Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why do people put so much stock into what Samaranch said?

People here are acting like Atlanta was an atrocity of a Games. It's ridiculous.

Well you had Barcelona 92, Atlanta 96 and Sydney 2000

Think of making a sandwich using two slices of the finest baked bread, and then filling it with dog food - Barcelona and Sydney represent the slices of bread.

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....

Atlanta was to the Summer Games what Reno would be to the Winter Games

Just to clarify, as Baron will tell you, he and I don't quite agree where Atlanta or Reno are concerned.

I agree that Atlanta was disappointing, but I also think its weaknesses have been in accurately magnified in hindsight. I think Atlanta's Games were representative of that organizing committee in that place at that time. Future American Games will be organized differently (as Salt Lake was).

Salt Lake demonstrated very quicky that the US can and will surpass the quality of Atlanta. Those Games were a great organizational success.

Because of the long wait for the Games to return and because of the spectacular Olympics we've witnessed in intervening years, I don't think there's any doubt that the Americans will bring their "A-game" next time.

I think the aftertaste of Reno Games would be worse than Atlanta. They must be avoided. We as a country have so much more to offer. If anyone argues that we cannot offer better at this point in time, then we shouldn't host the Games. Reno cannot make a meaningful contribution to the Olympic Movement.

Bring on Chicago, LA, NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, DC, Dallas or even Denver instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

U of course mean, Samaranch. He said that because after 99 years of The Best Games ever, it was time to retire that tired old phrase. It was getting old. That's why.

Atlanta 1996 was the best for the 1st Century of the Modern Era Games. It's just all SOUR Grapes and envy from the rest.

Case closed.

Actually you are wrong. It had not been said for "99 years", but only since Los Angeles 1984. It was a Samaranch thing, and even then I don't actually think he ever said in relation to a Winter Olympics.

Los Angeles 1984, Seoul 1988, Barcelona 1992 and Sydney 2000 were the only Olympics to have been given "the best ever" title. It's said that Rogge didn't take it up as many in the IOC said it was a direct put down to the efforts of the previous host city.

In saying that, I don't think you could have called Atlanta 1996 "the best ever" with a straight look on your face following the relative success of LA, Seoul and Barcelona. That's why when it was said in relation to Sydney, people really embraced it, because Atlanta looked so subpar in comparison to Sydney.

Another note on Atlanta commercialisation - I think Barcelona and Sydney were just as commercialised, but they were just better at hiding it. Atlanta left itself exposed because of the way the city seemingly embraced the Olympics like it was a state fair. Atlanta had this feeling of being quite provincial. Retrospectively it seems quite naive.

It's worth noting that London felt a bit more amped up in the commericlisation field compared to Beijing and Athens, with felt a bit more low key. Perhaps its got something to do with the fact that London is one of the most (if not THE most) iconic city in the world, and brand association could not be avoided. There was a great Australian television show that aired during the London Olympics on ABC called Gruen Sweat, all about advertising and the Olympics. Well worth checking out.

Edited by greenandblue
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why people think Atlanta is given an unnecessarily hard time and I am more guilty than most.

The problem with Atlanta was .... it was unexceptional. Having beaten out the people's favourite Athens because of what many thought were commericial links to the likes of Coca-Cola, Atlanta HAD to deliver at a level considered excellent - and at most it was good to very good.

People resent Atlanta for depriving Athens of the iconic centenary games and being held in the most powerful and technologically advanced countries in the world, people might have had overly high expectations and were disappointed with what was ultimately delivered.

This is why Atlanta is regarded negatively IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why people think Atlanta is given an unnecessarily hard time and I am more guilty than most.

The problem with Atlanta was .... it was unexceptional. Having beaten out the people's favourite Athens because of what many thought were commericial links to the likes of Coca-Cola, Atlanta HAD to deliver at a level considered excellent - and at most it was good to very good.

People resent Atlanta for depriving Athens of the iconic centenary games and being held in the most powerful and technologically advanced countries in the world, people might have had overly high expectations and were disappointed with what was ultimately delivered.

This is why Atlanta is regarded negatively IMO

And yet Athens was NOT ready. They had trouble getting finished on time 8 years later.

Atlanta did not "deprive" Athens -- the IOC rejected Athens because they were clearly not up to scratch -- so the IOC went with what they considered the next best option. None of that is Atlanta's fault. Atlanta didn't elbow Athens out of the way. Athens couldn't rise to the occasion and the IOC made the choice.

Frankly, the IOC may have hoped for more from Atlanta, but I seriously doubt any of the other cities bidding for 96 would've done a better job. I think the IOC got the best Games available to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet Athens was NOT ready. They had trouble getting finished on time 8 years later.

