los angeles 2024

[Quaker2001]

10 minutes ago, FYI said:

What are you trying to say here? 

The Canadians on here would vehemently say otherwise.

The "America has hosted too often" argument.  Gets a little weaker with each passing Olympics.  Of course there were other factors involved.. New York's underwhelming bid for 2012 and the revenue deal for 2016.  But again, as the theory goes drop the New York or Chicago bids into the 1996 bid and do they win?  Probably they do.  Drop Atlanta's 1996 bid into the 2012 race following a U.S.-hosted Olympics in `96 (not that Atlanta would be in that position anyway) and they probably get laughed out of the room.

And good for what Canadians here would say.  Doesn't mean it's wrong.

[FYI]

31 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

As an aside, France has hosted more Olympics than any other country apart from the US. 

Yeah, but let's put that into context first.

France has hosted five Olympic Games, but only two of those were Summer Olympic Games, & the last one was all the wayyy back in 1924. 

The U.S. has hosted a total or eight Olympic Games, four winter & four summer. And THREE of those U.S. Summer Olympic Games were hosted AFTER France last hosted theirs, & the last U.S. Summer Games was only 20 years ago. So that's still very lopsided. 

[Quaker2001]

3 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

No. Atlanta happened 12 years after Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City 6 years after that. Population size is irrelevant. That's not a law written anywhere.

So.. Atlanta 12 years after Los Angeles or Salt Lake City years after Atlanta is not right, but Toronto 8 years after Calgary and 20 years after Montreal (which was still licking its wounds from `76) would have been fine?  I disagree population size is irrelevant.  This is the IOC we're talking about.  There's a lot that goes unwritten with them.  They've voted against cities for lesser reasons than that.

[Quaker2001]

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, but let's put that into context first.

France has hosted five Olympic Games, but only two of those were Summer Olympic Games, & the last one was all the wayyy back in 1924. 

The U.S. has hosted a total or eight Olympic Games, four winter & four summer. And THREE of those U.S. Summer Olympic Games were hosted AFTER France last hosted theirs, & the last U.S. Summer Games was only 20 years ago. So that's still very lopsided. 

United States - Right place in the right time when it comes to Summer Olympics bidding

France - not so much

France didn't even attempt to bid for a Summer Olympics until 1992 and we all know what happened there.  You have to be in it to win it!  The United States was there.  France was not, and the 3 Olympics so far that they've bid for included 1 rigged against them, 1 in a matter of poor timing, and a narrow loss to their main European rival.

[Aquatic]

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

So.. Atlanta 12 years after Los Angeles or Salt Lake City years after Atlanta is not right, but Toronto 8 years after Calgary and 20 years after Montreal (which was still licking its wounds from `76) would have been fine?  I disagree population size is irrelevant.  This is the IOC we're talking about.  There's a lot that goes unwritten with them.  They've voted against cities for lesser reasons than that.

I didn't say it was "wrong", don't put words in my mouth I did not utter. I just said, if it could happen that way for the USA, it could have happened for that way for Canada too. The "population size" thing is something that get's bandied about by people the likes of which post here, but I have never heard or read of an IOC president or member saying that.

[Aquatic]

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

United States - Right place in the right time when it comes to Summer Olympics bidding

France - not so much

France didn't even attempt to bid for a Summer Olympics until 1992 and we all know what happened there.  You have to be in it to win it!  The United States was there.  France was not, and the 3 Olympics so far that they've bid for included 1 rigged against them, 1 in a matter of poor timing, and a narrow loss to their main European rival.

Samaranch. Samaranch is what happened in 1992.

[FYI]

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The "America has hosted too often" argument.  Gets a little weaker with each passing Olympics. 

Considering that our last Summer Olympics was just 20 years ago  (& then factor in 1980, 1984 & 2002, too, all in a span of a mere 36 years) then yeah, many in Olympic circles would still say that the "U.S. has hosted too often". 

Even you yourself have said that the Olympics are only a "once in every four-year event", & the IOC has to decide on that event accordingly. 

