Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

" So here we are again with the USOC and IOC heading West to California across the frontier.  But this time, they’ll need to remember why they went to Los Angeles in the first place. "

The final line pretty much sums up why I always rooted for LA to run again. I rooted back in 2008/2009 for the 2016 Games when it lost to Chicago, and for this past bidding cycle when it originally lost to Boston and ultimately backed out of 24' for the 28' Games.

LA gets it done, makes them memorable, leaves legacies, and does not go into the red.

Well, they do TRY to rotate things so other cities can also bask in that Olympic glow.  Do you realize how BORING it would be if the USOC (or any large NOC for that matter) just put forth the same city, year in and year out??  When there were other cities bidding, why should they (the IOC) keep coming back to a previous host when there are new frontiers to burn the Olympic flame?  It would absolutely show NO IMAGINATION to the IOC (which likes to tread new ground). That's the reason, Jesse, that the USOC puts forth OTHER cities.  I don't think the USOC would have it any other way.  And the OTHER cities can't haul the USOC to court and say that it's a biased organization.  That's the other practical reason, Jesse.  No use with the "I told you so" mantra.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

" So here we are again with the USOC and IOC heading West to California across the frontier.  But this time, they’ll need to remember why they went to Los Angeles in the first place. "

The final line pretty much sums up why I always rooted for LA to run again. I rooted back in 2008/2009 for the 2016 Games when it lost to Chicago, and for this past bidding cycle when it originally lost to Boston and ultimately backed out of 24' for the 28' Games.

LA gets it done, makes them memorable, leaves legacies, and does not go into the red.

I think how you're interpreting that line is different than the article's intent.  The IOC didn't wind up in Los Angeles in 1984 because "LA gets it done."  They were there because no one else wanted it.  Yes, the legacy of those Olympics speaks for itself.  If you read the article, it notes that what followed LA was very positive, but here we are a generation later and the IOC let success get to its collective head and here they are in distress again, this time mostly of their own creation.  That the 2028 Olympics is going to be in LA once again isn't just about "LA gets it done."  It's the IOC conceding that they're in a bad place and need LA to save them.

So that you're saying you wanted to see LA again.. yea, they'll likely put on a great games.  But that the USOC and IOC are headed back there less than half a century since the last time they were there maybe isn't such a good thing.  As a New Yorker, I'm more than willing to concede that my city - great as it is - maybe isn't such a great place to host the Olympics and no other city in the US can match up with Los Angeles.  If this is the new normal that relatively recent hosts are getting another shot so soon, that may tell us something about the Olympics and the IOC that's far from a positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmfao - that’s like saying “Beijing gets it done” & that’s why the IOC is headed back there again after only 14 years since their last hosting. If the IOC had their druthers, they’d be going somewhere totally different for the 2022 & 2028 Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FYI said:

Lmfao - that’s like saying “Beijing gets it done” & that’s why the IOC is headed back there again after only 14 years since their last hosting. If the IOC had their druthers, they’d be going somewhere totally different for the 2022 & 2028 Games.

Except that it is how the IOC picks it these days? China knows how to impress the IOC in Beijing and Nanjing making them victorious for 2022 even though we all know they're weaker than their opponent..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zigzag said:

Except that it is how the IOC picks it these days? China knows how to impress the IOC in Beijing and Nanjing making them victorious for 2022 even though we all know they're weaker than their opponent..

Didn't matter how well China impressed the IOC to host 2022. For Beijing to go against Almaty, a relative unknown in winter sports, and only win the race by about 4 votes, shows that it was a reluctant choice. Had we all not witnessed the nightmare that was Sochi and the massive headache the IOC and the world witnessed in seeing Rio prepare for the games, they for sure would have happily taken the risk of going to Almaty over Beijing.

The IOC had no choice but to choose the "safer" choice. If they weren't in such dire need to repair the image of the Olympics, they would have never done a double summer olympics award last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

Didn't matter how well China impressed the IOC to host 2022. For Beijing to go against Almaty, a relative unknown in winter sports, and only win the race by about 4 votes, shows that it was a reluctant choice. Had we all not witnessed the nightmare that was Sochi and the massive headache the IOC and the world witnessed in seeing Rio prepare for the games, they for sure would have happily taken the risk of going to Almaty over Beijing.

