Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Gladly. Just as soon as the condescending attitude around here stops. The mere suggestion of any city that isn't "major" gets frowned upon.

Pyro, just because a city doesn't host the Olympics doesn't make it inferior. I love Seattle. I love Hilo, Hawaii and rural New Hampshire. I was surprised by how much I liked Indianapolis. I like Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Monterey. These places all have wonderful merits, but they aren't going to host Olympic Games. It's not an insult. It's just a fact. We're not being condescending, we're being realistic. There are just certain criteria that make a city electable or not. The truth is that only a handful qualify.

We need to appreciate each place for its own merits. The Olympics are not the be-all and end-all.

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....

Louisville is a great city, but it is nowhere near an Olympic city.

We could start with population. Louisville's metro population is just a little over a miilion.

Then there's the issue of transportation. There's no light rail, and recent proposals for it have been struck down. Then there's the airport, the only international flights coming out of it are for UPS. So unless atheletes and spectators are being shipped to Louisville via UPS, there's going to be a problem.

Then, as others have mentioned, no pro sports teams. Louisville was passed over twice for a NBA team by the Grizzlies and the Hornets. One could say Louisville did it to themselves by building the YUM Center, then handing it to the University of Louisville instead of using it to lure a NBA team to town.

Perhaps Louisville could host the YOG or I don't know, maybe a Pan Am Gmes, but no olympics.

And I really don't mean this as a dig at the city. I live two hours away in Lexington and visit often, it's a wonderful city with lots to see and do, it's just not an olympic city.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"There are 3 things in life I've learned never to discuss with other people.. religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." I guess we're 2 for 3 in this thread. And I thought the presidential election stuff was getting ridiculous. Thank you all for putting that in perspective for us. Anyways, Louisville et al..

I'll admit I'm just as guilty as anyone at shooting down lesser cities. But when I see a really bad suggestion and feel like saying you're out of your bleeping mind to think they can host the Olympics, I'm not going to be shy about that. We can argue (and should.. and will) about where the line is drawn between cities that could host the Olympics and those that are just wasting their time. That said, if there is to be a USA 2024 bid, we're probably going to hear from these cities. Hopefully for their sake they get dismissed and told not to bother sooner rather than later, but they're still out there (well, some of them.. 1 website hardly makes for an Olympic bid whether it's from Louisville or Los Angeles). As noted, considering this has become a 200+ page thread in just over a year and since we all like discussing the topic. From our standpoint (us being a bunch of nobodies on an Internet forum), for better or worse, let's not pretend there aren't Louisvilles and Tulsas and the like who want to be a part of the discussion, even though we don't think they should be.

No one is trying to sound like an asshole. But it is the truth.

And yes.. this. We can all view any city in a bubble and think they're capable of hosting the Olympics. But in reality, the odds of any of them slipping through the cracks (and that's just in the domestic process), let alone winning, are so astronomically low that yes, those types of cities would probably be better off saving themselves the trouble of not needlessly spending millions of dollars for something that's almost impossible for them to get.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you consider Olympic bids from US cities I think the only thing which rules out the city are the following:

1) None of the big4 sports teams. If a city doesn't have at least two of these, you probably need to question whether they could even cope with the building programme and who would use the facilities afterwards. Some temporary facilities are ok, but no more than 25%.

2) An international airport is essentially because if you have an international airport at least there is a chance that the IOC won't say 'where?'

3) The size of the city. If we look at recent bidders, we you need a metro area of 3million realistically unless you are sitting on top of a Middle Eastern oil well. I mean Tulsa isn't even the biggest city in the state of Oklahoma

So whilst I wouldn't automatically rule out the likes of Seattle, Minneapolis, St Louis etc simply because posters here don't believe they are a city of sufficient grandeur for the USOC and IOC, there does need to be a cut off point.

After all the USOC selected New York and Chicago and that didn't work. Maybe they might hatch a plan to consider an unexpected candidate so rather than have the situation where the IOC turn up with a preconcieved notion about the city, they turn up with an open mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's simpler than that. At some point the IOC will feel that the rotation of locations makes it good to have the Games in the US time zone. At that point it's either South America or North/Central America. South America will remain an unfrequent choice, so it amounts to Canada, US or Mexico. When this window of opportunity opens, the chances of the US candidate city, whatever it is, will be great. Of course New York vs. no bid from Canada will be easier than Tulsa vs. Toronto.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's simpler than that. At some point the IOC will feel that the rotation of locations makes it good to have the Games in the US time zone. At that point it's either South America or North/Central America. South America will remain an unfrequent choice, so it amounts to Canada, US or Mexico. When this window of opportunity opens, the chances of the US candidate city, whatever it is, will be great. Of course New York vs. no bid from Canada will be easier than Tulsa vs. Toronto.

