Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

Here's a game for you all:

1. Bring up a scenario. For example, what if Chirac had never insulted Finnish food in 2005?

2. Someone answers "Then Paris would have won the 2012 Games because they would have gotten the Finnish votes." And then that person would have the right to ask a new question. For example: "What if Ben Johnson had not taken drugs in Seoul 1988?"

3. And so on.

Your answer can be as long or as short as you like. So if you answer a question about 1936, you can talk about its effect up to the present day, or you can make it just one line. The question can have anything to do with the Olympic- bidding, sports, ceremonies, IOC, etc.

I'll start: "What if Melbourne and Athens had stayed in the bid race for 1988?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorist attack wouldn't have happened as Spain wouldve had plenty of security presence. Madrid puts on a show the way Barcelona wouldve done 20 years later, and becomes the new standard to measure up to.

New question: What if Faster learned what it felt like to cheer a winning bid? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Beijing would have won, intresting... 2004 in Europe (London, Paris or Berlin) 2008 Sydney, 2012 North America, 2016 Europe and Rio will be fighting now as the front runner for 2020 race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Beijing would have won, intresting... 2004 in Europe (London, Paris or Berlin) 2008 Sydney, 2012 North America, 2016 Europe and Rio will be fighting now as the front runner for 2020 race

2012 wasn't going to North America (Toronto?) no matter what. What if Atlanta hadn't hosted 1996? (Sigh. I only wish this were true. Personally I think Chicago would've gotten 2016 and the rotation would've been much more balanced....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2012 wasn't going to North America (Toronto?) no matter what. What if Atlanta hadn't hosted 1996? (Sigh. I only wish this were true. Personally I think Chicago would've gotten 2016 and the rotation would've been much more balanced....)

Well the winters according to Deawebo's thought would have been the actual hosts so off course Toronto wouldn't have hosted. BUt if Vancouver never won in 2010 then Toronto could have snuck in and won 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Madrid had won the 1972 Olympics?

Above was my short answer as I was typing from my smartphone. Here's the long answer:

With Madrid 1972 fresh in everyone's minds, Paris is awarded the 1992 SOG, and Cortina is awarded the 1992 WOG as Albertville is out of the running. Both Paris and Cortina are fantastic games, and along with Lillehammer in 94, it is a golden age in Olympic history.

When it comes time to choose the 2000 host, Berlin edges out Beijing by capitalising on their newfound reunification and their 64 year absence from hosting. And what a story- 1936 Berlin a decade before the division of Berlin, and 2000 Berlin a decade after reunification. Another fantastic games as the Germans top the medal tally! As they had won the bid 7 years earlier in 1993, the Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund decides to keep the momentum of the still-strong athletic program of the former East going, and with a population of 80 million of the world's most well-funded athletic-hopefuls to choose from, Germany tops 100 medals- not an easy feat in modern times.

Sydney gets 2004, and Annecy gets 2006, as Torino is not a consideration after Cortina 92. With Cortina 92, Lillehammer 94 and Annecy 06, the view is that smaller, more intimate Winter Games are still feasible. This still gives Sweden hope for 2014, more on that later.

For 2012, Samaranch pushes hard for his home-town Barcelona. With London and New York as its main competitors, JAS works his magic and still-not-yet-spectacular Barcelona pulls an upset. It's a great parting gift for JAS, and the world will discover in 2012 just what a marvel the city of Barcelona can be.

Sweden is encouraged by recent small-village European winter hosts, and bids for 2014, edging out Pyeongchang.

For 2016, the USA bids with Chicago. They were outraged that they lost to little-known Barcelona, and the IOC goes with Chicago to make it up to them. Rio is given the boot to avoid 2 consecutive Latin Games.

So in summary, if Madrid 1972 wins, there is no Albertville, no Athens, no Torino, no London, no Sochi and no Rio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorist attack wouldn't have happened as Spain wouldve had plenty of security presence. Madrid puts on a show the way Barcelona wouldve done 20 years later, and becomes the new standard to measure up to.

New question: What if Faster learned what it felt like to cheer a winning bid? :P

Just saw this was left hanging. Okay, I'll try to kick-start it.

Q: What if Faster learned what it felt like to cheer a winning bid?

A: That will be the same year Germany meets Norway in the FIFA WC Final in Toronto.

New Q: What if Germany had submitted Hamburg instead of Leipzig for the 2012 race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Q: What if Germany had submitted Hamburg instead of Leipzig for the 2012 race?

What if the USOC had subimitted Minneapolis instead of Atlanta for 1996?! Lmfao! :lol:

But that would've been interesting to C if the IOC would've been more inclined then, to a 6-city short-list for 2012 had it been Hamburg instead. Or would one of the others, particularly Moscow, been more in danger of getting nixed instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the USOC had subimitted Minneapolis instead of Atlanta for 1996?! Lmfao! :lol:

We'd have had a lot less MSP boosters around here at least! In wonder if we would have had endless threads instead then from Georgians along the lines of "Can Atlanta host the Games?" or "When's Atlanta's Time?"

