Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
runningrings

Who would have you/who have you supported in previous bidding campaigns?

Recommended Posts

A bit of mental time travelling required here, but the other day I was looking over the Wikipedia list of previous candidate cities since WW2, and I was thinking about which cities I would have supported (successful or not) to stage the respective Olympics. Try and remove yourself from the reality of the history, and think about which bid you would have backed.

1948: London. Given the endurance of Britain in the war, and the selection of other cities (mainly US), I think London was the best option.

1952: Chicago. The US in a post-war boom. Like Britain, the US sacrificed a lot in the war, and the 1952 Olympics in the great Mid-Western city 20 years after 1932 would have been a siginifcant and bold event. I would have probably been underwhelmed at the selection of considerably smaller Helsinki.

1956: Melbourne. While Buenos Aeries would have been an entricing, capable and interesting alternative, I am an Australian and can't look past Magnificent Melbourne.

1960: Rome. Well organised bid, in the majestic Italian capital.

1964: Tokyo. Finally time to go to Asia, although I am sure many would have had reservations about Japan so soon after WW2.

1968: Buenos Aeries. The Olympics in South America for the first time.

1972: Detroit. The booming and capable American city would be well suited 40 years after the US last hosted. While Munich's bid is great, I don't see why the Olympics should go back to Germany before they go back to the US.

1976: Montreal. Easily the best option. Hosted an outstanding Expo 1967, and electing one of the other candidates, Los Angeles or Moscow, is taking sides. Although, this is just putting off the inevitable.

1980: Mosocw. As 1976 is in North America, it can be justified supporting Moscow over Los Angeles for 1980.

1984: Los Angeles. Disappointed no other city stepped up, and disappointed a new US city like NY or SF isn't able to do it, but glad to see the Olympics back in the US after so long.

1988: Seoul. Nagoya just doesn't do it, so soon after Tokyo and Sapporo.

1992: Paris. In the Centennial decade of the Olympics, Paris should be the first city to host three times, in the nation whos Gilded Era spirit gave birth to the modern Olympics. With Athens an uncertainty for 1996 - Paris would be a great way to celebrate the Olympics coming full circle. Barcelona doesn't have the same international flare that the French capital has, and I am uncomfortable with Samaranch's tactfulness. I am Australian, so I am interested in Brisbane's bid, but I am not really compelled by the idea of a smaller, second tier Australian city hosting the Olympics, despite the success of Expo 1988.

1996: Melbourne. I admit bias. Athens would be remarkable, if it were really capable, but it does not seem to be. The Centennial Olympic Games would then be best celebrated by revistiting a former Olympic host, Melbourne. The Southern Hemisphere is under represented. Melbourne is one of the most immensely capable cities in the world in terms of infrastructure needed for the Olympics. Since 1956, it has been altered by waves of immigration from all parts of the world, including Greeks themselves, who have made Melbourne the largest Greek city outside Greece. Australia too is a great Olympic nation, having been with the Olympic movement every step of the way since 1896, through thick and thin. Belgrade is a risk. Toronto is capable, but too soon after 1976 and 1988. Manchester is somewhat capable and slightly compelling, but not enough as others. Belgrade is a political risk. Atlanta is too insiginificant, and is to the US what Manchester is to GB. Far too soon to be considering the US again. Atlanta has no chance...

2000: Sydney. Again, more bias. After the shock of Atlanta, it has to be Sydney for 2000. The international face of Australia, impressive plan, it's time to return to Australia and the Southern Hemisphere for the dawn of the Millennium. Beijing would not be right given the political issues in China. Berlin would have been compelling after the fall of the Wall, but support is too low and money is an issue. Istanbul is nice to think about in terms of geopolitics, but they should come back in 20 years.

2004: Buenos Aeries. Just. Infrastructure is questionable, but so is Athens. A back to back Southern Hemisphere Olympics after Sydney, and the first in South America. It would be a refreshing event for Argentina. Cape Town would be a great first time for Africa, but not yet IMO. Rome is the best for the European options, and as good as going to Athens. Stockholm would be effcient, but has low public support. Athens is nice to think about, but not yet. Perhaps 2016, for the 120th.

