Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
runningrings

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

Recommended Posts

1992 - Paris

1996 - Athens or Toronto

2000 - Sydney

2004 - Rome

2008 - Toronto

2012 - London

2016 - Rio de Janeiro

2020 - Istanbul

2024 - Toronto or Cape Town

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally, I'll support a bid that's close to home. New York (a three hour drive) and Toronto (six hours) would have been really nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have been fine with most of the eventual winners in the past, but there might be a few exceptions...

1956 - I likely would have supported Buenos Aires, and even though Melbourne was considered ill-prepared a year or so prior to the Games, Argentina underwent a revolt in the mid-1950s that would have been more difficult to work around, so the Olympic Movement made the right choice.

1972 - As a Canadian, I likely would have supported Montreal, but with Mexico just 4 years earlier and Expo '67 a year away (the Games were awarded in 1966), I would have known it just wasn't their time. From my understanding of that cycle, Munich's bid was pretty solid, and despite the tragic terrorist attack that forever marred these Games in history's page, Munich did an excellent job of organizing them.

Since I first started following Olympic bids in around 1988, this is my history of support...

1994 - Sofia, Bulgaria. Thought it would be 'exotic', but in the end Lillehammer was the right choice. But I only knew of the choices a few days before the IOC voted in Seoul.

1996 - In my first real closely followed contest, I supported Toronto, but would have liked them to go to Athens.

1998 - Ostersund.

2000 - Sydney all the way!

2002 - Quebec City to an extent, but I figured the mountain was going to kill them. I expected Salt Lake to win.

2004 - Although I expected Athens to win, I was a big fan of the Cape Town bid.

2006 - None really.

2008 - I expected Beijing to walk away with it, but as a Canadian and a Vancouverite, I was a bit torn and half heartedly supported Toronto knowing that a TO win would end the 2010 Winter bid in my backyard.

2010 - Vancouver all the way!

2012 - I supported Paris, but London was my second choice.

2014 - Salzburg supporter.

2016 - I supported Rio, but I did like Chicago's bid.

2018 - Munich supporter.

2020 - I support Istanbul, then Tokyo.

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.

Most of what you said in the second paragraph can be summed up with one word,

geopolitics.

Yes it is fair, because we all know awarding the games DO involve politics and Beijing won big on that. I also seem to remember 2008 bid was the first time the Samaranch removed human rights as a judging criteria to improve Beijing's chances? Was that true??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beijing's hosting was inevitable and for their 2008 bid, all the stars aligned. They still had to have a strong bid to succeed. Toronto had a great bid. Paris, too. But they didn't have the narrative that Beijing had and the Chinese and their IOC supporters made sure that whatever questions and doubts there were for 2000, they were answered or alleviated.

They had already lost to Sydney for 2000. But just as Moscow's bid for 1976 went down to Montreal, and Rio had failures for 2004 and 2012, not every time a big shiny 'New Frontier' star comes into play does it succeed. Sometimes there are doubts about breaking this New Frontier and the geopolitics of the previous hosting location sometimes has a role. The next one we'll see is happening now with Istanbul's bid for 2020. It could get through as the weaker bid if it has the narrative, but if the IOC has doubts, we're probably talking Tokyo 2020.

To win, you need to have a good enough technical bid and the trust of enough of the IOC plus a good, compelling story and reason to host because there is both political and emotional aspects involved, otherwise, the Olympic hosts would be chosen solely by the scores of the evaluation and executive committees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 1950

1952 Amsterdam

W1952 Oslo

1956 Melbourne

W1956 Montreal

1960 Budapest

W1960 st. Moritz

1964 Vienna

W1964 Calgary

1968 Buenos Aires

W1968 Oslo

1972 Munich

W1972 Sapporo

1976 Moscow

W1976 Sion

1980 Moscow

W1980 Lake Placid

1984 Los Angeles ( no other choice )

W1984 Sarajevo

1988 Nagoya

W1988 Cortina d'Ampezzo

1992 Brisbane

W1992 Sofia

1994 Sofia

1996 Athens

1998 Salt Lake City

2000 Sydney :wub:

2002 Quebec City

2004 Athens

2006 Torino

2008 Paris

2010 Salzburg

2012 New York

2014 Salzburg

2016 Rio de Janeiro

2018 Munich

2020 Rome :(

------------------

FIFA World Cup

1990 Italy

1994 Brazil

1998 Switzerland

2002 Mexico

2006 Germany

2010 South Africa

2014 Brazil

2018 Netherlands - Belgium

2022 Australia

_____________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what you said in the second paragraph can be summed up with one word,

geopolitics.

Yes it is fair, because we all know awarding the games DO involve politics and Beijing won big on that. I also seem to remember 2008 bid was the first time the Samaranch removed human rights as a judging criteria to improve Beijing's chances? Was that true??

After learning about higher geopolitics it would be the incorrect term. It would just be geography in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World atlas-

Would have you really supported Salt Lake City's bid for 1998, given that the US had just been awarded 1996 the year before?

No, I probably would have gone for Québec 2002, and for Sion 2006...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympics shouldn't had been hosted in USSR and USA in cold war, 1980 and 1984

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Shudda-cudda.

(1) There were legitimate bidders; and

(2) You would have had gaping hole for those years again. Duh!! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympics shouldn't had been hosted in USSR and USA in cold war, 1980 and 1984

Even if the alternative for 1984 was .... Teheran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the alternative for 1984 was .... Teheran?

