Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You know once they start putting seating around the archery venue and the spectators fill up those seats, wind won't be that big of a factor. Besides, there's no way to eliminate all of the wind coming in and out of the archery venue, unless you make it an indoor event. If you look at some footage from the last summer olympics you can clearly see the hair of the athletes blowing due to the wind.

Yers, given that allowing for natural conditions is a major part of the skill of archery, you wouldn't want an indoor venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said the same thing about the Bostonians and look where that brought us ;-;

Yeah, they were put in their place even sooner. Maybe we'll get lucky again.

Though TBH, at least the LA guys here are far more realistic and have a much better argument to make than the Bostonian's ever did. Regardless of IOC voting, LA is a strong city with a good bid. It in someway is a little refreshing and attempts to put a new more modern face on the city.

Boston was plain stupid. I felt most of the time I was watching a Presidential campaign they had so many 'town halls' and so many incompetent bid leaders. LA is much more organized, popular, and forward thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston was plain stupid.

Well, it was the composition of the USOC Executive Board (which leaned heavily in the choice of Boston) --and wanting to try a new city in ANOTHER part of the country that's never held it, is completely understandalbe. And as I and a few others here have held, Boston was really too small to host something like this -- and their citizenry's thinking was the same. They didn't want and weren't ready for the big time. Apparently, they're happy with their annual marathon. It was NOT stupid. It was just misguided strategy, just as the USOC passed up the chance to win 2022 which should have been theirs for the asking. You'd think for all the years that Blackmun and Probst have been rubbin shoulders with those IOCers -- or at least the US has FOUR IOC'ers, they could come up with some sane consensus. but no. They've come up with ill-timed, wasteful bids. Again, they didn't ask me. :P

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

From KPCC/scpr.org:

88 percent of LA residents want the Olympics, poll finds

Ben Bergman

3 hours ago

Eighty-eight percent of Los Angeles County residents want Los Angeles to host the 2024 Olympics, according to the results of a new poll conducted by Loyola Marymount University and sponsored in part by KPCC.

It's the first major independent survey gauging local Olympic support, and the percentage is even higher than the results from an internal poll conducted by Olympic organizers last year, which revealed 81 percent of L.A. residents support hosting the Games.

“Across the board, everybody is just very supportive," said Brianne Gilbert, associate director at the Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles at LMU, which gauged support for the Olympics as part of its annual public opinion survey of L.A. County.

"This is really something Angelenos want to see in L.A," said Gilbert. "The support is really phenomenal.”

Most of those who want the games to return to Southern California cited economic reasons, with 31 percent saying an economic boost was the top reason why L.A. should host the Olympics, and 18 percent citing a boost in job creation. (Although as KPCC has reported before, many economists say the actual economic impact Olympics have on cities is small.)

Those who don't want the Olympics cited traffic congestion (21 percent) followed closely by the cost (20 percent.)

Of those who support a 2024 Olympics in Los Angeles, 56 percent are "strongly supportive" while 32 percent are "somewhat supportive."

Telephone interviews were conducted during the first six weeks of the year. The survey had a margin of error of ±3.0% and used sampling so that the 2,425 respondents represent the demographics of Los Angeles county. However, researchers found almost no differences between groups, which Gilbert says is very unusual.

"I’ve never seen that in any survey I’ve done," said Gilbert. "There was no demographic or geographic group that had less than 80 percent support for the Olympics."

Los Angeles is competing against Rome, Paris and Budapest to host the 2024 Olympics. The International Olympic Committee will make its selection in 2017.

Source: KPCC/scpr.org

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again, LA controls the Olympic conversation. The IOC is in dire need to regain control of that conversation because as it stands it starts and ends with cost and overruns.

No; it does not. The IOC does. Can LA 2024 attract over 53 voters over Paris next year? That 88% figure doesn't count for much if you can't grab at least 54 votes.

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

I've said it before and I'll say it again, LA controls the Olympic conversation. The IOC is in dire need to regain control of that conversation because as it stands it starts and ends with cost and overruns.

It didn't control it enough to get ahead of Boston. It's got to do a better much job of controlling the conversation than it's done so far to get ahead of Paris.

I seem to recall Moscow having support figures in that range for their 2012 bid too.

LA is capable of winning, but let's not stray into hyperbole again. LA is a strong competitor, nothing more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know this hinders LA's chances for 2024 right? High level of support now = public ok with bidding again for 2028 if they lose = free rein to pick a city that the IOC want, but will never bid again if they lose = Paris 24 & LA 28 = a no-brainer :)

Bingo.

The IOC will be more inclined to just come back next time around, and the USOC will be more than happy to put up a bid in 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again, LA controls the Olympic conversation. The IOC is in dire need to regain control of that conversation because as it stands it starts and ends with cost and overruns.

