Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The rest of the proposal seems logical, was hoping for rowing to be in Castaic because i'm from Santa Clarita however i think it's too small

I was kinda secretly hoping that somehow the Long Beach Marine Stadium would be used for rowing/canoeing, being that it was the location for rowing back in 1932, but I'm pretty sure it no longer meets current Olympic specs. Plus, there's too much development around it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most important is that they have the full support of our residents (is there numbers for approval percentage of residents from the 4 candidates?)

The USOC polling a mere 600 city residents hardly constitutes as "full support". Especially when all was asked in the poll was a simple, generic - "would you like L.A. to host the Olympic Games in 2024". All that is, is a simple yes or no question without getting into any fundamentals of the whole process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC polling a mere 600 city residents hardly constitutes as "full support". Especially when all was asked in the poll was a simple, generic - "would you like L.A. to host the Olympic Games in 2024". All that is, is a simple yes or no question without getting into any fundamentals of the whole process.

FYI do you know what kind of polling the other bidding cities did? Were they more thorough than the polling the USOC did for LA? Do the NOCs have to follow certain polling guidelines established by the IOC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think LA may have shot themselves in the foot by using almost exclusively existing venues. I would like to see how the Olympics are going to change the city, London had the Stratford regeneration and Rio first city in South America and creation of new sports complexes. LA will just use a bunch of venues to host an Olympics who can shout loud and proud "we are the cheapest, pick us".

What is the legacy of that? What impact would the 2024 Olympics actually have on the city?

By opting for the cheapest option, they may not have created the most inspirational or significant bid. This potentially leaves the door open to the European cities, Paris can shout about existing venues, but they are investing in new venues and taking advantage of iconic landmarks with temporary venues. Rome is the balance of new venues, history and existing infrastructure, the historical elements are more likely to inspire IOC members than LA's bid. Finally, Budapest, venues complete opposite, but you can see the strong legacy and appeal, first Olympics in the region, smaller sized city, a strong zone and cluster masterplan and good use of the limited existing venues.

Like Bach said, all the cities embraced agenda 2020, but LA have gone too far that they have lost the inspirational part of their bid, which may cost them when push comes to shove.

I think the biggest legacy for LA won't come in as stadium-shaped, but rather in the shape of green space and public plazas. Instead of renovating or replacing already decent venues, the committee's focusing on making something that the community wants: less cement, more parks. The Olympics would, according to the organizers, transform the areas around venues, their clusters, and entire streets into revitalized new public space buzzing with new life and activity, like an Emerald necklace, but mixed use and Olympic/sport-oriented. Sure, it may not be as spectacular as some shiny new stadiums, but they're delivering what the community wants (rather than what the Olympics [previously] wanted). This, coupled with other projects already underway (LA River, the 101 park, etc) could certainly give people the excuse to say "Yup, the Olympics did all this to LA."

FYI do you know what kind of polling the other bidding cities did? Were they more thorough than the polling the USOC did for LA? Do the NOCs have to follow certain polling guidelines established by the IOC?

Hamburg had a pretty in depth survey iirc, with all its multi-paged, 1-10 ranking goodness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would feel sorry for you, but you are Canadian so life already spat in your face

We're all enjoying sitting back and watching your country fall apart from above as you rally behind your retarded political candidates. No spit on my face.

Edited by ofan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was gonna say, I'm sure what's considered a "marquee" sport is subjective. I know *I* watch beach volleyball on TV during the Olympics, and it's not so much because of the iconic locations, but the uh, hotties. ;)

Oh yes indeed. There's the flesh. There's always the flesh. So much part of it's perfect for TV appeal.

It's subjective when we're talking about events like curling, snowboarding, bowling, boxing, wushu, fencing, surfing, golf, badminton & beach volleyball, etc. But there's no denying that the traditional big events of gymnastics, swimming/diving, T&F, figure skating, ice hockey, luge, & skiing, etc at their respective Games *are* the Olympic marquee events that generate the most spectators, revenues & media coverage. Not the "subjective" ones.