(from here in is where I actually paid attention to Olympic bidding, and these are the candidates I supported myself --- all successful!)

2008: Beijing. It's time. China has made leaps and bounds at improving itself, and there is something iconic about the 2008 Olympics in China. Paris would be a great alternative, but too soon to go back to Europe after Athens 2004 and Turin 2006. Toronto is probably the most capable, but its no match for the lure of China. Perhaps 2012 would be good for Toronto, if Vancouver doesn't get 2010.

2012: London or Paris. Can't choose. Either would be fantastic, both are iconic, capable and it is Europe's time and time for a three time host. I want to see an NY Olympics, but the bid is too has too many unanswered questions, and too soon after Atlanta and SLC. Moscow "just' had the Olympics in 1980, and I'd rather see Russia go for a Winter Olympics. Madrid? Too soon after Barcelona 1992. Way too soon.

2016: Rio. South America. Finally. In a sexy city in an up and coming economic powerhouse. Chicago would be great for the Olympics in the US, but I still think its too soon after Atlanta and SLC. Madrid? See 2012.

2020: Istanbul. The Olympics across two continents in a photogenic city to follow hot on the tails of Rio. First predominantly Islamic city to host the Olympics in secular Turkey. It just seems right. Tokyo would be a great alternative, but I have to go with Istanbul. Madrid? Go. Away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to do a list, but then I realised there weren't a lot I would have changed. Indeed, I've often noted to myself that just about all of the IOC's picks since Atlanta are what I would have chosen as well (apart from PyeongChang - not that I had anything against it winning 2018, but I was on the Munich bandwagon for that one).

So, If I was pressed, the only one's I'd change are:

1904: New York City.

1920: Antwerp? Would've been good to see Alexandria get it, and have the Olympic in Africa more then a century earlier than it will eventually be.

1956 (winter): Falls Creek/Koskiusko/Canberra? Would've been the only real chance for the winter games to come to Oz.

1968: Buenos Aires - I wouldn't have wanted to see Melbourne lose out to it in 1956, but it would have been nice to see it stage South America's first games when it was still one of the continent's more prosperous cities.

1984: NYC - only because it would still be my favoured American Dream - and it probably would have been their's for the asking if they'd decided to go for it.

1994 (Winter): Ostersund - because it was Sweden's best chance. Though it's hard to argue against Lillehammer, still IMO

the best ever WOGs.

1996: Tough one, but Athens, even though in reality it would not have been viable. But the centenary should have been there if it could have been managed. Atlanta would not have inspried me, Toronto would have been too soon after Montreal, and Melbourne? Well, I would have moved heaven and earth to see it come to Sydney before it went to Melbourne again before it.

2004: Assuming Athens had got 1996, probably Rome. or Capetown, though like you I think it was just a tad too early for SA.

2012: Well, I was a NYC supporter in this race at first, until I got converted to London. But it's hard to argue now that it wasn't the perfect choice by the IOC in the end.

2018: Munich - as I mentioned above, nothing against PC though.

Edited by Sir Rols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1992: Brisbane of course. Would've been great to have a games here. Success of Comm Games and Expo would've been good. Or Paris 1992 would've been awesome too.

1996: Toronto. Didn't like Atlanta and Athens wasn't good in 04. Toronto would host a good games however it may have been too soon since Montreal + the failure of the Montreal games.

2000: Sydney. Best games ever. Enough said.

2004: Rome. Before the financial crisis. Would have had a great legacy and a successful games. Great city more then capable of hosting the games. Cape Town would've been interesting too.

2008: Beijing. Were very successful games and showed China to the world.

2012: Paris. The bid was solid and very interesting. Would definitely have gone. Higher scoring city. Although London was very good

2016: Rio. New frontier. We shall see how they go

2020: Tokyo. Own personal reasons same time zones and always wanted to go there. However i would love Istanbul aswell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1996 for Melbourne for sure.