Actually as crazy as it sounds in 2012 of having an Iranian Olympics, in 1978 (the year before revolution) when they bid it actually would have worked. The 1970's were a pinnacle of progressive politics and "Europeanism" in Iran, and 1979 changed all that. Infrastructure was (and still is) of quite a high standard in Iran compared to its eastern neighbours. No doubt, if they had actually won there would have been the risk of 1984 not going ahead, but the Iranian dictatorship in its earlier days may have actually been quite cooperative and supportive of the 1984 Olympics in Teheran. No doubt, Israel would have been an issue (which it would not have before 1979) and there would have been boycotts... although it couldn't have been much worse than 1980.

Teheran 1984 would have probably been quite well run, albeit a politcal tool, and sans boycotts, no doubt it would have been one of the more interest Olympics of recent years.

Edited by runningrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually as crazy as it sounds in 2012 of having an Iranian Olympics, in 1978 (the year before revolution) when they bid it actually would have worked. The 1970's were a pinnacle of progressive politics and "Europeanism" in Iran, and 1979 changed all that. Infrastructure was (and still is) of quite a high standard in Iran compared to its eastern neighbours. No doubt, if they had actually won there would have been the risk of 1984 not going ahead, but the Iranian dictatorship in its earlier days may have actually been quite cooperative and supportive of the 1984 Olympics in Teheran. No doubt, Israel would have been an issue (which it would not have before 1979) and there would have been boycotts... although it couldn't have been much worse than 1980.

Teheran 1984 would have probably been quite well run, albeit a politcal tool, and sans boycotts, no doubt it would have been one of the more interest Olympics of recent years.

Uhmmm, u're kidding, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually as crazy as it sounds in 2012 of having an Iranian Olympics, in 1978 (the year before revolution) when they bid it actually would have worked. The 1970's were a pinnacle of progressive politics and "Europeanism" in Iran, and 1979 changed all that. Infrastructure was (and still is) of quite a high standard in Iran compared to its eastern neighbours. No doubt, if they had actually won there would have been the risk of 1984 not going ahead, but the Iranian dictatorship in its earlier days may have actually been quite cooperative and supportive of the 1984 Olympics in Teheran. No doubt, Israel would have been an issue (which it would not have before 1979) and there would have been boycotts... although it couldn't have been much worse than 1980.

Teheran 1984 would have probably been quite well run, albeit a politcal tool, and sans boycotts, no doubt it would have been one of the more interest Olympics of recent years.

I beg to differ. Even in 1984, an Olympic Games in Teheran wouldn't have worked for a variety of reasons:

1) At the selection stage, presumably in 1978/79, the Shah was already in the midst of trouble concerning his authoritarian style of leadership. He was criticized for his alleged extravagance and disregarding what traditionalists deemed to be "the will of the Iranian people" (read: a coalition of extreme religious ideologues, dissatisfied students and a motley collection of leftists fed up with playing second fiddle to Iran's monarchy). If Teheran had put forward an application, this would have been yet another sign for the Shah's lack of political sensitivity. Mind you, Iran under the Shah was more prosperous and free than today's theocratic regime under Messrs Ahmedinejad and Khamenei.

2) Even proceeding on the assumption that Teheran had somehow managed to win the Olympic Games (and that the Islamic Revolution still took place), there would have been a number of problems (again, assuming the same timeline had been in place), in no particular order:

- The War with Iraq (a number of Arab countries disliked the regime under the Mullahs - and still do); this would have caused a boycott by the Gulf states.

- The Hostage Crisis under Carter: The United States under Reagan would most certainly have boycotted the Games. Given the rabidly anti-Western sentiment of the Iranian regime, all Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would have followed suit.

- Israel most certainly would have been a major issue. Especially 8 years after the Black September terrorist attack, the Israelis would have refrained from fielding an Olympic team for the occasion. I'm also leaving it open whether countries like India (with a majority Hindu population) and China (which had its premiere in 1984) would have participated.

- Further, the Iranian economy was in freefall, the Iranian military was in serious disrepair (as the Khomeini regime dispensed of all officers with connections to the Shah; hence why Saddam decided to strike at Iran in 1980) and infrastructure was deteriorating.

- Had Moscow 1980 still taken place and under the same circumstances as "our" timeline, a Teheran Olympics (even if the War with Iraq had somehow been stopped early in the 1980s) in 1984 would have been the third Olympics in a row to suffer a major boycott (yes, Los Angeles 1984 had an Eastern boycott, but the number of delegations was smaller).

3) Consequently, had Samaranch also been elected in this hypothetical timeline (and yes, events would have certainly required a diplomat like him), he certainly would have had to choose between seeing the effective end of the Olympic Movement (and its damage by a discredited Olympics) or pulling the Summer Games from the Iranians, possibly risking the wrath of the rest of the Islamic world. Not an enviable choice, by any means. Given all the obstacles, he would have probably opted for the latter. Had Teheran 1984 gone ahead, funds might have dried up from the United States, TV rights wouldn't have been as lucrative as fast and (something that shouldn't be underestimated) people's enthusiasm for the Olympics would have taken a severe hit by a second successive boycott.

So, while Teheran would be a major stretch even today, it might well have broken the neck of de Coubertin's dream, no matter how hard the Iranians or JAS would have tried.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant to say "South America", rather than "South Africa"...the latter was still banned from the Olympics as a result of the apartheid regime.

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...