Jump to content

Rotation In Effect?


Recommended Posts

I've reported to a moderator your comment "Stupid Cariocas"...

As usual, you generalize us...

What is your problem with "3rd world countries"? If a poor or developing country couldn't host a Olympic Games, why don't IOC putted a rule like "Only rich cities could host Olympics", huh?

I don't like to get here and read "Stupid Cariocas" You weren't nice...

Still sad!

Calling names is not a serious matter here. We should learn to understand ourselves here. Baron is doing base on taking everybody here as a family.

Comeon! slow down on your report. Afterall, we need to know things about other. What's really stupid in Cariocas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Calling names is not a serious matter here. We should learn to understand ourselves here. Baron is doing base on taking everybody here as a family.

Comeon! slow down on your report. Afterall, we need to know things about other. What's really stupid in Cariocas?

Well, u are right.... Baron is a joker... but... it isn't nice calling people stupid, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, u are right.... Baron is a joker... but... it isn't nice calling people stupid, is it?

I don't think so. I have learnt that the word stupid might not mean a great offens in some country, you know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling names is not a serious matter here. We should learn to understand ourselves here. Baron is doing base on taking everybody here as a family.

Comeon! slow down on your report. Afterall, we need to know things about other. What's really stupid in Cariocas?

Agreed, but in this case he call all cariocas stupids, just like people who born in Rio is stupid... It wasn't the first time Baron got hard with Brazil and Rio de Janeiro... We are not here to talk with sarcasm...

There are many stupids things about Rio de Janeiro people, I can tell you, but this wasn't the sense of his sentence...

By the way, I think this is not a place to discuss what is really stupid in Cariocas or in any other people...

And, finally, you'll never read a post written by me saying some people of some place is "this" or "that"... At least, we need to respect ourselves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, but in this case he call all cariocas stupids, just like people who born in Rio is stupid... It wasn't the first time Baron got hard with Brazil and Rio de Janeiro... We are not here to talk with sarcasm...

There are many stupids things about Rio de Janeiro people, I can tell you, but this wasn't the sense of his sentence...

By the way, I think this is not a place to discuss what is really stupid in Cariocas or in any other people...

And, finally, you'll never read a post written by me saying some people of some place is "this" or "that"... At least, we need to respect ourselves...

Actually, it was much worse. And go ahead, report it. I've slammed people a lot harder -- and I'm STILL HERE. :P Sometimes, you deserve it. So, please don't post or give me any more stupid arguments!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it was much worse. And go ahead, report it. I've slammed people a lot harder -- and I'm STILL HERE. :P Sometimes, you deserve it. So, please don't post or give me any more stupid arguments!!

Are you sure you don't use stupid arguments?

You told here "Rio needs to use a samba presentation to IOC representant to get more chances"...

Is it a good argument? I don't remember to say some thing stupid like this about Rio or any city...

And sometime I agree with your points, when you are not "sarcastic and/or hitler-minded" and say some right and well-observed things...

Please, be fair and polite, because you are still here :P , but I am too <_< ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You told here "Rio needs to use a samba presentation to IOC representant to get more chances"...

So, was that so insulting? Isn't that what you would do anyway -- as most countries would feature their best folk arts and dances? :rolleyes:

There is such a thing as 'levity', light-heartedness, parody. If you stay on these chatrooms, you'll have to learn to recognize those and get used to such remarks. Stop being so thin-skinned. Kidding each other goes with the territory.

Oh, and these arguments: Rio will win because it is the most beautiful! Please -- since when was a city picked to be an Olympic host because of its beautiful setting? Paris certainly lost out to that in 1992, 2008 and 2012. San Francisco's never made the cut. Yeah, Vancouver will get its chance to shine in 3 years. I really don't think the landscape will be a factor for 2016. There are other more important factors that just looks alone. It's constant arguments like that that get me.

Oh, and I've been around here longer than any of you, and weathered many a storm. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, this bickering back and forth has diluted the original topic of discussion....

Which is... How much weight can we actually put on continent rotation? People have answered this on a number of different levels already, but I think there is still more to discuss.

In my opinion, the rotation certainly has a big effect, but it is just beginning to mature, and the 2016 pick will really show us a lot in terms of a broader cycle (if there continues to be one). If Tokyo or Madrid win, the whole rotation will be thrown off. If Rio manages to put together an impressive enough bid, and actually win, there will then be a new element added to the cycle. Cape Town 2020 would also achieve this, resulting in longer cycles for each of the subsequent continents to host.

Of course it is still way too early to really get a feel for who the exact front runner(s) are in terms of bids, but I don't think this vote will be like it was for 2012 - I don't think it will be as close. Of course it won't be a complete given as to who the winner will be - there is always room for surprises, but I don't think it will be neck and neck in terms of final IOC votes in the last couple of rounds.