You see, I'd regard your list of the marquee sports as subjective still. I wouldn't disagree with you that the big three of the SOGs are T&F, swimming and gymnastics, but I think the only two winter sports with that status are figure skating and skiing. They're the only ones that really have much widespread traction and interest beyond the traditional northern winter countries. The others IMO are more usually considered winter novelties outside the games. But of course that's my personal view from the Antipodes.

I think BV stands head and shoulders above the other summer sports you named in terms of its games status. It's by far been the most successful "recent" sport added to the SOG roster. It's really stamped itself an a capital O rolled gold Olympic sport and one of the big games events. It's just made for TV, and is also burnishing a reputation as one of the more fun and popular to attend. It's definitely an A grade ticket to snare, not one of the minor sports to pick up to fill in gaps in your visit schedule.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BV stands head and shoulders above the other summer sports you named in terms of its games status. It's by far been the most successful "recent" sport added to the SOG roster. It's really stamped itself an a capital O rolled gold Olympic sport and one of the big games events. It's just made for TV, and is also burnishing a reputation as one of the more fun and popular to attend. It's definitely an A grade ticket to snare, not one of the minor sports to pick up to fill in gaps in your visit schedule.

And BV has a TREMENDOUS worldwide following. The AVP tour alone plays in nearly all the MAJOR countries and continents. I'd say, both in terms of live audiences and TV ratings, BV beats golf by a mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI do you know what kind of polling the other bidding cities did? Were they more thorough than the polling the USOC did for LA? Do the NOCs have to follow certain polling guidelines established by the IOC?

I doubt it. The IOC carries out its own polling closer to the vote anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you use historical reference. A successful LA games had cities lining up to host the games again. I'd venture to say that would probably entice Paris to bid again. IMO, LA has this one in the bag.

If you think for one second that Paris, or any other European capital for that matter, could be ‘enticed’ into bidding again after a fourth upset then you are living in cloud cuckoo land!

Most posters on this MB have perfectly well understood from the word ‘go’ that what is at stake today for the IOC is the very survival of the SOGs in Europe.

The IOC knows, as it’s been said and repeated here, that LA would bid again in 2028 or even 2032.

Paris wouldn’t.

And probably neither would any other European A lister.

Any other aspect of the bid is just hot air…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most posters on this MB have perfectly well understood from the word ‘go’ that what is at stake today for the IOC is the very survival of the SOGs in Europe.

I think that's an over-exaggeration. But Paris does offer a huge opportunity to get continental Europe properly back on board again. I don't think it's an opportunity easily passed up. Especially, as you say, if LA looks likely to bid again for 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's surely a great argument. However, the very fabric of the games and sports in general is threatened by this. From any angle that's considered poor sportsmanship. Sore losers. LA's determination itself speaks to the Olympic spirit.

Call it what you will. Other parties too know when to turn around, call it quits and move on. One could say that LA seems to be the IOC's lap dog -- I'd say not very complimentary either. It doesn't make one better than the other yet. You sound so desperate . . .

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's an over-exaggeration. But Paris does offer a huge opportunity to get continental Europe properly back on board again. I don't think it's an opportunity easily passed up. Especially, as you say, if LA looks likely to bid again for 2028.

-it is

-so London did nothing for the greater euro-olympig-cause

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, I'm still dumbfounded by the Paris bid logo. What a huge oversight. How do you put your main rivals initials into your logo and not catch that??

Only if you’re cross-eyed and overdid the moonshine!!

It’s just as daft as saying that LA chose Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic, as its logo.

