USA 2024

[breathesgelatin]

Also, Dallas has the same issue as many other US city bids have, their events would be spread out too much, and the opening and closing ceremonies would take place in stadiums not even located within city limits. AT&T Cowboys Stadium is located in Arlington, which is about 20ish miles from the center of downtown Dallas, and it is its own city. As IOC constantly states, cities are the hosts of Olympics, not a metropolitan, region, or state. You can have events in other cities or areas that are as near as possible from the host cities, but they do make it a point that the opening and closing ceremonies must take place in the host city. There would be no better stadium to do that than the one in Arlington.

Based on everything we had heard about Dallas, that is incorrect. Little to nothing had been mentioned about Cowboys Stadium. Rather, the talk was that the Olympic Park would be centered around a renovation/rebuilding of Fair Park. I'm sure it's possible a few events would have been outside Fair Park, but all indications were that it was a unique opportunity for a centralized Olympic Park. Of course, we never got a bid plan, and Dallas wasn't selected to advance, so we may never know the reality of what was proposed.

[Quaker2001]

Houston and Dallas have the same problem as Atlanta had for the 1996 bid in the Olympics, they didn't have a world image. They are well-known for cities of business, but as far as tourism goes no one from around the world will go out of their way to visit. Still, that didn't stop Atlanta from winning the right to host for the 1996 Summer Olympics. Although there were plenty of controversies, Atlanta came out profiting, and the city benefited from the upgrades it received.

Sadly Atlanta also ruined a lot of chances for southern cities to host the Olympics. Cities winning Summer Olympics these days have to come with world recognition in order to stand a serious chance as a contender for a Summer Olympics. This is why they've focused on New York, DC, LA, and Chicago. I feel that had Atlanta never hosted, and 9/11 never happened, Houston would have had a better chance to host the Olympics in 2012.

Also, Dallas has the same issue as many other US city bids have, their events would be spread out too much, and the opening and closing ceremonies would take place in stadiums not even located within city limits. AT&T Cowboys Stadium is located in Arlington, which is about 20ish miles from the center of downtown Dallas, and it is its own city. As IOC constantly states, cities are the hosts of Olympics, not a metropolitan, region, or state. You can have events in other cities or areas that are as near as possible from the host cities, but they do make it a point that the opening and closing ceremonies must take place in the host city. There would be no better stadium to do that than the one in Arlington.

The IOC is known to bend their own rules, so if Dallas wanted to bid with the ceremonies in Arlington, that's a minor sticking point, not a deal-breaker. Last I checked, Sochi/Adler is less a city and more a metro area. Ditto with Pyeongchang. If the right situation presents itself, the IOC will accept it, just like Rio has the ceremonies in a different stadium than is hosting track & field.

As for the alternate reality where Atlanta didn't get 1996, it's been discussed before. A city like Houston wouldn't have benefited from that. An Atlanta loss in `96 would have given more time for other more prominent cities to enter the fray. I could make a really good case that New York gets the 2008 Olympics (9/11 notwithstanding) if not for Atlanta.

LA is rarely ranked among the top sports-crazed cities in the world, or even when such listings are limited to US cities. Within the US, the most commonly cited sports-mad cities are: Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Globally, London and Melbourne, the four US cities are usually considered the big daddies of sports.

But all this is silly. The question should be is LA a good location for sport and the Games in particular. Yes.

Didn't realize there were such rankings. Again, it's all subjective though based on how you evaluate it. And yes, to your last point, no question LA is still a great location for an Olympics for plenty of reasons.

[zekekelso]

Also, Dallas has the same issue as many other US city bids have, their events would be spread out too much, and the opening and closing ceremonies would take place in stadiums not even located within city limits. AT&T Cowboys Stadium is located in Arlington, which is about 20ish miles from the center of downtown Dallas, and it is its own city. As IOC constantly states, cities are the hosts of Olympics, not a metropolitan, region, or state. You can have events in other cities or areas that are as near as possible from the host cities, but they do make it a point that the opening and closing ceremonies must take place in the host city. There would be no better stadium to do that than the one in Arlington.