For one, the main vote will NOT be between mostly European cities. Pretty much every continent will have a fairly viable candidate without another competitor in the same continent. Sure, you can say that Madrid and Rio could influence each other or even Rio and Chicago, but those are the closest cities who have a direct influence on one another (one based on culture, the other based on geography).

So if Rio gets it in 2016, would that deminish the chances for a North American city for 2020? In my opinion it would. Simply on the fact that there are only three countries large enough to support the Games in North America (all of which have hosted before). Although Mexico is the more unlikely of the three. But due to that small number compared to Europe, it is very little doubt that some from Europe would see it a universal "America" whether it is from North or South. It also remains to be seen whether Oceania has an effect on the rotation in regards to Asia. Since Asia only has three countries that have or will play host, and Oceania has only one country who has hosted.

I am not an expert at this, and am just getting into all of this Olympic stuff now. I just wanted to express my opinions as someone kind of from the outside. Of course Chicago being in the running has fueled my new found interest...

I am here to learn, and get other people's opinions from all over the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, this bickering back and forth has diluted the original topic of discussion....

Which is... How much weight can we actually put on continent rotation? People have answered this on a number of different levels already, but I think there is still more to discuss.

In my opinion, the rotation certainly has a big effect, but it is just beginning to mature, and the 2016 pick will really show us a lot in terms of a broader cycle (if there continues to be one). If Tokyo or Madrid win, the whole rotation will be thrown off. If Rio manages to put together an impressive enough bid, and actually win, there will then be a new element added to the cycle. Cape Town 2020 would also achieve this, resulting in longer cycles for each of the subsequent continents to host.

Of course it is still way too early to really get a feel for who the exact front runner(s) are in terms of bids, but I don't think this vote will be like it was for 2012 - I don't think it will be as close. Of course it won't be a complete given as to who the winner will be - there is always room for surprises, but I don't think it will be neck and neck in terms of final IOC votes in the last couple of rounds.

For one, the main vote will NOT be between mostly European cities. Pretty much every continent will have a fairly viable candidate without another competitor in the same continent. Sure, you can say that Madrid and Rio could influence each other or even Rio and Chicago, but those are the closest cities who have a direct influence on one another (one based on culture, the other based on geography).

So if Rio gets it in 2016, would that deminish the chances for a North American city for 2020? In my opinion it would. Simply on the fact that there are only three countries large enough to support the Games in North America (all of which have hosted before). Although Mexico is the more unlikely of the three. But due to that small number compared to Europe, it is very little doubt that some from Europe would see it a universal "America" whether it is from North or South. It also remains to be seen whether Oceania has an effect on the rotation in regards to Asia. Since Asia only has three countries that have or will play host, and Oceania has only one country who has hosted.

I am not an expert at this, and am just getting into all of this Olympic stuff now. I just wanted to express my opinions as someone kind of from the outside. Of course Chicago being in the running has fueled my new found interest...

I am here to learn, and get other people's opinions from all over the world.

You did pretty well with your charts at the start of this thread _ your as much an expert as any of us. We're (mostly) all amateur enthusiasts.

The difficult thing is that:

1) There is no "official" rotation policy;

but

2) There does seem to be an unofficial rotation practice.

If we confine the study to games after 1952 (it's fair to say that the earlier games were in a different era when even going to the US was a major logistical operation), probably the only "rule" that could be applied is that the Games don't get given to the same continent twice in a row (I'm talking only Summer games here _ the Winter Games are different and the interaction between the two is open to debate).

If we accept the "no two in a row on the same continent" rule, and apply it to 2016, then obviously it discounts Madrid and Prague and leaves the field to Chicago, Tokyo, Rio, Doha and Baku. But, in an illustration of why the IOPC does no implement an "official" policy, I wouldn't, for example, write-off Madrid. If a few of the non-Euro bids develop major problems or blunders, Madrid could well be placed to spring an upset.

That said, I think that's a remote chance. At heart, I think rotation will come into effect in terms of the two Americas bids _ Chicago and Rio _ having an advantage over the others. Perhaps not a decisive advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.

Also, personally, I would rate them as the same region when it comes to "rotation", just as I would rate Oceania with Asia on the same basis. I see the Americas, north and south, as a single region in IOC terms (and remember, this is also reflected in what the Olympic rings are supposed to represent). Oceania, on the other hand, is too small to be counted as a regular rotational candidate. I think time zone is a more important criteria then.

