2020: Who's the Frontrunner?

[alphamale86]

OK you called me out again FYI. I love it.

Would you still say this if South Africa, as wishy-washy as they were (yes, we'll bid - no, we won't), finally decided to have gone ahead with a 2020 bid? Some are saying now that had they bid, & with the recent developments of the current bidders, that they would win it in a landslide.

I would say they would have gotten it even after my statements of Rome. 2 things are different here. 1st off, it's AFRICA. The drive for an african nation to host the games completely outweighed it's actual ability to host it. You could tell that people were willing to overlook so much for South Africa to host even a mediocre Games. World Cup was haled as a success so who cares if the country had other pressing matters, the IOC was willing to over look that. Developed countries who've hosted it before don't get that luxury, point blank. It's one of those special case scenarios like the 2004 race. Rome was better but Athens had all the right emotional appeals.

2nd being wishy-washy in contemplating whether or not to bid before the deadline is completely different than being wishy-washy after you've already submitted. Before everyone is weighing the pro's and cons. South Africa more so than others but again the concession of the fact that a developing country that has just hosted a major event has to think and rethink before jumping into the race again. After you bid the competition starts, and you don't want to show your opponents or the judges that there may be a weakness or flaw. As soon as those sharks see blood they go in for the kill and If I were a Tokyo or Doha or who ever I would start tooting my Economic strength and stability in comparison to the others. That's just politics. I may even go as far as to say the government may have released those statements in the hopes that the IOC don't choose them to host the games. If you look at the time line Rome announced it's bid months before the European Crisis really started to take center stage and more so before their fall into the thick of the things so it might actually be a move to say "We are not as confident in our abilities to host the games so don't pick us without us actually dropping out" a kind of saving face move but that's just a conspiracy theory on my end.

I don't see how this is an issue. London was in the same, low public support, boat when they were bidding. Only 2nd behind New York in that area.

This theory is going to be a bit controversial but I am going to state it anyway. I again think it is not right to compare London to Tokyo. London is the epitome of the melting pot. it has to be one of the top 3 most diverse cities in the world. It is much harder to get varying groups of people excited with one national cause, unless it's an attack, so it is expected that it would be much harder to generate 80% public support for the games in London much less NYC. Throw in the fact that it would be the 3rd time that they were doing so and also the fact that London hosts everything and you have a reason for low excitement. If every sport, business, arts and technology conference, tournament or whatever passes through your city regularly I don't think you are going to be majorly impressed by the Olympics. World Cup Completely different story as it is a country issue as well as the fact England has only hosted it once. For the 2012 race London was able to still provide an exciting bid and I actually think it's very public rivalry with Paris actually helped to stir up some much needed energy, excitement and momentum for their bid.

As it is a more homogenous society it should actually be easier to rally support for a city to host the olympic games. It's a time to promote one's culture. If you can't do that especially in an asian city where group think (a term used in PR to show the public's ability to go against what they know or believe or normally would do and chose to do what they think the rest of society expects) is a common theme. Granted Tokyo also suffers from the jaded aspect of hosting a lot of major events throughout the year, my main point, however, was not actually the support but the general lack or energy from the bid itself. Granted again it was going up against the likes of Rio but Tokyo is going to have to find a way to shoot some much needed adrenaline into their system because this year they have a lot of exotics in the race to catch the eye of the voters.

How is this a problem for Istanbul, but not Doha, or even Baku? All 3 are within 500 miles from one another. And the only thing seperating Doha from Iran is the Perisan Gulf. And Istanbul is only 400 from Athens, but the Games went on there without any problems.

I knew someone would bring that up but lets face it Doha Qatar...if it's ever in the news...is only mentioned with the word oil business and money. You rarely hear them in connection to the wars and only recently are we hearing that they would be the nation to facilitate talks between the US and Iran if that comes to pass. That's actually not a bad position to be in. Turkey's foreign Policy is just a little bit more aggressive putting them closer to the the flare ups.

• Like This
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

[Galandar]

Baku is so much underrated though I like that Better to be underestimaded than overrated

And yes, my vote goes to Istanbul

[FYI]

OK you called me out again FYI. I love it.

I would say they would have gotten it even after my statements of Rome. 2 things are different here. 1st off, it's AFRICA. The drive for an african nation to host the games completely outweighed it's actual ability to host it. You could tell that people were willing to overlook so much for South Africa to host even a mediocre Games. World Cup was haled as a success so who cares if the country had other pressing matters, the IOC was willing to over look that. Developed countries who've hosted it before don't get that luxury, point blank. It's one of those special case scenarios like the 2004 race. Rome was better but Athens had all the right emotional appeals.