The IOC had no choice but to choose the "safer" choice. If they weren't in such dire need to repair the image of the Olympics, they would have never done a double summer olympics award last year.

I thought that Almaty was the safer choice.. I still remember that's what this forum said to me during that KL session.. Especially in terms of venue and legacy due to Kazakhs are much more interested in winter sports than the Chinese and how the 2008 games was one of those games with a bad legacy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zigzag said:

I thought that Almaty was the safer choice.. I still remember that's what this forum said to me during that KL session.. Especially in terms of venue and legacy due to Kazakhs are much more interested in winter sports than the Chinese and how the 2008 games was one of those games with a bad legacy..

IMO it was the choice that made sense. They have natural snow. When the IOC officials visited the city months before voting, they could look outside their hotel room and see the snowcapped mountains, and even see the ski jumping venue. They had a great plan which would have had every event taking place within a much smaller radius than Beijing would have.

I put safer in quotes because it's not the typical safer choice you would expect. I guess by safer I really mean familiar. They wanted to be in a market they had experience in. Financial risk on either bid was not an issue given the vast amount of wealth of each nation, but still they had experience dealing with Beijing on an Olympic games level, not Almaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a financial level, China far exceeds Kazakstan. That’s like trying to say that Apple & Motorola are on equal ground, which clearly they’re not. And politicslly speaking, China is much more on steady ground, comparatively speaking, than some despot in the middle of the Stans.

The IOC didn’t ultimately choose Beijing for 2022 bcuz they were “familiar” with it, but because they knew that they could count on the Chinese to “get it done” when their only two options left for those Games were (& to quote one of my favorite posters here :D) “between a douchebag & a turd sandwich”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FYI said:

On a financial level, China far exceeds Kazakstan. That’s like trying to say that Apple & Motorola are on equal ground, which clearly they’re not. And politicslly speaking, China is much more on steady ground, comparatively speaking, than some despot in the middle of the Stans.

The IOC didn’t ultimately choose Beijing for 2022 bcuz they were “familiar” with it, but because they knew that they could count on the Chinese to “get it done” when their only two options left for those Games were (& to quote one of my favorite posters here :D) “between a douchebag & a turd sandwich”. 

That's actually "giant douche" and turd sandwich, but close enough.

But yes, the 2 options were China or Kazakhstan.  What a shocker that an organization like the IOC chose the bigger more prominent city and one most people could actually find on a map.  And even then, it was an extremely close vote where Almaty almost pulled it out.

To further this point, we have the news today of the Milan/Turin bid.  There is nothing about that bid that's about "get it done" and more about "if no one else wants it, why not us."  Again, this is not what the IOC wants the Winter Olympics to be.  There are countries that have shown interest that haven't hosted in forever, but they're being scared away by the prospect of working with the IOC and dealing with the costs.  Don't think I would consider a positive though if the Winter Olympics returns to the alps for the first time in 20 years.. to the same spot they last were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

To further this point, we have the news today of the Milan/Turin bid.  There is nothing about that bid that's about "get it done" and more about "if no one else wants it, why not us."  Again, this is not what the IOC wants the Winter Olympics to be.  There are countries that have shown interest that haven't hosted in forever, but they're being scared away by the prospect of working with the IOC and dealing with the costs.  Don't think I would consider a positive though if the Winter Olympics returns to the alps for the first time in 20 years.. to the same spot they last were there.

I'm with you. If the Winter Olympics are returning to the Alps, I'd love to see them back in the Swiss Alps (first since 1948), Austrian Alps (first since 1976) or French Alps, even though they're not in the running at the moment (first since 1992). Turin 2006 didn't even turn out to be that much of an economic booster, just an urban revamp. How much more urban work could the city need 20 years later? And din't Italy have a massive lottery to pay off Turin 2006 debt? As much as I like the idea of Milan 2026, and ultimately would support it if Calgary and Sion both fell through, I would certainly put Calgary, Sion, and Graz over Milan/Torino. We need the Olympic image to be saved, not hindered anymore than they already are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

I'm with you. If the Winter Olympics are returning to the Alps, I'd love to see them back in the Swiss Alps (first since 1948), Austrian Alps (first since 1976) or French Alps, even though they're not in the running at the moment (first since 1992). 

