Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
runningrings

(serious) predictions for 2020/22/24/26

Recommended Posts

Please enlighten. What R u 'resisting'. :P

It's not like an Almaty is a PyeongChang, Sochi or a Harbin. I don't really understand the immense love affair with them. I can maybe C an interest, like a Sofia or Zakopane, but podium attention on these boards with them just boggles the mind.

Going by your writing style, I'm guessing you're on your smartphone and you don't see my avatar? Everybody loves him B)

I think the interest in Almaty is because it represents one of the few viable new frontiers in winter sports outside of the usual Europe - North America - NE Asia circuit.

And that's probably why Almaty might get more leeway when it comes down to medal performance (almost nil in the Olympics, but admittedly pretty good in the Asian Winter Games because they top the podium in events won by Europeans in the Olympics) and also infrastructure. Plus, they have massive mountains, which always impresses on tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose Almaty for 2026 for these reasons:

  • Asia has not hosted the Winter Games since 1998 in Nagano;
  • No country in Asia outside of Japan or South Korea has ever hosted or will host the Winter Games;
  • Since the USA is focusing on a 2024 bid, Canada has to submit a bid if North America wants to bid; and
  • I already believe that Oslo has the best chance of getting 2022, meaning that Munich will have to wait until 2030 to bid again.

Canada will not host another Winter Olympics until the USA does or until most other options are exhausted. Calgary as a repeat bidder is the only option or Vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the interest in Almaty is because it represents one of the few viable new frontiers in winter sports outside of the usual Europe - North America - NE Asia circuit.

The thing is, I don't think it's all that viable, though. At least not yet, anyway. After Sochi N PyeongChang, I think the next couple of Winter Games R gonna go to traditional hosts.

N plus, it would seem that China would want to make their claim to the next Asian Winter Games. N if Tokyo wins 2020, I could C China putting up Harbin for 2026 &/or 2030, therefore pushing an Almaty bid even further back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Africa will not wait past 2028, period. I think SA will sit 2024 out, they know Cape Town is preferable to Durban and they will invest more time and resources into making that happen.

I dont know what you base this on, but if you look at city positioning and the way national government is operating, Cape Town is not in any way being pushed by them at all. Durban is the one getting the events to build its hosting credentials (African Cup of Nations 2013 and host of World Transplant Games 2013 - neither of which are taking place in Cape Town), Durban is the one upgrading its core Kings Park sports hub. Durban is gettting close on $4billion in public transport investment to link all the key tourist and sport belts in the city in addition to far better commuter links. Cape Town is getting the transport improvements too, but other than that nothing notable in the sports space is going on there.

Not saying Durban will bid, but it is foolish to say that the country is taking time and resources to make a Cape Town bid happen when they are actually doing the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, I don't think it's all that viable, though. At least not yet, anyway. After Sochi N PyeongChang, I think the next couple of Winter Games R gonna go to traditional hosts.

N plus, it would seem that China would want to make their claim to the next Asian Winter Games. N if Tokyo wins 2020, I could C China putting up Harbin for 2026 &/or 2030, therefore pushing an Almaty bid even further back.

I agree. Despite what I said above, I don't think they'll win any time soon. I only meant that there could be some (but not enough) who would give Almaty the leeway they wouldn't for others like PC (think of how Korea's medal performance was criticized although Kazakhstan is on a whole new lower level, yet being an entirely new region and having ultra big mountains might be enough for some to look the other way for Almaty).

Agree further regarding China. But I'd rather China bid with a smaller city of a few hundred thousand, rather than 10 million. Bigger ain't always better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Despite what I said above, I don't think they'll win any time soon. I only meant that there could be some (but not enough) who would give Almaty the leeway they wouldn't for others like PC (think of how Korea's medal performance was criticized although Kazakhstan is on a whole new lower level, yet being an entirely new region and having ultra big mountains might be enough for some to look the other way for Almaty).

Agree further regarding China. But I'd rather China bid with a smaller city of a few hundred thousand, rather than 10 million. Bigger ain't always better.

Not sure the small Chinese cities exist

Jilin City - 4.4mil (co-host 2007 Asian Winter Games)

Changchun - 7.7m (co-host 2007)

Harbin - 10.6m (host 1999 Asian Winter Games)

All are in Northeast China, though Jilin City is only about 70km from the Alpine resorts compared to well over 150km for the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the IOC doesn't follow a formula, but I would:

1. No NOC can host two games less than 10 years apart

2. No continent can host a winter and summer games in the same Olympiad. The 'continents' are Oceania; Africa; Asia; Europe; Latin America; North America and the Caribbean.