2nd being wishy-washy in contemplating whether or not to bid before the deadline is completely different than being wishy-washy after you've already submitted. Before everyone is weighing the pro's and cons. South Africa more so than others but again the concession of the fact that a developing country that has just hosted a major event has to think and rethink before jumping into the race again. After you bid the competition starts, and you don't want to show your opponents or the judges that there may be a weakness or flaw. As soon as those sharks see blood they go in for the kill and If I were a Tokyo or Doha or who ever I would start tooting my Economic strength and stability in comparison to the others. That's just politics. I may even go as far as to say the government may have released those statements in the hopes that the IOC don't choose them to host the games. If you look at the time line Rome announced it's bid months before the European Crisis really started to take center stage and more so before their fall into the thick of the things so it might actually be a move to say "We are not as confident in our abilities to host the games so don't pick us without us actually dropping out" a kind of saving face move but that's just a conspiracy theory on my end.

This theory is going to be a bit controversial but I am going to state it anyway. I again think it is not right to compare London to Tokyo. London is the epitome of the melting pot. it has to be one of the top 3 most diverse cities in the world. It is much harder to get varying groups of people excited with one national cause, unless it's an attack, so it is expected that it would be much harder to generate 80% public support for the games in London much less NYC. Throw in the fact that it would be the 3rd time that they were doing so and also the fact that London hosts everything and you have a reason for low excitement. If every sport, business, arts and technology conference, tournament or whatever passes through your city regularly I don't think you are going to be majorly impressed by the Olympics. World Cup Completely different story as it is a country issue as well as the fact England has only hosted it once. For the 2012 race London was able to still provide an exciting bid and I actually think it's very public rivalry with Paris actually helped to stir up some much needed energy, excitement and momentum for their bid.

As it is a more homogenous society it should actually be easier to rally support for a city to host the olympic games. It's a time to promote one's culture. If you can't do that especially in an asian city where group think (a term used in PR to show the public's ability to go against what they know or believe or normally would do and chose to do what they think the rest of society expects) is a common theme. Granted Tokyo also suffers from the jaded aspect of hosting a lot of major events throughout the year, my main point, however, was not actually the support but the general lack or energy from the bid itself. Granted again it was going up against the likes of Rio but Tokyo is going to have to find a way to shoot some much needed adrenaline into their system because this year they have a lot of exotics in the race to catch the eye of the voters.

I knew someone would bring that up but lets face it Doha Qatar...if it's ever in the news...is only mentioned with the word oil business and money. You rarely hear them in connection to the wars and only recently are we hearing that they would be the nation to facilitate talks between the US and Iran if that comes to pass. That's actually not a bad position to be in. Turkey's foreign Policy is just a little bit more aggressive putting them closer to the the flare ups.

• Like This
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

OK you called me out again FYI. I love it.

I would say they would have gotten it even after my statements of Rome. 2 things are different here. 1st off, it's AFRICA. The drive for an african nation to host the games completely outweighed it's actual ability to host it. You could tell that people were willing to overlook so much for South Africa to host even a mediocre Games. World Cup was haled as a success so who cares if the country had other pressing matters, the IOC was willing to over look that. Developed countries who've hosted it before don't get that luxury, point blank. It's one of those special case scenarios like the 2004 race. Rome was better but Athens had all the right emotional appeals.

2nd being wishy-washy in contemplating whether or not to bid before the deadline is completely different than being wishy-washy after you've already submitted. Before everyone is weighing the pro's and cons. South Africa more so than others but again the concession of the fact that a developing country that has just hosted a major event has to think and rethink before jumping into the race again. After you bid the competition starts, and you don't want to show your opponents or the judges that there may be a weakness or flaw. As soon as those sharks see blood they go in for the kill and If I were a Tokyo or Doha or who ever I would start tooting my Economic strength and stability in comparison to the others. That's just politics. I may even go as far as to say the government may have released those statements in the hopes that the IOC don't choose them to host the games. If you look at the time line Rome announced it's bid months before the European Crisis really started to take center stage and more so before their fall into the thick of the things so it might actually be a move to say "We are not as confident in our abilities to host the games so don't pick us without us actually dropping out" a kind of saving face move but that's just a conspiracy theory on my end.