Rio is in the American time zone

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I said, but "South America will remain an unfrequent choice". Who can host there ? Rio, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires perhaps, Santiago maybe ?

During the 40 years which follow Rio 2016, I remain convinced it will be between the US, Canada and Mexico for that time zone, Mexico being less likely. For me South America will keep a frequency similar to Australia's.

Edited by hektor
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I said, but "South America will remain an unfrequent choice". Who can host there ? Rio, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires perhaps, Santiago maybe ?

During the 40 years which follow Rio 2016, I remain convinced it will be between the US, Canada and Mexico for that time zone, Mexico being less likely. For me South America will keep a frequency similar to Australia's.

I disagree

Outside of Australia, no country in Australasia can host the Summer Olympics.

In South America, Argentina (Buenos Aires), Chile (Santiago), Venezuela (Caracas) and maybe in the future Colombia (Bogota) and Peru (Lima) all potentially can offer a 'Rio' in South America.

And the success of a South American games will encourage these countries to have a long look certainly during the next 40years especially if they bid and host a successful Pan American games

Link to post
Share on other sites

We really disagree. The economic and geopolitical conditions in these countries don't make them realistic hosts in the next 40 years. For instance Caracas is only slightly more realistic than Habana. Have you been in these cities ?

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

We really disagree. The economic and geopolitical conditions in these countries don't make them realistic hosts in the next 40 years. For instance Caracas is only slightly more realistic than Habana. Have you been in these cities ?

Yes I have - my cousin for example is in Santiago

40 years is an awful long time, especially when you have oil wealth like Venezuela.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We usually come back to the same 4:

Chicago

LA

NYC

San Francisco

With the same back-ups:

Philadelphia

Dallas

I totally understand the appeal of thinking outside the box and pipe dreaming, but the reality is that it's pretty unlikely any other city could land the Summer Games.

Why San Francisco? What puts it clearly above Dallas and Philly. Or above Boston for that matter? Why do we keep coming back to the exact same order?

We get too locked into one way of thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 questions I want you to answer are these;

1. Why Louisville over NYC, LA, SanFran, or Chicago?

2. Why Louisville over Paris, Tokyo, Durban, or Melbourne?

3. Could Louisville actually host the olympics?

1) Louisville beats NYC/LA/etc. if it puts forth a quality bid and those cities don't. You can't write off a city saying it can't beat NYC until NYC actually puts out a bid.

2) Two ways Louisville beats those cities. Either (A) The IOC voters do something wacky... whenever you have less than 100 people voting, strange things can happen, or (B) Elimination. To put this in Olympic context, I'm watch Apolo Ohno sitting in 4th behind 3 Koreans. The 3 Koreans all wipe out on the last turn. Stuff happens.

3) Now this is the real question. Can it? We get so hung up on #1 and #2 when #3 is the more fun one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue is whether or not a city is electable by the IOC. Without that glamorous, internationally appealing "x factor", the technical considerations are irrelevant.

From 1988 - 1998, the IOC picked mostly unglamorous hosts. Now you can argue the IOC has shifted and is now focusing on glamorous hosts. But if the IOC can shift from unglamorous to glamorous, they can easily shift back. Look at the last cities the IOC picked. There is nothing glamorous about about Pyeongchang or Gangneung. Whose to say the IOC hasn't *already* shifted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We really disagree. The economic and geopolitical conditions in these countries don't make them realistic hosts in the next 40 years. For instance Caracas is only slightly more realistic than Habana. Have you been in these cities ?

Have you been to Mexico City or Rio?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why San Francisco? What puts it clearly above Dallas and Philly. Or above Boston for that matter? Why do we keep coming back to the exact same order?

We get too locked into one way of thinking.

The IOC was vocally in favor of a San Francisco bid. They like the flavor of the city and have said so. I can't think of any other American city where they have come out and said that.

As for Boston -- it's dense and a bit smaller. It's very difficult to imagine where the Games would go. Plus, there's been no interest in bidding from Boston.

If I left anyone off my list it was DC as a backup. My personal bias is showing there. They could do it. They've been interested in the past. I just think the IOC will find DC too political. But they should've been on my backup list.

I like the idea of Miami, but they too have logistical issues and have shown no interest in bidding. That's why I left them off.

I like the idea of Denver too, but I also think its unlikely.

To review:

Top 4.....

Chicago

LA

NYC

San Francisco

Backups....