3. No continent can host a summer games twice in 8 years;

4. Screw scheduling and mountain heights.

5. Every continent must host a summer before any continent hosts three times (IE, first African games before third European games)

6. The start point is Sochi, 'cos London would break rule 2.

So:

W 2014 EUROPE: RUSSIA Sochi

2016 LATIN AMERICA: BRAZIL Rio de Janeiro

W 2018 ASIA: SOUTH KOREA PyeongChang

2020 NON-CONTINENTAL: TURKEY Istanbul (gets a free pass for being not as Asian as PyeongChang and not as European as Oslo. I toyed with making the ME a continent, but thought rule suspension was better)

W 2022 EUROPE: NORWAY Oslo

2024 NORTH AMERICA: USA San Francisco

W 2026 ASIA: CHINA Harbin

2028 EUROPE: FRANCE Paris

W 2030 NORTH AMERICA: CANADA Quebec City

(from here, the countries and especially cities are purely guesses, but the continents stay relevantish.)

2032 ASIA: JAPAN Osaka

W 2034 EUROPE: SWITZERLAND Bern

2036 AFRICA: SOUTH AFRICA Cape Town

W 2038 NORTH AMERICA: USA Reno

2040 EUROPE: RUSSIA Moscow

W 2042 ASIA: JAPAN Sapporo

2044 LATIN AMERICA: ARGENTINA Buenos Aires

W 2046 EUROPE: GERMANY Munich

2048 NORTH AMERICA: CANADA Toronto

W 2050 LATIN AMERICA: CHILE Santiago

2052 ASIA: CHINA Shanghai

W 2054 NORTH AMERICA: USA Denver

2056 OCEANIA: AUSTRALIA Melbourne

W 2058 ASIA: AZERBAIJAN Baku

2060 EUROPE: ITALY Milan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ idealistic, but doesn't take into account the realities of the winter olympics, which all but require europe to field a disproportionate number of cities.

honestly, if it weren't for europe's sustained interest in them, we wouldn't even have a WOG. even i can concede that they should be able to host 2/3 of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw Mountain Heights?

So you want to ruin the blue ribband event at Winter Olympics .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not huge on the winter games, but they exist, they're big, and they're relevant. They also have significant problems with potential hosts.

I am fully confident that within a few cycles, the Winter games will either need to accept the same 8 countries hosting, or much smaller games, or less restrictions on hosting criteria. The third is the most likely, because you can still make an interesting and challenging downhill course with a 600m drop. It mightn't be as fast as an 800m drop, but it could be significantly more technical and easier to stage both in terms of potential host cities, and television coverage.

I'm not about to say Canberra will host the 2030 games, but I think cities like Quebec have real chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same 8 countries ? there are more potential hosts than that.

North America: US, Canada

Asia: China, Japan, Korea

Europe: Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Spain, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, Bosnia, Russia

All these countries can provide venues which fit the IOC criteria and there are probably more unconventional choices I forgot, such as Andorra, New Zealand, Chile, Turkey, Georgia or Kazakhstan...

You have there 100 years worth of WOG rotating among these countries. No need to bend the rules.

Edited by hektor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third is the most likely, because you can still make an interesting and challenging downhill course with a 600m drop. It mightn't be as fast as an 800m drop, but it could be significantly more technical and easier to stage both in terms of potential host cities, and television coverage.

Unfortunately Bernard Russi, the pre-eminent downhill ski designer and the 'Federation Internationale de Ski' complete disagree with you and have demonstrated that they simply will not budge.

No 800m vertical, no mens' downhill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russi is one guy. Maybe somebody takes his place next year with a different opinion. Things change.

No it wont

Look at the FIS Alpine Races ..... they all have big vertical drops.

Sarajevo even built a ramp on a hotel to get there, Calgary did a special transportation link to get to 800m vertical.

This is a Federation Internationale de Ski non-negotiable requirement.

and it should be noted that despite Quebec finding the 800m needed, upon inspection it was rejected because without major topographical work, it would be impossible to make it sufficiently difficult.

Less than 800m - i.e. 600m, you cannot make it sufficiently difficult or if you did you will have a downhill completed in less than 60secs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back at history, I feel pretty good taking the "things change" side rather than "they'll never ever change."

Let me put it like this.

