Jump to content

Durban 2024/28?


baron-pierreIV
 Share

Recommended Posts

It would be excellent for the Olympic Movement to have the Olympics Hosted on all 5 Continents.

The Africa Card would play a big role in a Durban Bid though, just like the South America Card played a big role in Rio Hosting 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most (if not all) of the long-time members of these forums know this already. Of course the IOC isn't going to go to Africa simply to check them off. Baron is no dummy, & he's one of the very few members on here that's been overseeing these things for quite some time now.

No one on these boards (at least the sensible ones anyway) is saying that all South Africa has to do is present a bid & it's theirs for the taking. And it's something that ALWAYS comes up whenever South Africa is talked about here, & it's still perplexes me why, unless it's bcuz some people feel the need to still point out this obvious clause.

But at the same time, I believe it's quite naive to think that if South Africa does get all their pieces to the puzzle in check, that the IOC is simply going to pass up that opportunity simply bcuz there could be that possibility that they could.

I understand this is a point of contention here and I know I'm feeding into 1 of the main issues of these boards and dealing with extremes and trying to play it down the middle..

The key word in that 3rd paragraph of yours is "if." Tough to tell what South Africa will present. As baron noted, they seem to be taking a conservative approach to this, but it begs the question whether RSA would push for a bid before they should or if they'll wait til they believe they have a winner. We can all discuss where the bar is set for them, meaning at what point their bid will be competitive, but the other probably with that is that we're looking at them in a vacuum. Let's say Durban has their ducks in a row and bids for 2024 and their competition is Berlin, L.A., and maybe Paris. I could easily see them passing up Durban in that scenario. Now if they're up against Baku and Doha, that's a different story. But that's what begs the question of what is "compelling." Clearly a Durban bid gets a boost by simply being in Africa, but does that make the whole package "compelling" enough to beat the competition?

All the compelling bids from the past two decades have won by a landslide. Beijing 2008, Rio 2016 & PyeongChang 2018. And I see South Africa as being no different when/if the time finally comes. It'd certainly be a milestone (if not 'the' milestone) in Olympic history to not see why the IOC would finally want to make that landmark of a decision.

All 3 of those hosts you mentioned had bid before, and 2 of the 3 very narrowly lost a previous bid. Where you call them compelling is also a matter of circumstance. Rio 2016 seemed compelling because the competition was not that stellar. PC 2018 probably had an edge after the 2 previous narrow losses (and hindsight being 20/20, perhaps the IOC is better off picking Munich, not that they could have known that at the time). So again, a lot of it depends on who you drop Durban in a race with. It's not a race to make that landmark decision. At some point over the next few cycles, we're probably going to see an Olympics awarded to Africa. I just wouldn't assume (and you're not saying it directly, but it sounds like you're implying it) that if Durban is in the running and they present a worthy bid, that the IOC wouldn't find a reason to pass on them. They could easily find another candidate that intrigues them enough to vote for them.

It would be excellent for the Olympic Movement to have the Olympics Hosted on all 5 Continents.

The Africa Card would play a big role in a Durban Bid though, just like the South America Card played a big role in Rio Hosting 2016.

There may be 5 Olympic rings, but if we're using the official Olympic definition of continents where they combine North America and South America, then all 5 continents have already hosted. Yes, the 2 are most certainly considered separate, but tell the I.O.C. that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say Durban has their ducks in a row and bids for 2024 and their competition is Berlin, L.A., and maybe Paris. I could easily see them passing up Durban in that scenario. Now if they're up against Baku and Doha, that's a different story.

See, now I wouldn't say that the IOC could "easily" pass them up in such a race. That would imply that Durban's bid was crap, if we're actually accounting for that they have all their ducks in a row in such a scenario.

Many are already speculating that Berlin would have a hard time beating Paris (& that's before we even include LA in the mix). So what would adding Durban in the mix make any difference between those European two cities, other than just adding a compelling candidate in such a race.

