Sports in Canadian culture

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Your posts are dumps in comparison with most forumers, either from Western or Eastern Canada.

I never said anything about entitlement. You did. Quit putting words in my mouth, and if you are going to do this, at least learn to use the proper grammar. Your posts are childish in structure and content.

Fail.

Yes grammar. That sure helps your cause. I'm a high school drop out if I spell a few words wrong here and there I can live with it. My posts are not any more childish than "Their will be no world cup final in Edmonton because...well Edmonton" Is Toronto really on a pedestal so high that it can't be criticised?

We have a bunch of eastern forum members bashing western cities as if They are not on the same level as T.O and Montreal. I take offence to that because iv'e been to Toronto and Montreal and I can tell you it's not true. I'm gonna consider the source of who doesn't agree with my posts and move on because so far almost all of you are from Southern Ontario. Edmonton is a great city and has proven it Can handle these types of event's no problem. Vancouver also has an impressive resume with these types of events. Get over yourselves.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Is Toronto really on a pedestal so high that it can't be criticised?

We have a bunch of eastern forum members bashing western cities as if They are not on the same level as T.O and Montreal. I take offence to that because iv'e been to Toronto and Montreal and I can tell you it's not true.

Toronto is not above criticism. I can lob all sorts of criticism about Toronto, from its horrible municipal politics to its inability to deal with congestion for over 30 years. But I hope people from Alberta can recognize that Toronto and Montreal are in a different class of cities than Edmonton or Calgary or even Vancouver, for that matter.

[TownGuy]

Not believing your story of actually being to Toronto or Montreal. Anyone who's actually visted all 3 would not be able to say Edmonton is "on the same level" straight faced. Not going to speak to Vancouver because it is a different kind of city.

[Airboy]

So I am going to change the subject. This is an Olympic year. The COC must submit athlete names by June. What are your predictions for the coming summer games.

An intereting fact, Canada can have more male road cyclists that the US. I think we get 4 the us gets 3.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by rousseau

It's pretty much always the most prominent cities in a given country, with the two lone notable/arguable exceptions being Bern and Los Angeles. And maybe Rio, though I suspect that not many people outside of Sao Paolo would really have expected it to be held anywhere else than Rio.

Sao Paolo is to Toronto as Rio is to Vancouver though. This is a common comparison amongst my Brazilian friends, and having been to both cities I would tend to agree.

Do they choose the picturesque setting for the final broadcast or do they go with the much bigger city? How parochial and naive to believe that the answer is somehow predetermined.

I've lived in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton. I don't see Edmonton with the final, but the other three are all serious contenders due to their individual strengths. Were Vancouver and Montreal just smaller versions of Toronto, then yes, I believe the choice would be obvious. However, all three cities are uniquely compelling experiences. If your argument relies upon diminishing one or the other to make your case, well, I think you're revealing a serious blindspot here and your opinion would perhaps benefit from getting to know these cities better.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Sao Paolo is to Toronto as Rio is to Vancouver though. This is a common comparison amongst my Brazilian friends, and having been to both cities I would tend to agree.

Do they choose the picturesque setting for the final broadcast or do they go with the much bigger city? How parochial and naive to believe that the answer is somehow predetermined.

Toronto is to Sao Paulo as Rio is to Montreal, not Vancouver. It isn't just a pretty setting, it's the country's historical metropolitan centre and former capitol, and still really its showpiece city. For that reason it holds a role of significance to Brazil that Vancouver just doesn't have for Canada.

(That's not to say that Vancouver wouldn't make a fine host city - your comparison is just off. And it's just not an obvious choice like Rio was for Brazil's World Cup)

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Toronto is not above criticism. I can lob all sorts of criticism about Toronto, from its horrible municipal politics to its inability to deal with congestion for over 30 years. But I hope people from Alberta can recognize that Toronto and Montreal are in a different class of cities than Edmonton or Calgary or even Vancouver, for that matter.

That's my personal opinion. I Liked Vancouver over Toronto or Montreal. I think Vancouver would represent Canada just as, or more gracefully than Toronto or Montreal I think Toronto is a big nice city with lots and lots of people..end of story.

Back to the point of Edmonton or any western city short of not being able or worthy to host a WCF. This I completely disagree with. All I'm saying is that Toronto isn't The only Major city in Canada and people from Ontario need to start getting that through your heads. I was scrolling through a certain Toronto based forum looking for updates on BMO and they were literally debating if Montreal was a major city or not. People have this stigma in Toronto that they live in the centre of the universe. It's ridiculous, I'm truly surprised some of you aren't suggesting Toronto builds 8 stadiums and hosts the world cup by themselves

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Toronto is to Sao Paulo as Rio is to Montreal, not Vancouver. It isn't just a pretty setting, it's the country's historical metropolitan centre and former capitol, and still really its showpiece city. For that reason it holds a role of significance to Brazil that Vancouver just doesn't have for Canada.