At the Summer Games, do you think they'd run the 100m down a track which is only 85m in length?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, blacksheep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a lot more likely that they'll allow full on split bids for the Winter Games (ala ice events in San Francisco and skiing in Tahoe, etc.) than change any rules re. mountain size

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see mountain height requirements changing either. If they want to expand their options, they'll have to consider greater distances between ice and snow events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, simply bcuz some longer distances between ice N Alpine events haven't happened before, doesn't mean that they can't, like some here like to harp about. There's always a first-time for everything. Like Rio becoming the first host ever in having the ceremonies N atheletics in different stadiums. Or Vancouver becoming the first host where the ceremonies were held in an indoor stadium.

So I can see bids like Sacramento to Lake Tahoe, or Albany to Lake Placid, or Harbin to Yabuli being considered in the future. Especially now, that the Winter Games have become larger & could get a bit more, & the options to have "compact" Winter Games becomes harder when the topography is really what's pertinent for winter bids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see mountain height requirements changing either. If they want to expand their options, they'll have to consider greater distances between ice and snow events.

I disagree.

I think it might be physically impossible to do this because any land improvements will draw the anger of environmentalists and air travel cannot be guaranteed in winter conditions.

If anything, we might see more games held at repeat locations. I think it more likely they'd look to the Southern Hemisphere, the Pyrenees, locations like Portland, Oregon, Boise, plus Denver, SLC, Reno, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Ukraine, Almaty, Bursa etc. There are plenty of locations that meet the existing criteria before you consider Norway, Switzerland and Austria.

The problem with too much distance is you psychologically start creating two seperate games, held seperately but occuring over the same dates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, simply bcuz some longer distances between ice N Alpine events haven't happened before, doesn't mean that they can't, like some here like to harp about. There's always a first-time for everything. Like Rio becoming the first host ever in having the ceremonies N atheletics in different stadiums. Or Vancouver becoming the first host where the ceremonies were held in an indoor stadium.

So I can see bids like Sacramento to Lake Tahoe, or Albany to Lake Placid, or Harbin to Yabuli being considered in the future. Especially now, that the Winter Games have become larger & could get a bit more, & the options to have "compact" Winter Games becomes harder when the topography is really what's pertinent for winter bids.

1. BC Place was simply used as the largest stadium - indoors/outdoors were irrelevant

2. I think this is a bit of a red herring - the distance between the Maracana and the Estadio Joao Havelange is a massive 8km. All the athletes are still based in the same Olympic village. As the Maracana holds an extra 30,000 people it is not surprising to use this for the ceremonies. If Madrid win 2020, they could use the Estadio Bernabeau

3. Sacramento to Truckee is under 180km, Harbin is over 240km from Yabuli but there are more recent hosts of the Winter Asian Games in Changchun/Jilin which is much closer (160km) to the mountain areas.

There is no need to consider two different locations over 200km between each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with too much distance is you psychologically start creating two seperate games, held seperately but occuring over the same dates.

2. I think this is a bit of a red herring - the distance between the Maracana and the Estadio Joao Havelange is a massive 8km. All the athletes are still based in the same Olympic village.

There is no need to consider two different locations over 200km between each.

I agree to the point where we shouldn't consider options that are too far apart that would totally delude the atmosphere of the Winter Games. Afterall, the Olympics are suppose to be about bringing people from all over the world together. But it's not like we're talking about NYC to Lake Placid or L.A. to Lake Tahoe, or Beijing to Yabuli.

Besides, don't we already have some kind of 'psychological' effect of seperate Games in the winter category. You cite Rio will still have all the athlete's in same village. But that wasn't the case in Turin, where u also had Olympic villages in Barnodecchia N Sestriere. N seperate ones again in Vancouver & Whistler. As long as some options don't exceed 150 miles N are deemed feasible in every other aspect, then they should at least be noteworthy of consideration. Especially when the Winter Games have gotten bigger & you need larger areas to accommodate everyone & everything involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

If anything, we might see more games held at repeat locations.

If you re-read my post you will find that I wrote "IF they want to expand their options...."

If the IOC is content to rotate between repeat Winter hosts, that's fine by me. If they want to go to new places, they're going to have to relax their requirements. 800m is necessary for a decent downhill. It's the way it goes. That means that if you want to go to new places, you've got to accept longer travel distances.

Longer travel does not automatically entail environmental destruction. For example, the roads are quite sufficient between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe. I do think that if the IOC is going to relax their maximum distance requirement it probably wont be for the United States. They'll hold the US to their ideal. It's Harbin and cities in eastern Europe that will benefit.

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...