All 3 of those hosts you mentioned had bid before, and 2 of the 3 very narrowly lost a previous bid. Where you call them compelling is also a matter of circumstance. Rio 2016 seemed compelling because the competition was not that stellar. PC 2018 probably had an edge after the 2 previous narrow losses (and hindsight being 20/20, perhaps the IOC is better off picking Munich, not that they could have known that at the time). So again, a lot of it depends on who you drop Durban in a race with. It's not a race to make that landmark decision. At some point over the next few cycles, we're probably going to see an Olympics awarded to Africa. I just wouldn't assume (and you're not saying it directly, but it sounds like you're implying it) that if Durban is in the running and they present a worthy bid, that the IOC wouldn't find a reason to pass on them. They could easily find another candidate that intrigues them enough to vote for them.[

I didn't say that there's "a race" to make a landmark decision. But awarding an African Olympics would be 'a' landmark decision nonetheless. The very first Olympics in South Africa would mean much more to an entire continent, vs yet another Olympics in say the U.S. (especially), France or Germany. So no. Again, I wouldn't say that the IOC could just as "easily" find another intriguing candidate to vote for in that aspect. Which I'm not saying that there couldn't be another element of intrigue, I'm just saying it wouldn't be as 'easy' as you're making it sound.

Let's not also forget that South Africa also has a previous bid on their belt. And it still came in third behind Athens & Rome, at a time when it was considered that their bid probably wasn't all that up to snuff in the first place. So a much more thought out bid/plan in the future could most likely only perform even better than in that instance.

And I wouldn't say that Rio's 2016 competition wasn't stellar. They still were competing with some of the top global cities on the planet. Tokyo is not chop liver, & they were indeed playing to win. And to a lesser extent, Chicago & Madrid sure aren't dustbowls in the middle of the Oklahoma plain, either. The problem with them was mainly simple geopolitics that weren't in their favor. Take Rio out of the 2016 equation, & let's indeed put Doha & Baku in that scenario instead, & you get bet your bottom dollar that the IOC woulda been running towards Chicago, Madrid or Tokyo.

I think in the end, we're kinda on the same page here, but looking at things in a different perspective. I still say though, that you're underestimating the Africa card almost to the degree of indifference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the whole Ebola thing too might muddy any African bids for any MAJOR summits or tournaments -- if it's not contained soon enough.

Note - Africa? Not a singular undifferentiated place. It’s actually pretty big.

London, for instance, is vastly closer to the Ebola outbreak and Durban. But don’t let that stop you from grouping all of Africa together.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, now I wouldn't say that the IOC could "easily" pass them up in such a race. That would imply that Durban's bid was crap, if we're actually accounting for that they have all their ducks in a row in such a scenario.

Many are already speculating that Berlin would have a hard time beating Paris (& that's before we even include LA in the mix). So what would adding Durban in the mix make any difference between those European two cities, other than just adding a compelling candidate in such a race.

I didn't say that there's "a race" to make a landmark decision. But awarding an African Olympics would be 'a' landmark decision nonetheless. The very first Olympics in South Africa would mean much more to an entire continent, vs yet another Olympics in say the U.S. (especially), France or Germany. So no. Again, I wouldn't say that the IOC could just as "easily" find another intriguing candidate to vote for in that aspect. Which I'm not saying that there couldn't be another element of intrigue, I'm just saying it wouldn't be as 'easy' as you're making it sound.

Let's not also forget that South Africa also has a previous bid on their belt. And it still came in third behind Athens & Rome, at a time when it was considered that their bid probably wasn't all that up to snuff in the first place. So a much more thought out bid/plan in the future could most likely only perform even better than in that instance.

And I wouldn't say that Rio's 2016 competition wasn't stellar. They still were competing with some of the top global cities on the planet. Tokyo is not chop liver, & they were indeed playing to win. And to a lesser extent, Chicago & Madrid sure aren't dustbowls in the middle of the Oklahoma plain, either. The problem with them was mainly simple geopolitics that weren't in their favor. Take Rio out of the 2016 equation, & let's indeed put Doha & Baku in that scenario instead, & you get bet your bottom dollar that the IOC woulda been running towards Chicago, Madrid or Tokyo.

I think in the end, we're kinda on the same page here, but looking at things in a different perspective. I still say though, that you're underestimating the Africa card almost to the degree of indifference.

Here's the thing though.. Not to boil this down to semantics, but I said earlier to not assume that a responsible Durban bid is going to win and you called me out on that. Yet it seems like that's what you're implying to be the case. I know there's a leap from 'responsible' to having all their pieces in check, and obviously I know geopolitics play a greater deal in all this than almost anything, but I'm less than convinced with this idea that if South Africa believes they have a bid worthy of submitting than by that alone, it's probably going to be good enough to win. Having their pieces in check doesn't necessarily mean the bid is compelling. I think we need to see what Durban has to offer because the folks running the bid and the peanut gallery here might think its good while the IOC is unimpressed. That was the 'easily' comment, that if the IOC isn't into the Durban bid and there's another city like there like a Paris that they are into, that city would have the edge. It's not a matter of the IOC finding another candidate as it is another candidate simply choosing to be in the running. By the same token, and I'm not saying this to be argumentative.. don't over-play the Africa point to where it might trump another city's drawing card if they give the IOC a reason to pick them.

