Quaker2001 Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 Summer Sports are excellent. Football, Athletics, Swimming, Diving, Track Cycling etc. I can see United States Of America getting a Winter Olympics before a Summer Olympics. If Oslo doesn't withdraw and eventually goes on to Host the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, then I can see Denver, United States Of America getting the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. If Oslo does withdraw and Beijing goes on to Host the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, then a European City will Host the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. I can't see United States Of America Hosting a Summer Olympics and Paralympics until at least 2036. Rome 2024, Durban 2028, Berlin 2032 and New York City 2036. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 Fuggedabout a Summer Games. Go for a Winter one!! Who needs more sweaty bodies?????????????????? Because, of course, Winter athletes don't sweat. Just stupid. Does one have to explain that? Where have you been? Uh, the real world. SOGs are clearly more prestigious. No contest. Do you ski? It's just more exciting and faster......the winter sports, and the time of year and nature is more dramatic and inspirational. Sport and travel in winter is magical and exciting to me too. Nothing like arriving in true winter destination ready to explore and party with friends. Summer Olympics seem more like a hot mess now that they are so outrageously demanding and bloated beyond control. I'm not advocating a winter over summer, I don't really care much about it at the moment, seems unimportant really. The sun shining on the Acropolis and glinting off the Aegean is pretty magical. Depends on the setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reindeer Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 but... but.. but... there hasn't been any official announcements for Rome2024, Durban2028, Berlin2032, and NYC2036 I'm pretty sure Tony has some inside information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm pretty sure Tony has some inside information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Uh, the real world. SOGs are clearly more prestigious. No contest. I wasn't talking about prestigious. Who cares about that? I'm talking about Winter sports being MORE GLAMOROUS. End of story!! SOGs are really just a Plan B for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binary Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 I wasn't talking about prestigious. Who cares about that? I'm talking about Winter sports being MORE GLAMOROUS. End of story!! SOGs are really just a Plan B for me. reno isnt hosting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 I wasn't talking about prestigious. Who cares about that? I'm talking about Winter sports being MORE GLAMOROUS. End of story!! SOGs are really just a Plan B for me. Aside from 'glamorous' being entirely subjective - are you really saying that Ice Hockey is more glamorous than Equestrian, or Curling more glamorous than Sailing, or Snowboarding more than Gymnastics, Football or Tennis.. etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 I think the US would rather try for a 2024, Summer Olympics first, then if it were to fail, go for a 2026 Winter Olympics. Where whichever city they choose then, could heavily promote the fact that an Olympics will coincide with the 250th anniversary of the nation's birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 reno isnt hosting So what? I don't care. I just prefer to see a Winter festival than a Summer one. I'm not going to apologize for that. I think the US would rather try for a 2024, Summer Olympics first, then if it were to fail, go for a 2026 Winter Olympics. Where whichever city they choose then, could heavily promote the fact that an Olympics will coincide with the 250th anniversary of the nation's birth. In which case they shouldn't choose Denver because that was the IOC's Bicentennial gift to the US -- and we all know what happened. I'd like to see the Denver backers' spin on that... "50 years later...we're ready"? Kinda like rubbing salt into the wound, huh?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 I wasn't talking about prestigious. Who cares about that? I'm talking about Winter sports being MORE GLAMOROUS. End of story!! SOGs are really just a Plan B for me. I understand that SOGs are YOUR plan B. But let's be honest, you champion some pretty fringe perspectives. In what world is "more prestigious " not also "more glamorous?" Oscars are more prestigious and more glamorous than Independent Spirit Awards. And why are we even talking about "glamour" as it relates to Olympic Games? This is an international sporting event, not a gala benefit for the Metropolitan Opera. "Glamour" doesn't apply here. That's why I picked a word that made more sense: prestige. You seem to believe only Summer athletes sweat. I'm not sure what world you're living in. Sports are sports, no matter what season holds the competition. Summer Games are much larger, with more sports, more athletes, greater diversity of competitors, and superstar athletes who are far more recognizable and better paid than their Winter counterparts. Historically speaking, the Summer Games play a far bigger role than Winter Games with nearly all the major watersheds in Olympic history occurring at Summer Games, not Winter Games. You prefer Winter Games for your own idiosyncratic personal reasons. That's fine, but please don't act like there is some empirical "correctness" to your position because there isn't. And by the way, why am I off of your ignore list? You put me on with such flamboyant fanfare. I'd just assume you return me to it. I think the US would rather try for a 2024, Summer Olympics first, then if it were to fail, go for a 2026 Winter Olympics. Where whichever city they choose then, could heavily promote the fact that an Olympics will coincide with the 250th anniversary of the nation's birth. LD, the US CANNOT regroup that quickly. Look how many years they've spent preparing for 2024. They're not going to throw something together for 2026 in just a few months. If the US bids for and loses 2024, the soonest they'll bid for Winter Games is 2030. Personally, I think a 2028 Summer bid is more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Aside from 'glamorous' being entirely subjective - are you really saying that Ice Hockey is more glamorous than Equestrian, or Curling more glamorous than Sailing, or Snowboarding more than Gymnastics, Football or Tennis.. etc... Baron's not a fan of hockey or snowboarding. Too much "sport" for his taste. Figure Skating is one of the few Olympic events (outside of ceremonies ) he can stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 See, I prefer Football over any other Sport. Watching and Supporting Arsenal is the Best. Wembley and Emirates Stadiums are just excellent. Other Sports I like are Darts, Wrestling and Boxing etc. I prefer Summer Sports. I don't mind Winter Sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 So what? I don't care. I just prefer to see a Winter festival than a Summer one. I'm not going to apologize for that. In which case they shouldn't choose Denver because that was the IOC's Bicentennial gift to the US -- and we all know what happened. I'd like to see the Denver backers' spin on that... "50 years later...we're ready"? Kinda like rubbing salt into the wound, huh?? Well even Denver is a bigger shot than Reno! Even if they did bail out in 1976, when they could have hosted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Well even Denver is a bigger shot than Reno! Even if they did bail out in 1976, when they could have hosted. And you know this how? What OTHER CITY in the world has refused the Olympics once and still gotten them? Name that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 And you know this how? What OTHER CITY in the world has refused the Olympics once and still gotten them? Name that. This lack of precedence you mention also counters your own argument... How do you know that Denver is an entire impossibility due to 1976? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 And you know this how? What OTHER CITY in the world has refused the Olympics once and still gotten them? Name that. Rome. 1908. They bailed out because of the Mt Vesuvius eruption and went on to bid again for 1960 and win. So there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 This lack of precedence you mention also counters your own argument... How do you know that Denver is an entire impossibility due to 1976? He doesn't. He has gone to great lengths to convince himself (and convince the rest of us) that Denver is a non-starter, possibly to give more credence to the idea of Reno-Tahoe hosting an Olympics. The truth is we don't know how the IOC would react to Denver. If the USOC put them up for bid, no doubt they would face increased scrutiny. But remember.. that we're discussing Denver here as we have does not mean that anyone in the IOC has done the same. They're not weighing the history of the situation until the decision is put in front of them. And we don't know how they're taking that history into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Rome. 1908. They bailed out because of the Mt Vesuvius eruption and went on to bid again for 1960 and win. So there! Uhmmm...no. Rome did NOT deny the IOC their Games. They had merely asked for a postponement because of a natural catastrophe. In other words, they would 'take a raincheck.' Not the same case as Denver where they uniliterally handed back the Games because they didn't want them and showed them the door. If you can't tell the difference, then this discussion is ended -- becuz you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an intended slight and an accidental one. This lack of precedence you mention also counters your own argument... How do you know that Denver is an entire impossibility due to 1976? Because I know. I am prescient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 How do you know that Denver is an entire impossibility due to 1976? We can't really know, I suppose, but we can strongly suspect. The vote which confrmed the 1976 pullout was held in the autumn of 1972, after events in Munich had permanently altered the Olympic mindset. Spiralling costs since then (plus legacy problems for some hosts) make it less and less likely that Denver and the people of Colorado would want to attempt hosting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 We can't really know, I suppose, but we can strongly suspect. The vote which confrmed the 1976 pullout was held in the autumn of 1972, after events in Munich had permanently altered the Olympic mindset. Spiralling costs since then (plus legacy problems for some hosts) make it less and less likely that Denver and the people of Colorado would want to attempt hosting. See, this shows a misunderstanding of history. You think Munich had anything to do with the vote? And if you're talking about spiraling costs, that makes it less likely for any city to be interested in hosting. That's not something specific to Denver. The reasons for Denver giving back the games had much less to do with money than anything. And many of the issues that led them to that decision are no longer the same as they are today. I know some folks like to say those darn environmentalists are the same as they were 40 years ago. Some truth to that, but it doesn't tell the full story of what happened then. If Denver were to bid again, there should be an understanding of the history. Again, I know this is the IOC we're talking about and maybe they will be that short-sighted, but to dismiss them entirely, particularly given the 2022 field of bidders we're looking at, doesn't seem like the right way to look at the situation. Because I know. I am prescient. Krakow. That is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Krakow. That is all The change of leaders and the incursions in the Crimea distorted my vibes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 You think Munich had anything to do with the vote? And if you're talking about spiraling costs, that makes it less likely for any city to be interested in hosting. That's not something specific to Denver. The reasons for Denver giving back the games had much less to do with money than anything. And many of the issues that led them to that decision are no longer the same as they are today. I know some folks like to say those darn environmentalists are the same as they were 40 years ago. Some truth to that, but it doesn't tell the full story of what happened then. I think that if Munich had been a roaring, happy success, far more Coloradans would have bought into the Olympic dream. And yes, spiralling costs do make it less likely for any city to be interested in hosting, as we are currently being made very much aware. The environment was an issue in 1972, certainly, but by itself it could have been handled (a well-thought-out environmental plan could actually have had legacy benefits of its own). That vote was about allocating state tax dollars, and the voters very loudly said NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Uhmmm...no. Rome did NOT deny the IOC their Games. They had merely asked for a postponement because of a natural catastrophe. In other words, they would 'take a raincheck.' Not the same case as Denver where they uniliterally handed back the Games because they didn't want them and showed them the door. If you can't tell the difference, then this discussion is ended -- becuz you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an intended slight and an accidental one. Because I know. I am prescient. I still answered your question didn't I? Rome didn't want the 1908 Games because of the natural disaster. How could their organizers have foreseen them hosting in 1960? When TWO World Wars came about in the meantime as well? So it wasn't really a raincheck. They simply bid again with a new organizing committee and won. Denver would no doubt do the same, this time of course ensuring the IOC that they won't back down. Similar to Lake Placid's assurances to the USOC for 1980 (even though they were the only bidders). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Rome. 1908. They bailed out because of the Mt Vesuvius eruption and went on to bid again for 1960 and win. So there! And yet you've argued before that Rome is automatically disqualified from winning any future hostings because they withdrew their 2020 bid after, gasp!, they made a bid book!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 And yet you've argued before that Rome is automatically disqualified from winning any future hostings because they withdrew their 2020 bid after, gasp!, they made a bid book!. Was the bid book bound with ribbons or spirals?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.