You're not understanding. In the world at large the conversation about the Olymoics among people and potential host cities the conversation is not good. By comparison in LA the conversation is a little different, hence the 88%. What Angelinod feel is what the IOC needs the world to feel. What the city of LA feels is what other cities need to feel. But this theory is already proven in LA. LA was awarded 1984 because nobody wanted to bid, and after LA cities lined up to bid again. LA clearly knows how to have and spread this conversation in a positive manner and it's not just proven it in 1984, but sustains it in 2016 as evidenced by this poll.

You keep talking about this very vague and abstract concept, yet you rarely seem to stray outside of this LA thread, so how can we take these comments at face value if you don't know (or don't care) about the competition LA is up against? Baron is 100% correct. Come next summer, the question will be a choice. Do enough of the IOC voters want to pick LA over Paris (or Rome or Budapest). Good for LA that they have strong support. But that's THEIR conversation, not the IOC's. I'll say it again.. that's why you cannot view these Olympic bids in a vacuum. Because when the day of decision comes, they'll be measured up against one another. And we will have to ask the question - just as the IOC will - how does it stack up against Paris. Not how does LA stack up against itself and its own history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the first time ever, I'm actually inclined to agree with this 'y' handle. Makes absolute sense. Right now, French support for the 2024 Olympics is pretty decent, somewhere in the 70's. But that would surely plummet drastically if they were to lose yet again & wouldn't come back for 2028. If L.A.'s support is so "high" now, much easier for them to come back & bid again (which they usually do, anyway). The IOC needs (to engage) Europe now more than they need the U.S. at the moment. That's where their 'brand' is lagging & needs the most work. The IOC could have their cake & eat it too with this one. It's truly a no brainer for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know this hinders LA's chances for 2024 right? High level of support now = public ok with bidding again for 2028 if they lose = free rein to pick a city that the IOC want, but will never bid again if they lose = Paris 24 & LA 28 = a no-brainer :)

Bingo.

The IOC will be more inclined to just come back next time around, and the USOC will be more than happy to put up a bid in 2028.

No, not bingo. Folks here need to get out of the mindset that the IOC is going to choose the city that will be the least butthurt by a loss and use that against LA. The case for Paris is not (nor should it be) "they might not bid again so we have to pick them for 2024." I understand there's an argument that the IOC needs to restore its reputation in Europe and choose a city there they believe will succeed and yes, that works in favor of Paris. But I can't look at the support numbers for LA and think that it's in any way a bad thing for them, even though the odds are high they'd return for 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, I don't think this is processing with you guys. Someone at Gamesbids wrote about it, and I have to agree with someone who probably actually has a long history following games than those who are pretty much just a screen name.

Right, cuz you're such a "whiz" at it, yet you've never discovered this site before until just a few months ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conversation I'm talking about is that that the public at large is having, not the IOC. The IOC is well aware that even though they have the power to choose, they lost the power in the conversation.

Anyhow, I don't think this is processing with you guys. Someone at Gamesbids wrote about it, and I have to agree with someone who probably actually has a long history following games than those who are pretty much just a screen name.

Kinda like RuFF is just a screen name? A screen name that only seems to show up in 1 thread about LA and not the others? Compared to the rest of us who at least have been around here long enough to have seen things play out from more than 1 Olympic bid cycle and more than 1 city.

Again, good for the conversation the public is having. Yes, there's a point to that where the IOC has a bad reputation these days as proven by the 2022 bid. But guess what.. 3 European cities, including 2 very notable ones, plus 1 US city are in the running for 2024. We're not ignoring that, but you want to spin that into this idea that because LA has support and a good bid, who cares what any other city has to offer. Paris has a strong case too. We know you keep harping on how LA is an ideal example of Agenda 2020 ideals and you're right that counts for a lot. But you continue to want to dismiss and/or ignore the geopolitical forces in this that move the needle in Paris's favor because the IOC has lost power in that conversation. The way for them to regain control and restore their reputation is to choose a European city, not to reject a good one. For all that Boston did to give rise to opposition groups (including the 1 that took down Hamburg's bid), that hasn't happened with Paris. They support the Olympics right now and that's all the IOC needs to see to feel confident about selecting them.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/one-year-later-bachs-agenda-2020-is-losing-to-a-more-powerful-brand/

I assume that's the story RuFF is referring to. Mentions a paragraph on LA. Says nothing about Paris. But no, let's continue to view LA's bid as if they are the only one out there and no other city is even in the running that might be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA playing to its strengths here:

Kobe Bryant, Will Ferrell and Jessica Alba lead a cast of local celebrities in a new video pitching Los Angeles for the 2024 Summer Olympics.

The 2 1/2-minute spot, titled "Where will you be in 2024?", was released Wednesday by LA 2024, the private committee that is orchestrating the bid.

Familiar scenes of the city's skyline and beaches are interlaced with snippets of young people skateboarding, rowing and fencing. Restaurateur Roy Choi makes an appearance. Mayor Eric Garcetti dribbles a soccer ball down a hallway at City Hall.