Well, the thing is, if the people in those places don’t want them, can’t really force the Olympics down their throats, can we? Personally, I’d like to see Graz out of the 2026 bunch, but with all the local anti-Olympic citenzenry in many of these so-called traditional winter sports nations these days that have literally derailed several other bids from these same places over the last decade, the IOC doesn’t have much of choice but to go with the most reliable last option that they have left. And if that means returning to more former hosts from here on out, since they’ll have most of the facilities already in place & not put a massive strain on other potential “new” cities/places, then so be it. It’s mainly why we now have L.A. 2028 instead of Boston 2028.

If the Olympics are to continue on to new frontiers, then that’s going to be on the IOC. They’ll have to make that change, not the cities. They have to start by at least stopping the growth of the Games that have grown exponentially over the last two decades alone, & therefore stretching cities’ resources to the brink. Otherwise, we’re never going to see an Olympics in Africa, India or Southeast Asia, or go back to South America someday if things keep going the way they are. 

3 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Turin 2006 didn't even turn out to be that much of an economic booster, just an urban revamp. How much more urban work could the city need 20 years later? 

How about reusing some of those 2006 venues? And couldn’t that apply to Salt Lake City 2030 as well? Their sell, much like L.A.’s was for 2024, is that they have all the necessary stuff already there. A sustainable bid. No need to build much like you would have to in say, newer places like Denver or Reno which would have higher costs as a result. And I’m fine with that really if it means a more responsible Games.

3 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

As much as I like the idea of Milan 2026, and ultimately would support it if Calgary and Sion both fell through, I would certainly put Calgary, Sion, and Graz over Milan/Torino. We need the Olympic image to be saved, not hindered anymore than they already are. 

Of course. But again beggars can’t be choosers, & if all the other Euro bids falter (which could very well be) then Milan/Turin all of the sudden starts to look very good than say Sapporo does (or even Calgary, simply for the continental factor) for the 2026 Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really does feel like we're heading for an at least semiformal rotation system. For both games. It's difficult to see what reforms the IOC could take to get new frontiers/traditional nations on board, at least short of the truly revolutionary like splitting each games up or allowing massively cohosted, bi or even multinational games. So the only other real option is a semi or full rotation cycle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Well, they do TRY to rotate things so other cities can also bask in that Olympic glow.  Do you realize how BORING it would be if the USOC (or any large NOC for that matter) just put forth the same city, year in and year out??  When there were other cities bidding, why should they (the IOC) keep coming back to a previous host when there are new frontiers to burn the Olympic flame?  It would absolutely show NO IMAGINATION to the IOC (which likes to tread new ground). That's the reason, Jesse, that the USOC puts forth OTHER cities.  I don't think the USOC would have it any other way.  And the OTHER cities can't haul the USOC to court and say that it's a biased organization.  That's the other practical reason, Jesse.  No use with the "I told you so" mantra.  

Well, Barron-Pierre, rotating so that other cities can bask in that Olympic "Glow" sure has worked wonders for the IOC hasn't it. I mean look at the amazing stories coming out of Sochi and Rio!

The point I was trying to make is that the IOC in trying to pick new cities, ultimately ends up financially ruining cities, making that "Olympic glow" go away fast. Cities go running away with their tails tucked between their legs.

I get that that's how the IOC used to function and why NYC and Chicago were both put forth before LA's 3rd, but now that the IOC is in a sober state of mind, it needs to start being serious about its bids.

Going new places comes with a massive risk. Yes, LA, been there done that, I get why some in the IOC/USOC and many here just roll their eyes, but when your image is that badly broken, you need to be smart about who they pick. BORING > FAILURE



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is not new cities vs old cities, but rather cities that have existing infrastructure.

The problem for the USA is that to realistically host the Olympics an American host city needs huge universities like USC and UCLA for Los Angeles, or Georgia State for Atlanta. New York, Chicago, and Boston have some very good universities, but they are not big enough. If Boston were able to go back in history and combine Harvard, MIT and Boston College into one massive school like USC with enough dorm rooms for the Olympic village and a 70,000 seat athletics stadium then they would have a shot at the Olympics.