This theory is going to be a bit controversial but I am going to state it anyway. I again think it is not right to compare London to Tokyo. London is the epitome of the melting pot. it has to be one of the top 3 most diverse cities in the world. It is much harder to get varying groups of people excited with one national cause, unless it's an attack, so it is expected that it would be much harder to generate 80% public support for the games in London much less NYC. Throw in the fact that it would be the 3rd time that they were doing so and also the fact that London hosts everything and you have a reason for low excitement. If every sport, business, arts and technology conference, tournament or whatever passes through your city regularly I don't think you are going to be majorly impressed by the Olympics. World Cup Completely different story as it is a country issue as well as the fact England has only hosted it once. For the 2012 race London was able to still provide an exciting bid and I actually think it's very public rivalry with Paris actually helped to stir up some much needed energy, excitement and momentum for their bid.

As it is a more homogenous society it should actually be easier to rally support for a city to host the olympic games. It's a time to promote one's culture. If you can't do that especially in an asian city where group think (a term used in PR to show the public's ability to go against what they know or believe or normally would do and chose to do what they think the rest of society expects) is a common theme. Granted Tokyo also suffers from the jaded aspect of hosting a lot of major events throughout the year, my main point, however, was not actually the support but the general lack or energy from the bid itself. Granted again it was going up against the likes of Rio but Tokyo is going to have to find a way to shoot some much needed adrenaline into their system because this year they have a lot of exotics in the race to catch the eye of the voters.

I knew someone would bring that up but lets face it Doha Qatar...if it's ever in the news...is only mentioned with the word oil business and money. You rarely hear them in connection to the wars and only recently are we hearing that they would be the nation to facilitate talks between the US and Iran if that comes to pass. That's actually not a bad position to be in. Turkey's foreign Policy is just a little bit more aggressive putting them closer to the the flare ups.

• Like This
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

I would say they would have gotten it even after my statements of Rome. 2 things are different here. 1st off, it's AFRICA. The drive for an african nation to host the games completely outweighed it's actual ability to host it. You could tell that people were willing to overlook so much for South Africa to host even a mediocre Games. World Cup was haled as a success so who cares if the country had other pressing matters, the IOC was willing to over look that. Developed countries who've hosted it before don't get that luxury, point blank. It's one of those special case scenarios like the 2004 race. Rome was better but Athens had all the right emotional appeals.

I totally agree with the Africa sentiment. But who's to say South Africa still wouldn't have been ambivalent even after they would have submitted a bid. And even though the "Africa card" would've been a strong card to play, that didn't necessairly mean that the IOC was just going to hand them the Games on a silver-platter & just settle for "mediocre Games". South Africa still would've needed to prove themselves just like Brazil did.

[FYI]

This theory is going to be a bit controversial but I am going to state it anyway. I again think it is not right to compare London to Tokyo. London is the epitome of the melting pot. it has to be one of the top 3 most diverse cities in the world. It is much harder to get varying groups of people excited with one national cause, unless it's an attack, so it is expected that it would be much harder to generate 80% public support for the games in London much less NYC.

As it is a more homogenous society it should actually be easier to rally support for a city to host the olympic games. It's a time to promote one's culture. If you can't do that especially in an asian city where group think (a term used in PR to show the public's ability to go against what they know or believe or normally would do and chose to do what they think the rest of society expects) is a common theme.

But you don't necessarily "need" 80% of the public support to win a bid. As long as the polls aren't devastating, like below 40%, then you're good to go. And Japanese people are a bit more reserved than many others. So it's possible that we really don't know the real numbers. Especially when there's a language barrier & a different outlook of things, who's to say that the Japanese people really aren't rallying for the bid.

And besides, it's really ironic that you're making an issue over this when you're so gung-ho over Doha. A population 100th the size of Japan. Sixty-five percent of Japanese approval is still a HECK of A LOT more than 100% Qatari support.

[Athensfan]

The more I read these posts, the more I suspect Tokyo will win.

There are only 2 strikes against them: PC 2018, lack of sex appeal.

In an Olympiad immediately following a very splashy, but moderately risky new frontier host where everyone is worried about the economy, neither of Tokyo's weaknesses will mean much.

Back-to-back Asian Games WILL happen sooner or later. It would be hypocritical to deny Tokyo on those grounds. Plus, many argue that all that matters is the Summer rotation. Athens, Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo is totally justifiable.

As for the sex-appeal, I do believe reliability will be the order of the day. I also think the Japanese are not stupid and will realize they must up the ante.

The only possible spoiler I see at this point is Madrid. Their bids are always highly competent and well-received. It would be very difficult to deny them a third time. However, in addition to economic woes, there's Barcelona and Europe's recent hosting in 04, 06, 12, 14.

I'm reading others' arguments, but my opinion is only being solidified in the process...

[747]

Madrid looks better to me than the rest ,no reason why.