Atlanta did not "deprive" Athens -- the IOC rejected Athens because they were clearly not up to scratch -- so the IOC went with what they considered the next best option. None of that is Atlanta's fault. Atlanta didn't elbow Athens out of the way. Athens couldn't rise to the occasion and the IOC made the choice.

Frankly, the IOC may have hoped for more from Atlanta, but I seriously doubt any of the other cities bidding for 96 would've done a better job. I think the IOC got the best Games available to them.

I personally think both Toronto and Melbourne could have done better

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think both Toronto and Melbourne could have done better

Based on the bid books at the time? Hmmm. I doubt it, but I guess there's no way we'll ever know.

Either way, the IOC made the decision. They can't say Atlanta forced them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and NEVER again. So, he was just retiring that line with Atlanta. But I agree with what you said about people resenting that an upstart city actually nsatched the Games away from Athens. Granted there were some minor glitches, it really was just sour grapes and poor (bidding) losers. I've always held that view. The 1996 logo is still heck of a lot better than Sydney's corny boomerang thing or London's fractured one.

the logo was the only classy thing about the entire games

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Atlanta was .... it was unexceptional. Having beaten out the people's favourite Athens because of what many thought were commericial links to the likes of Coca-Cola, Atlanta HAD to deliver at a level considered excellent - and at most it was good to very good.

Dude.. are there two different people posting under your name? First you throw out these outragious bomb-thrower attacks, then you try and step back and sound almost reasonable. Which is it?

Personally, I don't give a flying fish what the corrupt IOC members think. But if you want to go by them, Samaranch said the Atlanta games were excellent and well done. Nobody here thinks the games were the best ever... but if you want to come up with speciic reasons why *you* think they weren't well done, let's here them. Hopefully from the sane you, not the bombthrower you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the bid books at the time? Hmmm. I doubt it, but I guess there's no way we'll ever know.

Either way, the IOC made the decision. They can't say Atlanta forced them.

Based on the way the 2006 Commonwealth Games were flawlessly (and effortlessly) executed by Melbourne on a scale many called "Olympic", I think it is a fair indication that 1996 would have been in good hands in Melbourne. I'm not saying the Commonwealth Games are anywhere near the Olympics, but its a close assessment. Melbourne is planned in such a way that makes major events easy, major stadia in a city centre, with impressive inner city transit. Sure, Melbourne 1996 would not have been as sexy as Sydney 2000, but I'm confident it would have done 1996 better than Atlanta, and I dare say moreso than any other 1996 bid city. Also having an existing Olympic heritage (1956) and being the largest Greek city outside Greece would have given the event more relevance than Atlanta. While I'm glad Australia had the 2000 Olympics in Sydney; I tend to think of Melbourne 1996 as the great Olympiad that never was.

Toronto would have done a great job too, albeit more work would have needed to have been carried out than Melbourne; and despite not hosting before, a third Olympics in 20 years would have been a lot. If Toronto had 1996 we would be retrospectively complaining that it was too soon after Calgary and Montreal like we do with Atlanta and LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toronto would have done a great job too, albeit more work would have needed to have been carried out than Melbourne; and despite not hosting before, a third Olympics in 20 years would have been a lot. If Toronto had 1996 we would be retrospectively complaining that it was too soon after Calgary and Montreal like we do with Atlanta and LA.

In relation to what future Canadian bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to what future Canadian bid.

I'm not sure what you mean? I'm referring to Toronto 1996 - if that bid were successful, while I think a Toronto Centennial Games would have been much better than Atlanta, it still would have had stigma having been Canada's third Olympics in 20 years. That seems to be a forgotten negative when that bid is discussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean? I'm referring to Toronto 1996 - if that bid were successful, while I think a Toronto Centennial Games would have been much better than Atlanta, it still would have had stigma having been Canada's third Olympics in 20 years. That seems to be a forgotten negative when that bid is discussed.

Oh I thought u were referring to a future Canadian bid in the 2020's as being too much. I think Atlanta might have "stolen" 1996 but Toronto was not winning it for sure, a mere 20 years after Montreal. 2024 is a different story though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bids for the 2024 olympics:

NYC

Qatar

Nairobi

Toronto

Paris

Who would win?

Either NYC or Paris. Depends partly on 2020-- and the quality of the bids.

I'm starting to get an inexplicable (and indefensible) gut feeling that 2024 might be good for the US. It had always seemed to me that 2028 or 2032 were more likely, but I'm starting to wonder. Would be nice to know what's happening at the USOC....

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and NEVER again. So, he was just retiring that line with Atlanta. But I agree with what you said about people resenting that an upstart city actually nsatched the Games away from Athens. Granted there were some minor glitches, it really was just sour grapes and poor (bidding) losers. I've always held that view. The 1996 logo is still heck of a lot better than Sydney's corny boomerang thing or London's fractured one.

this is not correct. Samarch did use the line again to describe the Sydney games.