Africa? On my time zone theory, that shouldn fit into the Euro time zone. But I think it would be distinct enough to be counted separately. Rotation-wise it has very few who could host, so I don't see it fitting into a regular pattern _ more likely one-off hostings at times when it is feasible. Which means the Europeans could be able to get two-bites-of-the-cherry time zone wise with consecutive Olympics.

Hope that fits into more of what you were asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, was that so insulting? Isn't that what you would do anyway -- as most countries would feature their best folk arts and dances? :rolleyes:

You said that with sarcasm....

Oh, and these arguments: Rio will win because it is the most beautiful!

Believe me I don't support this kind of comment, but it's true that IOC prefers Olympics in beautfull places than ugly ones... This opinion was published many times in press... (Barcelona and Sydney were two examples of "postcard games", but although Atlanta and Beijing are two other examples "against postcard games")

We know politics and good projects are more important than beautfull places...

PS: By the way, I am still not believing you said Rio de Janeiro is similar to Hawaii!!! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an expert at this, and am just getting into all of this Olympic stuff now. I just wanted to express my opinions as someone kind of from the outside. Of course Chicago being in the running has fueled my new found interest...

I am here to learn, and get other people's opinions from all over the world.

Firstly, I'd like to say I've been impressed with your posts so far, so don't worry about not being an expert. As Roltel said, few of us are.

One point I'd like to pick up on though:

If Tokyo or Madrid win, the whole rotation will be thrown off. If Rio manages to put together an impressive enough bid, and actually win, there will then be a new element added to the cycle. Cape Town 2020 would also achieve this, resulting in longer cycles for each of the subsequent continents to host.

The problem with this idea is that Europe and North America, and to a certain extent Asia all have far more cities than South America or Africa capable of hosting. After you've gone through the major South African cities plus at a stretch Cairo and Nairobi where do you go in Africa? Same for South America; after Rio, maybe Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, maybe Mexico City where next? Even most of the cities I've suggested are unrealistic actually.

If Rio and Cape Town win in 2016 and 2020 respectively it might look like we're entering an era where real continental rotation is possible but I can't see it happening. The paucity of cities from Africa and South America capable of hosting compared to the huge number in Europe, North America and Asia means real rotation will be an aborted take-off. Don't forget, FIFA who run one of the only sporting events comparable in size to the Olympics, are very likely to drop their official rotation policy after less than one cycle as not enough countries are bidding!

On top of this rather major problem, if we see Rio and Cape Town taking the next two games up for grabs, I think the thirst for another games on thier continents may wane within the IOC. It might sound harsh and cynical, but I think at least part of the reason there is such a thirst to give the games to Africa and South America is a sense of guilt that they haven't been given them before. Once they have both hosted, this guilt will dissapear and, if the preparations leading up to the games on these continents are shaky, may even be replaced with a sense of wanting to play it safe in the future.

So no, even if 2016 and 2020 are in South America and Africa, I don't think it'll necessarily lead to longer rotation cycles and may even have the opposite effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rio and Cape Town win in 2016 and 2020 respectively

Which of course won't happen because:

1. It would appear that the IOC is merely a copycat of FIFA (giving their best product to the 2 continents that have not hosted them -- in succession); and

2. Brazil will be tied up with preps for 2014; and will not have proven they are capable of a larger hosting challenge when the 2016 vote comes around in 2 years.

So I highly doubt that the FIFA scenario of 2010 - Africa/2014 - So America will be duplicated by an IOC 2016 - So. America / 2020 - Africa tandem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you make some awesome points. I definitiely don't see S. America and Africa being in the same bid cycle as Europe, Asia and North America.

But lets just put together a hypothetical list together...

Year -- Continent -- Cycle

2016 -- S. America -------------

2020 -- Africa ------------------

2024 -- Europe ------- 12 years

2028 -- N. America -- 32 years

2032 -- Asia ---------- 24 years

2036 -- Europe ------- 12 years

2040 -- Oceania ------ 40 years

2044 -- S. America --- 28 years

2048 -- Asia ---------- 16 years

2052 -- Africa --------- 32 years

2056 -- Europe ------- 20 years

2060 -- N. America --- 32 years

You can definitily see the potential for longer periods between continents - especially N. America and Europe. This is completely a hypothetical list, I have no idea who will win in 2020, or even who will bid - so this list is not a prediction by any means, its basically to show the "potential" of how things could land by throwing a couple S. American and African cities in the mix. I didn't put a Middle Eastern city in the mix, but that may count as an Asian city though. I would consider Mexico a N. American country, but it would have an influence on S. American bids.

One has to see the merging economies in Asia, S. America and Africa. Investment in African economies is at an all time high. Mainly South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Egypt. S. America and Africa may be totally different 40-50 years from now, thus giving greater potential to step up to the plate for hosting more frequently. But who really knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the bickering is all part of the game. It makes more interesting and fun, too.