The first bid books I got.

They were clearly up there in terms of quality of the bid, even if some things were a little far from world class, just look at how Atlanta ended up to be.

Most of the venues were already in place, some needing minor upgrades, others none at all.

We had:

Existing:

Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) - Athletics, Ceremonies, Football Finals, Equestrian (Jumping final, though given that Barcelona ended this tradition, I'd say that event would have been axed from the MCG as well)

National Tennis Centre (Rod Laver Arena) - Tennis, Gymnastics, Handball Final

Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre (Westpac Centre) - Handball

Olympic Park Stadium - Football Preliminaries (would have gone radical upgrades, which would have seen the removal of the track, possible lowering of the field and seated stands all around for a minimum of 30,000 capacity, serving as Melbourne's premier rectangle sports venue. As such, there would have been a new warmup track constructed at the site of the 1956 velodrome turned racetrack (now site of the Melbourne Rectangular Stadium/AAMI Park))

Royal Exhibition Building - Fencing

Victorian Arts Centre (Hamer Hall) - Weightlifting

Westgate Par - Shooting

St Kilda Boat Harbour - Sailing

State Baseball and Softball Centre - Baseball, Softball

State Hockey Centre - Field Hockey

National Equestrian Centre - Equestrian

National Water Sports Centre - Rowing/Canoeing

Sydney Football Stadium - Football Preliminaries

Queen Elizabeth II Stadium - Football Preliminaries

Hindmarsh Stadium - Football Preliminaries

New:

Melbourne Sports and Aquatics Centre - Basketball, Table Tennis, Badminton, Boxing, Volleyball, Swimming, Diving, Waterpolo

New Exhibition Building Extension - Judo, Wrestling, Boxing (preliminaries)

Showgrounds - Cycling (Velodrome)

Temporary:

Werribee Archery Venue - Archery

Showgrounds - Equestrian (cross country)

The Main Media Centre was a multistory office tower downtown near the proposed Athletes Village and Media Village. That being said, the proposed villages were at Docklands, where Docklands Stadium (Etihad Stadium) now exists (and the harbour town development).

The only major sporting projects were the Sports and Aquatics Centre, the Exhibition Building extension and the already planned (for the 1992 Cricket World Cup) Great Southern Stand of the MCG. The remaining Member's, Olympic and Ponsford stands would have undergone minor upgrades (individual seats, renovation of concessions and washrooms, installation of video boards over the open Olympic and Ponsford stands) come games time. The proposed legacy capacity was to be at 107,000. Far more than Atlanta offered.

Transport would have undergone minor upgrades. We emphasized what we had, the strength of our road and public transport network at the time, projects that were underway regardless of the games and so forth. So naturally, there was little inclination to proposing any radical transport upgrades. I don't recall places like Spencer Street (Southern Cross) Station undergoing major overhauls like it did for the 2006 Commonwealth Games. No major airport upgrades or expansions, whilst Avalon Airport was merely mentioned as a potential secondary international airport if Melbourne's main airport couldn't meet Olympic demand.

Accommodation was simply using what we had, the hotels at the time already under construction and planned. To help assist in the need for a major boost in Olympics accommodation for spectators was not necessarily in the form of cruise ships (though that aspect was used to it's full capacity, in the form of available cruise ship terminal space), but in the so called "Australian Homes Programme". Where ordinary households in the vicinity of Olympic venues and the city would have signed up to assist in the potential accommodation shortage and house spectators (or more importantly, interstate volunteers) for the duration of the games. An interesting concept, though I'm sure should we bid again, this would not be as big of a problem.

An interesting bid and if things turned out differently, could have easily won. We certainly had a strong bid in spite of the end result.