And in regards to logos: the Atlanta logo is rather 'boring': perhaps a reflection of the host city, its landscape and a premoniotion of its ceremonies. nothing 'wow' about them.

the logos of EVERY other Olympic City have tried to instil a sense of culture... Atlanta's is just nothing. it is arrogant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the logo was the only classy thing about the entire games

the only classy thing about the whole Atlanta games experience were the IOC members who kept a dignified silence when bribed during the bid process to hold the games in Atlanta.

There were many many many things that went wrong in Atlanta - and the IOC saw these dangers during the games and have made sure they were never repeated.

the biggest issue was the lack of a overseeing government body that had the power to properly coordinate all the consultants... Atlanta pretty much privatised everything: an example is the how the IBM (a consultant) designed software could not cope when the atheletes checked into the village causing the whole operation to crumble and delay.... the whole process was not tested, nor was it required to be tested... so there was no responsible body to make sure it worked... and this happened over and over in Atlanta. this spooked the IOC who now demands organising committees take the Sydney model of a government backed organising committee.

Atlanta was a mistake the IOC would like to forget.

USA is an amazing country and more than capable to organise awesome games (LA1984)... but Atlanta got the Olympics so so so wrong.

It will take time for the IOC to trust the US again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USA has presented its greatest cities to the IOC for consideration to host the Olympics - NYC and Chicago would truely host amazing Olympics.

But the IOC do not seem to want the Olympics in the USA anytime soon.

1976: America

1980: Europe

1984: America

1988: Asia

1992: Europe

1996: America

2000: Oceania

2004: Europe

2008: Asia

2012: Europe

2016: America

2020:?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't love Atlanta's logo, but it certainly wasn't arrogant. It was American and made sense for the centennial Games.

I didn't love Atlanta's ceremonies either, but I thought they were on a par with London and some people thought London's were fantastic.

I didn't love Atlanta's Games, but they certainly were not the unmitigated disaster you describe.

As for bribery, that's a totally unproven and unprovable accusation -- as it is for several prior and subsequent hosts as well.

Even if your statements were true, Salt Lake City was a great success that paved the way for future American Olympics.

All in all, I find your review grossly polarized. The IOC chose Atlanta by a comfortable margin. In terms of geopolitics, it wasn't the best choice -- but the IOC made it. That's no reason to punish the US now.

I have no doubt the next American Games will be a success. We are hungry for them and we have enough national pride to deliver unforgettable Olympics. The only question is which city and when.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nu4m, I'm not sure what your timeline is supposed to demonstrate. I think we're all aware of previous hosts. I'm also not sure how that proves what the IOC wants for the future.

2012 and 2016 were both too soon for the US. Period. Even if NYC had a stadium and even if the IOC weren't itching to samba, the timing was simply wrong. Now the revenue deal is done and the IOC are making out like bandits. The USOC is the most stable and copacetic it's been in decades. It's a new day. Starting with 2024, I think the US can make a strong, compelling case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nu4m, I'm not sure what your timeline is supposed to demonstrate. I think we're all aware of previous hosts. I'm also not sure how that proves what the IOC wants for the future.

2012 and 2016 were both too soon for the US. Period. Even if NYC had a stadium and even if the IOC weren't itching to samba, the timing was simply wrong. Now the revenue deal is done and the IOC are making out like bandits. The USOC is the most stable and copacetic it's been in decades. It's a new day. Starting with 2024, I think the US can make a strong, compelling case.

i believe the US will host the 2024/2028 games. I hope they try with Chicago/NYC/Miami.

the timeline shows they dont like the Olympic games to venture too far from America or Europe for too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't love Atlanta's Games, but they certainly were not the unmitigated disaster you describe.

...

Even if your statements were true, Salt Lake City was a great success that paved the way for future American Olympics.

...

I have no doubt the next American Games will be a success. We are hungry for them and we have enough national pride to deliver unforgettable Olympics. The only question is which city and when.

I worked for SOCOG and during that time we were briefed many times about how to avoid an 'Atlanta' situation. SLC were a fantastic success and i believe they would have redeemed faith in the USA if the bribery scandal hadnt been a tarnish.

i really would love to see the games again in the USA soon - i feel the GFC has changed many aspects about the US culture and the people there really want the games again and need the games again to restore a fundemental human faith.

I'm confused. Just a few posts ago you wrote the above statement.

yeah, like in 2020/2022... and actually, 2024 might be a little too soon.

my guess would be 2028/2030/2032

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

×
×
  • Create New...