Rules exist, until they don't. The whole "host stadium must be in the city limits" will get tossed the second the IOC likes an option where the stadium is outside the city limits. By any reasonable notion, the stadium for the Sochi Olympics was in Adler. The Pyeongchang stadium won't be in a city with the name Pyeongchang.

That said, Jerry World has the fewest public transportation options of any major stadium in the US. From the IOC standpoint, it's a monstrocity of everything wrong with car-obsessd America. Zero chance it would get picked for a major role in a Dallar Olympics. The Cotton bowl has much going for it... not just where the arbitrary city limits are drawn.

[Quaker2001]

The problem that the USOC must have is that, while there are several cities that are qualified to host the Games, there is probably not one PERFECT city to present. Each city has their advantages and disadvantages and the question becomes - what particularly is the IOC going to be looking for at that moment in 2017 that will get a US city over the hump.

At first glance, NYC would seem to be a perfect American city to host, but in 2012 - you have one politician that is able to scuttle the entire main element of the Olympic bid just before the vote.

Chicago in 2016 seems to be a perfect American bid, however we saw what happened.

For 2024, let's say that all the cities in the US interested in hosting the Games (that are left) are graded on these separate qualifications -

That's the nature of a country as culturally diverse and with as many big cities as the United States does. Other countries may have 2 or maybe 3 cities that could reasonably land and Olympics. The U.S. has more than that.

NYC is not the perfect American city to host. If it were, it would have taken a lot more than 1 politician to stop them. The fact of the matter is that NYC simply is not the right time or place to come up with a plan to make an Olympics work in the city. 2005 was a one time effort, after which the city moved on. Can't blame them for that.

Chicago 2016 is debatable over how perfect the bid was. As we know, the timing wasn't there, so was simply not destined to happen.

Rules exist, until they don't. The whole "host stadium must be in the city limits" will get tossed the second the IOC likes an option where the stadium is outside the city limits. By any reasonable notion, the stadium for the Sochi Olympics was in Adler. The Pyeongchang stadium won't be in a city with the name Pyeongchang.

That said, Jerry World has the fewest public transportation options of any major stadium in the US. From the IOC standpoint, it's a monstrocity of everything wrong with car-obsessd America. Zero chance it would get picked for a major role in a Dallar Olympics. The Cotton bowl has much going for it... not just where the arbitrary city limits are drawn.

That's moderately creepy that we were writing pretty much the same post at the same time there.

[LatinXTC]

Yes I get what most of you are saying about about how rules have been bent before for the Olympics, but you should realize that Winter Olympic and Summer Olympic rules never are the same for both. Winter Olympics you have that leeway to have your games spread out all over the place. The snow and sliding events are almost always about an hour's commute outside of the host city. That's the nature of the geography. And for Summer Olympics, most of the IOC want a compact olympic plan, and Dallas was nowhere near compact.

Here's a good article to read what Dallas 2024 had in mind.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/dallas-has-big-plans-if-it-gets-host-olympics-2024

[Quaker2001]

Yes I get what most of you are saying about about how rules have been bent before for the Olympics, but you should realize that Winter Olympic and Summer Olympic rules never are the same for both. Winter Olympics you have that leeway to have your games spread out all over the place. The snow and sliding events are almost always about an hour's commute outside of the host city. That's the nature of the geography. And for Summer Olympics, most of the IOC want a compact olympic plan, and Dallas was nowhere near compact.

Here's a good article to read what Dallas 2024 had in mind.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/dallas-has-big-plans-if-it-gets-host-olympics-2024

Yes, I understand that last point. But like zeke and I said, don't get hung up on "rules" that say the main stadium needs to be within the city limits. AT&T Stadium's distance from the city center and its lack of accessibility is what makes it a problem, not simply because it's in Arlington and not Dallas.

