Re: Rank and Rate the top 5 Men's Long Programs of the 1994 Olympics.
My exact rankings of the long programs of the 94 Olympics are:
1. Petrenko. 5.8 technical, 5.8 presentation. Overall probably the best performance. He did all the jumps strongly though he was missing a triple-triple, good spins, and good overall program, choreography, and line, even if the program was a bit zzzz and typical Petrenko.
2. Stojko. 5.9 technical, 5.7 presentation. I hate giving him the Olympic Gold medal in retrospect considering he shows he is such a jaded and narrow minded person with a terrible attitude towards the sport. However overall his performance was the best. Very strong technical all around- triple axel-triple toe, 2 triple axels, very good spins, very good footwork. A good program and pretty well delivered too.
3. Candelero. 5.6 technical, 5.9 presentation. If he had landed the 2nd triple axel I would have given him the gold. As it was that was a big mistake. The rest of the jumps were impressive, some of them huge and dynamic. His jumping technique is not as clean or precise as either Elvis or Urmanov though, even though the jumps are still often huge. His spins were not that strong. I found his program genius and he carried it off so wonderfully.
4. Urmanov. 5.7 technical, 5.8 presentation. His jumps were strong but he didnt do a triple-triple and he had trouble landing that triple flip. The spins were not very good. The program showed his nice classical lines and nice interpretation but was bland and had too many posing sections. He also didnt seem that fast, albeit neither was Stojko. I dont really think he was technically stronger than Candelero, but I wanted to put him ahead of Browning overall and Candelero behind Stojko overall in the long.
5. Browning. 5.5 technical, 5.9 presentation. The best program of the event and overall very well delivered. Jumps wise it wasnt strong enough. The 2nd triple axel attempt was a mess, he didnt even try a triple lutz, and the triple flip looked 2 footed.
6. Boitano. 5.5 technical, 5.6 presentation. Solid other than 1 or 2 mistakes but boring. His jumps dont stand out in amateurs like they do in pros either. I see why every judge agreed on him being 6th in the long. I dont think he would have been a huge factor at these Games even skating cleanly to be honest. In pro competitions he was king, atleast until Browning came into his own, but in amateur competition he was a bit too old and dated. He couldnt even do all the triples anymore either (no triple loop). I
7. Millot. 5.3 technical, 5.7 presentation. Lots of unclean landings and not even a decent triple axel try.
Very interesting program, great musical sense for the tango, pretty difficult choreography too.
8. Cousins. 5.3 technical, 5.6 presentation. Pretty good skate. Shame about the triple axel try miss. Love that music.
9. Britten. 5.2 technical, 5.6 presentation. Great program and skating, no triple axel tries, and not even all his jumps clean that he did do.
10. Davis- 5.1 technical, 5.3 presentation. What a hot mess and with the mistakes the program was a bore.
20. Tatarov- 4.3 technical, 3.9 presentation. I didnt see all the others to know where he should place but this was painful to watch. It looked like a program from the 1700s with a costume and music to fit that era too, but with some poor attempts of 1990s jumps which almost all missed badly, and his sit spins look like an elderly trying to take a dump. How he even got the semi decent marks he did or even made the final flight even with his best skate I will never know.
Last edited by pangtongfan; 06-24-2010 at 04:05 AM.