"In 2024, we'll finally be in flying cars," Ferrell says. "I know that for a fact."

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder the forum has an ignore feature if you want to use it.

That must be a feature for paying members because I've never seen it. Either way, why ignore anybody? For the most part some people's posts are too damn hilarious to overlook. It does get annoying if the same BS is repeated over and over again.

And I like that video. It reminds me a lot of like Tokyo's video where it focused mostly on the people rather than the scenery, like Madrid's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you guys come up with this stuff but I guess. But yea, that's the article I'm talking about. And while hallucinations can lead anybody to believe I haven't followed the games because I didn't engage in this thread or others, that hardly means anything. Those are assumptions but I guess. That said Paris has a strong bid and geopolitics play a role. But from LA's bid there's a magic that was present in the Rio bid. I'd go as far as to say Istanbul had that magic even though they didn't win. London and Paris didn't really have magic for 2012, that was with New York but they couldn't get their shhh together. But I haven't followed the games because I didn't engage in this forum. Also because I don't engage in Paris' thread, though I do read it to learn, I am a newbie. At the same time somehow I have foresight to speak of things that can be shot down only to have someone present an article about it. All pie in the sky I am, newbie and all. Whatever floats your arguments, except that I'm not sure you guys are living in reality convincing yourself of what I must know. Damn.

You're the one who came in and insulted the rest of us that we lack the understanding of this issue. But no, as long as it makes sense to you, it must be the rest of us that don't get it. Alright, let me attempt to get past the snark and try to have a civil discussion with you on this.

LA does control *the* Olympic conversation. They're controlling *their* conversation. Unlike many of the cities that have seen failed Olympic efforts, those in LA who want the bid to succeed are doing a better job than those who want it to fail. That's noteworthy for them, but it ignores the other cities involved who also are not failing, such as Paris. It also doesn't mean they're some sort of automatic choice simply because they seemingly have a well run bid. That's where your lack of participation in non-LA threads calls into question your knowledge of the bigger Olympic picture beyond LA.

To me, talking about controlling the conversation is more about which cities (and the IOC itself) that aren't doing it. Boston obviously being the main one and then all the failed bids that followed. It's too early to tell if LA is controlling anything outside their own sphere. All we know is that they're succeeding where other cities have failed. That's not saying much. Nor does it say anything of what it will mean for them come decision day.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said Paris has a strong bid and geopolitics play a role. But from LA's bid there's a magic that was present in the Rio bid. I'd go as far as to say Istanbul had that magic even though they didn't win. London and Paris didn't really have magic for 2012, that was with New York but they couldn't get their shhh together.

With all due respect, from someone who keeps insisting they're trying to give an "objective" view, that's one of the most incredibly subjective assessments I've seen of the past few bid cycles ever. Yeah, we're all human - we of course have our own personal favourites and levels of engagements with the various bidding cities. But to say LA has the magic that was present in Rio??? Really??? I was very caught up myself in the Rio allure, but I fail to feel anything similar with LA. To me, and possibly many non-Californians it's, I'm sorry to say, merely a ho hum LA bid, again, for a third hosting. Certainly no "magic" stirring my anticipation at all. More the thought IMO, that they have a nice workmanlike bid that's trying to play to current fashionable concerns about sustainability and which should provide a solid competitor to Paris. And personally it's the thought of Paris snaring the 2024 games that's the one that gives me feelings of "magic". You're said before that most of the arguments in favour of Paris here are mere sentiment. Well, I believe that your summations of LA's strengths are all too often merely home town sentiment as well.

On to the others. Istanbul, for its part, certainly had the allure ands attraction of an exotic new frontier but didn't really market itself well IMO, and shot itself in the foot to the point that months out from the vote it was pretty clear it wouldn't cut it. NYC may also have had the new location appeal, but even before it sabotaged its chances with its stadium debacle was fast losing the battle for my personal heart and mind in favour of London. I still think London's bid is one of the great casebook studies of how to successfully market and build an exciting aura about a bid city. London was the 2012 bid city that won my personal support through its "magic".

I'm not saying my thoughts above are anything but subjective either. But they're just as valid a summation of those bid cycles as yours - in other words, anything but objective.

It's obvious you're a passionate believer and supporter of LA's 2024 bid. Nothing wrong with that at all. Good on you for being so passionate and believing so strongly in your city's chances.. But remember, such partisanship never goes down well here. There are too many people here, many of us who have followed and studies bid races in depth for decades as well and like to look at these races as an intellectual game testing our insights and theories into Olympic bidding and IOC politics, to buy too heavily into the marketing hype.

BTW - If you are trying to seriously mount an objective argument that LA has the "magic" factor that will see it triumph, you do realise that in your own examples of three bid races you're saying that "magic" just doesn't cut it 66 per cent of the time. And that's by your "objective" assessment.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 2
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...