Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's funny to me that people think it was the Olympics that totally remade Barcelona.  It was already on its way to becoming what it is now; the Olympics were just the icing on the cake.

Barcelona wasn't the dismal place everyone makes it out to be pre-Olympics.  It suffered during the Franco era mainly because the Catalans were suppressed culturally and linguistically by Franco and his convoluted Spanish nationalism.  But it was still the 2nd largest city in Spain, and attracted poor people from rural areas.

If you look at any guidebook to Spain from the Franco era, many of them say to skip boring Madrid and instead go to Barcelona.  So the tourism to Barcelona goes way back well before the 1992 Olympics.  Even now, I think Barcelona is a much more interesting city than Madrid, certainly architecturally so, and Catalan culture is very different from Castilian culture.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

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.  

A lot of those Canadians have been around here just as long as both you & I. So it definitely isn't bcuz they haven't been on here long enough to know otherwise.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

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.

Well, I've been saying lately, can you just imagine a 2028 North American showdown between Truff & Co's L.A. & Canada's Toronto?! THAT would be classic!! The only thing that would make it even better, is throw in Madrid & it would be EPIC!!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

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.

And in the future, what, France always and forever only bids with Paris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

You just cannot compare Montreal and Los Angeles. Two totally different situations. I'm so sick of this mytholgical aura L.A. '84 has developed since then. It's so overrated. 

How are they different?  Explain that to us.  I wasn't alive in 1976 and wasn't old enough to remember the LA Olympics, but are you saying it's been blown out of proportion that Montreal's Olympics were a financial disaster and LA's were financially successful?  I know there's reasons behind why those both happened that aren't related to each other, but to the point we started discussing this.. in 1990, the IOC had a bid from the United States and a bid from Canada.  Similar situations with completely different cities from both countries, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the American success versus the Canadian lack of success with hosting their respective Olympics didn't play a factor into the vote for 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

And in the future, what, France always and forever only bids with Paris?

Not forever, but in the foreseeable future, they're only going with Paris.  Should Paris win 2024, then maybe 30 or 40 years from now when they bid for another Summer Olympics, it's Lyon or another city.  In the here and now though, I can't see Lyon over-taking Paris and France would be making a potentially fatal error if they made that decision.  And that's not a knock on Lyon so much as an acknowledgement that Paris gives them a much better chance at winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

How are they different?  Explain that to us.  I wasn't alive in 1976 and wasn't old enough to remember the LA Olympics, but are you saying it's been blown out of proportion that Montreal's Olympics were a financial disaster and LA's were financially successful?  I know there's reasons behind why those both happened that aren't related to each other, but to the point we started discussing this.. in 1990, the IOC had a bid from the United States and a bid from Canada.  Similar situations with completely different cities from both countries, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the American success versus the Canadian lack of success with hosting their respective Olympics didn't play a factor into the vote for 1990.

Awww, you weren't alive in '76? I was a kid but I remember seeing Nadia score her perfect 10's. And L.A. '84 is clear as day for me.

Anyway, you seem to already know the answers to your own question. You just like arguing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

I'm so sick of this mytholgical aura L.A. '84 has developed since then. It's so overrated. 

It's very well-documented, like it or not.

Unlike Atlanta, where complaints in the media and from the IOC are well-known, nobody seems to have complained about the 1984 Olympics in LA; no complaints in the media about the venues, the transportation, the ugliness, the freeways, the sprawl, etc., no complaints from people who attended, nor from the IOC.

I lived through the 1984 Olympics and have very good memories of it; I was 14 at the time, and it was fun knowing they were going on in my hometown.  They ran smoothly; no complaints from my dad, who commuted to downtown LA, or my mom, who commuted to Long Beach.  So honestly, I could care less if LA ever hosts again in my lifetime, I wish it wasn't bidding for 2024.  Give them to Paris already.  Or Budapest, I'd actually love to see a Budapest Olympics, it's the only 2024 bid city I haven't been to.  But I wouldn't say that LA's bid for 2024 is a weak one. 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

Awww, you weren't alive in '76? I was a kid but I remember seeing Nadia score her perfect 10's. And L.A. '84 is clear as day for me.

Anyway, you seem to already know the answers to your own question. You just like arguing.

 

You threw out the "Canada could have done what the US did" and don't seem to have much to back that up. Clearly certain host selections are a sore spot for you. I don't know why that is, but you seem to want to talk about how things could be or should be instead of what they are. You're on an internet discussion forum. What else did you think would happen here. You've been arguing back all day. Uhh.. thanks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RuFF said:

For as much as one can say it's France'a or Europes turn I'm not really sold on that idea.

