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."
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.
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...
Here's Tanja Szewczenko's LP from 1994 Worlds. How does it hold up:
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.
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.
Last edited by antmanb; 07-30-2008 at 10:49 AM.
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?
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.