[LatinXTC]

Also I think it's rather smart what Rio did in having the opening and closing ceremony in a separate area than the track and field event. That is something that the US should consider doing, because we don't need a track and field stadium with Olympic stadium capacity after the games are gone. MLS teams have been focusing on getting their own soccer specific stadiums, and a track and field stadium is just not a great suit for that.

[FYI]

Houston and Dallas have the same problem as Atlanta had for the 1996 bid in the Olympics, they didn't have a world image. They are well-known for cities of business, but as far as tourism goes no one from around the world will go out of their way to visit. Still, that didn't stop Atlanta from winning the right to host for the 1996 Summer Olympics. Although there were plenty of controversies, Atlanta came out profiting, and the city benefited from the upgrades it received.

Sadly Atlanta also ruined a lot of chances for southern cities to host the Olympics. Cities winning Summer Olympics these days have to come with world recognition in order to stand a serious chance as a contender for a Summer Olympics. This is why they've focused on New York, DC, LA, and Chicago. I feel that had Atlanta never hosted, and 9/11 never happened, Houston would have had a better chance to host the Olympics in 2012.

It's been talked about many times over around here why Atlanta won 1996. It was mostly due to the circumstances surrounding the 1996 bid race than it was about Atlanta being an optimal choice for the IOC. The 1996 field wasn't exact a stellar one, & Athens was simply deemed not ready for 1996. The Greeks were barely ready for 2004 as it was. Plus, the USOC wasn't expecting for an Atlanta win, either. They knew from the get-go that the odds were a long-shot. So Atlanta was a surprise to absolutely everyone.

But you're right, it looks like Atlanta has pretty much ruined it for other second-tier cities, particularly for ones in the geographical south. But considering how Atlanta was at the right place at the right, I think had we substituted them for Dallas or Houston for 1996, I think the outcome would've been the same & one of those two Texan cities would've hosted the centennial.

[zekekelso]

The question becomes real if Boston proposes a stadium in Revere, or SF proposes one in Oakland or Berkley. It seems to me that if a space is connected to the city's subway system, that's more important that political boundries.

[FYI]

The IOC is known to bend their own rules, so if Dallas wanted to bid with the ceremonies in Arlington, that's a minor sticking point, not a deal-breaker. Last I checked, Sochi/Adler is less a city and more a metro area. Ditto with Pyeongchang. If the right situation presents itself, the IOC will accept it, just like Rio has the ceremonies in a different stadium than is hosting track & field.

Rules exist, until they don't. The whole "host stadium must be in the city limits" will get tossed the second the IOC likes an option where the stadium is outside the city limits. By any reasonable notion, the stadium for the Sochi Olympics was in Adler. The Pyeongchang stadium won't be in a city with the name Pyeongchang.

Ohh, where to start with these completely erroneous comparisons. For starters, Sochi & PyeongChang are WINTER Games. Second, Russia & Putin was proposing to spend Billions & literally build everything from the ground up for Sochi 2014. Even Jerry couldn't compete anywhere near such a thing in Dallas. And from I understand, Cowboys stadium couldn't really be retrofitted for a T&F stadium, anyway.

Sure, the rules could be "bent" if the IOC seems fit to do so in the first place. And yeah, they did it with Rio with the seperate ceremonies & athletics stadiums. But don't either of you think that was bcuz it was the right opportunity for the IOC to finally take the Games to South America?! At the same token, Houston 2012 proposed the same thing with their plan, but the USOC was quick to tell them 'no way. Think of something else'. If it's a compelling candidate, like Rio or South Africa (or the likes of Putin willing to break the piggy bank), then yes I can see the IOC bending their own rules. But not for a country like the U.S. that's hosted the Games moreso than any other country. And certainly even much less likely for a place like "Arlington". The IOC would expect more from the USA, because they know that they could.