Edited by Lord David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have definitely supported Toronto 2008 over Beijing. A highly compact bid, with far superior capacities for a broad range of sports, well exceeding IOC requirements in most aspects. They proposed a 25,000 seater main pool and 15,000 seater diving pool! A 100,000 seater main stadium and so forth. A waterfront games means that most people could easily just walk to most venues from their downtown hotel room (with those staying outside of downtown needing to commute by road or public transport). All Olympic events including the football preliminaries would have been held in Ontario alone, there was no indication that past Olympic host Montreal would serve as a football preliminaries venue.

A strong bid, far stronger than Beijing ever was.

Politics got in the way and awarded Beijing the games, in spite of Toronto's strengths (I'm sure the derogatory remarks (you look it up) played it's part too).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you say Toronto 2008 was "a strong bid, far stronger than Beijing ever was" when the reality of the voting showed Toronto was not even close - it was a landslide towards Beijing. Also Paris was a big player in the 2008 race, too.

The Toronto 2008 bid was great, but IMO 2008 was truly one of the rare occurances where an Olympic bid was that city's to loose - much like Rio 2016.

I've noticed in many threads that you base the seating capacity of proposed venues as the measure of a good bid - I don't believe this is a sensible or realistic way of asessing eligability. A 100,000+ Stadium, for any Olympics, is unnecessary and doesn't dazzle a sustainability conscious IOC. I'm doubtful that if Sydney were preparing for the 2020 Olympics instead of 2000, that we would not have a 115,000 seater stadium. 80 to 90,000 seems to be the number in vogue.

Edited by greenandblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I approach this knowing what I know now, i'd probably change very little from recent IOC votes. I wouldn't swap Atlanta for Melbourne as that would have meant no Sydney 2000, for example. But if I was choosing at the time, I might well have gone for Melbourne over Atlanta! So, a tricky question...

I'm with Rols in saying I'd probably have gone for Munich instead of PC for 2018.

I'm also going to say I'd have voted Chicago for 2016 and regular posters will know I supported Chicago's bid for those Games. My biggest worry about Rio is being all-Braziled-out after the 2014 World Cup. I want Rio to be a huge success and I really don't want to feel that way about their Games but I fear I may. That's not - by the way - a criciism of Rio, as I'd feel the same about any nation hosting both events two years apart. Just a personal preference. And as such, I wouldn't have voted for Rio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ You've articulated the point of the thread better than I did. My list is based on NOT knowing what I know now. If people can, put yourself in your own shoes, but at the time the bidding was conducted, with no further knowledge.

Melbourne 1996 and Sydney 2000 are great examples of this. The Sydney Olympics were legendary, and I hate the thought of them never happening, but in 1990, I would have supported a Melbourne 1996 bid on the basis that I firmly believe it would have been the best option for 1996, and would have without doubt been an amazing Olympic Games. I think it would have been a great, Barcelona-style Games fondly looked upon, unlike Atlanta.

I agree there is the risk of being "all Braziled" out with 2016 so soon after the World Cup - but it's certainly not unprecedented, and in fact common with Mexico hosting the 1970 World Cup after the 1968 Olympics; West Germany hosting the 1974 World Cup after 1972 Olympics and more recently the USA hosting the 1994 World Cup and 1996 Olympics.

Brazil has such a bold and brash national culture, which could be magnified by the way new media can "over" expose major events... we just might be all Braziled out at the close of the Paralympics in 2016!

Likewise, I feel like if I were a Londonder there would be a part of me looking forward to the insigificant 2013. No Silver Jubilee. No Olympics. The year 2013 will be like a Monday morning after a long weekend for Britain.

Edited by greenandblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like some others, I'd have kept most.

The most tricky one is 1996, due to the cynicism behind its awarding of the Games to Atlanta, home of a leading brand of fizzy drink, which just happens to be a major sponsor. Looking at it ignoring the benefit of hindsight, I would have done the following:

For 1996, I would have gone for Athens for centennial reasons,

and in 2004 gone with Cape Town or Rome.

