Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gangwon

"Olympics getting too big for democracies"

Recommended Posts

Well this guy has no idea what he's talking about because Australia could never have 3 athletes in the 100m backstroke. There's only 2 quotas for each swimming event.... FIO Mr. Clarke...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost is ridiculous because of the amount spent on venues. Why not keep it simple and at the same time look good (London 2012). Though in London I can't get over the nice crown chair they got for the time trial leaders in cycling lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is what it is. The IOC basically sends out a request for proposal and the most enticing bidder will get to host. Where do you cut spending?

If you scale down the ceremonies, then broadcasters won't be happy, and the world viewing public isn't impressed.

If you cut down on venue costs, then the spectators aren't impressed without shiny stadiums and domes.

And you can't remove the sports or number of athletes because it's all about the athletes.

The host country WANTS to impress the world. It's probably their only chance in a century to host. They don't want to cut corners even if the IOC tells them to. The only hosts I imagine being willing to not go flashy are repeat winter hosts, because they have the chance to host so much more often, even twice in a generation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is what it is. The IOC basically sends out a request for proposal and the most enticing bidder will get to host. Where do you cut spending?

If you scale down the ceremonies, then broadcasters won't be happy, and the world viewing public isn't impressed.

If you cut down on venue costs, then the spectators aren't impressed without shiny stadiums and domes.

And you can't remove the sports or number of athletes because it's all about the athletes.

The host country WANTS to impress the world. It's probably their only chance in a century to host. They don't want to cut corners even if the IOC tells them to. The only hosts I imagine being willing to not go flashy are repeat winter hosts, because they have the chance to host so much more often, even twice in a generation.

It's NOT. Cut out ridiculous sports which have very little TV appeal. ANd too bad if countries like Denmark (Team Handball) or Pakistan (field hockey) get their favored sports cut. Baseball was cut. So why should other sports be immune??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's NOT. Cut out ridiculous sports which have very little TV appeal. ANd too bad if countries like Denmark (Team Handball) or Pakistan (field hockey) get their favored sports cut. Baseball was cut. So why should other sports be immune??

Field hockey was on the bottom 3 in the IOC's list of cutting sports earlier this year, however why cut sports? Isn't the Olympics about sport/competition in the first place. Why not just cut the ceremonies all together that would save money. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Field hockey was on the bottom 3 in the IOC's list of cutting sports earlier this year, however why cut sports? Isn't the Olympics about sport/competition in the first place. Why not just cut the ceremonies all together that would save money.

The $80 - 90 million (on the average) spent for Ceremonies is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of venues and security which will just see a few uses each year afterwards. The Ceremonies also are able to employ a few hundred people, even if only for a few months to a year ...not to mention it engenders feelings of pride and goodwill amongst not only the 10,000 or so people directly involved but with the millions of the host citizens whose chests swell with pride when good shows are put on. That cannot be measured or bought with money. And for every victory in sports, there are 20 - 30 losers who certainly don't feel good about themselves. Why you even have people killing themselves and each other in the NAME OF SPORT? Who ever heard of anyone killing themselves over the Ceremonies?? :blink:

U're just fooling yourself if u really think it's all about sports. :rolleyes: The ceremonies are where the HOST country get to advertise their stuff. That is what they committed billions to. Who really cares about field hockey or team handball--other than those piddly nations?

Get real, int. Sport isn't all that sacred.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really cares about field hockey or team handball--other than those piddly nations?

I wonder if Americans perceive "field hockey" as a little-played sport for the paradoxical reason that they are almost the only nation to refer to the ancient sport of hockey as "field hockey", so when they try to Google it, they don't find many references :wacko:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The $80 - 90 million (on the average) spent for Ceremonies is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of venues and security which will just see a few uses each year afterwards. The Ceremonies also are able to employ a few hundred people, even if only for a few months to a year ...not to mention it engenders feelings of pride and goodwill amongst not only the 10,000 or so people directly involved but with the millions of the host citizens whose chests swell with pride when good shows are put on. That cannot be measured or bought with money. And for every victory in sports, there are 20 - 30 losers who certainly don't feel good about themselves. Why you even have people killing themselves and each other in the NAME OF SPORT? Who ever heard of anyone killing themselves over the Ceremonies?? :blink:

U're just fooling yourself if u really think it's all about sports. :rolleyes: The ceremonies are where the HOST country get to advertise their stuff. That is what they committed billions to. Who really cares about field hockey or team handball--other than those piddly nations?

Get real, int. Sport isn't all that sacred.