Of course you're right, Hamburg would not have changed the 2012 result, but it would have been interesting how the IOC had dealt with a half-way viable bid, instead of the easily loseable leipzig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamburg would've made things interesting. Berlin could have won the entire thing, and Leipzig was a non-starter, but Hamburg could've had a shot at the shortlist. Not at Moscow's expense, but maybe as a 6th candidate. Hamburg is one of those cities that's fairly unknown in NA, not as famous as Berlin, Munich or Frankfurt, which makes me wonder if it plays the same role for Germany that Chicago does for the US (big and important but not as "prestigious" as NY/LA/SF).

What if Pyongchang won 2010?

That would have been BAD! I can just imagine the stink surrounding former IOC vice-president Kim Un Yong after the vote. Yikes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some short research indicates that Hamburg would have had to build a main stadium much like Leipzig's bid had proposed. Would there have been an Olympic Park? Does Hamburg even have a trade fair? Convention Center? I know Leipzig had such a venue, which housed most of the indoor sports. That, as well as a chance to revitalize the Eastern German economy boosted it's bid.

Hamburg has general infrastructure on it's side, had their bid gone ahead, it might have edged through (for candidacy), or simply fail like Leipzig's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ In 1979, the IOC and Greece would have worked out an arrangement where Athens would have become the permanent home of the Olympic Games. And starting with 1988, the Winter Games would be permanently housed in Oslo, rebranded as the 'Nordic Games'. And thus Gamesbids would have never existed. By 2012, Greece's economy would be based almost entirely off Olympic tourism, sponsorships and merchandise. :D

OK...What if the IOC had assigned the Games of 1916, 1940 and 1944 to non-warring neutral countries? Where would they be? Bearing in mind that includes the 1940 and 1944 Winter Games and the tradition at that time was that Summer and Winter Games were awarded to the same country/region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK...What if the IOC had assigned the Games of 1916, 1940 and 1944 to non-warring neutral countries? Where would they be? Bearing in mind that includes the 1940 and 1944 Winter Games and the tradition at that time was that Summer and Winter Games were awarded to the same country/region.

It would be hard to see how the Games could continue during wartime, but if the Games had to go on, and if we're only considering neutral countries (because Allied countries could still have conceiveably hosted), Oslo might've been in the best position to host 1916. Berlin would presumably have to be stripped of the hosting duties, and whoever took over would have to organized a smaller-scale Games on ultra short notice. With the IOC having learned the lesson of 1904, they'd want to keep it in Europe. That would leave us with Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands and Spain.

Sweden just hosted in 1912, and Spain wouldn't have the resources to pull off a Games at that point in history. Amsterdam would always be an option even during peacetime, but the IOC would've worried about the proximity of Amsterdam to the battlefronts of WW1, that they'd be passed over. Same with Switzerland. Norway would've been close enough for participating European nations to attend an Olympics, yet far enough away from the fighting to give its athletes some safety. There wouldn't be as many events, and the events that do proceed would be scaled down, as well as the number of participants. But Oslo would officially go into the books as an Olympic summer host.

In 1940, Europe would have no interest in hosting the Games. Although countries like Sweden remained neutral, no one was certain in the months leading up to the summer of 1940 whether either side would honour their neutrality, and therefore was considered too risky to host the Games so close to military action. The IOC considers moving the 1940 Games to Argentina and the United States (again, because we're only considering neutral countries and not safe-yet-Allied countries, Australia is out of the mix). Both Argentina and the US are suffering economically from the Great Depression, yet both were former developed countries with strong economies, and both were neutral (at least in 1940). Although the IOC does not wish to return to the US so soon after LA 1932, and although Argentina is more than capable of hosting the Games, the IOC decides that wartime is not the time to be picky, and at the insistance of Avery Brundage (though not yet president), the 1940 Summer Games are held in Detroit, and the 1940 Winter Games in Stowe, Vermont, with the mountain having been recently developed within the past decade. The 1940 Winter Games are held in December of 1940 in order to allow for Vermont to organize time to host the Games, having been notified of the right to host less than a year earlier. Both 1940 games are sparsely attended, but the IOC is just happy to continue the tradition of having the Games, even if not held in Europe.

By 1944, the IOC is confident that the remaining neutral countries of Europe will not be attacked by either side. Both Sweden and Switzerland are considered, but since Sweden is a little farther away from the military action of Europe, Stockholm is chosen as the 1944 Summer Games host, and Falun is chosen as the 1944 Winter Games host, focusing on Nordic and ice sports.

Therefore:

1916 Summer - Oslo, Norway

1940 Summer - Detroit, USA

1940 Winter - Stowe, USA

1944 Summer - Stockholm, Sweden

1944 Winter - Falun, Sweden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...