I would also possibly have ditched L.A. in 1984 due to their ignorant and offensive stance over the Paralympic Games, but that's looking at it from a 2012 perspective.

The rest I would have arguably kept, even Beijing, because you can't ignore the necessity for the Games to visit large countries.

For Winter, the only thing I would have dumped is Albertville 1992. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but the French really don't know how to put on a big event. I expect lots of disagreements, but I am afraid that the French don't create venues for pleasure, enjoyment, pragmatism or ability to create a good atmosphere, but for their artistic value and visual impression. Just look at the cumbersome, frightening Bibliothèque Nationale or the appalling mess outside the Châtelet-Les Halles RER station. And all post-War public buildings in France seem to appear as if they had been built twenty to forty years before they in fact were. And Albertville is the sad epitome of it all. It was a mess, and I still don't understand why it got so many votes. So I think for me, Sofia would be a little unknown, but I'd have even gone for Rotterdam or Miami, or even a six-year wait to Lillehammer, to avoid having to spend two bleak, windswept weeks in the village of Albertville. :blink:

Sorry if I offended anyone, but in all truth, after spending a whole year in France, and living now only minutes from its frontier, that's the way I see it. I'm not seeking a cheap nasty remark, so don't hate me, try and change my opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you because you reject the idea of Albertville hosting 1992, I reject to the evidence you use in supporting it. The design of RER stations in Paris? Really?

I think Albertville was random, and I think it was the victim of Samaranch "fiddling the books" to get Barcelona in for 1992, instead of Paris (although I have to admit I love the Barcelona Olympics, even though Paris in 1992 would have been equally special) but I have to say aside from it being a smaller, more spread out host, there wasn't really that much wrong with it, organisational wise. From what I've read about it, it was well prepared and well attended, and had great venues... take the unique Theatre of Ceremonies for example. Compare that to the logistics issues of Lake Placid 1980 or Atlanta 1996, Albertville 1992 was fine. Maybe the fact that it wasn't as big as Calgary, nor glamourous as Lillehammer left people underwhelmed. It delivered a suitable Games that complimented the Summer Olympics in Spain well. I don't think it's fair to use it to character assassinate the French nation. Do you feel the same way about Grenoble 1968? Reputedly one of the finest Olympic Winter Games ever staged, for its era. It was ahead of its time. The first "Olympic scale" Winter Games.

Edited by greenandblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm not assassinating France's character, as I said. Call me Jeremy Clarkson if you like, but it was a rational and balanced judgement based upon living there for a year. But maybe I didn't explain it well enough. I just meant the bit about the RER as an example of my experiences... I found Albertville's venues lacked any kind of modernity for 1992, and the Theatre of Ceremonies aside, had all the charm of an East German railway station combined with the gaudy colours of a children's cereal packet. Add to that the stupid logo blasted everywhere and the assault on your eyes is complete. I mean, have you seen La Plagne's town logo, even today? A snowy face with sunglasses and a red woolly hat. It's outdated. And everything else looked "old" even then.

Furthermore, considering their "design", the acoustics in some of those places must have been horrendous. Like playing the trombone in a toilet with the lid down.

Grenoble 1968 was excellent, yes, but that aside, why do the French constantly seem to want to hark back to the past in their architecture, design and style? They're supposed to be one of the leading countries in this field!!

But yes, it was a fudge by Samaranch to shoe-in Barça.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've chosen Sion over Torino for 2006. It would've been a real good chance to bring the Games back to the traditional village-type atmosphere. We might not have seen the growth of new events like what's happening for 2014, giving places like Ostersund a fighting chance to host in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've chosen Sion over Torino for 2006. It would've been a real good chance to bring the Games back to the traditional village-type atmosphere. We might not have seen the growth of new events like what's happening for 2014, giving places like Ostersund a fighting chance to host in the future.

Whilst Sion isn't really a village I agree, the first thing I thought was Sion instead of Torino. I always had a soft spot for Sion since they were bidding for 2002, the first bid process I really followed.

