Yes, and that’s my point. I was mostly unaware of it, and I’m reasonably sure the vast majority of Americans were totally unaware of it. I vaguely recall hearing about the US side winning a match maybe (?) but that’s about it.
I think it’s great that we’re expanding our sports horizons, though. Just thinking that many Americans are going to be caught unawares in a few years by it.
Wait, who is “we” who hosted the T20 World Cup?
I’ve not heard that, and it sounds extremely implausible to me. But if you’re not willing to check it out, maybe it’s best to not pass along a “someone said” anecdote. We have enough deliberate misinformation in the world.
The US of A
Chill out, this isn’t FQ/GD. Anyone is free to dig into it if they can be bothered, I don’t particularly care one way or the other as it’s hardly earth shattering even to followers of the event.
Probably not. Storrow Drive in Boston is mostly on fill land. I suspect a lowered Storrow Drive would be in danger of constantly flooding.
TIL that Storrow’s widow Helen (who was also a contributor to the park) actively opposed the parkway, wanting it to remain public park land with no road. She led a successful petition to see it quashed; then she died, and after some parliamentary maneuvering the parkway was built.
Wallaby - I remember Nike’s asinine “You don’t win the silver, you lose the gold.” ad in '96. It got reamed by nearly everybody. Completely, totally, categorically reamed. (The response from the athletes themselves was varied, of course, but the general consensus seemed to be “Who the hell are you to judge us?”) In any case, when it comes to deciding how “stupid” a silver or bronze is, I say only one person’s opinion matters, and amazingly enough, it’s not mine either.
(Hasn’t Wimbledon always had runner-up trophies? Doesn’t cheerleading always have second and third place trophies, and occasionally fourth as well? Nobody seems to have a problem with them.)
Robot_Arm - I’m aware that only a few nations even have the infrastructure, logistical capacity, and organizational skills to successfully run the Olympics anymore. In a sense, that may be why they’re so much nicer now, sticking with proven winners. It seems like a natural endpoint…after too many boondoggles like Montreal, Athens, and Rio, at some point even the most starry-eyed politicians can’t delude themselves anymore.
This is a little off topic but I’ve always though cities like Boston shouldn’t even be in the running because it’s not a GLOBALLY great city. I have nothing against Boston but it seems bizarre to me that if you were going to hold a Summer Games in the USA, you;d hold it in what might, being really generous, be America’s seventh greatest city. I thought exactly the same about Atlanta and probably will about Brisbane.
Say what you will about Paris, Tokyo, Rio, London, Beijing, Athens, Sydney; they are their country’s greatest, most important, most famous cities. If a country has a second truly great city - like Los Angeles - that’s cool too.
Globally great cities are increasingly uninterested in hosting the Olympics. The IOC is pretty much needing to take whatever cities want to host. And, as the Paris and LA Olympic venues show, the games are more regional/national than ever before.
I mean, yeah, that’s the problem.
That said, the effect of fewer cities being interested might make it a better deal for those that do. LA and Brisbane are in the catbird seat for 2028 and 2032; no one else wanted it, so they can cut the deals they want as in fact LA did not only in 2028 but also in 1984, when no one else really wanted it and so LA made out pretty good. All Olympics out to 2034 were effectively given to the only city that wanted it.
The IOC will have no choice but to reduce the extravagant demands that have made previous Olympics a fiscal catastrophe. It seems Paris did okay.
It’s not yet clear who will bid for the 2036 Summer Games but it’ll be interesting to see.
The New York Times ran an article that Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants India to host the 2036 Summer Games. That seems crazy to me but the article says
If India’s bid to host the Games succeeds, the 2036 Olympics will follow a template established over the last 60 years by three other Asian nations — Japan (Tokyo 1964), South Korea (Seoul 1988) and China (Beijing 2008) — for whom the Summer Olympics served as a symbol of transition and emergence.
And honestly, lately there haven’t been multiple cities vying to host future games, so the IOC’s choices are limited.
Granted, twelve years out is too far to really know. One doesn’t even know who will be in charge of the country when they make the decision. But you’d think the IOC will be very opposed to giving the Games to a Western country after giving three in a row to them, and last two of which were to English-speaking countries; Canada’s hypothesis of having a combined Toronto-Montreal bid seems like a pipe dream to me. If India really wants to host, they’ll get it.
I hadn’t heard that Canada was considering a bid. Sure India might get the bid but is it able to offer the infrastructure and such necessary?
Rio wasn’t really there, either, and they still hosted.
I imagine it would be much the same for India - barely or insufficient structures built specifically for the games that hold together long enough to host and fall apart almost immediately after.
Sure! India has the capability to do that - after all, this is a country that builds nuclear weapons. We think of India as poor because most people there are poor, but it’s a big country with a huge economy. There are more rich people in India than there are people in Canada and no one would doubt Canada could hold an Olympics. The country as a whole could easily afford to host an Olympics if the government’s willing to shell out the cabbage.
Whether it’s a wise investment of not, well, that’s a different story. Didn’t work out well for Rio.
I don’t blame Rio, Athens or any other host city for that. The problem is the number of highly specialized facilities that are needed for the games but aren’t often needed otherwise. How often does one of these cities host a swimming competition requiring an Olympic-class pool or one for the high dive, or a velodrome or that water course used for the kayak and canoe competition?
Sure. It’s not really a matter of blame or anything.
Just an explanation that India probably won’t have any issues getting something ready. It’s been done recently before in a comparatively poorer nation.
In Montreal, the Velodrome was converted to a Biodome.
India’s big problem is temperature. By 2036 (heck, by now), it might not be safe for the athletes. This isn’t a problem just for India, but it will hit them sooner than the rest of the world.
The recommended maximum wet-bulb temperature for athletic events is 82.1F (27.8C). This map shows the projected maximum wet-bulb temperature averages in 2040-2059 in cities. India is one big blob of extreme heat, but note that the eastern US doesn’t do well either. (Sorry, the legend doesn’t show on the image - click through to the CNN story to see it.)