It goes beyond who has hosted when though. You brought up the 3 straight Olympics in Asia. That's certainly not by design. 

The question is where is the IOC best served awarded their quadrennial event for 2024. The answer isn't so simple as looking at previous hosts. And if you're making the argument that Europe should count as a single entity, so too can the argument be made that it's not an France on its own versus the United States is what counts

Either way, there are geopolitical forces at work that likely work in favor of Paris. The troubles with Rome's bid probably further that rather than shifting the needle towards LA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You threw out the "Canada could have done what the US did" and don't seem to have much to back that up. Clearly certain host selections are a sore spot for you. I don't know why that is, but you seem to want to talk about how things could be or should be instead of what they are. You're on an internet discussion forum. What else did you think would happen here. You've been arguing back all day. Uhh.. thanks?

Atlanta just disgusted me and I'm not a great fan of L.A. What an ugly awful place it was to host the games in. But they had no choice. It was that or no games that year. I also moved to L.A. in 1988. Some of the "look" was even still up around the Coliseum (though trashed). I remember looking around and thinking "I can't believe they hosted here" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aquatic said:

Atlanta just disgusted me and I'm not a great fan of L.A. What an ugly awful place it was to host the games in. But they had no choice. It was that or no games that year. I also moved to L.A. in 1988. Some of the "look" was even still up around the Coliseum (though trashed). I remember looking around and thinking "I can't believe they hosted here" 

Where exactly did you live in LA?  And how long did you live in LA, if I may ask? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aquatic said:

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

Don't let bernham or LatinXTC read that! :lol:

4 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I know there's reasons behind why those both happened that aren't related to each other, but to the point we started discussing this.. in 1990, the IOC had a bid from the United States and a bid from Canada.  Similar situations with completely different cities from both countries, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the American success versus the Canadian lack of success with hosting their respective Olympics didn't play a factor into the vote for 1990.

The irony in that though, a lot of the articles that I've read from that time, was that the 'conventional wisdom' of the IOC back then was to award Toronto 1996, Beijing 2000 & an "American city" 2004. Needless to say, though, that none of that panned out that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aquatic said:

And yes, Atlanta had nothing over Toronto other than bribes and Coke.

Actually, Atlanta also had Delta airlines, Home Depot & CNN. So that's quite a hefty, corporate line up, even for Atlanta at the time. Not to mention, they had a very tenacious bid leader & mayor, that were also selling themselves as the birthplace of MLK, & that they were a 'progressive, African-American city', & the bid team were trying to court many of the African IOC members. I guess that's where some of the "bribes" came into play.

But back then, every bidding city was playing that game, not just Atlanta. Accusations also came later with Nagano 1998 (with "extravagant gift giving" to IOC members, including president JAS), & also Sydney 2000. And then of course, the one that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, Salt Lake 2002, that caused the whole IOC bribery scandal to blow all up in their faces over in Lausanne. So I always laugh when people bring up the "bribes". Bcuz it always takes two to tango anyway. So the IOC is/was just as much at fault as anyone else who played that game with them. Afterall, IOC was had to be the receptive party in order for those bribes to have worked in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FYI said:

Actually, Atlanta also had Delta airlines, Home Depot & CNN. So that's quite a hefty, corporate line up, even for Atlanta at the time. Not to mention, they had a very tenacious bid leader & mayor, that were also selling themselves as the birthplace of MLK, & that they were a 'progressive, African-American city', & the bid team were trying to court many of the African IOC members. I guess that's where some of the "bribes" came into play.

But back then, every bidding city was playing that game, not just Atlanta. Accusations also came later with Nagano 1998 (with "extravagant gift giving" to IOC members, including president JAS), & also Sydney 2000. And then of course, the one that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, Salt Lake 2002, that caused the whole IOC bribery scandal to blow all up in their faces over in Lausanne. So I always laugh when people bring up the "bribes". Bcuz it always takes two to tango anyway. So the IOC is/was just as much at fault as anyone else who played that game with them. Afterall, IOC was had to be the receptive party in order for those bribes to have worked in the first place.

Oh of course. The IOC is one of the most corrupt, self grandiose, self important, idiotic, asshole organizations in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aquatic said:

Atlanta just disgusted me and I'm not a great fan of L.A. What an ugly awful place it was to host the games in. But they had no choice. It was that or no games that year. I also moved to L.A. in 1988. Some of the "look" was even still up around the Coliseum (though trashed). I remember looking around and thinking "I can't believe they hosted here" 

4 hours ago, Aquatic said:

And yes, Atlanta had nothing over Toronto other than bribes and Coke.

Ahh, so apparently this is somewhat personal for you for some reason.  All this makes a lot more sense now.

Last I checked, "pretty" is not one of the evaluation scores the IOC has (as if those go that far to determine the winner, anyway).  If they can get a city with some iconic locations, that's a bonus.  It's been discussed here.. LA is not big on iconic locations in a way many larger cities are.  Atlanta?  That goes without saying.  More important is can they handle an Olympics.  Do they have the infrastructure?  TV cameras can pick and choose their locations, so even if LA is as awful and ugly as you say it is, the world doesn't have to see that.  If they have stadiums and arenas, not to mention people to support the effort, that's what the IOC cares about.

As for Atlanta versus Toronto, thank you to FYI for pointing out the economic might of a less-than-prominent US city.  The economic might of the United States versus Canada (and yes, some of that is relative to population) probably went a long way for Atlanta.  Economics and politics > attractiveness.  Oh yea, and it's not like they had the market cornered on bribery either..

World: Americas  IOC 'ignored' 1991 corruption warning

Toronto 1996 Olympic organizers deny wrongdoing

Most of what you said about the IOC is true (although FIFA is right up there with them in terms of corrupt organizations).  I understand not agreeing with their decisions and calling them out for it.  I don't understand so much being bothered by it, as you seem to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Ahh, so apparently this is somewhat personal for you for some reason.  All this makes a lot more sense now.

Last I checked, "pretty" is not one of the evaluation scores the IOC has (as if those go that far to determine the winner, anyway).  If they can get a city with some iconic locations, that's a bonus.  It's been discussed here.. LA is not big on iconic locations in a way many larger cities are.  Atlanta?  That goes without saying.  More important is can they handle an Olympics.  Do they have the infrastructure?  TV cameras can pick and choose their locations, so even if LA is as awful and ugly as you say it is, the world doesn't have to see that.  If they have stadiums and arenas, not to mention people to support the effort, that's what the IOC cares about.

As for Atlanta versus Toronto, thank you to FYI for pointing out the economic might of a less-than-prominent US city.  The economic might of the United States versus Canada (and yes, some of that is relative to population) probably went a long way for Atlanta.  Economics and politics > attractiveness.  Oh yea, and it's not like they had the market cornered on bribery either..

World: Americas  IOC 'ignored' 1991 corruption warning

Toronto 1996 Olympic organizers deny wrongdoing

Most of what you said about the IOC is true (although FIFA is right up there with them in terms of corrupt organizations).  I understand not agreeing with their decisions and calling them out for it.  I don't understand so much being bothered by it, as you seem to be.

Where do get that it's "personal"? You make a lot of assumptions about people. L.A. is dump, and I dislike the Amercan South, and Texas. But what's so special about that? Everyone has their preferences.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Ahh, so apparently this is somewhat personal for you for some reason.  All this makes a lot more sense now.

Last I checked, "pretty" is not one of the evaluation scores the IOC has (as if those go that far to determine the winner, anyway).  If they can get a city with some iconic locations, that's a bonus.  It's been discussed here.. LA is not big on iconic locations in a way many larger cities are.  Atlanta?  That goes without saying.  More important is can they handle an Olympics.  Do they have the infrastructure?  TV cameras can pick and choose their locations, so even if LA is as awful and ugly as you say it is, the world doesn't have to see that.  If they have stadiums and arenas, not to mention people to support the effort, that's what the IOC cares about.

As for Atlanta versus Toronto, thank you to FYI for pointing out the economic might of a less-than-prominent US city.  The economic might of the United States versus Canada (and yes, some of that is relative to population) probably went a long way for Atlanta.  Economics and politics > attractiveness.  Oh yea, and it's not like they had the market cornered on bribery either..

World: Americas  IOC 'ignored' 1991 corruption warning

Toronto 1996 Olympic organizers deny wrongdoing

Most of what you said about the IOC is true (although FIFA is right up there with them in terms of corrupt organizations).  I understand not agreeing with their decisions and calling them out for it.  I don't understand so much being bothered by it, as you seem to be.

Being so much bothered by it? You exagerrate like there's no tomorrow. 

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...