I loved their logo too

Sion_2006_Olympic_bid_logo.png

I would also have gone for Toronto over Atlanta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also have gone for Toronto over Atlanta.

Wow. Donovan Bailey winning the 100 m, and Team Canada winning the 4x100 relay in Toronto :o

What a story that would've been...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also have prefered Pyeongchang 2014 and Munich 2018...

Same here initially, but the 2014 PC bid team came across as unlikeable, and also Korea has really been spoiled with winning big events on the first try (1988 Olympics, 2002 World Cup). I was crushed in 2007, but in hindsight, it was good to make Korea sweat a bit and have them see what it's like to lose and not have everything handed on a silver platter to them. Now they can appreciate 2018 more.

I'm hoping for Munich 2022 next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1896 - Athens

1900 - Paris

1904 - Chicago

1908 - Berlin

1912 - Stockholm

1920 - Budapest

1924 - Rome

1928 - Amsterdam

1932 - Los Angeles

1936 - Alexandria

1948 - London

1952 - Helsinki

1956 - Buenos Aires

1960 - Brussels

1964 - Tokyo

1968 - Mexico City

1972 - Munich

1976 - Montreal

1980 - Los Angeles

1984 - Moscow

1988 - Nagoya

1992 - Paris

1996 - Toronto

2000 - Sydney

2004 - Rome

2008 - Beijing

2012 - New York City

2016 - Rio de Janeiro

2020 - Tokyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you say Toronto 2008 was "a strong bid, far stronger than Beijing ever was" when the reality of the voting showed Toronto was not even close - it was a landslide towards Beijing. Also Paris was a big player in the 2008 race, too.

The Toronto 2008 bid was great, but IMO 2008 was truly one of the rare occurances where an Olympic bid was that city's to loose - much like Rio 2016.

I've noticed in many threads that you base the seating capacity of proposed venues as the measure of a good bid - I don't believe this is a sensible or realistic way of asessing eligability. A 100,000+ Stadium, for any Olympics, is unnecessary and doesn't dazzle a sustainability conscious IOC. I'm doubtful that if Sydney were preparing for the 2020 Olympics instead of 2000, that we would not have a 115,000 seater stadium. 80 to 90,000 seems to be the number in vogue.

It was a stronger technically and more of a compact bid then Beijing.

I started watching the races in 2003 for the 2010 announcement so here it goes:

2010:Vancouver

2012: Paris

2014: Sochi

2016: Istanbul/Rio

2018: Munich

2020: Istanbul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first bidding race I remember was the decision of 2000 back in 1993, not that I remember having any opinion about it but I'd definitely now want Sydney to win that one. Moving on, I remember considering South Africa and Cape Town as an interesting choice for 2004 but again, no clear opinion about it and I was quite pleased for Athens to get it after their earlier rejection. For 2008 I did oppose Beijing because of their politics but didn't have any favorites, I'd probably choose either Toronto or Paris. Then in 2012 Madrid, despite Barcelona being so close, I never was enthusiastic about Paris and London going to the final hurdle even if this one proved to be a special games for me personally. Rio hands down for 2016, no question about it.

Of the previous bids I didn't follow I'd change 1996 with Athens just edging out over Melbourne, despite of their capabilities. Toronto was too soon after Montréal. Also in hindsight I can't dare to think of Sydney never happening (at least possibly not in my lifetime) even if this was impossible to know at the moment. Again in hindsight it'd be better to have let LA host before Moscow to avoid the boycotts but at the moment I would have chosen the first Russian games over another US edition. Then Buenos Aires for either 1956 or 1968 although both Melbourne and Mexico City were new frontiers. Then again, I'd like to see Buenos Aires host someday and if that already happened it would be less likely during my lifetime, at least now they could aim for it harder and with better chances than as repeat hosts. Still, back when the choices were made I'd probably choose them but don't have anything against those two competitors.