Maybe it's me, but I get tired of hearing about cards and belts and checklists and landmarks because that makes this whole process seem very robotic. I'm certainly not discounting these factors, I just like to think all this happens a lot more organically than we sometimes make it out to be. We're trying to envision all these different scenarios of who might be in the race and how strong their bids will be and all the other geopolitical nonsense out there. Which is why we tend to over-analyze, simply because we're looking at all this in the hypothetical sense rather than an IOC member who is likely taking in the information and processing it based in 'what is' rather than 'what might be.'

Okay, clearly I'm rambling a bit, but 1 more thing I want to throw out there.. we tend to over-use the concept of timing. But I think we've learned recently that doesn't hold true as much as we'd like to think. It's easy to say 2008 was Beijing's time because they won the vote so handily. Or that 2016 is Rio's time because that's when the IOC suddenly decided they wanted South America. Be careful when trying to craft a similar argument for South Africa. Their fate and when it's time to go to Africa will be determined, at least in part, on who their competition is, not to mention when they bid in the first place. As much as we can talk about the IOC wanting to hold an Olympics in Africa, SASCOC and the folks who will be organizing this bid do not have the power to dictate when that time is. All they can do is present the most compelling bid they can offer and if the IOC likes it the best in that particular race, that's when it'll be their time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to see what Durban has to offer because the folks running the bid and the peanut gallery here might think its good while the IOC is unimpressed. That was the 'easily' comment, that if the IOC isn't into the Durban bid and there's another city like there like a Paris that they are into, that city would have the edge. It's not a matter of the IOC finding another candidate as it is another candidate simply choosing to be in the running. By the same token, and I'm not saying this to be argumentative.. don't over-play the Africa point to where it might trump another city's drawing card if they give the IOC a reason to pick them.

Well, you realize that you're part of this "peanut gallery" yourself, don't you. At this point, you're just being assumptive. Cuz who's to say that the IOC would automatically be more into Paris than Durban simply if Paris were in the mix. I'm not 'overplaying' the Africa card anymore than you're underplaying it. Perhaps at this point we should just agree to disagree.

Maybe it's me, but I get tired of hearing about cards and belts and checklists and landmarks because that makes this whole process seem very robotic. I'm certainly not discounting these factors, I just like to think all this happens a lot more organically than we sometimes make it out to be. We're trying to envision all these different scenarios of who might be in the race and how strong their bids will be and all the other geopolitical nonsense out there. Which is why we tend to over-analyze, simply because we're looking at all this in the hypothetical sense rather than an IOC member who is likely taking in the information and processing it based in 'what is' rather than 'what might be.'

Maybe you don't 'discount' them, but it sure seems like you underestimate them. You can get "tired" over all the cards, but these are the narratives that some of these bids work with. Beijing's was "it's time to give 1/5 of humanity the Games". Rio's was "it's finally South America's time" , & of course them carrying that map whereever they went. And Sochi's "it's time for a winter sporting power like Russia to finally host the winter Games". Of course there's more to it than just the narratives to start with, but it's those narratives that a lot of times means the difference between win or lose in the end. Of course this is all hypothetical rather than current reality. But that's what most of these boards are about anyway. "What might be". Trying to gauge how the IOC would react, based on precedent, information, what-have-you, if such a scenario were to play out, bcuz it's plausible.

Okay, clearly I'm rambling a bit, but 1 more thing I want to throw out there.. we tend to over-use the concept of timing. But I think we've learned recently that doesn't hold true as much as we'd like to think. It's easy to say 2008 was Beijing's time because they won the vote so handily. Or that 2016 is Rio's time because that's when the IOC suddenly decided they wanted South America. Be careful when trying to craft a similar argument for South Africa. Their fate and when it's time to go to Africa will be determined, at least in part, on who their competition is, not to mention when they bid in the first place. As much as we can talk about the IOC wanting to hold an Olympics in Africa, SASCOC and the folks who will be organizing this bid do not have the power to dictate when that time is. All they can do is present the most compelling bid they can offer and if the IOC likes it the best in that particular race, that's when it'll be their time.