Yeah, it's almost an Olympic sport around here...

I just felt like it was detracting from the original topic. Now if you were arguing about the rotation cycle instead of who will just get 2016 then it would be fine, but it seems that almost every other thread has the same arguments with the same participants.

I fully understand one of the entertaining forces on the forum is to debate your city/country with someone else - it's fun. But I think what is sometimes forgotten in all of this is the overall "purpose" of the Olympics. Which is... to bring people together regardless of culture, race or creed and unite them through sport. It also generate national pride which is clearly exhibited on this forum, but lets work a little harder on being a bit more open and not try to be offensive, just to get a rise out of people.

But Baron, you know a lot more than I do, and have been on this forum for years with thousands upon thousands of posts, so you do what you want brother...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you make some awesome points. I definitiely don't see S. America and Africa being in the same bid cycle as Europe, Asia and North America.

But lets just put together a hypothetical list together...

Year -- Continent -- Cycle

2016 -- S. America -------------

2020 -- Africa ------------------

2024 -- Europe ------- 12 years

2028 -- N. America -- 32 years

2032 -- Asia ---------- 24 years

2036 -- Europe ------- 12 years

2040 -- Oceania ------ 40 years

2044 -- S. America --- 28 years

2048 -- Asia ---------- 16 years

2052 -- Africa --------- 32 years

2056 -- Europe ------- 20 years

2060 -- N. America --- 32 years

You can definitily see the potential for longer periods between continents - especially N. America and Europe. This is completely a hypothetical list, I have no idea who will win in 2020, or even who will bid - so this list is not a prediction by any means, its basically to show the "potential" of how things could land by throwing a couple S. American and African cities in the mix. I didn't put a Middle Eastern city in the mix, but that may count as an Asian city though. I would consider Mexico a N. American country, but it would have an influence on S. American bids.

One has to see the merging economies in Asia, S. America and Africa. Investment in African economies is at an all time high. Mainly South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Egypt. S. America and Africa may be totally different 40-50 years from now, thus giving greater potential to step up to the plate for hosting more frequently. But who really knows?

That makes sense. I agree that any Middle Eastern city will be considered as Asia, and it is logic that Mexico is part of North America. If the games one day go to Istanbul, I suppose it will be considered as part of Europe. So if Rio handles to host in 2016, Cape Town in 2020, it would be nice to see the games in Istanbul 2024 being also the first ones in the muslim world. Of course, everything will depend if the IOC voters are not greedy and give the games to any American city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which of course won't happen because:

1. It would appear that the IOC is merely a copycat of FIFA (giving their best product to the 2 continents that have not hosted them -- in succession); and

2. Brazil will be tied up with preps for 2014; and will not have proven they are capable of a larger hosting challenge when the 2016 vote comes around in 2 years.

So I highly doubt that the FIFA scenario of 2010 - Africa/2014 - So America will be duplicated by an IOC 2016 - So. America / 2020 - Africa tandem.

I think it is unlikely that Rio and Cape Town will play host back to back, but I threw them in to see how they would affect the rotation. If Rio wins 2016, then I think Cape Town would more likely be 2024. If Chicago or Tokyo win 2016, then Cape Town might stand a greater chance of getting 2020. If Rio gets 2016, and Cape Town gets 2024 - they will still have a big affect on the rotation for at least 30 years.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, everything will depend if the IOC voters are not greedy and give the games to any American city.

Isn't there a possibility that the IOC might vote for an American city for reasons other than the mighty $$? Just maybe?

America has hosted some great Olympics yet whenever there's a strong possibility of them winning an Olympic bidding war, some people always look to tarnish their hard work by claiming the only reason the IOC could possibly send the Olympics to America (often at the expense of their own city of course) is money!

Seems a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully understand one of the entertaining forces on the forum is to debate your city/country with someone else - it's fun. But I think what is sometimes forgotten in all of this is the overall "purpose" of the Olympics. Which is... to bring people together regardless of culture, race or creed and unite them through sport. It also generate national pride which is clearly exhibited on this forum, but lets work a little harder on being a bit more open and not try to be offensive, just to get a rise out of people.

It's part and parcel of the board. When you have something that people feel so passionately about as their home city or country's chances to host an Olympics, it's inevitable, particularly here, that they're going to vent their feelings strongly. And it's also hard to control how any thread develops. Just be patient, skip over the various transnational skirmishes, and concentrate on those posts that interest you.

Jeez, sometimes I'm glad I'm from a city that's had it's time in the sun and a country that won't be able to seriously bid for some time _ at least I don't need to get too emtionally involved in these bidding wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...