Now I wasn't expected an unbiased and rational story since it is in a Midwest newspaper, but the support for Chicago to be the host isn't even close and frankly isn't that strong. And not that I'm terribly unbiased either, but there are many reason Los Angeles would make a much better host city:
- Successfully hosting the games twice before with the 1984 games perhaps the most successful and model for future games since.
- Absence of heat and humidity; this is an athletic event after all. And to the rebuttal that the smog will kill the athletes, smog levels are way down from 20 years ago when they weren't nearly as bad as expected for the 1984 games.
- If you are concerned with the "experience", how can you beat sandy beaches and the Pacific Ocean?
- And as far as sports history goes, I don't even know why the article tried to justify Chicago beating Los Angeles in this regard. Just to name a few:
- The aforementioned Olympic games, including Carl Lewis' 4 golds in 1984.
- The Lakers 9 championships spanning many years and different superstars from Wilt to Kareem to Magic to Shaq to Kobe and more.
- The Dodgers 5 World Series including 1988 with Gibson's memorable home run. And many stars from Koufax to Fernando to Hershiser and more.
- The Angels of all teams winning the World Series in 2002.
- The dynasty that is UCLA with basketball during the Wooden era and beyond (11 championships and 2 straight trips to the final 4 the last 2 years) but across all sports with more national championships than any other NCAA institution with 99.
- The history of USC football and 7 Heisman trophy award winners from the school.
And when it comes right down to it, who really thinks the Cubs are going to win the World Series by 2016? :)
In the end, the right choice for the USOC would be to submit Los Angeles as the candidate, but the right choice isn't always made.