And yeah, the stadium also doesn't have to be "within" the host city. But not that MUCH removed from the host city. Twenty miles is quite a bit. And while places like Sydney, London & Athens weren't technically inside the city limits, they were all less than ten miles from their respective city centers. Again, Sochi & PyeongChang are irrelevant. One was won with the intent of building an entire Olympic "city" from scratch. And the other, with the greater potential to expand Winter sports within mainland Asia. And even in South Korea's case, it still took them three consecutive times to finally clench it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in the simple theory just bcuz X&Y did, then so could Z. It's akin to the argument.."well, Atlanta did it.."

That's moderately creepy that we were writing pretty much the same post at the same time there.

Yeah, creepy is right.

[baron-pierreIV]

Houston and Dallas have the same problem as Atlanta had for the 1996 bid in the Olympics, they didn't have a world image. They are well-known for cities of business, but as far as tourism goes no one from around the world will go out of their way to visit. Still, that didn't stop Atlanta from winning the right to host for the 1996 Summer Olympics. Although there were plenty of controversies, Atlanta came out profiting, and the city benefited from the upgrades it received.

Sadly Atlanta also ruined a lot of chances for southern cities to host the Olympics. Cities winning Summer Olympics these days have to come with world recognition in order to stand a serious chance as a contender for a Summer Olympics. This is why they've focused on New York, DC, LA, and Chicago. I feel that had Atlanta never hosted, and 9/11 never happened, Houston would have had a better chance to host the Olympics in 2012.

Just to paraphrase...Atlanta had a story of regeneration, a center for Civil Rights (which the IOC still had not focused on) to spin and a lobbying team led by the former US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young. Plus, it didn't hurt that the IOC's oldest and most loyal sponsor calls Atlanta home. And Atlanta has a slightly more hospitable summer climate than Dallas, Houston, Wash DC or even Athens, Greece in July, for that matter. They were just in the right place at the right time.

[Quaker2001]

Ohh, where to start with these completely erroneous comparisons. For starters, Sochi & PyeongChang are WINTER Games. Second, Russia & Putin was proposing to spend Billions & literally build everything from the ground up for Sochi 2014. Even Jerry couldn't compete anywhere near such a thing in Dallas. And from I understand, Cowboys stadium couldn't really be retrofitted for a T&F stadium, anyway.

Sure, the rules could be "bent" if the IOC seems fit to do so in the first place. And yeah, they did it with Rio with the seperate ceremonies & athletics stadiums. But don't either of you think that was bcuz it was the right opportunity for the IOC to finally take the Games to South America?! At the same token, Houston 2012 proposed the same thing with their plan, but the USOC was quick to tell them 'no way. Think of something else'. If it's a compelling candidate, like Rio or South Africa (or the likes of Putin willing to break the piggy bank), then yes I can see the IOC bending their own rules. But not for a country like the U.S. that's hosted the Games moreso than any other country. And certainly even much less likely for a place like "Arlington". The IOC would expect more from the USA, because they know that they could.

And yeah, the stadium also doesn't have to be "within" the host city. But not that MUCH removed from the host city. Twenty miles is quite a bit. And while places like Sydney, London & Athens weren't technically inside the city limits, they were all less than ten miles from their respective city centers. Again, Sochi & PyeongChang are irrelevant. One was won with the intent of building an entire Olympic "city" from scratch. And the other, with the greater potential to expand Winter sports within mainland Asia. And even in South Korea's case, it still took them three consecutive times to finally clench it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in the simple theory just bcuz X&Y did, then so could Z. It's akin to the argument.."well, Atlanta did it.."

Thank you for agreeing with me on that one and validating my point . Yes, the IOC will bend their rules when they feel like it. Yes, it's more likely to happen in a new frontier location than in the United States where there are more options and fewer compromises that need to be made.