Philly

Dallas

DC

Of course one can rhapsodize about more unconventional options, but personally, I'd bet the farm that the next US Summer candidate will come off the list of those 7 cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that needs to be asked is when hosting the Summer Games is costing cities over £10bn ($15bn) ... London being finally budgeted at £9.3bn, can any city relying almost exclusively on private sector funding be able to host the Olympics in the 21st century or is the government willing to secretly pick up the tab for security, infrastructure etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only pronlem with San Francisco is where the Olympic Stadium would be - with the 49ers moving to Santa Clara, how long Candlestick Park is scheduled to be demolished, and this caused te city to withdraw its bid for the 2016 Games. Had SF been able to build a new stadium for the Olympics and convert it into a new home for the 49ers, they would be a string candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So whilst I wouldn't automatically rule out the likes of Seattle, Minneapolis, St Louis etc simply because posters here don't believe they are a city of sufficient grandeur for the USOC and IOC, there does need to be a cut off point.

After all the USOC selected New York and Chicago and that didn't work. Maybe they might hatch a plan to consider an unexpected candidate so rather than have the situation where the IOC turn up with a preconcieved notion about the city, they turn up with an open mind?

It's not a matter of the USOC having an 'open mind'. The IOC has been clear that they're not interested in small-time cities by tossing them to the wayside like the likes of Lille, Seville, Leipzig, Manchester N Brisbane. So similar U.S. cities of size & stature, like Minneapolis, Louisville, St. Louis, etc aren't going to fair much better when there's much better offerings made available to the IOC. Y have Oscar Meyer when you can Fliet Mignon.

*have Filet Mignon

Link to post
Share on other sites

From 1988 - 1998, the IOC picked mostly unglamorous hosts. Now you can argue the IOC has shifted and is now focusing on glamorous hosts. But if the IOC can shift from unglamorous to glamorous, they can easily shift back. Look at the last cities the IOC picked. There is nothing glamorous about about Pyeongchang or Gangneung. Whose to say the IOC hasn't *already* shifted.

The Winter Games & Summer Games R apples & oranges when it comes to selecting the host cities. The Winter Games hardly ever get picked by 'glamourous' locale. Last 6 Summer Games have gone to global cities (including the 2020 finalists). Let's get the perspectives here clear, shall we.

And for 1998, it's not like the IOC had a run of glamour hosts to choose from like they did for 2012. For 1998, they only had Seoul & Nagoya to pick from. You could still argue, that the IOC still picked the most glamourous of the two. N for 1996, same thing. Other than Athens (which wasn't ready anyway), the pickings from the lot were hardly stellar, either. You can only pick from what's made available to you. So as long as the IOC has big boys lining up, like Paris, Tokyo, Rome & Berlin, I can hardly see them 'shifting back' to "unglamourous".

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Louisville beats NYC/LA/etc. if it puts forth a quality bid and those cities don't. You can't write off a city saying it can't beat NYC until NYC actually puts out a bid.

2) Two ways Louisville beats those cities. Either (A) The IOC voters do something wacky... whenever you have less than 100 people voting, strange things can happen, or ( B) Elimination. To put this in Olympic context, I'm watch Apolo Ohno sitting in 4th behind 3 Koreans. The 3 Koreans all wipe out on the last turn. Stuff happens.

3) Now this is the real question. Can it? We get so hung up on #1 and #2 when #3 is the more fun one.

For question 1 I don't mean if the bid is better. I'm talking about before the bidding process. Why would the USOC even consider Louisville.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only pronlem with San Francisco is where the Olympic Stadium would be - with the 49ers moving to Santa Clara, how long Candlestick Park is scheduled to be demolished, and this caused te city to withdraw its bid for the 2016 Games. Had SF been able to build a new stadium for the Olympics and convert it into a new home for the 49ers, they would be a string candidate.

That would mean having the 49ers play in a new stadium for less then 15 years then building them a new one. I don't think that would be a smart investment for anyone.

When you consider Olympic bids from US cities I think the only thing which rules out the city are the following:

1) None of the big4 sports teams. If a city doesn't have at least two of these, you probably need to question whether they could even cope with the building programme and who would use the facilities afterwards. Some temporary facilities are ok, but no more than 25%.

2) An international airport is essentially because if you have an international airport at least there is a chance that the IOC won't say 'where?'

3) The size of the city. If we look at recent bidders, we you need a metro area of 3million realistically unless you are sitting on top of a Middle Eastern oil well. I mean Tulsa isn't even the biggest city in the state of Oklahoma

So whilst I wouldn't automatically rule out the likes of Seattle, Minneapolis, St Louis etc simply because posters here don't believe they are a city of sufficient grandeur for the USOC and IOC, there does need to be a cut off point.

After all the USOC selected New York and Chicago and that didn't work. Maybe they might hatch a plan to consider an unexpected candidate so rather than have the situation where the IOC turn up with a preconcieved notion about the city, they turn up with an open mind?

Rio is in the American time zone

Rio is one hour ahead of NYC.

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

×
×
  • Create New...