To quote you, good for you that you think otherwise, still doesn't mean it's wrong.

13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And good for what Canadians here would say.  Doesn't mean it's wrong.

Im not saying that I disagree with you on that one. Only illustrating how things around here usually go (as you yourself knows). When it was coming about that Toronto may place a bid for 2024, the Canadians were already starting to come out in droves (all Truff-like) about their chances.

[Quaker2001]

3 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

I didn't say it was "wrong", don't put words in my mouth I did not utter. I just said, if it could happen that way for the USA, it could have happened for that way for Canada too. The "population size" thing is something that get's bandied about by people the likes of which post here, but I have never heard or read of an IOC president or member saying that.

Okay, how about the disproportionate amount of television and sponsorship money the United States provides to the IOC?  Which is greater now than it was back then, but still notable.  Los Angeles hosted a highly successful Olympics in 1984 and the IOC probably holds them in higher regard than you want to believe, irrespective of their desire to return there.  Montreal hosted an Olympics that was a financial disaster which took them 3 decades to pay off.  It's hard to me to see an equivalency based on those circumstances where if the US did something, it could have happened that way for Canada too.

[FYI]

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

France didn't even attempt to bid for a Summer Olympics until 1992 and we all know what happened there.  You have to be in it to win it!  The United States was there.  France was not, and the 3 Olympics so far that they've bid for included 1 rigged against them, 1 in a matter of poor timing, and a narrow loss to their main European rival.

Not quite so. France tried bidding for the 1968 Summer Olympics with Lyon but lost out to Mexico City. They got the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble instead, & then they probably thought to go after the Summer Olympics again a bit later. 

But remember that little fact we were talking about a bit earlier that Europe has many more countries than North America to host? Well, who got the next 1972 Summer Games? Munich, Germany - so France (unlike their stubborn neighbors to the southwest) probably thought (& rightly so) why bother with 1976 then. Then Moscow got 1980 & then we get to France trying again for 1992.

The reason why the U.S. "is there" has more to do cuz realistically we're one of only three countries in North America that can host. That's not the case in Europe where you literally have over a dozen choices that can.

[Quaker2001]

15 minutes ago, FYI said:

Considering that our last Summer Olympics was just 20 years ago  (& then factor in 1980, 1984 & 2002, too, all in a span of a mere 36 years) then yeah, many in Olympic circles would still say that the "U.S. has hosted too often". 

Even you yourself have said that the Olympics are only a "once in every four-year event", & the IOC has to decide on that event accordingly. 

To quote you, good for you that you think otherwise, still doesn't mean it's wrong.

Well, you've made it clear you think that Paris 2024 is all but a done deal and only Paris can screw it up and there's nothing LA or the USOC can do about it.  My convictions aren't as strong there.  I doubt don't there is still some of that sentiment there, but not too the point that it's "wrong."  Again, this is one of those things where we don't disagree as much as it would seem, we just differ on the odds.

19 minutes ago, FYI said:

Im not saying that I disagree with you on that one. Only illustrating how things around here usually go (as you yourself knows). When it was coming about that Toronto may place a bid for 2024, the Canadians were already starting to come out in droves (all Truff-like) about their chances.

You and I have been around here long enough that we know how the game is played here.  Those who haven't been around as long probably don't realize that.  But yea, wouldn't have this place been fun in the lead up to that 1990 vote with a U.S. city and a Canadian city both in the running against each other.

[Aquatic]

14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Okay, how about the disproportionate amount of television and sponsorship money the United States provides to the IOC?  Which is greater now than it was back then, but still notable.  Los Angeles hosted a highly successful Olympics in 1984 and the IOC probably holds them in higher regard than you want to believe, irrespective of their desire to return there.  Montreal hosted an Olympics that was a financial disaster which took them 3 decades to pay off.  It's hard to me to see an equivalency based on those circumstances where if the US did something, it could have happened that way for Canada too.

Man you love to argue.

In 1976 the games were very different. Corporate sponsorship didn't play the role then that it did in 1984.