The plans that Dallas seemed like they were pursuing were to have the main hub of activity be Fair Park with AT&T Stadium being used for other sports, potentially higher profile ones because of the capacity. Track & Field there was never going to be an option there and who knows if they ever would have considered putting the ceremonies there. Yes, it's a big problem that the stadium is so far from city and largely inaccessible to visitors. But I'm fairly confident the fact that the stadium is in "Arlington" and not "Dallas" is at most a minor technicality. So if we're going to talk about the factors working against AT&T Stadium, there are a lot of issues at play. Arlington vs. Dallas is way down on that list.

[FYI]

But I'm fairly confident the fact that the stadium is in "Arlington" and not "Dallas" is at most a minor technicality. So if we're going to talk about the factors working against AT&T Stadium, there are a lot of issues at play. Arlington vs. Dallas is way down on that list.

For all the talk going on in the Boston 2024 thread that Gillette is not a suitable player for the Olympic stadium, & that Boston needs to find an option CLOSER to the city (which is exactly what they're trying to do over there), I'd hardly call it a "minor" technicality. It's a major deficiency, IMHO. You're talking about literally tens of thousands of people treking back & forth needlessly. Any yet Boston is still a contender on the USOC's 2024 "short-list", while supposedly better equipped Dallas is not. Go figure.

It's also why I think in the end, Los Angeles would be favored over San Francisco. Because San Fran doesn't currently have a stadium option close to the city. And no, Levi stadium in Santa Clara doesn't count. That's almost twice as far as Arlington. I'm not arguing that Cowboy's wouldn't have been used for anything. Some soccer finals, or what have you. But it would've been far from ideal as the main stadium & would've been a major sticking point to their bid if that was indeed proposed. So to use your line, let's just agree to disagree on this one, shall we.

[Quaker2001]

For all the talk going on in the Boston 2024 thread that Gillette is not a suitable player for the Olympic stadium, & that Boston needs to find an option CLOSER to the city (which is exactly what they're trying to do over there), I'd hardly call it a "minor" technicality. It's a major deficiency, IMHO. You're talking about literally tens of thousands of people treking back & forth needlessly. Any yet Boston is still a contender on the USOC's 2024 "short-list", while supposedly better equipped Dallas is not. Go figure.

It's also why I think in the end, Los Angeles would be favored over San Francisco. Because San Fran doesn't currently have a stadium option close to the city. And no, Levi stadium in Santa Clara doesn't count. That's almost twice as far as Arlington. I'm not arguing that Cowboy's wouldn't have been used for anything. Some soccer finals, or what have you. But it would've been far from ideal as the main stadium & would've been a major sticking point to their bid if that was indeed proposed. So to use your line, let's just agree to disagree on this one, shall we.

So did you at least read the rest of my post before you snipped the last 2 sentences to quote? AT&T is not suitable as a ceremonies venue for all the same reasons Boston can't use Gillette. But again, the fact that Gillette is in Foxboro and not Boston or that AT&T is in Arlington and not Dallas.. that's not the dealbreaker. That part of the discussion and that part alone is a minor technicality. Everything else is major and makes it a non-starter.

And no, we're not disagreeing here by any stretch of the imagination. We agree. You're just harping on a particular point that gives the appearance we're disagreeing

[FYI]

I'm not 'harping' anymore than you are. Even if those two would work for both, there's not very much around Arlington (other than a couple of malls & an amusement park), & hardly anything around Foxboro. So how would either of those be ideal options, regardless. Not to mention the transport networks around those two aren't that great. Again, name a SUMMER host city in the last 30 years where the main stadium was over 20 miles away from the city center. If it really doesn't matter, why not just build or use a fricken stadium anywhere, just as long as it "works".

[Quaker2001]

I'm not 'harping' anymore than you are. Even if those two would work for both, there's not very much around Arlington (other than a couple of malls & an amusement park), & hardly anything around Foxboro. So how would either of those be ideal options, regardless. Not to mention the transport networks around those two aren't that great. Again, name a SUMMER host city in the last 30 years where the main stadium was over 20 miles away from the city center. If it really doesn't matter, why not just build or use a fricken stadium anywhere, just as long as it "works".