Beyond that, though, the USA is terribly configured for the Olympics. Our national sports (baseball and American football) are not in the Olympics and there's absolutely no need for a "national stadium," "national aquatics center," etc so the existing sporting venues in American cities are poorly suited for the games. Then there's the fact that we are out of the way for travelers from everywhere but Canada and Mexico, much of the world hates us due to having military bases all over the world, it is illegal for the national government to fund the games so we have to rely on commercialization to fund the games, etc. American cities can be a safe pair of hands with the Olympics, but no American games can be as good as Lillehammer 1994 or London 2012.

Los Angeles and Salt Lake City should be enough for the US, and can each host their respective versions of the Olympics once every few decades. I think the bigger issue is the lack of appetite for the second tier events like the IAAF World Championships, World Aquatics Championships, Volleyball World Cup, FIFA World Club Cup, etc which the USA rarely/never hosts. If Boston really wants to host a major sporting event there are lots of options beyond the Olympics.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

Well, Barron-Pierre, rotating so that other cities can bask in that Olympic "Glow" sure has worked wonders for the IOC hasn't it. I mean look at the amazing stories coming out of Sochi and Rio!

The point I was trying to make is that the IOC in trying to pick new cities, ultimately ends up financially ruining cities, making that "Olympic glow" go away fast. Cities go running away with their tails tucked between their legs.

I get that that's how the IOC used to function and why NYC and Chicago were both put forth before LA's 3rd, but now that the IOC is in a sober state of mind, it needs to start being serious about its bids.

Going new places comes with a massive risk. Yes, LA, been there done that, I get why some in the IOC/USOC and many here just roll their eyes, but when your image is that badly broken, you need to be smart about who they pick. BORING > FAILURE



 

Jesse, some cities take on much more than they can really handle.  They knew what was involved -- it's all spelled out in the Host City contracts.  IT's NOT the IOC's fault if the cities go for broke.  But indeed, the IOC has learned and hopefully they will find the model that works for everyone.  Yeah, it's a long,learning curve.  BTW, so LA can do it; but if I were a European used to the other cities, I do (and even as a northern Californian) find LA lacking in atmosphere and charm.  If there were other choices, I would vote for those -- NOT LA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nacre said:

I think the bigger issue is the lack of appetite for the second tier events like the IAAF World Championships, World Aquatics Championships, Volleyball World Cup, FIFA World Club Cup, etc which the USA rarely/never hosts. If Boston really wants to host a major sporting event there are lots of options beyond the Olympics.

The US hosts the WOrld Figure Skating champs every 7-9 years.  USA does its share of hosting in Volleyball World League and the Grand Prix.  I believe Eugene, ORE will host the 2021 IAAF World's.  It's just a different paradigm for the US.  As you said, other non-Olympic sports are our top ones.   Overall, the US has other priorities than just hosting sports events.  That's really way down in terms of priorities.  It is what it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RuFF said:

Speaking of random Winter Olympics the USOC choirs pick Reno for 2030, and then make them both successful and financially viable so that a template more accurately representing your first time Winter Host can be somewhat outlined. 

There's no such thing as a template to host the Olympics and any desire to find one is pointless.  There are lessons that can be learned from host cities, but they don't always apply to other cities.  For example.. LA is in a great position to offer up college dorms to use as athlete media/housing.  That works for them, but there's almost no other city in the world that provides a "template" for.  And more than that, financial success for an Olympics does not guarantee that can be repeated again down the line.  Still requires a tremendous amount of planning and organizational efforts to get it done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Talk about slippery slopes. Perhaps no other city has college dorms, . 

Uhmmm, Sarajevo 1984, a few months before LA 1984 actually used college dorms as did eventually Atlanta 1996 and Salt Lake 2002.  The Equestrian venue for London 2012, the Maritime College @ Greenwich, lent its dorms for 80 of the grooms and veterinary teams.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RuFF said:

Adding to that point there seems to be a common variable. The cost associated with the games become frightening to potential host cities and at the end of the line, for the third time, there is 1 city which upends the entire conversation and successfully produces a sound Olympic Games. And all 3 times that city was Los Angeles. It may not have an official template, but it’s the template. 

Fig202-120Fortune20teller.jpg

Is that what your crystal ball tells you?  LA's Olympics will not happen for 10 years.  You can't talk about that event in the past tense as if it's already happened and LA has done it.  Let alone about them upending the conversation because we have absolutely not idea what 2032 and beyond will bring so who knows what the aftermath will be here.