Baron, its more about sport than the ceremonies. That's why the media doesn't profile or hype up the ceremonies, rather the athletes and competitions in the lead up to the games, with the exception of maybe the final torchbearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baron, its more about sport than the ceremonies. That's why the media doesn't profile or hype up the ceremonies, rather the athletes and competitions in the lead up to the games, with the exception of maybe the final torchbearer.

Old school mentality. Think outside the box. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was no sport , there would be no ceremonies. You choose.

You really should go work on the Mass games in North Korea. Mass spectacle for no real reason. Totally your thing. You and Kim Jung-Un would be like two peas in a pod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The $80 - 90 million (on the average) spent for Ceremonies is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of venues and security which will just see a few uses each year afterwards. The Ceremonies also are able to employ a few hundred people, even if only for a few months to a year ...not to mention it engenders feelings of pride and goodwill amongst not only the 10,000 or so people directly involved but with the millions of the host citizens whose chests swell with pride when good shows are put on. That cannot be measured or bought with money. And for every victory in sports, there are 20 - 30 losers who certainly don't feel good about themselves. Why you even have people killing themselves and each other in the NAME OF SPORT? Who ever heard of anyone killing themselves over the Ceremonies?? :blink:

U're just fooling yourself if u really think it's all about sports. :rolleyes: The ceremonies are where the HOST country get to advertise their stuff. That is what they committed billions to. Who really cares about field hockey or team handball--other than those piddly nations?

Get real, int. Sport isn't all that sacred.

If you didn't notice the :P at the end of my sentence that isn't my fault -__-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
U're just fooling yourself if u really think it's all about sports. :rolleyes: The ceremonies are where the HOST country get to advertise their stuff. That is what they committed billions to. Who really cares about field hockey or team handball--other than those piddly nations?

Most people don't tune into the Olympics to watch the host country. It's part of the stories of an Olympics, but they're nothing without the athletes. Who do you think the Opening Ceremony is held for? It's not just for the host country to puff their chests. It's to give a platform to show off those 10,000 athletes that everyone has come to see over the following 16 days.

What makes an Olympics are the personalities you get to see and hear about over the 17 days. All those performers and volunteers at the Ceremonies are nameless, faceless people that are all interchangeable. The athletes are not. We know you think the Ceremonies are the highlight of the Olympics and that sport is just the filler in between, but I think you're largely alone on that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two go hand-in-hand, really. If they Olympics aren't really about the host nation as well, why do so many countries go out of their way to host them. If it wasn't for the different countries hosting them, the athletes would have nowhere to compete either.

If the Olympics were held in the same place all the time, like some people like to suggest from time-to-time, I think many people would lose interest as well. The host countries & the athletes are like two main components in a finely-tuned engine. And I don't think that one could exist by themselves without the other.


Certainly the money from sponsors wouldn't be as big if the Olympics were in the same locale every four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I don't buy into Baron's "the ceremonies are the be all and end all" of the games (and, c'mon, we all know, or should know, he's over-stating the case on purpose, as he does, to josh us all), the fact is, the OC at least, is usually the highest rating component of games coverage in most markets. And I'd be surprised if the parade of nations was the highest viewed component of those ceremonies.

As has been remarked often, the value of the games to advertisers is they supercede traditional sports viewing demographics, bringing in far more viewers from different groups, particularly women, than a traditional sports-only telecast could achieve. I have to agree with FYI above, the two, sports and ceremonials, go hand-in-hand, and the whole is much greater than the sum of the individual sports/parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two go hand-in-hand, really. If they Olympics aren't really about the host nation as well, why do so many countries go out of their way to host them. If it wasn't for the different countries hosting them, the athletes would have nowhere to compete either.

If the Olympics were held in the same place all the time, like some people like to suggest from time-to-time, I think many people would lose interest as well. The host countries & the athletes are like two main components in a finely-tuned engine. And I don't think that one could exist by themselves without the other.

Certainly the money from sponsors wouldn't be as big if the Olympics were in the same locale every four years.

As much as I don't buy into Baron's "the ceremonies are the be all and end all" of the games (and, c'mon, we all know, or should know, he's over-stating the case on purpose, as he does, to josh us all), the fact is, the OC at least, is usually the highest rating component of games coverage in most markets. And I'd be surprised if the parade of nations was the highest viewed component of those ceremonies.

As has been remarked often, the value of the games to advertisers is they supercede traditional sports viewing demographics, bringing in far more viewers from different groups, particularly women, than a traditional sports-only telecast could achieve. I have to agree with FYI above, the two, sports and ceremonials, go hand-in-hand, and the whole is much greater than the sum of the individual sports/parts.