See, now you're just arguing against yourself.

I was 1 of the first people to say Gillette is not an option as a main venue. You just gave the reasons why. Too remote, too far from Boston, too inaccessible. Similar issues come into play for Dallas. Neither would work. I'm not trying to set a precedent for either (especially AT&T since Dallas is now out of the running). The only point I was trying to make is that this supposed "rule" of the municipality the main stadium is not what prevents Gillette or AT&T (or stadiums in a similar situation) from being the centerpiece. It's everything else.

[FYI]

Okay, it just seemed though like you (& what's his face) were trying to set precedent, when talking about Arlington, when citing Sochi's distance to Adler & PyeongChang as your examples.

I'm also not arguing for the "rule", either. Paris' Stade de France, for example, is located right across the city border, in Saint Denis. Yet I don't see a problem there, since it's not that far from central Paris. If on the same token, hypothetically speaking, Dallas proposed something in nearby Garland or Richardson, I wouldn't see that much of a problem there either. Arlington though, is a problem.

[Quaker2001]

Okay, it just seemed though like you (& what's his face) were trying to set precedent, when talking about Arlington, when citing Sochi's distance to Adler & PyeongChang as your examples.

I'm also not arguing for the "rule", either. Paris' Stade de France, for example, is located right across the city border, in Saint Denis. Yet I don't see a problem there, since it's not that far from central Paris. If on the same token, hypothetically speaking, Dallas proposed something in nearby Garland or Richardson, I wouldn't see that much of a problem there either. Arlington though, is a problem.

Exactly.. my reply to LatinXTC was more don't get caught up in what the IOC considers a "rule" and less about the specific example of AT&T Stadium in Arlington North Texas. And where it was brought up that "As IOC constantly states, cities are the hosts of Olympics, not a metropolitan, region, or state," yea that sounds nice but tell that to San Francisco. That's certainly would be a Bay Area Olympics moreso than just San Francisco, even though they would get their name on the marquee. Of course, debatable just how wide a net you're casting there (we're looking at you, Santa Clara) and just how concentrated in and around San Francisco they would need to be.

[baron-pierreIV]

This distance issue between the heart of the "host city" and where the main stadium would lay could've been another liability for the Istanbul bid. Their "Olympic" stadium is way out in the middle of nowhere--quite far from downtown Istanbul. Altho of course, I think they proposed to build their OV beside the main stadium. So that combo might've negated the distance issue--but apparently not enough, taking the whole bid into account, to offset Tokyo's less problematic plans.

Santa Clara, IMO, is really too far to be validly called part of a SF bid; and it's really closer to San Jose. But since the NFL is calling the 50th Anniversary SuperBowl 2016-50th "San Francisco Bay Area," I'm just thinking that SF's Olympic hopes might try to get away with that. But it also depends on where they're proposing their OV as well.

[ofan]

This distance issue between the heart of the "host city" and where the main stadium would lay could've been another liability for the Istanbul bid. Their "Olympic" stadium is way out in the middle of nowhere--quite far from downtown Istanbul. Altho of course, I think they proposed to build their OV beside the main stadium. So that combo might've negated the distance issue--but apparently not enough, taking the whole bid into account, to offset Tokyo's less problematic plans.

Santa Clara, IMO, is really too far to be validly called part of a SF bid; and it's really closer to San Jose. But since the NFL is calling the 50th Anniversary SuperBowl 2016-50th "San Francisco Bay Area," I'm just thinking that SF's Olympic hopes might try to get away with that. But it also depends on where they're proposing their OV as well.

Yeah, but they're still going to go by "San Francisco 2024" not "San Francisco Bay Area 2024".

[zekekelso]

I don't know what the limit is.... but by gut feel Santa Clara isn't an option of a SF games... not even borderline. Berkeley and Oakland are at least borderline, IMO.