Other than those I'm fine with the rest and wouldn't change anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you say Toronto 2008 was "a strong bid, far stronger than Beijing ever was" when the reality of the voting showed Toronto was not even close - it was a landslide towards Beijing. Also Paris was a big player in the 2008 race, too.

The Toronto 2008 bid was great, but IMO 2008 was truly one of the rare occurances where an Olympic bid was that city's to loose - much like Rio 2016.

I've noticed in many threads that you base the seating capacity of proposed venues as the measure of a good bid - I don't believe this is a sensible or realistic way of asessing eligability. A 100,000+ Stadium, for any Olympics, is unnecessary and doesn't dazzle a sustainability conscious IOC. I'm doubtful that if Sydney were preparing for the 2020 Olympics instead of 2000, that we would not have a 115,000 seater stadium. 80 to 90,000 seems to be the number in vogue.

Toronto 2008 was a strong bid as it removed many of the faults of the 1996 bid and proposed something far more compact than any of the other competing bids. Politics got in the way and gave the games to Beijing (although you could argue that their 2008 bid was stronger than their 2000 bid, I think it was more or less the same, only drawing experience from a previous bid) .

Toronto would have assured great TV coverage due to similar timezones with the US. Assured good spectator numbers due to large capacity venues, imagine 25,000 peeps filling each night for the swimming as opposed to just 17,000? Sure a 100,000 seater main stadium is unnecessary, but it would have certainly been filled for ceremonies at the very least. The fact that a new stadium had to be built from scratch meant that Toronto could easily propose this capacity, then deal with having to downsize it later.

Like I stated, politics got in the way and gave them to Beijing, as well as some resentment from some members of the IOC on account of derogatory remarks made towards them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Politics" is a very vague term, so when you say "politics" is what got Beijing 2008, it is unclear.

Politics or not, you cannot deny that Beijing had more resources than Toronto, it still had an immensely compact, impressive Olympic Green plan, and the lure of taking the Olympics to the ancient and iconic capital city of the world's most populous nation, 20 years after it was last in Asia, was far more overwhelming and deserving than going back to Canada after Montreal 1976 and Calgary 1988... not to mention Atlanta have just been held south of the border. These are all huge factors which tell me that the awarding of 2008 to Beijing over Toronto or even Paris is not just politics, it was fair. Beijing seemed to want it more, they deserved it more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Politics" is a very vague term, so when you say "politics" is what got Beijing 2008, it is unclear.

Politics or not, you cannot deny that Beijing had more resources than Toronto, it still had an immensely compact, impressive Olympic Green plan, and the lure of taking the Olympics to the ancient and iconic capital city of the world's most populous nation, 20 years after it was last in Asia, was far more overwhelming and deserving than going back to Canada after Montreal 1976 and Calgary 1988... not to mention Atlanta have just been held south of the border. These are all huge factors which tell me that the awarding of 2008 to Beijing over Toronto or even Paris is not just politics, it was fair. Beijing seemed to want it more, they deserved it more.

Off course Beijing deserved the 08 Games just on its status. But on the technical part off course not. However putting everything together it was fair that Beijing won in the end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it's a debate that comes up often here. And I can "get", if not agree with, why some people favour the notion that hosts should be chosen on technical merit or superior bid and venue plans (though I don't think even then it's that easy to compare the various aspects of bid blueprints against each other objectively anyway).

In my point of view, however, I've never seen why politics or subjectivity are seen as negatives in host city selection. It's ensured the variety and spread of the games hosts that add such spice to so many of us. The IOC politics is how consensus is reached about all the intangible things that govern host choices. And if we look at what a lot of us ar saying in this thread, in the most cases, the IOC seems to get it right, to many peoples' tastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1992 - Barcelona

1992 - Anchorage

1994 - Lillehammer

1996 - Toronto

1998 - Ostersund

2000 - Sydney

2002 - Quebec City

2004 - Athens

2006 - Turin

2008 - Beijing

2012 - Paris

2014 - Pyeongchang

2016 - Chicago

2018 - Munich

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...