LA is the template for LA and nothing more.  Barcelona didn't merely use what they had and hosted a successful Olympics.  Ditto with Sydney and London.  LA's biggest contribution to the Olympic movement was hosting a successful Olympics to where other cities felt more comfortably jumping back into the fray.  In no way did Los Angeles show the rest of the world how to host an Olympics and if they did, why are we revisiting this conversation only a generation later?  Again, there were important positives that came out of Los Angeles, and probably will be in the next 10 years as well.  But let's wait until it becomes history before we proclaim these Olympics a success.  This is still right now a city that planned to have a $2.6 billion football stadium built and now they've decided to spend double that.  Be wary of a budget that includes over a billion dollars in construction costs.  The LA Coliseum United Airlines Coliseum won't become an athletics venue just by snapping your fingers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/03/2018 at 9:07 PM, RuFF said:

Adding to that point there seems to be a common variable. The cost associated with the games become frightening to potential host cities and at the end of the line, for the third time, there is 1 city which upends the entire conversation and successfully produces a sound Olympic Games. And all 3 times that city was Los Angeles. It may not have an official template, but it’s the template. 

LA can either be the only city in the world capable of doing what it's doing in that way that it's doing it, or it can be a template and a saviour of the SOGs going forward. It can't be both.

Unfortunately for the IOC - and to LA's great credit - it's obviously the former. A template is only a template if it's replicable time after time. That's clearly not the case here. Most cities have to build an athletics stadium, have to build an athlete's village (although new housing is never normally a bad thing and this was LA's plan initially as well), have to build a load of other venues, will almost certainly not have the size of media market and sponsorship the US enjoys so will need to use more public money to plug the gaps etc. etc.

Your stance brings to mind this line from the IT Crowd:

"Gentleman, when I first started Reynholm Industries, I had just two things in my possession: a simple dream, and six million pounds"

And to be honest, even if LA were a replicable template that derisked Olympic hosting forevermore, it's only a template for one type of Olympics. I still see nothing wrong with a city using a Games as catalyst for regeneration as long as it's manageable and not irresponsible. A new public pool for a city lacking in them? Fine. New housing for a city with a housing shortage? Great. New parkland in an area that was previously a dump? Seems a good thing. A deadline for getting transport projects done that might otherwise drag on? Sure.

It's melding the two objectives (what the Olympics needs and what a city needs) that's proven very difficult and sometimes impossible. THAT'S the challenge that needs to be met, and meeting that challenge won't always mean a city chooses the more austere (Los Angelesy) option if it thinks it can benefit more from building something new.

 

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 1:11 PM, Rob. said:

LA can either be the only city in the world capable of doing what it's doing in that way that it's doing it, or it can be a template and a saviour of the SOGs going forward. It can't be both.

...its the red one

On 3/31/2018 at 1:11 PM, Rob. said:

Your stance brings to mind this line from the IT Crowd:

...that's deep.

So we have the most ready city on earth and have 10yrs lead time...........but the city is also in cultural, political and economic crisis that is deteriorating.....the extra time could be a disadvantage.

Edited by paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paul said:

So we have the most ready city on earth and have 10yrs lead time...........but the city is also in cultural, political and economic crisis that is deteriorating.....the extra time could be a disadvantage.

Could you clarify this? I am by no means a champion of Los Angeles or its politicians, but suggesting it is in crisis seems rather ridiculous. LA's economy is growing faster than average in the USA.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-economy-growth-20150929-story.html

And in all frankness the near bankruptcy of California occurred due to a Republic governor who allowed taxes to be slashed without a similar reduction in spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Banc of California Stadium is nearly finished.  Is it me, or did this go up really fast?? 

41279826142_439b2e069a_b.jpg

41279826552_3627a8efcb_b.jpg

 

The Coliseum renovation is moving right along...

40426658555_3010272e9f_b.jpg

40426656205_1fc72e592f_b.jpg

All images by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see LA booster extroadinaire Alan Abrahamson is having a little whine about lawn bowls at the Commonwealth Games, claiming it doesn't have "global appeal". It does amaze me an Olympic journalist misses one of the great things about multi-sport events - for two weeks you get drawn in by sports you never normally watch and these competitors and sports get a bit of airtime because of these events.

Anyway....I take it everyone here is looking forward to the basketball World Series, and all those amazing touchdowns?

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×