'm just concerned that the IOC is going to see Los Angeles (after the USOC presented 2 other cities) and say "is this the best you've got?.. a country of your size and scope and you can't give us something new?" I mean, if that's the best the USOC can do is to offer up Los Angeles again, I'm curious to see what they offer up that's going to make them a contender because I don't know that a renovation of the Coliseum is going to do the trick, especially with all the new sports venues that have been built since 1984 without having landed an Olympics prior.

Remember also.. we've got 4 more years before applications have to be submitted for 2024, assuming the USOC is even interested. That's a lot of time for a bid to materialize and for a city to get themselves organized. Like I said, I don't see it being New York and who knows about Chicago, but crazier things have been known to happen. Time will tell.

1. There is a way. Both the New York 2012 and San Francisco 2016 bids were betting that way. However, the SF 2016 bid showed a better compromise way. But the jerk Jeff York moved the stadium to Santa Clara therefore not making a SF-based plan viable.

Yea, what a jerk he is for thinking about the long-term viability of a sports team that's been in San Francisco since the 1940s rather than basing his team's future on the off chance that maybe it might wind up landing the city a 1-shot deal with an Olympics

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. What r u talking about? 2024 would only happen if 2022 failed. And why are you assuming that the 2024 would be from California? Yes, a 2022/26 bid might be from California.

If Durban bids in 2024, it would be foolish for any other city on the planet to bid. A ridiculous waste of money and time.

If you look, I said there is no guarantee USA would win 2022 bid. I would say there is a good chance if the bid was at least on par with the others submitted the rights to organize would be awarded to the US city but one never knows. Therefore, a bid for 2024 should be readied and submitted for those games too. Also, if Durban (or another SA city bids for 2024) I also stated that they would be difficult to beat. Do you not think it would be wise for any other city aiming for 2024 or beyond would be wise to submit an exciting, well thought out bid for 2024 with the hope of convincing the IOC to wait on SA or at least to position themselves for 2028? I think it would be a wise thing to do. I've seen more money wasted on things that were of much less importance.

Prepared for the 2nd round of attacks for my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, what a jerk he is for thinking about the long-term viability of a sports team that's been in San Francisco since the 1940s rather than basing his team's future on the off chance that maybe it might wind up landing the city a 1-shot deal with an Olympics

Agreed. Y r u such a putz?

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

×
×
  • Create New...