Having recently Barcelona for the first time, I think I know the answer to FYI's question. Most cities/countries want to use an Olympics as a vehicle to show themselves off to the world and hopefully better their city and make people want to come there. In other words.. to leave a legacy. Yes, most cities/countries know that's going to be a ridiculously expensive endeavor and only if they know what they're doing can they hope to make it work.

And yes, the Ceremonies are often the highest-rated event of the Olympics. But that's because they stand on their own. As opposed to having dozens of events each day competing for your attention. I do agree with Rols though that what sets the Olympics apart from any other sports competition is the element the host country and the ceremonies bring. And I think your assessment that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts is absolutely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I don't buy into Baron's "the ceremonies are the be all and end all" of the games (and, c'mon, we all know, or should know, he's over-stating the case on purpose, as he does, to josh us all), the fact is, the OC at least, is usually the highest rating component of games coverage in most markets. And I'd be surprised if the parade of nations was the highest viewed component of those ceremonies.

The parade of nations is soooo the best part. The most watchable parts are the first 30 min, and then seeing your country parade through. The rest is just the host glorifying itself in ways only the host country understands. Entertaining at first, but it just drags on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parade of nations is soooo the best part. The most watchable parts are the first 30 min, and then seeing your country parade through. The rest is just the host glorifying itself in ways only the host country understands. Entertaining at first, but it just drags on.

I'm always torn on the parade. I acknowledge that it's probably one of the things that first spark people's interest in the games - it sure fascinated me when I was young.

Lately, though, well, you've seen one parade, you've seen them all. By the time i watch for Australia to go, the rest leaves me cold now.

I remember London's - when the parade came up, I went out to do some shopping, came back to make a nice breakfast, ate it with my hubby, cleaned up, and did a few more chores - and by the time i got back to the telecast they were still only up to the "S" segment of the parade!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually not just my own country that's exciting to watch. I look forward to watching the top 20 or so nations parade out, and seeing what kind of reactions they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lately, though, well, you've seen one parade, you've seen them all.

That's not quite true. As the Baron has frequently noted, there have been definite changes in the paraders' behaviour over the years.

Given that the actual format of the Parade is set in stone, the best way to experience it is, I think, to immerse yourself, and to pay atention to details lke the athletes' behaviour, their uniforms (of course!), the announcers' and commentators' attempts at pronunciation etc.

If you just regard the Parade as something to watch, you'll never really enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched every summer one since '76 and most winters since Lillehammer. I'm the first to admit they're a powerful piece of imagery and pageantry to spark an engagement with the games. As I said, I will attribute them to helping get my games passion started.

But, still, after however many that is, they have reached the point for me of being a tedious set piece. The parades are not and never have been the highlights of ceremonies that define my memories of any games. For all the nuanced changes between them lately, it's still not enough points of difference to sustain my keen interest over the usual 90 plus minutes these days.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great if the parades continue to spark new love affairs with the Olympics. It's a vital part of the theatre and tradition. They must go on. But by now it's the part I personally use for loo breaks and chores in between watching the real meat of the ceremonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite true. As the Baron has frequently noted, there have been definite changes in the paraders' behaviour over the years.

Given that the actual format of the Parade is set in stone, the best way to experience it is, I think, to immerse yourself, and to pay atention to details lke the athletes' behaviour, their uniforms (of course!), the announcers' and commentators' attempts at pronunciation etc.

If you just regard the Parade as something to watch, you'll never really enjoy it.

Thanks for the quote. ;) But actually, even the late JAS found that section too tedious and overlong. And I recently noticed at the YOGs, they just enter with the placard and the flagbearer. The young 'uns are already seated. So I think the IOC is weaning them away from this "...every athlete's dream is to march in the OC." mindset. NO. Not when it makes the whole show drag! (Or at least I am hopeful that that's the philo behind the switch.)

Like Sir ROls, it is the one thing I can NOT rewatch - the Athletes' parade. That's what the Fast-Forward button is made for. Wish one could do it during the live broadcasts. ;)

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Sir ROls, it is the one thing I can NOT rewatch - the Athletes' parade. That's what the Fast-Forward button is made for. Wish one could do it during the live broadcasts. ;)

I agree- but re-watching the Parade is not compulsory! As I noted above, it has value on the actual night as an opportunity for viewers to make their own entertainment (and I didn't even mention the drinking games ...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the drinking games!!! I suggest one for Rio 2016: you try to guess which nations will be booed and which ones won't. If the country gets a BOOO, nobody drinks. If the country gets the usual welcome, everybody drinks a shot. If the country gets a thunderous cheer, everybody gets two shots of Brazilian cachaça. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...