What a huge oversight……

dab0202e009c09750f1edf30fd7e81cc.jpg

:P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-so London did nothing for the greater euro-olympig-cause

I think London 2012 is highly regarded and showed after Beijing that there is still life in Western democracies hosting (if you remember, so many doom-mongers said there was no point London even trying after Beijing's effort). But nevertheless I think 2012 provides a double edged sword for future hosts:

Because of the sheer size of London it was - bizarrely - a Games which was both huge in scale (comparable with Athens really in terms of spend), yet nevertheless not irresponsible or OTT for the host city

It showed a Games didn't need to be gargantuan in size, but 2012 was a Games in a big city with everything that goes with that. It did nothing for the hopes of smaller European capitals.

I certainly think Paris has looked at London and said, "yeah, we can do that!". Smaller cities, however, might look at London and think £9bn, no thanks!

That's also why all the talk in this thread about LA offering a "new model" is silly imho. An LA Games will show that Los Angeles can host the Games responsibly, but you won't necessarily be able to transfer what they're planning to smaller cities or those with fewer facilities.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I am about to make is not on which bid is better than the other, it is on the simple fact that neither Paris nor LA will be returning to bid for 2028 if they were to lose

Every time I read the argument that LA would just bid again in 2028 or 2032 if they were to lose 2024, I feel like we are forgetting that the US, previously lost twice and though LA might be willing to bid again the USOC might not give them the opportunity to bid again after a third loss. It's safe to say Paris and the French OC won't bid again on the same principle with 5 losses. You lose enough times you step back from the process and revaluate. I feel for the big dogs after you lose 2 or 3 you kind of take a good break from bidding

Personally I think the loss of 2016 was a major PR blow to the USOC, especially coming off the lesser loss of NY2012. 2016's loss was such a national thing that it really cast a shadow over US ambitions for the games, cause surely if you can't win the bid as the obvious, strongest candidate then how can you? I just think if LA loses the 2024 games it's not going to be "lets bid again next cycle." I don't think even Angelino's will be polling in the 50 percentile to do it again. Lord knows the USOC won't be excited to go through the process yet again so soon especially after the Boston fiasco and with other variables like Australia and probably Toronto coming into play.

And we have to dispel this notion that because LA consistently puts it's name in the hat for the domestic leg means that they will keep doing it after a loss for the big prize. Yes they bid consistently to get the right to be the US candidate city but now that they are and have done their homework and have really and truly put together the strongest bid that they can with the resources they have, they're not going to do this again and the USOC will not go through this again. They're going to sit 2028 out and then if South Africa puts in for 2032 then most likely they'll sit that out as well.

I say all of this not to say LA deserves the 2024 games more than Paris or that they should get it cause they won't bid again. That is not the point I just think for both of these cities this is it for the while. Neither are coming back for the next cycle due to their NOC'S fatigue of past failed bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we have to dispel this notion that because LA consistently puts it's name in the hat for the domestic leg means that they will keep doing it after a loss for the big prize.

LA has the SCCOG - the So. Calfiornia Committee for the Olympic Games. It is a de facto USOC whose main objective is to keep on bidding UNTIL they get the Games again. Positions in this org are passed down from father to son. It is assured that LA will keep bidding ad infinitum! Don't you think the IOC knows about them? If the IOC says skip, the SCCOG will jump. If voting between LA and Paris were the last thing I would do in my lifetime -- and knowing that LA just hosted 32 years ago, and that country hosted again in 12 years -- and Paris has NOT since 92 years ago, I would cast my vote for the more beautiful city of Paris, regardless if LA had 100 stadia. (And I do like El-lay as well...but if Paris goes wrong, then we go to LA.) But Paris is NO Athens (in terms of preps). ;)

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely the USOC knows that if they sit out, they open the door to Toronto. And in a scenario where Durban waits till 2022 before deciding what to do, Toronto is representing a continent which won't have hosted for 32 years, & would surely be the one to beat, with Asia fatigue, Africa waiting, Europe out, & South America too recent, perhaps only Australia could stop them. And if Toronto did win that race, the US is MEGA screwed where the Summer games are concerned. I don't think the USOC is unaware of this, so I can't see them letting it happen, whatever happens in 2017.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I am about to make is not on which bid is better than the other, it is on the simple fact that neither Paris nor LA will be returning to bid for 2028 if they were to lose