[FYI]

I knew someone would bring that up but lets face it Doha Qatar...if it's ever in the news...is only mentioned with the word oil business and money. You rarely hear them in connection to the wars and only recently are we hearing that they would be the nation to facilitate talks between the US and Iran if that comes to pass. That's actually not a bad position to be in. Turkey's foreign Policy is just a little bit more aggressive putting them closer to the the flare ups.

I don't C how this is even relevant.One rarely heard of Kuwait in the news, either. But that didn't stop Iraq from invading them back in 1991. Same could be said of little Qatar in Iran's backyard. I seriously doubt that Turkey would be stupid enough to be aggressive with their neighbors if awarded the Olympics. And even if they were, so what? They should have a right to defend themselves if need be. That still didn't stop Russia from bombing Georgia, even though the IOC awarded Sochi the 2014 Winter Olympics like a month earlier. And it hasn't stop the IOC from awarding the Games to the United States & United Kingdom, which many would say also have "aggressive foreign policies".

[Sir Rols]

Even though there's a poll attached here now (thanks Soaring ), I still can't really pin down who I'd think of as favourite. So no choice by me.

[Rob2012]

[Soaring]

Even though there's a poll attached here now (thanks Soaring ), I still can't really pin down who I'd think of as favourite. So no choice by me.

Same with me. I think my main issue is Rome at the moment. I think if they drop out, they could give a distinct edge to Madrid, or it may only magnify Madrid's weaknesses. It's hard to say. Too many unknown factors to consider.

2016 was pretty easy to say the bids from the Americas had the wind in their sails, same thing for 2012 about "Europe's Time" between Paris and London.

So far, I don't know if it will be a battle between Tokyo vs. Istanbul or Tokyo vs. Madrid. I guess if I absolutely had to vote, I would say Tokyo.

[alphamale86]

I don't C how this is even relevant.One rarely heard of Kuwait in the news, either. But that didn't stop Iraq from invading them back in 1991. Same could be said of little Qatar in Iran's backyard. I seriously doubt that Turkey would be stupid enough to be aggressive with their neighbors if awarded the Olympics. And even if they were, so what? They should have a right to defend themselves if need be. That still didn't stop Russia from bombing Georgia, even though the IOC awarded Sochi the 2014 Winter Olympics like a month earlier. And it hasn't stop the IOC from awarding the Games to the United States & United Kingdom, which many would say also have "aggressive foreign policies".

FYI don't be naive. We all know standards are different for different countries. So we can't say because they awarded the games to Great Britain and they have aggressive missions going on that Turkey and Doha would fear the same way. There are major double standards at play and we have to take them into consideration when trying to predict these things. Because if you make that point then you have to drop your point against Doha and it's human right record when taking China's into account. And i know you won't lol

[FYI]

Okay then. So why be "naive" for you to constantly compare China & Qatar in respects to Human Rights, if "we all know 'standards are different' for different countries". This sounds hypocritical, to say the least. And just reeks of double-standards, on your part.

[alphamale86]

Okay then. So why be "naive" for you to constantly compare China & Qatar in respects to Human Rights, if "we all know 'standards are different' for different countries". This sounds hypocritical, to say the least. And just reeks of double-standards, on your part.

FYI... I'm a big man I can admit when I'm wrong. I did not put my argument over well enough. what I meant to say was different years have different issues at play. which forces IOC members to treat different cities differently based on the issues of the day. case in point. Beijing's bid for 2000 was said to have lost to Sydney due to its human rights record then 2008 it won in a landslide because their economy was now a major player. These last few cycles have seen the economy become a major part of the convo as well as terror threats seeing that the allies are starting to pull out of the region. But u were right i did use some double standards there myself

[FYI]

I agree that different races have different dynamics at play. That has been discussed here before. However, virtually the majority of the IOC was just as prepared to give China the Games back for 2000 than they were for 2008. Beijing was leading every 2000 ballot, except for the final one of cousre, & ended up with one less vote than they got in round one in the 2008 ballot. And only 13 votes of a difference in the end of both races.

With that said, while money may be the part of the big equation for this race, I still fail to see how Doha is the only answer in this line-up in that category. Someone else, earlier in the thread, gave the raw numbers. And when looking at them, Qatar just doesn't fit into that equation. No other country & economy as small as Qatar's has ever hosted the Olympic Games. And I can't see the IOC just handing over their most sought-after commodity, to some capricious, money-flaunting nation-city (with nothing else to offer besides that) simply for the sake of it. There are so many other critical tangibles to consider, like even you agree with.

[Athensfan]

It's hard for me to imagine that Tokyo v Istanbul would be much of a contest. Tokyo v Madrid has the potential to be a nailbiter. Advantage Tokyo.

I think there's a distinction between wealth and economic power. Qatar is wealthy, but theyre not driving the global economy like China. I don't see them hosting for decades.