(That's not to say that Vancouver wouldn't make a fine host city - your comparison is just off. And it's just not an obvious choice like Rio was for Brazil's World Cup)

I considered that Rio=Montreal aspect when posting, and my intention certainly wasn't to assert that Vancouver is the de facto choice for the final. Nevertheless, my comparison still holds. Rio is similar to Vancouver and Montreal. To me, overall, it feels more like Vancouver, my Brazilian friends feel similarly. In addition, Montreal is not Canada's former capitol, nor its showpiece city. I deal with tourists on a regular basis and the kind of awe they express for Vancouver's beauty seems more "showpiece" to me. Montreal is the most culturally vibrant city in Canada, as Rio is to Brazil, from what I understand. Rio and Vancouver, due to their natural settings, rank as some of the world's most beautiful cities. And yes, Toronto is definitely the Sao Paolo. My greater point though is that all three Canadian cities are genuine contenders. Size, beauty, or culture? What is most important?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I've lived in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton. I don't see Edmonton with the final, but the other three are all serious contenders due to their individual strengths.

Fair enough but it bears mentioning that Edmonton looks like it's entering a period of huge changes. I've never been there but have been following it more closely lately. Lots of development, in-fill, increased density, LRT, improvements to the river valley, etc.

Edmonton has lots of work to close the gap with Vancouver but the process has started. Canada won't host for another 10-14 years at the earliest. It's already the same size as Vancouver was when it hosted Expo 86.

[GreaterMontréal]

You can't play the World Cup on turf, you need natural grass. BC Place not natural grass. Canada will need to build at least 3 new stadiums. The women World Cup on turf was a complete failure. The field in Edmonton and in Ottawa reached 120-130F. cause it was shitty turf. and turf destroys your skin.

edit, ok I just saw that they won't replace the natural grass with turf at the BMO field. great news.
http://tipofthetower.com/2015/02/24/...tificial-turf/

[FrankieFlowerpot]

BMO does have natural grass

[flipv]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I considered that Rio=Montreal aspect when posting, and my intention certainly wasn't to assert that Vancouver is the de facto choice for the final. Nevertheless, my comparison still holds. Rio is similar to Vancouver and Montreal. To me, overall, it feels more like Vancouver, my Brazilian friends feel similarly. In addition, Montreal is not Canada's former capitol, nor its showpiece city. I deal with tourists on a regular basis and the kind of awe they express for Vancouver's beauty seems more "showpiece" to me. Montreal is the most culturally vibrant city in Canada, as Rio is to Brazil, from what I understand. Rio and Vancouver, due to their natural settings, rank as some of the world's most beautiful cities. And yes, Toronto is definitely the Sao Paolo. My greater point though is that all three Canadian cities are genuine contenders. Size, beauty, or culture? What is most important?

If you think Toronto has nothing going on but size, then you'll need to let everyone else know that. Toronto's cultural output and activity in much larger than Montreal's. You're either old and imagine Toronto as circa 1979 or ignorant. I'll claim the latter.

Vancouver = Rio? So you're a polluted, dirty, slum-riddled city? Beautiful that is

The Olympics there will be a massive failure.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

BMO does have natural grass

yes I know, but but there were talks that suggest they would replace the surface to accommodate the Argos and the TFC.

[GreaterMontréal]

A World Cup in Canada doesn't make sense. an impossible dream like the HSR

[elly63]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

yes I know, but but there were talks that suggest they would replace the surface to accommodate the Argos and the TFC.

No, there wasn't.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

A World Cup in Canada doesn't make sense. an impossible dream like the HSR

Apparently, you don't know Canada's history very well.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

You can't play the World Cup on turf, you need natural grass. BC Place not natural grass. Canada will need to build at least 3 new stadiums. The women World Cup on turf was a complete failure. The field in Edmonton and in Ottawa reached 120-130F. cause it was shitty turf. and turf destroys your skin.

It would be perfectly feasible to play a WC on artificial turf, there is nothing except ancient attitudes to prevent it. Attitudes will change even more in ten years time and FIFA has been a proponent of what they call "football turf" as a means to grow the game in places where a turf surface would be difficult to maintain.

But debating the field surface is a moot point because it isn't a big deal to change from an artificial surface to a turf surface with the lead time going into a World Cup

The WWC being a failure is complete bullshit for you to say and had you followed the research of the last three women's world cups, the one in Canada had the least amount of injuries (another myth busted)

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by elly63

No, there wasn't.

a hybrid surface was a possibility,

Apparently, you don't know Canada's history very well.

the Turbo train is not a real HSH, I'm talking about 300kmh+ . In Europe they will have TGVs that can go 400kmh , I'm talking about Montréal-Toronto in less than 2h.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

a hybrid surface was a possibility,

That is true, but a hybrid surface is essentially reinforced turf far from an infill surface that most people consider artificial.

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

the Turbo train is not a real HSH, I'm talking about 300kmh+ . In Europe they will have TGVs that can go 400kmh , I'm talking about Montréal-Toronto in less than 2h.

Aside from Eurosnobs, few in Canada give a rat's ass about high speed rail. We could build one, it would cost zillions but there is no large outcry for it.

Same with the world cup, we're capable of doing it, we could get the money for it but is there the political will to do it. And right now for HSR the answer is no. For the World Cup the will may not be far off.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by elly63

It would be perfectly feasible to play a WC on artificial turf, there is nothing except ancient attitudes to prevent it. Attitudes will change even more in ten years time and FIFA has been a proponent of what they call "football turf" as a means to grow the game in places where a turf surface would be difficult to maintain.

But debating the field surface is a moot point because it isn't a big deal to change from an artificial surface to a turf surface with the lead time going into a World Cup

The WWC being a failure is complete bullshit for you to say and had you followed the research of the last three women's world cups, the one in Canada had the least amount of injuries (another myth busted)

I played college soccer , natural grass and turf are not comparable. It's all about saving money, right ?