I don't think it's that easy simply bcuz of hindsight, especially in Beijing's case. But one things for sure, after one looking at those particular results, the IOC in the end felt compelled enough to go to those places. The IOC has told many prior, reliable & interesting heavy players, 'thanks, but no thanks' in favor of these new places. So I don't see why that couldn't be the case again, if all the stars were aligned correctly. So "be careful when trying to craft a similar argument" against South Africa. Some cited the same types of arguments at the time against Beijing, Rio & PyeongChang. And we all know now that all those three are, & soon to be, Olympic cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, that magic Africa card that turns any bid from Africa into a winner. Except when it didn't work in 2004. And when it didn't work in 2008.

But next time it'll work. Really.

You think you're pretty clever, huh?

Yes, hot stuff, the Africa factor is much more powerful now than it was in 2004 or 2008. Times change. Just ask Rio. They failed miserably in 2004 and 2008 and then walked away with 2016 pretty darn easily. Both Rogge and Bach as well as many other IOC members have made no secret of their desire to go to Africa and have practically pleaded with South Africa to bid. Does that mean they're guaranteed victory next time out? No, but the odds are in their favor. Dismissing them out of hand would be a huge miscalculation, no matter how much fun your ego has typing snarky rejoinders.

Typo: Rio failed miserably in 2004 and 2012.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off topic, but I find it interesting to look back at those past Rio bids that failed pretty miserable and reflect upon the fact that, little did they know, just years later they'd overcome that failure and be successful. Same with Sochi, and even the likes of Birmingham and Manchester preceding the London victory. Also cool to see how the hosts in 2006, 2010 and 2014 all overcame summer loses from 2 years prior. It's interesting to look at how the depression from losses is soon changed to immense celebration and pride just few years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Times change. Just ask Rio.

Yep, times change. The power of the Africa card may have grown stronger since the past two bids. Or for all we know, it may have grown weaker. Until the IOC voters actually *do* something - not say something, but do something - we have no way to know how strong that card is.

I've never dismissed an African bid out of hand. But I've never said all they have to do is bid and they win either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you realize that you're part of this "peanut gallery" yourself, don't you. At this point, you're just being assumptive. Cuz who's to say that the IOC would automatically be more into Paris than Durban simply if Paris were in the mix. I'm not 'overplaying' the Africa card anymore than you're underplaying it. Perhaps at this point we should just agree to disagree.

Maybe you don't 'discount' them, but it sure seems like you underestimate them. You can get "tired" over all the cards, but these are the narratives that some of these bids work with. Beijing's was "it's time to give 1/5 of humanity the Games". Rio's was "it's finally South America's time" , & of course them carrying that map whereever they went. And Sochi's "it's time for a winter sporting power like Russia to finally host the winter Games". Of course there's more to it than just the narratives to start with, but it's those narratives that a lot of times means the difference between win or lose in the end. Of course this is all hypothetical rather than current reality. But that's what most of these boards are about anyway. "What might be". Trying to gauge how the IOC would react, based on precedent, information, what-have-you, if such a scenario were to play out, bcuz it's plausible.

We're all being assumptive. That's what 99% of these threads are about, which is all well and good. There are a hundred ways this all can play out over the next 3 years. Many of those scenarios result in Durban as the winner. But there are plenty in which Durban bids, has their act together, plays the Africa card (whatever that means) and doesn't win. I'm not trying to predict it one way or the other.

Right now all we have is narrative. And as we've said about U.S. bids, that narrative means very little unless there's a decent enough bid behind it. Beijing and Rio had that. Sochi, for a lot of the wrong reasons, had that as well. And absolutely that narrative may be what puts Durban over the top. But again, some people (including yourself) make it sound like the narrative may cover up what is otherwise a less than desirable bid. No doubt it helps Durban's cause, particularly if they're on par or even close with their competition. Again, the original post where I jumped into the conversation was that someone brought up that Durban needs the Commonwealth Games to boost their profile, and the response to that was "they don't need that. All they need is to play the Africa card." That is the point I was disagreeing with. Don't misinterpret my questioning that as if I'm saying that they'll play the Africa card and still lose.

I don't think it's that easy simply bcuz of hindsight, especially in Beijing's case. But one things for sure, after one looking at those particular results, the IOC in the end felt compelled enough to go to those places. The IOC has told many prior, reliable & interesting heavy players, 'thanks, but no thanks' in favor of these new places. So I don't see why that couldn't be the case again, if all the stars were aligned correctly. So "be careful when trying to craft a similar argument" against South Africa. Some cited the same types of arguments at the time against Beijing, Rio & PyeongChang. And we all know now that all those three are, & soon to be, Olympic cities.

Yes, and in the most vote, the IOC chose the reliable heavy player over a new place. So I think the takeaway from all this is that the IOC is going to do whatever the heck they feel like doing. I'm going to cite zeke here because he hit the nail right on the head.. it's easy for the IOC to say they want something. Let's see them actually do it. When all the rhetoric about 2022 is that they're going to be stuck with a candidate they have little interest in selecting, what happens with the 2024 vote when they've got an old reliable out there versus a city that's never bid before.

Now let's be clear about one thing.. in typical GamesBids fashion, we're pushing each other to the extremes and trying to make our arguments there. Like you said, our perspectives on this aren't that dissimilar. I think more than anything, we're just looking at different scenarios. I'm thinking more about where the competition is stronger and the stars don't align. You're thinking about it where the competition maybe isn't as strong and Durban is too compelling to pass up. Let's agree on this.. there are certainly plenty of possibilities where Durban wins but still a lot more where Durban bids and loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I've never said all they have to do is bid and they win either.

No one has really said that though. I think that most of us have acknowledge that a South African bid would at least have to be credible.

As far as the IOC voters actually "doing" something, they've already made it pretty clear that they want to make the Games as global as possible, by voting for the likes of Beijing, Rio & PyeongChang already. That's far more than just "saying something".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are plenty in which Durban bids, has their act together, plays the Africa card (whatever that means) and doesn't win. I'm not trying to predict it one way or the other.

What do you mean, 'whatever that means'. It's the same card that Rio played during their 2016 campaign.

Right now all we have is narrative. And as we've said about U.S. bids, that narrative means very little unless there's a decent enough bid behind it. Beijing and Rio had that.

And again, no one is saying that Durban doesn't need that. Of course they need a decent enough bid. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. But let's not forget, that if Durban were to make a short-list, then they HAVE that 'decent' enough bid.

Yes, and in the most vote, the IOC chose the reliable heavy player over a new place. So I think the takeaway from all this is that the IOC is going to do whatever the heck they feel like doing.

I'm going to cite zeke here because he hit the nail right on the head.. it's easy for the IOC to say they want something. Let's see them actually do it.

You mean that same reliable, heavy player that also placed a bid for 2016, along with Rio, & was "not stellar competition" (to quote you)? Go figure.
At the end of the day, yeah, the IOC is going to whatever the heck they feel like doing. But the only reason Tokyo got 2020 over Istanbul is mainly due in part bcuz Istanbul shot themselves in the foot with the protests, & then Erdogan's response to them. Not bcuz Tokyo was a more compelling option. And yet even with Istanbul's troubles, they still managed to thwart Madrid to be in final ballot with Tokyo.
All things being equal, the only way I see a Durban bid get bypassed, without any reservation by the IOC, is if, like Istanbul, it implodes. Otherwise, all is fair game. And like I said in response to the post you're referring to, the IOC is actually doing something already. By trying to make the Games as global as possible. And I seriously doubt that they're gonna stop trying to do that after Rio has come & gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has really said that though. I think that most of us have acknowledge that a South African bid would at least have to be credible.

Yea, someone kinda did say that. The rest here is semantics. Let's both leave it at that.

As far as the IOC voters actually "doing" something, they've already made it pretty clear that they want to make the Games as global as possible, by voting for the likes of Beijing, Rio & PyeongChang already. That's far more than just "saying something".

You know what else those 3 cities have in common? All of them lost a vote before they won one. So yea, they chose those cities to make the Games more global.. when they felt like it and it suited their interests.

There's no question whatsoever they're going to go to Africa at some point in the foreseeable future. It's going to happen eventually. But when you talk about that landmark decision, this is what I was saying about it not being a race. If the first time Durban is up for bid, the IOC wants Africa, they'll pick Africa. If they're not feeling it and like something else, they'll pick that. Pretty good chance once they go to Africa, they won't head back there for a while to come. So if they want Africa, who's to say they take it in the first opportunity they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean, 'whatever that means'. It's the same card that Rio played during their 2016 campaign.