[Soaring]

It's hard for me to imagine that Tokyo v Istanbul would be much of a contest. Tokyo v Madrid has the potential to be a nailbiter. Advantage Tokyo.

I think there's a distinction between wealth and economic power. Qatar is wealthy, but theyre not driving the global economy like China. I don't see them hosting for decades.

I don't know about that... I want to see Istanbul's plans before making that judgment. Many (including myself) understeimated Rio early in the 2016 race, and they honestly didn't have the best venues or overall plan. Nonetheless, they put together a very compelling bid and the IOC ate it up. If Tokyo with all of it's shiny venues lost to Rio by a wide margin, it could surely lose to Istanbul in a close race. The IOC will want to go to the Middle East sometime, and Istanbul is the closest they can get. Doha can't critize the IOC if they award the Games to Istanbul.

I will not go as far to say Istanbul is in the same position as Rio, because Rio had distinct advantages that Istanbul doesn't have - Rio proved themselves by hosting the PanAms, they made the argument about preparations because of the 2014 World Cup, they had good representation within the IOC, Brazil's economy is nearly three times that of Turkey and they harnessed support for an entire continent, not just a region or a religion.

[Athensfan]

I think that Rio's win will handicap Istanbul. This is a different race with different priorities. The lure of Eurasia is not going to be equal to the lure of South America. Plus 2016 was too soon after Beijing for Tokyo. 2020 is not.

I think the IOC will say, "Ok, we've experimented. There's no compelling reason to experiment again right now. Let's go with rock-solid." That's Tokyo.

Africa would be a compelling reason for further experimentation. Turkey will not.

[FYI]

That's a very good point. N an element of the equation that's being forgotten about. That point was surely being used against South Africa before they finally decided that they weren't bidding.

Right now, all of the Middle Eastern bids would present a great deal of risk. And since the 2020 vote will take place way before Rio gets a chance to prove themselves, the IOC may be hesitant to dive into the pool of uncertainty again so fast.

And what about another angle. How many IOC members may say to themselves; "South Africa very likely could bid for 2024", & may want to save their next "new frontier" vote 'til then. Since 3 "new frontier" hosts in a row would be extremely unlikely & would require the IOC to be on edge that whole lead-time between Games preperations.

[Sir Rols]

Right now, all of the Middle Eastern bids would present a great deal of risk. And since the 2020 vote will take place way before Rio gets a chance to prove themselves, the IOC may be hesitant to dive into the pool of uncertainty again so fast.

That was exactly the argument I consistently put forward against South Africa's 2020 chances - though it never really pleased the South African boosters here (including yourself I seem to remember).

[FYI]

Which is precisely Y I brought up South Africa. You seemed to assert that determination wouldn't really effect Istanbul's chances, but yet applied it to South Africa.

[intoronto]

Any surprise that Doha has no votes?

[alphamale86]

I agree with that point about the new frontier thing. 2024 to me is already shaping up to be interesting because if SA bids and the USA bids as well who wins? Surely if the US bids after reaching an agreement with the IOC that there will be a sort of expectation, if you will, to get the 2024 games, assuming they don't get the 2022 Winter. but now that I think about it do you think that the US already knows that SA will be awarded the 2024 games and that's why there is a focus on the 2022 Winter?

Sorry I'm getting way ahead of myself.

[Gangwon]

And what about another angle. How many IOC members may say to themselves; "South Africa very likely could bid for 2024", & may want to save their next "new frontier" vote 'til then. Since 3 "new frontier" hosts in a row would be extremely unlikely & would require the IOC to be on edge that whole lead-time between Games preperations.

That's assuming enough IOC members want to go to South Africa that badly. It's one thing to support them once they're in the race, it's an entirely different matter to plan your voting with the hopes of voting for a future South African bid which may or may not happen. Frankly I don't think IOC members are able and/or willing to think that far ahead.

[FYI]

But doesn't that happen on here all the time? Like the IOC awarded 2018 to PyeongChang to get Europe at an advantage for 2020. Or that they awarded Vancouver 2010 so 2012 became "destined" for Europe. But you may be right, as far as a specific country is concerned. But considering that Jacques & Co. were so eagar to have South Africa in the 2020 race, it could be a possible scenario. Even if just a couple of them might think that way, in a very tight race, it makes a difference in the final outcome.

[Sir Rols]

Which is precisely Y I brought up South Africa. You seemed to assert that determination wouldn't really effect Istanbul's chances, but yet applied it to South Africa.

Yeah well, I'd never consider that Istanbul requires anything near the leap of faith, crossing of fingers and questioning of social responsibility that South Africa would.