[Quaker2001]

7 minutes ago, FYI said:

Not quite so. France tried bidding for the 1968 Summer Olympics with Lyon but lost out to Mexico City. They got the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble instead, & then they probably thought to go after the Summer Olympics again a bit later. 

But remember that little fact we were talking about a bit earlier that Europe has many more countries than North America to host? Well, who got the next 1972 Summer Games? Munich, Germany - so France (unlike their stubborn neighbors to the southwest) probably thought (& rightly so) why bother with 1976 then. Then Moscow got 1980 & then we get to France trying again for 1992.

The reason why the U.S. "is there" has more to do cuz realistically we're one of only three countries in North America that can host. That's not the case in Europe where you literally have over a dozen choices that can.

The reason why the U.S. is there is because their theory with Olympics bidding is essentially to throw crap up against the wall and see what sticks.  How many times did they lose and still come back for the next cycle?  Contrast that with France which didn't.  And also what we have now with the USOC making a calculated move to go after a Summer Olympics.  Part of that of course is the likelihood of the U.S. winning versus a city in Europe, but still, what some would view as greed is just the USOC doing what they're almost always done.  The USOC probably should have sat out 2012 and 2016, but they didn't.  Just like they were within 2 votes from landing a Winter Olympics immediately after a Summer Olympics.  Who knows how Paris would have fared if they had put in a bid sometime before 1992.  Munich didn't stop Moscow from bidding for 1976.  Barcelona didn't stop Manchester and Belgrade and Athens from bidding for 1996.  And then Paris in 2008 after Athens.

More than that.. the U.S. also has multiple cities on the summer side they can put forward.  Easier for them to regroup and try with another city, ill-advised as that might be, rather than France which at this point has 1 and only 1 city they should ever consider putting forward.

[Aquatic]

10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well, you've made it clear you think that Paris 2024 is all but a done deal and only Paris can screw it up and there's nothing LA or the USOC can do about it.  My convictions aren't as strong there.  I doubt don't there is still some of that sentiment there, but not too the point that it's "wrong."  Again, this is one of those things where we don't disagree as much as it would seem, we just differ on the odds.

You and I have been around here long enough that we know how the game is played here.  Those who haven't been around as long probably don't realize that.  But yea, wouldn't have this place been fun in the lead up to that 1990 vote with a U.S. city and a Canadian city both in the running against each other.

I definitely would have been on the Toronto side. I remeber when I picked up the paper and saw that Atlanta had won to host 1996, I was like, "are you kidding me?" I threw the paper down on the table in disgust. I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a mistake, and it was.

[Aquatic]

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The reason why the U.S. is there is because their theory with Olympics bidding is essentially to throw crap up against the wall and see what sticks.  How many times did they lose and still come back for the next cycle?  Contrast that with France which didn't.  And also what we have now with the USOC making a calculated move to go after a Summer Olympics.  Part of that of course is the likelihood of the U.S. winning versus a city in Europe, but still, what some would view as greed is just the USOC doing what they're almost always done.  The USOC probably should have sat out 2012 and 2016, but they didn't.  Just like they were within 2 votes from landing a Winter Olympics immediately after a Summer Olympics.  Who knows how Paris would have fared if they had put in a bid sometime before 1992.  Munich didn't stop Moscow from bidding for 1976.  Barcelona didn't stop Manchester and Belgrade and Athens from bidding for 1996.  And then Paris in 2008 after Athens.

More than that.. the U.S. also has multiple cities on the summer side they can put forward.  Easier for them to regroup and try with another city, ill-advised as that might be, rather than France which at this point has 1 and only 1 city they should ever consider putting forward.

I disagree about France. Lyon could be a host city. Just like Milan could be in Italy. Or Barcelona was for Spain. It doesn't have to be the capital.

[Quaker2001]

Just now, Aquatic said:

Man you love to argue.

In 1976 the games were very different. Corporate sponsorship didn't play the role then that it did in 1984.

You're the one who mentioned Toronto earlier.  Should I have gotten cute and just mentioned the bribes as to why Atlanta won?

Completely missing the point about sponsorship.  For better or worse, Atlanta had a major Olympic sponsor headquartered there.  That undoubtedly helped their case in a weak field of bidders where it was supposed to be Athens and everyone else.  But again, the idea that Toronto could have done (which they didn't) what Atlanta did as if Canada at the time was on the same footing as the United States is ridiculous.  And I take that with a grain of salt coming from you knowing how you think of LA and seem to want to downplay what the `84 Olympics meant to the IOC.

2 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

I definitely would have been on the Toronto side. I remeber when I picked up the paper and saw that Atlanta had won to host 1996, I was like, "are you kidding me?" I threw the paper down on the table in disgust. I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a mistake, and it was.

That would be the losing side.  I still laugh at the history a little bit and wonder how a city like Atlanta landed an Olympics.  Right place at the right time.  That's all it was.

[Aquatic]

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're the one who mentioned Toronto earlier.  Should I have gotten cute and just mentioned the bribes as to why Atlanta won?

Completely missing the point about sponsorship.  For better or worse, Atlanta had a major Olympic sponsor headquartered there.  That undoubtedly helped their case in a weak field of bidders where it was supposed to be Athens and everyone else.  But again, the idea that Toronto could have done (which they didn't) what Atlanta did as if Canada at the time was on the same footing as the United States is ridiculous.  And I take that with a grain of salt coming from you knowing how you think of LA and seem to want to downplay what the `84 Olympics meant to the IOC.

That would be the losing side.  I still laugh at the history a little bit and wonder how a city like Atlanta landed an Olympics.  Right place at the right time.  That's all it was.

And bribes and Coca-Cola....

[Quaker2001]

1 minute ago, Aquatic said:

I disagree about France. Lyon could be a host city. Just like Milan could be in Italy. Or Barcelona was for Spain. It doesn't have to be the capital.

It's not about being the capital.  Look at the list of cities that have hosted (or will host) a Summer Olympics this century.. Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo.  Those are some pretty heavy hitters there.  Not all of them are far and away the most prominent cities in their respective countries, but it's pretty clear that the IOC isn't looking to award the Olympics to second-tier cities.  Athens and Rio might be exceptions, but there are reasons for that.  A case can be made for Milan over Rome as a bid city.  Ditto with Barcelona over Madrid.  But do you really think the IOC is going to award an Olympics to Lyon over Paris?  They might not have that city, but ask yourself this.. Lyon vs. Los Angeles, who wins that?  Or better yet, Lyon versus San Francisco, and you've made it clear you don't think San Fran would beat Paris for 2024.

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

And bribes and Coca-Cola....

You asked me earlier if I'm angry at any of this.  You're the one who threw the paper down in disgust and it's not like you had anything personally on the line.  I hadn't started really following the Olympics by 1990, let alone the bid process.  But it's interesting that you would have a reaction like that to Atlanta winning a vote to host the Olympics.  I'm mildly curious as to why.

[Aquatic]

First of all, the IOC wouldn't be choosing between Paris and Lyon. Lyon could be perfectly capable of hosting. And Barcelona was kind of a nothing city until they hosted in 1992. 1992 is what made Barcelona what it is today.

Lyon beats Los Angeles. San Francisco beats Lyon.

[Aquatic]

10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You asked me earlier if I'm angry at any of this.  You're the one who threw the paper down in disgust and it's not like you had anything personally on the line.  I hadn't started really following the Olympics by 1990, let alone the bid process.  But it's interesting that you would have a reaction like that to Atlanta winning a vote to host the Olympics.  I'm mildly curious as to why.

Because I knew they'd be tacky (and they were). God forbid Texas ever gets a games.

[Aquatic]

28 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're the one who mentioned Toronto earlier.  Should I have gotten cute and just mentioned the bribes as to why Atlanta won?

Completely missing the point about sponsorship.  For better or worse, Atlanta had a major Olympic sponsor headquartered there.  That undoubtedly helped their case in a weak field of bidders where it was supposed to be Athens and everyone else.  But again, the idea that Toronto could have done (which they didn't) what Atlanta did as if Canada at the time was on the same footing as the United States is ridiculous.  And I take that with a grain of salt coming from you knowing how you think of LA and seem to want to downplay what the `84 Olympics meant to the IOC.

That would be the losing side.  I still laugh at the history a little bit and wonder how a city like Atlanta landed an Olympics.  Right place at the right time.  That's all it was.

By the way, what's with the snide comment about Canada. What, you think Canada was some backwater in 1990?

[FYI]

24 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

And Barcelona was kind of a nothing city until they hosted in 1992. 1992 is what made Barcelona what it is today.

Lyon beats Los Angeles. San Francisco beats Lyon.

Barcelona 1992 mainly won bcuz a certain IOC president at the time, Juan Antonio Samaranch, resided from there. And hence, the voting was then 'rigged' against Paris. If it wasn't for that main key factor, the Olympic history books would likely have been Paris 1992 instead. 

And both L.A. & San Fran beat Lyon. Lyon (metropolitan-wise) is nothing but a mere fraction that of both California's big cities to comfortably handle a 21st century Olympics.

[Quaker2001]

23 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

First of all, the IOC wouldn't be choosing between Paris and Lyon. Lyon could be perfectly capable of hosting. And Barcelona was kind of a nothing city until they hosted in 1992. 1992 is what made Barcelona what it is today.

Lyon beats Los Angeles. San Francisco beats Lyon.

There are a lot of cities that are perfectly capable of hosting.  The subset of that list of cities that actually stand a realistic chance of getting elected by the IOC is a lot smaller.  Do you see any scenario where France puts up Lyon over Paris?  You're right the IOC doesn't make that choice, but France is still going to put forward the city they feel is most likely to win, just like the USOC is for 2024.  And for 2024, their best bet is Los Angeles.  Just like France's best bet is Paris and you just illustrated for us why they wouldn't put up Lyon.  If Lyon would lose to San Francisco (I think they're lose to LA as well), but Paris would beat them, that's the only reason they need to make that decision.

And as for Barcelona, which I visited a few years ago and is now 1 of my favorite cities in the world.. yes, it was an industrial backwater for much of the 20th century, especially during the Franco era.  But they were in the conversation to host an Olympics long before Samaranch came into power.  Probably would have been in the running a lot sooner if not for the political strife there.

[Quaker2001]

13 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

By the way, what's with the snide comment about Canada. What, you think Canada was some backwater in 1990?

No, but they're the country that gave the IOC Montreal 1976.  In the context of selecting a host for 1996, that's a world of difference from the United States whose most recent hosting, albeit 8 years more recent, was Los Angeles 1984.

[FYI]

52 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

How many times did they lose and still come back for the next cycle?  Contrast that with France which didn't. 

More than that.. the U.S. also has multiple cities on the summer side they can put forward.  Easier for them to regroup and try with another city, ill-advised as that might be, rather than France which at this point has 1 and only 1 city they should ever consider putting forward.

Precisely why the U.S. has been able to bid more often than any other country, bcuz of multiple cities that can? So how is that France's fault? They've bid as often enough as respectively possible. Lyon back in 1968 could've hosted the Olympics. But the IOC chose a bigger statement by taking the Games for the first time to Latin America.

"Munich didn't stop Moscow from bidding for 1976.  Barcelona didn't stop Manchester and Belgrade and Athens from bidding for 1996.  And then Paris in 2008 after Athens."

^

57 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Athens' simply bid for '96 bcuz they thought that they were "entitled" for the Centennial. Paris bid for 2008 knowing full well that it was Beijing's, but they wanted to have a "warm-up" bid to follow up for the sure thing of 2012, & just in case China were to "fu@k up", then France would be there to snag the Games, kinda like Sydney did for 2000. Manchester, & especially Belgrade, were long shot odds to begin with, & were mainly there as fodder.