I mean what was so different about their 2016 campaign than in 2004 and 2012 when they weren't even shortlisted? Did they not play a South America card in those votes (and remember, there was another South American city for the 2004 election)? That's why I don't like the "they played the South American card" concept. That they won IMO is more about the IOC finally wanting South America, not simply that Rio stood up and said "hey, we're in South America, pick us!"

All things being equal, the only way I see a Durban bid get bypassed, without any reservation by the IOC, is if, like Istanbul, it implodes. Otherwise, all is fair game. And like I said in response to the post you're referring to, the IOC is actually doing something already. By trying to make the Games as global as possible. And I seriously doubt that they're gonna stop trying to do that after Rio has come & gone.

Tokyo 2020. They did something before and yes, for 1 election at least, they stopped trying. I know there were circumstances involved that Istanbul lost, but who's to say they would have won if the bid didn't implode. They decided to get off the new frontier kick. Now if they decide to go back in that direction, Durban 2024 has a great chance of succeeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what else those 3 cities have in common? All of them lost a vote before they won one. So yea, they chose those cities to make the Games more global.. when they felt like it and it suited their interests.

Beijing nearly won their 2000 bid. And PyeongChang nearly got 2014. So there was already very strong desire to go to both those places before they ultimately won their successive votes by a landslide. And as for Rio, they obviously needed to prove some of their capabilities before the IOC felt comfortable enough to vote for them. And that was the 2007 Pan Am Games. That would highly explain their 2012 short-list omission, vs them making it for 2016.

I mean what was so different about their 2016 campaign than in 2004 and 2012 when they weren't even shortlisted? Did they not play a South America card in those votes (and remember, there was another South American city for the 2004 election)? That's why I don't like the "they played the South American card" concept. That they won IMO is more about the IOC finally wanting South America, not simply that Rio stood up and said "hey, we're in South America, pick us!"

Again, the 2007 Pan Am Games. Rio did not have that experience for their 2004 & 2012 efforts for the IOC to have enough confidence in them. That was the significant difference with their 2016 bid. And let's face it, for 2004, it was all about the Olympics "finally coming home" - Athens.

Tokyo 2020. They did something before and yes, for 1 election at least, they stopped trying. I know there were circumstances involved that Istanbul lost, but who's to say they would have won if the bid didn't implode. They decided to get off the new frontier kick. Now if they decide to go back in that direction, Durban 2024 has a great chance of succeeding.

I guess we'll never know then. We could play devil's advocate all we want, but many contribute Istanbul's loss to the protests, Erdogan & not to mention, Istanbul's rocky start to the 2020 campaign, when they also wanted to go after Euro 2020. But yeah, exactly, here I agree; the IOC having an old reliable for 2020 could only improve a truly new, compelling destination as a desirable option sometime in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beijing nearly won their 2000 bid. And PyeongChang nearly got 2014. So there was already very strong desire to go to both those places before they ultimately won their successive votes by a landslide. And as for Rio, they obviously needed to prove some of their capabilities before the IOC felt comfortable enough to vote for them. And that was the 2007 Pan Am Games. That would highly explain their 2012 short-list omission, vs them making it for 2016.

Again, the 2007 Pan Am Games. Rio did not have that experience for their 2004 & 2012 efforts for the IOC to have enough confidence in them. That was the significant difference with their 2016 bid. And let's face it, for 2004, it was all about the Olympics "finally coming home" - Athens.

Yes, now we're on the same page! A lot changed from the 2012 vote to the 2016 vote. That's what won it for Rio. I know a lot is made about them breaking out the map for their 2016 campaign. I don't look at that as some sort of card they played. More than the IOC was more receptive to selecting them. Just like the 1/5 of humanity argument got Beijing close to winning 2000.

So too might it be with Durban. We know there's desire amongst the IOC voters to go there. When it comes to the day of decision though, will it be enough? The difference between 49% of the vote and 51% is minuscule, but that's the difference between winning and losing. We won't know until they're dropped into a race. Until then, it's all talk.

I guess we'll never know then. We could play devil's advocate all we want, but many contribute Istanbul's loss to the protests, Erdogan & not to mention, Istanbul's rocky start to the 2020 campaign, when they also wanted to go after Euro 2020. But yeah, exactly, here I agree; the IOC having an old reliable for 2020 could only improve a truly new, compelling destination as a desirable option sometime in the near future.

