Michelle Kwan also said that Tonya was her idol.Originally Posted by blue dog
Michelle Kwan also said that Tonya was her idol.
I remember that! Tonya was trying to come back to skating, testing the waters to see whether audiences would accept her. Tonya skated quite creditably, finishing second.
Actually, Tonya was tied with Rory Burkhart for second, with Bonaly way out in front in first. Tonya edged out Burkhard on the tie-breaker -- the artistic program! In the technical program Tonya fell twice. But in the artistic she did fine, with three triples and a double Axel. Tonya also finished ahead of Tanya Kwiatkowski and Liz Manley.
The men's, pairs and dance fields were much stronger than the ladies. None of the top ladies of the day were willing to particpate. They asked Surya how she felt about skating with Tonya, and Surya said, "We were friends before all this happened. I am not going to turn my back on her now."
I'm not sure if it was at this time that Surya said that she thinks the ISU should reinstate Tonya because she has suffered enough.
At the time I thought Surya should've been the winner, mostly due to her tech difficulty. She always looked stiff and awkward to me, though, to be honest.
However, now I have come to appreciate what a master Yuka is at basics like edging, so I have no prob with her win.
Another "reasonable minds may vary" comp.
A lot of skaters didn't skate in that competition out of respect/support for Nancy... even though it'd been 5 years after the whack heard round the world they still sent the message... *shrugs*
Sorry to get slightly OT, but those skaters should've sent Tonya a thank-you note. Many of them wouldn't have made as much money as pros had it not been for Tonya's "misdeed."
Back to topic--I think part of the reason the judges didn't give it to Bonaly was that they felt she still had a lot of room to grow. Room to be more artistic, and to stop underrotating her 3/3's. Yuka was already the full package (sans the 3/3). They were sending Bonaly to contend with the new wave--Szewczenko, Kwan, and Bobek-- and, some thought, Baiul (though she never returned).
going slightly OT with you blue dog - I think most begrudgingly acknowledge that without the scandal in 1994 they wouldn't have had the super star status that they held for the few years of the 'golden age'... I think Scott Hamilton said as much in his book... but if I were a skater in that part of skating history I'd have a hard time looking at it with completely rose colored glasses... not the best thing that happened to the sport, and yet it was... if that makes sense
I really wish Bonaly would have learned to have a more fluid style... I'm not saying she should have tried to become a Yuka Sato type skater (I don't think that's her style) but something a little less jerky would have been nice... talk about just going from element to element...
To be fair Petrenko's landing of the triple lutz there was landed on the wrong foot with a touch down my the landing leg.It is true that Baiul's triple lutz was big, and it is true that she two-footed it, but the degree of the two-footing was pretty small in the overall scheme of things, often referred to as a "touchdown."
For an example of what I consider a "big 2ft," see this triple lutz (also underrotated):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaapd0kLAjE
Ant
Here's Tanja Szewczenko's LP from 1994 Worlds. How does it hold up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emE_wIVEPs0
The triple lutz (second jump) is two-footed by about the same amount as Baiul's in the SP at the Olympics. How would you describe it?
Just for fun, I tried watching my tape of the seven ladies' LPs that NBC showed us from that Worlds with criteria of the new judging system in mind.
For Skating Skills, I'd say that Bonaly's performance had plenty of power/energy and acceleration and was fine on balance and rhythmic knee action, but it was quite deficient in precision of foot placement; flow and effortless glide; cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps and turns; multidirectional skating; and one-foot skating. Therefore she would have to be marked way down in Skating Skills, lower than the rest of the ladies in this broadcast.
On the other hand, these are the areas where Sato excelled the most, so she would have very high scores for Skating Skills.
If I were judging, I'd go up a bit on Bonaly's Transitions, but not that much (she had some good moves between elements and sometimes entering the elements, but she also had a lot of telegraphing), and down a bit on Sato's; I'd still have them far apart on that mark.
Performance/Execution, Choreography/Composition, and Interpretation would be closer, but I'd still give the edge to Sato there.
Josee Chouinard was the one who really stood out for Choreography and Interpretation. Her program had a level of detail and finesse that we rarely see under the old system or the current one. Brilliant program -- too bad she didn't give a brilliant performance technically.