Every time I read the argument that LA would just bid again in 2028 or 2032 if they were to lose 2024, I feel like we are forgetting that the US, previously lost twice and though LA might be willing to bid again the USOC might not give them the opportunity to bid again after a third loss. It's safe to say Paris and the French OC won't bid again on the same principle with 5 losses. You lose enough times you step back from the process and revaluate. I feel for the big dogs after you lose 2 or 3 you kind of take a good break from bidding

Personally I think the loss of 2016 was a major PR blow to the USOC, especially coming off the lesser loss of NY2012. 2016's loss was such a national thing that it really cast a shadow over US ambitions for the games, cause surely if you can't win the bid as the obvious, strongest candidate then how can you? I just think if LA loses the 2024 games it's not going to be "lets bid again next cycle." I don't think even Angelino's will be polling in the 50 percentile to do it again. Lord knows the USOC won't be excited to go through the process yet again so soon especially after the Boston fiasco and with other variables like Australia and probably Toronto coming into play.

And we have to dispel this notion that because LA consistently puts it's name in the hat for the domestic leg means that they will keep doing it after a loss for the big prize. Yes they bid consistently to get the right to be the US candidate city but now that they are and have done their homework and have really and truly put together the strongest bid that they can with the resources they have, they're not going to do this again and the USOC will not go through this again. They're going to sit 2028 out and then if South Africa puts in for 2032 then most likely they'll sit that out as well.

I say all of this not to say LA deserves the 2024 games more than Paris or that they should get it cause they won't bid again. That is not the point I just think for both of these cities this is it for the while. Neither are coming back for the next cycle due to their NOC'S fatigue of past failed bids.

You seem to have the word "fact" confused with the word "opinion." I agree a Paris loss probably means they don't come back. But LA? You mentioned taking a step back to reevaluate. Isn't that precisely with the USOC did after the 2016 loss and now they're back and seem as committed as ever to winning a bid?

That LA has consistently thrown their hat in the ring is a pretty good indication they will continue to do so even if they lose the final vote next summer. We don't know that for sure, but it is far from fact that they won't return for 2028 if they lose 2024. It's not like the competition stands to be that strong then, especially with no South Africa. The US bids in 2012 and 2016 were ill-timed. NYC didn't have the plan to make it happen. And Chicago run into a strong case for Rio and South America. If LA loses 2024 because the majority of IOC voters want Europe, that's not a knock on them, nor is it a reason to give up after 1 try. If they had done that last time, maybe we're talking about the 1984 New York City Olympics instead of LA?

So again, if it's your opinion that this is a 1-shot deal for LA, that's understandable. Don't try to sell to us that somehow it is a given.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA will always try to bid, at least that's what the SCCOG is set upon.

But of course ultimately the decision is the USOC's. It's quite possible that if LA loses 2024, the USOC might want to sit out the Summer Games and concentrate on going for a Winter Olympics.

And of course there's always the possibility that if the USOC wants to pursue another Summer Games, they might not even pick LA as their candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The thing is the reason why the US were not chosen for 2012 and 2016 is only because last time they hosted was 1996! When I hear the LA Mayor say regarding 2024 "it's about time the Games come back to the US". Jee, are you guys aware that the US don't have to host every ten years? There are plenty of countries capable of doing this, and yes, doing this well! Madrid tried a lot (2012, 2016, 2020) but they forgot that Spain hosted in 1992. Too recent (the IOC didn't forget). It woud be insane to give the 2024 Games to a city that hosted TWICE since Paris last hosted. And yes, the IOC needs to go back to Europe, especially after all those negative referendums in European biding cities. After 3 Asian Games. The IOC needs to show they want Europe to host again. And there's no wonder why for this 2024 race there are 3 european cities (4 originally) and 1 American one. It's Europe's time. Deal with it.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...