Part of the issue is how "connected" the location is. Transportation links, especially rail links, mean a lot. One of the reasons Sochi was so expensive is the Russians promised a zillion dollar fancy new train system connecting everything.

[baron-pierreIV]

Yeah, but they're still going to go by "San Francisco 2024" not "San Francisco Bay Area 2024".

The USOC and IOC didn't let them use it for 2012. Have rules bent all of a sudden? It would be pretty dishonest to call the center of the Games SF when you'll be seeing patrol cars saying "City of Santa Clara."

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

What? It's 2/7/14 Today. 2nd July 2014. Is the Superbowl today?

[baron-pierreIV]

What? It's 2/7/14 Today. 2nd July 2014. Is the Superbowl today?

Tony, look again. And it's the US style of appellation - month first (02 - so Feb), day - (07) and then, of course, year 2016.

[Athensfan]

Your original post.. you said "I don't know that I'd fight for the title "Sports Capital of the World," but nor can I think of another city that fits the bill better." Then you offer up reasons why you think LA is a sports crazed city, apparently as if that context was needed. So, I'm merely offering another city that I think fits the bill better. I'm not trying to crown a champion here or to rank cities, but you were the one who essentially said if there is a sports capital of the world, it's LA. Did you not think someone else would counter that with another city? Did you not think you were inviting a discussion where cities would be ranked and quantified on something very subjective? Are you new here?

Yes, I've heard of the Santa Monica Track Club. Have you heard of the New York Yankees? Madison Square Garden? I don't disagree that an active, outdoor lifestyle is part of the culture in LA. But I don't know I'd call skateboarding a sport in that regard. I don't think it makes LA a sports city. I only gave muscle beach and volleyball as examples of outdoor activities. That said, is LA not known for other things? Hollywood, the entertainment industry for starters. Does LA not have architecture or the arts that's a part of their culture where New York dies? I don't know that I'd call sports an essential part of LA's profile any more than it's a part of New York's. Maybe it's semantics (it probably is, when is it ever not here), but what you and I associate as a sports culture seems to be 2 separate things. You're mostly citing lifestyle of the general populace where I'm referring more to teams and fans and specifics associated with the city. Again, the big trump card that LA does have is that they were a 2-time host of the Olympics, so I'll certainly give them that, but to your point, it's in the past, so I wouldn't cite is as being a part of the current day culture.

And if you're going to talk about the fans, again I have to cite New York over LA on that one. In large part, that's because there's more history and tradition here. Especially where the argument is which city is more passionate about sports, to me that's a no-brainer in favor of New York.

This has the penchant to become another stupid GB arguments of your city vs. my city. Like you said, I'm from New York and you're from LA, so we probably both lack a little objectivity on that one and to everyone else, it's going to sound like we're pumping up our own cities. So before we waste too much time and energy into this, let's just agree to disagree. There's no right or wrong answer here, it's merely a matter of opinion. No need to prolong this because you and I both know where it could head and neither of us want to go there (well I would if only to back New York as a bigger sports city than LA, but again, I don't need to have that argument if you don't want to)

No.

Just no.

I will say for the umpteenth time I don't think there should be a "Sports Capital of the World" because I don't think such a thing exists.

It is true that I cannot think of another city that fits the bill better than LA. However, I can think of several that can make similar claims. Similar is not better. The fact that several cities can make strong similar claims is the reason why none should be crowned "Sports Capital of the World."

You explained at length why NYC is more of a sports town than LA and then you stated very clearly that you thought Melbourne was the most sporting city in the world.

I played along with you and offered an argument in favor of LA -- not because I think it's important that LA claim that title, but because you were selling them short as the home of nothing but "beach volleyball and muscle beach." I wanted to balance the perspective.

I'm totally over this inane conversation.

For the record, I don't think your pro-NYC responses to the particulars of my argument hold water either, but its a waste of time to debate them.