Allow me to play devil's advocate..

tumblr_mv6sqlF4yM1r3yxp8o1_500.jpg

But seriously.. the dynamics of the vote will obviously be determined by who's in it and what their circumstances are. That's why it's sometimes a little counter-productive to evaluate a Durban or an LA in a vacuum where we don't know what they're up against. And especially in the case of Durban, we have little idea what they have to offer. Until we have a better idea, it's next to impossible to rate their chances of success. Let alone to figure what the IOC might be looking for with 2024. Wouldn't surprise me in the least for the 2022 outcome to have some bearing on their mindset going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, now we're on the same page! A lot changed from the 2012 vote to the 2016 vote. That's what won it for Rio. I know a lot is made about them breaking out the map for their 2016 campaign. I don't look at that as some sort of card they played. More than the IOC was more receptive to selecting them. Just like the 1/5 of humanity argument got Beijing close to winning 2000.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here. So are you saying the fact that Rio is located in South America had absolutely nothing to do with them being selected by the IOC for 2016. That they were simply just being "receptive" this time around in voting for them. Yeah, a lot changed within those four years. But had Brazil & Rio had some previous experience &/or was already an economic powerhouse nation before-hand, they would've already hosted long ago by now.

So too might it be with Durban. We know there's desire amongst the IOC voters to go there. When it comes to the day of decision though, will it be enough? The difference between 49% of the vote and 51% is minuscule, but that's the difference between winning and losing. We won't know until they're dropped into a race. Until then, it's all talk.

Everything is 'all talk' on Gamesbids. It's what we do best here. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything that we talk about here doesn't have any merit (well, at least for the long-time members here, anyway). I think you're example of a minuscule vote difference is purely hypothetical. Since I believe that when/if the IOC is ready to go to Africa, it'll be with a landslide victory, much like the others we've talked about.

You could argue all you want that we don't know enough about Durban yet to rate their chances of success. Fair enough, since that's not what I'm arguing here, anyway. What I am saying (& have been saying) though, is once/if Durban presents a bid, & that bid is deemed worthy enough to be included on an IOC short-list, THEN by that point, we'll know exactly what a Durban bid has to offer. And where the IOC could feel 'receptive' enough to vote for them, much like they did with Rio.

But I'm gonna leave this with one final note, since it's getting late & I'm getting sleepy of going around in circles here; would be a Durban bid be unbeatable? No. Could a Durban bid be a formidable opponent? Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here. So are you saying the fact that Rio is located in South America had absolutely nothing to do with them being selected by the IOC for 2016. That they were simply just being "receptive" this time around in voting for them. Yeah, a lot changed within those four years. But had Brazil & Rio had some previous experience &/or was already an economic powerhouse nation before-hand, they would've already hosted long ago by now.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that Rio was in South America when the shortlist was made for 2012. Just like they were still in South America when the vote for 2016 came along. Yes, a lot was different with Rio with respect to those bids. That Rio was/is in South America is not 1 of them. In 2009, the IOC was more receptive towards a South American candidate than they ever had been before, moreso than in 2005 when they had a strong field of candidates to pick from, and certainly more than for the `04 vote when Athens was at the top of the list. So yes, that Rio is in South America had a lot to do with them winning. But it worked out that way because of the circumstances of that bid and that field of candidates.

Everything is 'all talk' on Gamesbids. It's what we do best here. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything that we talk about here doesn't have any merit (well, at least for the long-time members here, anyway). I think you're example of a minuscule vote difference is purely hypothetical. Since I believe that when/if the IOC is ready to go to Africa, it'll be with a landslide victory, much like the others we've talked about.

You could argue all you want that we don't know enough about Durban yet to rate their chances of success. Fair enough, since that's not what I'm arguing here, anyway. What I am saying (& have been saying) though, is once/if Durban presents a bid, & that bid is deemed worthy enough to be included on an IOC short-list, THEN by that point, we'll know exactly what a Durban bid has to offer. And where the IOC could feel 'receptive' enough to vote for them, much like they did with Rio.

But I'm gonna leave this with one final note, since it's getting late & I'm getting sleepy of going around in circles here; would be a Durban bid be unbeatable? No. Could a Durban bid be a formidable opponent? Absolutely.

I think you might be right, but again, remember that with those other cities, those landslide victories didn't come on their first try. If the IOC voters are that interested in Durban, they could win handily, but the question is will the IOC being ready to go to Africa coincide with a Durban bid.