On GOEs, Sato would also have an advantage. Bonaly would have had negatives on her triple lutz (similar mistake to Szewzenko's, and Baiul's at the Olympics . . . and a smaller jump), triple loop, and triple flip-triple toe combination (the triple toe would have been downgraded), as well as most of the spins. If you count the ending spins on both feet as one spin, FCUSp, it would be level 2. The only elements I could really see giving positive GOE for would be the double axels, and the split flip if it were counted as a single flip.
For Sato, I'd expect negative GOEs for the triple flip and the first triple salchow, and maybe the combination spin, or the flying camel if we're being strict about number of rotations. I would definitely give positives to her step sequence and final spin, probably +2s.
Taking all that into account, Sato would come out well ahead on the PCS, and she might even end up slightly ahead on TES; if not, then only slightly behind.
In the old system, there weren't separate numbers for each of those aspects of the programs, and some of them would have been defined or conceptualized differently, but they were all part of what judges kept in mind when coming up with two marks, even if there is a tendency for fans and commentators to boil it down to jump content and general performance/execution, mentioning spins or skating skills or choreography only when they really stand out one way or another.
I think that was barely two footed. A slight brush on the ice by the free foot. I haven't seen the footage of Baiul's two foot but i wouldn't think it that serious. Back under 6.0 what was the mandatory deduction for two footing a jump in the SP? 0.2/).3?
Also i am amazed that Tanja landed those triple loops - she was so bent over/off axis for the first couple of revolutions i'm amazed she landed either.
Ant
Last edited by antmanb; 07-30-2008 at 11:49 AM.
See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6zKfZVurJY
In the short program, the deduction for a touchdown of the free foot, as in the examples mentioned here, was 0.1 to 0.2 depending on severity.Back under 6.0 what was the mandatory deduction for two footing a jump? 0.2/).3?
http://ww2.isu.org/news/980.html
For "starting or landing on two feet," it was 0.3. That means significant weight on both feet, not an incidental touchdown.
In the long program, there wasn't a mandatory deduction. Jumps "landed on two feet" (significant weight on both) were supposed to not count at all. For touchdowns, judges would just give partial credit and would each have their own methods for determining how much.
I must have watched at the time ( iwasn't that into ladies skating then) but i didn't remember it. I must say i really liked it as an SP. I think the two footed triple lutz was worse than Tanja's though. Tanja's looked more incidental whereas Baiul's looked more like the toe pick went down and took some weight on it. I think definitely a 0.2 deduction and arguably 0.3.
Ant
A copy of Surya's 1994 World's LP can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udTs6Kge67Y
Thanks for sharing the video. Bonaly had a hand down on the loop and URed the latter jump of the 3-3 combination from the flip. I feel that her spirals are somewhat questionable. Perhaps Yuka had better centering in her spins even though Bonaly had more difficult positions (Yuka's final spin was just a regular stand spin). Yet, I still feel that she was not bad if we see only the elements. She is actually great. She had 3-3-2 sequence and one of her lutzs was in a combination.
Somehow her performance doesn't really flow. Fewer transitions and the very long entrances stand out.
Please forgive me for being somewhat off-topic, but I wonder why the long entrance has never been a problem for Carolina Kostner, but it was for Bonaly. Carolina is less awkward in her upper body movements, but her entrance is as long as that of Bonaly.
ETA: Back to the topic, I also realize that judging was pretty close. Five judges gave Yuka the first place, whereas four judges gave Bonaly the firsrt place. So I suppose that final outcome could have been the opposite.
Many of the judges on this panel were from Europe. There was one French judge and he/she gave Bonaly the first. But no Japanese judge was included in the panel of FS.
Last edited by Bennett; 07-30-2008 at 07:09 PM. Reason: ETA
Thanks for the post, DorisP and Gloryday.
At the time, I thought Surya should have won. But now that I see it again, and I know a little more about skating than I did then, I see a lot of little mistakes and flaws in Surya's program.
Yuka Sato's skate was thrilling. One of those whole-greater-than-the-parts thing.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks