Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 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.

It's funny but you keep trying to pigeonhole me into the same category and "motives" as apparently is usual of the people around here. You come off as a real "know it all", as in you think you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on Wiki they put down the city of champions stadium for some soccer matches, along with the banc of california stadium, i didnt see it on the bid when did this happened?

those changes are great for the bid. Honda center is a great venue for volleyball, long beach arena is a great venue for handball, i'm not very happy about the new location for Rowing and Canoeing in Lake Perris , was hoping it will be close to home in Castaic.

 

Anyway i understand that politically Paris probably are the leader, however looking at the quality of venues, LA have a clear advantage. Sure the Stade de France is a great stadium for athletics, obviously Roland Garros is better then any tennis venues that LA will present, even if it will move to Indian Wells. Also the velodrome is a much better venue then the velo park in carson (although it will host a world cup in february)

 

However Paris Doesn't have the Staples Center, the Historic Forum, Honda Center, Pauley Pavillion, Santa Monica beach, City of Champions stadium (not to mention a renovated convention center, galen center, microsoft theater, all built pretty recently). Sure you can say that it's been 100 years since Paris hosted, and would be a whole 8 years since europe hosted the summer games, and the whole Donald Trump cloud over our head as well, and overall it might amount to Paris winning. But L.A still have amazing venues, Best among the candidate cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aquatic said:

What differencemdoes it make? I lived in L.A. for more than a decade. I know the city very well. 

Just curious.  LA is a huge place.  

 

8 hours ago, Aquatic said:

L.A. is dump, and I dislike the Amercan South, and Texas. But what's so special about that? Everyone has their preferences.

 

 

LA isn't as much of a dump as Phoenix.  THAT place.  Ever been there?  Now that's a true dump!  It's like the Inland Empire times 100!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Max said:

on Wiki they put down the city of champions stadium for some soccer matches, along with the banc of california stadium, i didnt see it on the bid when did this happened?

those changes are great for the bid. Honda center is a great venue for volleyball, long beach arena is a great venue for handball, i'm not very happy about the new location for Rowing and Canoeing in Lake Perris , was hoping it will be close to home in Castaic.

 

Anyway i understand that politically Paris probably are the leader, however looking at the quality of venues, LA have a clear advantage. Sure the Stade de France is a great stadium for athletics, obviously Roland Garros is better then any tennis venues that LA will present, even if it will move to Indian Wells. Also the velodrome is a much better venue then the velo park in carson (although it will host a world cup in february)

 

However Paris Doesn't have the Staples Center, the Historic Forum, Honda Center, Pauley Pavillion, Santa Monica beach, City of Champions stadium (not to mention a renovated convention center, galen center, microsoft theater, all built pretty recently). Sure you can say that it's been 100 years since Paris hosted, and would be a whole 8 years since europe hosted the summer games, and the whole Donald Trump cloud over our head as well, and overall it might amount to Paris winning. But L.A still have amazing venues, Best among the candidate cities.

I'm very sure that Paris' bid is extremely strong, and I'm curious to know how it's evolving before the final bid submission is due. 

Yeah, I also can't wait until LA's bid is finalized, because it's obviously still evolving.  As someone else here mentioned, at first I didn't see the value in shifting some of the venues around, but apparently it was to appease some international sports federations and to create "Sports Parks."  Apparently, as I've read in some online news articles, containing these venues into almost campus-like areas makes it easier to put a perimeter around them, hence making it easier for security purposes, logistically and cost effectively. 

I'm also disappointed with the new location for Rowing/Canoeing.  I was kinda hoping they could somehow propose the Marine Stadium in Long Beach, site of the 1932 Olympic rowing competition, but I know it would require a lot of money to update it to modern Olympic standards, if it's even possible to do so; there's so much development around there now. 

Once Paris' and LA's bids are finalized, I would like to compare them.  Oh and Budapest's too.  I'm still all for a Budapest win.  :D   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious when you say that? For all the talk around here how L.A. (& to a lesser extent, Paris) are the most ready & least "risky" bid(s), financially speaking, how can Budapest even compare? The Hungarians would have to build virtually everything. It's the total opposite of what Paris & L.A. are offering. 

We saw about ten years ago how a 21st century Olympics left Athens' Olympic venues unused & left to rot. Budapest would face a similar fate. Not to mention, Humgary would more than likely be left scrambling a lot last minute (like Athens & Rio did) trying to get everything done on time. I don't think that the IOC is ready for another headache like that so soon. 

And considering how all the rhetoric now is about being "cost effective", Budapest does even rank compared to the other two bids. Even Rome's bid was more fiscally responsible & they still scrapped the project. Budapest is a fanciful notion, but in the end, that's all it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, FYI said:

Really lmfao? I've never been to Phoenix, but all the people that I hear talk about it, that they've been there, lived there, worked there or what have you, they say how much they love/d it. Never heard it described as a 'dump'.

Trust me, Phoenix is a dump.  It literally is like the Inland Empire X 100.  You have run-down trashy areas where they have houses made out of cinderblock with carports, and then you have newer areas where everything looks like this: 

167899_1380199563682_729609_n.jpg?oh=bb6

It's pretty gross.  It's like Las Vegas without the casinos.  Hehe Vegas, another place I can't stand.

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll take your word for it lol. But what exactly is bad about the inland empire too? I've never been there, either. The only places I've been to in California are San Fran & San Diego. Loved them both. Oh, & Disneyland when I was a kid lol. Also, the only other place I've been to in the southwest is Vegas. And once you leave the Strip, it's pretty blah. So if that's what you're talking about, then I can see what you're talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aquatic said:

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.

9 hours ago, Aquatic said:

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

8 hours ago, Aquatic said:

It's funny but you keep trying to pigeonhole me into the same category and "motives" as apparently is usual of the people around here. You come off as a real "know it all", as in you think you do.

I'm not the one who threw a newspaper down "in disgust" when Atlanta won (I do love that's how you got that news of that).  You said Atlanta disgusted you.  That sounds less like a preference and more like someone who is personally offended by it.  You're the one who seems bothered by it.  Don't think Atlanta deserved to host an Olympics?  No $hit they didn't.  But they did and I can understand the decision at the time given the alternatives, even if it was pretty predictable how that Olympics would play out with the tackiness and over-commercialization.  Between that and your constant railing of LA calls into question your objectivity.  So yea, you're getting pigeonholed, but it's clear your view of history is not exactly unbiased.  A bid from Lyon would beat a bid from Los Angeles?  I sincerely doubt that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

I'm very sure that Paris' bid is extremely strong, and I'm curious to know how it's evolving before the final bid submission is due. 

Yeah, I also can't wait until LA's bid is finalized, because it's obviously still evolving.  As someone else here mentioned, at first I didn't see the value in shifting some of the venues around, but apparently it was to appease some international sports federations and to create "Sports Parks."  Apparently, as I've read in some online news articles, containing these venues into almost campus-like areas makes it easier to put a perimeter around them, hence making it easier for security purposes, logistically and cost effectively. 

I'm also disappointed with the new location for Rowing/Canoeing.  I was kinda hoping they could somehow propose the Marine Stadium in Long Beach, site of the 1932 Olympic rowing competition, but I know it would require a lot of money to update it to modern Olympic standards, if it's even possible to do so; there's so much development around there now. 

Once Paris' and LA's bids are finalized, I would like to compare them.  Oh and Budapest's too.  I'm still all for a Budapest win.  :D   

LA is trying to craft the best bid they can put together (and "best" is pretty subjective, especially when they're trying to play to the IOC's preferences).  The value in shifting things around is that it may give them a slightly better shot at winning.  Appeasing those international entities is pretty important when they are the ones who vote for the winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

Are you serious when you say that? For all the talk around here how L.A. (& to a lesser extent, Paris) are the most ready & least "risky" bid(s), financially speaking, how can Budapest even compare? The Hungarians would have to build virtually everything. It's the total opposite of what Paris & L.A. are offering. 

We saw about ten years ago how a 21st century Olympics left Athens' Olympic venues unused & left to rot. Budapest would face a similar fate. Not to mention, Humgary would more than likely be left scrambling a lot last minute (like Athens & Rio did) trying to get everything done on time. I don't think that the IOC is ready for another headache like that so soon. 

And considering how all the rhetoric now is about being "cost effective", Budapest does even rank compared to the other two bids. Even Rome's bid was more fiscally responsible & they still scrapped the project. Budapest is a fanciful notion, but in the end, that's all it really is.

Honestly, if Budapest could afford it, then I would like to see an Olympics there, for the sheer reason that it has never hosted an Olympics, and I think it would be great to introduce the athletes, international spectators, and the TV viewing audience to Hungarian culture, or at least Budapest landmarks.  But if they can't afford it and it would put them in serious debt, then no, Budapest shouldn't host the Olympics. 

LA is so played out in the media anyway, it's like what awards show HASN'T been televised around the globe from LA; everyone knows what Paris looks like, if not from being there themselves, but from movies and pictures and other media.  I liked watching the Rio Olympics on TV, particularly the marathon and road cycling, because I got to see images of the city itself, the "photogenic" shots, as well as the very ordinary, workaday neighborhoods of Rio, which I found all very interesting.  I thought it was nice that the world got a chance to see a city that really doesn't get much attention, TV-viewing-wise, and learn a little bit about Brazilian culture. 

I wish Budapest could have that opportunity to showcase itself; that's why I would want it to host.  And I would find it more interesting to watch.  Paris, I've been there, done that.  LA, I've already experienced the 1984 Olympics when they came here, let another place host them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

Honestly, if Budapest could afford it, then I would like to see an Olympics there, for the sheer reason that it has never hosted an Olympics, and I think it would be great to introduce the athletes, international spectators, and the TV viewing audience to Hungarian culture, or at least Budapest landmarks.  But if they can't afford it and it would put them in serious debt, then no, Budapest shouldn't host the Olympics. 

LA is so played out in the media anyway, it's like what awards show HASN'T been televised around the globe from LA; everyone knows what Paris looks like, if not from being there themselves, but from movies and pictures and other media.  I liked watching the Rio Olympics on TV, particularly the marathon and road cycling, because I got to see images of the city itself, the "photogenic" shots, as well as the very ordinary, workaday neighborhoods of Rio, which I found all very interesting.  I thought it was nice that the world got a chance to see a city that really doesn't get much attention, TV-viewing-wise, and learn a little bit about Brazilian culture. 

I wish Budapest could have that opportunity to showcase itself; that's why I would want it to host.  And I would find it more interesting to watch.  Paris, I've been there, done that.  LA, I've already experienced the 1984 Olympics when they came here, let another place host them. 

I certainly get what you're saying. I also enjoy watching the marathons, & other outdoor events, precisely for the very reasons you cite. As a big geography buff, I enjoy watching/going to new places & sceneries. It's what brought my attention & enjoyment to the Olympics in the first place. 

For 2020, I "wanted" Istanbul to win, but knew deep down, that it was likely going to Tokyo. Even for 2024, as much of a long-shot it was going to be, I'd prefer Rome over any of the other European cities (so much for that now). Even though, Rome is already known to a lot of the world, it still intrigues me with its historic beauty & culture, & would've loved to have seen a Roman Olympics on TV. But I also had to be objective & knew that Paris totally had the upper-hand over them.

Like you said, we more than already know places like Paris, Los Angeles, New York & London. But the irony of that is, it seems that's what the IOC wants to connect their brand with. The big images, the big city names. How many times do we hear even here, "so & so country must bid with their best 'KNOWN' city". So it's a catch-22 in that sense, especially when many people wouldn't wanna bother with the lesser-known entities. 

And although, while Brazil did give us their best city, (& many of us know about Rio already), we still got to see a lot of the unusual & different things that we didn't already know about Brazilian culture (despite a lot of the negative press pre-Games). And that's one of the great things I like about the Olympic Games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, FYI said:

I certainly get what you're saying. I also enjoy watching the marathons, & other outdoor events, precisely for the very reasons you cite. As a big geography buff, I enjoy watching/going to new places & sceneries. It's what brought my attention & enjoyment to the Olympics in the first place. 

For 2020, I "wanted" Istanbul to win, but knew deep down, that it was likely going to Tokyo. Even for 2024, as much of a long-shot it was going to be, I'd prefer Rome over any of the other European cities (so much for that now). Even though, Rome is already known to a lot of the world, it still intrigues me with its historic beauty & culture, & would've loved to have seen a Roman Olympics on TV. But I also had to be objective & knew that Paris totally had the upper-hand over them.

Like you said, we more than already know places like Paris, Los Angeles, New York & London. But the irony of that is, it seems that's what the IOC wants to connect their brand with. The big images, the big city names. How many times do we hear even here, "so & so country must bid with their best 'KNOWN' city". So it's a catch-22 in that sense, especially when many people wouldn't wanna bother with the lesser-known entities. 

And although, while Brazil did give us their best city, (& many of us know about Rio already), we still got to see a lot of the unusual & different things that we didn't already know about Brazilian culture (despite a lot of the negative press pre-Games). And that's one of the great things I like about the Olympic Games. 

Oh I totally was hoping Istanbul would win 2020.  I also was hoping it would have won 2008; in fact, I was in Istanbul in 2001, the year that it was bidding for 2008.  When I arrived at the airport, I saw a lot of posters with the "Istanbul 2008 Olympic Candidate City" logo.  I thought Istanbul was an amazing city, and I was hoping it would win the Olympics, but at the same time, I was wondering how it would pull it off.  I haven't been there since 2001, but I'm wondering about how their transportation infrastructure is now; I'm sure it's improved a lot.  I definitely would like to go back there again. 

I think a Rome Olympics would have been cool.  Years ago, when I read about the 1960 Summer Games, I thought it was cool that they held some events at some ancient landmarks, and apparently they were gonna do some of that for 2024.  I'll admit, though, that I was happy when Athens beat Rome for the 2004 Olympics; funny, I was in Stockholm in 1997, the year of the 2004 bid city vote.  I actually wanted Stockholm to win 2004, but was happy that Athens beat Rome.  At the time, I somehow felt that Athens deserved it over Rome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm not the one who threw a newspaper down "in disgust" when Atlanta won (I do love that's how you got that news of that).  You said Atlanta disgusted you.  That sounds less like a preference and more like someone who is personally offended by it.  You're the one who seems bothered by it.  Don't think Atlanta deserved to host an Olympics?  No $hit they didn't.  But they did and I can understand the decision at the time given the alternatives, even if it was pretty predictable how that Olympics would play out with the tackiness and over-commercialization.  Between that and your constant railing of LA calls into question your objectivity.  So yea, you're getting pigeonholed, but it's clear your view of history is not exactly unbiased.  A bid from Lyon would beat a bid from Los Angeles?  I sincerely doubt that.

You're nuts. And compulsive to boot. You've never read something in a magazine or a newspaper and tossed it down 'cause something you read you didn't like? Or thought it was stupid? Ridiculous? Really? And why do you interpret things to such extremes? And what significance does reading it in a newspaper have? Also, I actually lived in L.A. for over a decade. Did you? You're just as crazy here as others man. You really try to portray yourself as Mr. Know-it-all. Mr. I'm -So-Rational. But you're crazy. It's like you're yelling at eveyone and shaking your finger at them when you type. This place is a anylum of really....interesting people....and you're the leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

Oh I totally was hoping Istanbul would win 2020.  I also was hoping it would have won 2008; in fact, I was in Istanbul in 2001, the year that it was bidding for 2008.  When I arrived at the airport, I saw a lot of posters with the "Istanbul 2008 Olympic Candidate City" logo.  I thought Istanbul was an amazing city, and I was hoping it would win the Olympics, but at the same time, I was wondering how it would pull it off.  I haven't been there since 2001, but I'm wondering about how their transportation infrastructure is now; I'm sure it's improved a lot.  I definitely would like to go back there again. 

I think a Rome Olympics would have been cool.  Years ago, when I read about the 1960 Summer Games, I thought it was cool that they held some events at some ancient landmarks, and apparently they were gonna do some of that for 2024.  I'll admit, though, that I was happy when Athens beat Rome for the 2004 Olympics; funny, I was in Stockholm in 1997, the year of the 2004 bid city vote.  I actually wanted Stockholm to win 2004, but was happy that Athens beat Rome.  At the time, I somehow felt that Athens deserved it over Rome. 

Instanbul is going down the path to becoming an Islamist republic at this point. And too much part of the powder keg of crazies known as the Middle East (even though they absurdly call themselves "Europe"). I do think another Rome games would be nice. It'd be nice if it went from Paris to Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ejaycat said:

I think a Rome Olympics would have been cool.  Years ago, when I read about the 1960 Summer Games, I thought it was cool that they held some events at some ancient landmarks, and apparently they were gonna do some of that for 2024.  I'll admit, though, that I was happy when Athens beat Rome for the 2004 Olympics; funny, I was in Stockholm in 1997, the year of the 2004 bid city vote.  I actually wanted Stockholm to win 2004, but was happy that Athens beat Rome.  At the time, I somehow felt that Athens deserved it over Rome. 

Ah, yes, Stockholm. I would love to go there. The only place in Scandinavia I've been to is Copenhagen, which was great. Tivoii right in the city was cool going to. Although, I think Stockholm's best & last chance was for the 2004 Games. Like Athens & Budapest, Stockholm would probably be hard-pressed to host the Games these days (at least the Summer Olympics anyway. The Winter Olympics are another story). Not to mention, the people there literally don't want the Games. The Swedes were so against the 2004 bid that it made Boston 2024 look like a cakewalk. And thinking about that now, I'm surprised that they didn't drop the bid like the way of Hamburg, Rome, Oslo, Munich, etc.

However, I do remember reading at the time (& actually, the 2004 Olympic bid race was the first one that I followed), that Stockholm was the most ideal candidate outta all the 2004 candidates. The only problem (I remember reading)? Is that the Swedes don't want them at all. But yeah, Athens was the most fitting in the end. The Romans were actually quite cocky with their 2004 bid, so that most likely didn't help their cause in the end, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aquatic said:

You're nuts. And compulsive to boot. You've never read something in a magazine or a newspaper and tossed it down 'cause something you read you didn't like? Or thought it was stupid? Ridiculous? Really? And why do you interpret things to such extremes? And what significance does reading it in a newspaper have? Also, I actually lived in L.A. for over a decade. Did you? You're just as crazy here as others man. You really try to portray yourself as Mr. Know-it-all. Mr. I'm -So-Rational. But you're crazy. It's like you're yelling at eveyone and shaking your finger at them when you type. This place is a anylum of really....interesting people....and you're the leader.

OMFG - you literally have me in stitches!! :lol::lol:

2 hours ago, Aquatic said:

Oh hey there Blake....ummm....thanks. :wacko:

Blake is our Captain Obvious around here these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the dodgers and angels agreed to use their stadiums.  Sure it will be incredible and certinely venues that Paris wont have.   But also it would be during the MLB season so both teams will need to have a pretty lengthy road trip

 

Hopefully though an l.a olympics will convince MLB to do a 2 weeks break and let the best players play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Max said:

I wonder if the dodgers and angels agreed to use their stadiums.  Sure it will be incredible and certinely venues that Paris wont have.   But also it would be during the MLB season so both teams will need to have a pretty lengthy road trip

That's something for the LA 2024 folks to worry about in the event baseball is added to the 2024 program.  Atlanta managed it with Fulton County Stadium in `96 as did the Dodgers in `84.  The Utah Jazz in 2002 spent nearly the entire month of February on the road to accommodate the Olympics.  If they have to do something similar with the Dodgers or Angels, they'll make it work.

4 hours ago, Max said:

Hopefully though an l.a olympics will convince MLB to do a 2 weeks break and let the best players play

Don't hold out hope for that one.  At this point, the odds of MLB shutting down for the Olympics are probably not as good as Rome landing 2024.  That the NHL is hesitant to commit to 2018 tells you all you need to know about how MLB would look at an Olympics, even in the United States.  It's been a necessary evil for hockey to lose those 2 weeks in February and the revenue they sacrifice to get that spotlight on the world stage in hopes of growing the sport.  They can more easily get away with it because they can still play a full schedule, something baseball wouldn't be able to do unless they moved those 2 weeks elsewhere.  Not to mentioned Olympic baseball wouldn't get the spotlight that Olympic hockey does.  Wouldn't be worth it for them.

  • Like 1
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...