My final thought for the night.. I fully believe a Durban bid, should they have their act together, will be a very strong competitor. But, and at the risk of citing zeke once again here.. what he says about LA, that he's not doubting their candidacy so much as he's acknowleding that there's a long road to go. That's how I feel about Durban. And moreso than a potential candidate like LA that we know a few things about, Durban is much more of an unknown, so I'm definitely curious to see what they have to offer because I feel like they could give us something really enticing or something not quite worthy of the IOC's selection. For everyone involved, I hope it's the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that Rio was in South America when the shortlist was made for 2012. Just like they were still in South America when the vote for 2016 came along. Yes, a lot was different with Rio with respect to those bids. That Rio was/is in South America is not 1 of them. In 2009, the IOC was more receptive towards a South American candidate than they ever had been before, moreso than in 2005 when they had a strong field of candidates to pick from, and certainly more than for the `04 vote when Athens was at the top of the list. So yes, that Rio is in South America had a lot to do with them winning. But it worked out that way because of the circumstances of that bid and that field of candidates.

I think you might be right, but again, remember that with those other cities, those landslide victories didn't come on their first try. If the IOC voters are that interested in Durban, they could win handily, but the question is will the IOC being ready to go to Africa coincide with a Durban bid.

My final thought for the night.. I fully believe a Durban bid, should they have their act together, will be a very strong competitor. But, and at the risk of citing zeke once again here.. what he says about LA, that he's not doubting their candidacy so much as he's acknowleding that there's a long road to go. That's how I feel about Durban. And moreso than a potential candidate like LA that we know a few things about, Durban is much more of an unknown, so I'm definitely curious to see what they have to offer because I feel like they could give us something really enticing or something not quite worthy of the IOC's selection. For everyone involved, I hope it's the former.

The thing is with South Africa, when Cape Town Bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, South Africa hadn't Hosted the 2010 Fifa World Cup yet. Just like when Rio De Janeiro Bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, they hadn't Hosted the 2007 Pan and Parapan American Games yet, because the decision was in 2005. Now that Rio De Janeiro has Hosted the 2007 Pan and Parapan American Games, Rio De Janeiro was selected to Host the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.

I still believe that the IOC's decision to award the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics was mostly influenced by the 'First South America Host'. Whether the IOC counts South and North America as 1 Continent is irrelevant, because if South America had Hosted before, I don't believe Rio De Janeiro would have Won the Bidding for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics. The Experience of Hosting the 2007 Pan and Parapan American Games did help Rio De Janeiro's Bid, but I believe it was mostly influenced by the 'First South America Host'. This could influence Durban Hosting a Future Summer Olympics and Paralympics, with the 'First Africa Host', though the Experience of South Africa Hosting the 2010 Fifa World Cup and possibly being selected to Host the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Durban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is with South Africa, when Cape Town Bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, South Africa hadn't Hosted the 2010 Fifa World Cup yet. Just like when Rio De Janeiro Bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, they hadn't Hosted the 2007 Pan and Parapan American Games yet, because the decision was in 2005. Now that Rio De Janeiro has Hosted the 2007 Pan and Parapan American Games, Rio De Janeiro was selected to Host the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.

I still believe that the IOC's decision to award the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics was mostly influenced by the 'First South America Host'. Whether the IOC counts South and North America as 1 Continent is irrelevant, because if South America had Hosted before, I don't believe Rio De Janeiro would have Won the Bidding for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics. The Experience of Hosting the 2007 Pan and Parapan American Games did help Rio De Janeiro's Bid, but I believe it was mostly influenced by the 'First South America Host'. This could influence Durban Hosting a Future Summer Olympics and Paralympics, with the 'First Africa Host', though the Experience of South Africa Hosting the 2010 Fifa World Cup and possibly being selected to Host the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Durban.

So what's the lesson to be learned here? Rio would have been the first South American host in 2004 or 2012. They won 2016 because the circumstances of that vote set up better for a South American bid to win. Certainly the experience of hosting the Pan Am Games didn't hurt matters.

What does that tell us about Durban? The prospect of them being the first African host will certainly help them out. But it might be enough to put them over the top unless the conditions are favorable for them. Case in point.. let's say Durban bids for 2024. You've said before you believe a European city will win the vote to host the Games of the XXXIII Olympiad and XVII Paralympic Summer Games. So if Durban is up against such a city, is 'First Africa Host' a compelling enough argument for them to win? Contrast that with if Durban is up against lesser competition. Then their case is a lot stronger.

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...