I can understand the sentiments behind the last two; the former speaking for itself, but the latter is where it gets a little more complicated. The title can easily be interpreted as one that denies Michelle's American background and given the history of America towards Asian Americans, most Asians or other people like myself tend to get defensive. (And Asians are also are one of the smaller minorities in America.)
I'm sure the person who wrote the article didn't mean any harm. The title was just poorly worded.
Unlike a movie-that-shall-not-be-named-now that's come out recently ....
Last edited by aftertherain; 08-09-2010 at 01:33 AM.
Wasn't something similar written when Kristi won that set off a whole "racist headline!" too? Or maybe it was they worded it "Japanese-American" wins Gold?
However, it seems that this kind of talk is missing the most important points. I'm not a huge of resumes and lists of medals. I think the manner of winning (or losing) is the most important. pangtongfan's post seemed like a tongue-in-cheek jab at those who want to trumpet people's careers over others'--there are lots of skaters with impressive careers. When Michelle lost, she still gave it her all and accepted it gracefully--in 1998 she was silver despite skating flawlessly (IMO). And when she won, she won gloriously, making casual fans take notice, adults cry, and kids cheer. The way she skated was special. There is no reason to put down others' achievements and claim they aren't that great. No one and nothing can take away from Michelle's talent, period.
Sorry, I think my post came across a different way than I intended. There's a reason I said Michelle's dominance is "also" special, not more special. "All the more" doesn't mean "more than Yu-na", it means there is also something special in that there is significance to the fact that Michelle became popular in the sport during the time that the sport happened to be at its most popular in the United States, a country that already had a long history of greatness in the sport. It's a great thing for Michelle, if anything. Although Michelle never had the same kind of stress Yu-na had with an entire country's hopes upon her, Michelle still had her own different stresses which were much less than Yu-na's but still considerable, such as dealing with constant phenoms from her own country coming up and occasionally stealing her crown (which in a country with such a strong record as the US, throughout ten years, was a given)
You're right that trumpeting people's competitive histories doesn't mean much in the long run, Sonja Henie's competitive career would kick anyone's in the butt. I guess I just had a gut feeling that pangtongfan's post was not so "tongue-in-cheek", I've just heard similar shtick before, and I also think such "trumpeting" posts are to be expected in a thread dedicated to a certain skater. It's just the nature of fandoms. I accept there are fans of other skaters and I myself enjoyed Sarah and Tara's performances, but in his comparisons he bunched Kwan and Hughes together which I thought was laughable. Again it's all quite immature, meaningless stuff, forgive me for going over the top as I tend to do in my fan worship
Last edited by ashdustannie; 08-09-2010 at 03:51 PM.
Thanks for posting this very well written article. The Kween looks fab in her red dress and love her shoes.
Oh duhh!!!! right back at you, the judges gave MK higher presentatin at nats. That was the point I was making that I agree with the judges. I never said kwan's prsentation was better at Nagano. (this is the lp we are talking about of course, at Nagano, Kwan's marks on both were higher in the sp)And no, I don't care about your opinion and criteria, which I disagree with. Michelle's presentation in 1998 was better than Tara's for the kinds of reasons that MKFSfan and others have outlined (TO ME, duhhhHHH)
Last edited by rtureck; 08-14-2010 at 05:38 PM.
Nahh, I will agree with MKFSfan and the other posters who said that they'd give the tech at Nagano to Lipinski and the presentation to Kwan - but that I agree with the outcome regardless, because in my view Lipinski's presentation was pretty darn good as well and the tie-breaker in my mind should defer to the tech - it's more objective.
But uHHhh oH wait the judges gave the tech and presentation to Tara and that's how it was and I agree and that's my argument. Plus she did a triple loop, holy crap the triple loop. and a bit of a fluTz but who cares they judges still counted it so it counts as a real lutz, the judges r right.
The view of the triple loop as desperately difficult is a new one.
The first triple jump ever landed was a triple loop, by Dick Button.
In the 1980's and 1990's, it was thought that the 3F and 3Lz were both significantly harder.
Were it not so, Midori Ito would have ruled the 1980's, but instead it was the era of Kat Witt, who mostly had only 3T and 3S and 2A. (Of course, figures had something to do with it...) Midori had both a double loop triple loop combination and a triple loop triple loop combination. Here's a video of her doing an assortment of both jumps.
BTW, Tara's 2A was not veryl good, and that should be mentioned along with the flutz, AFAIR.
It was always small, slightly underrotated and often quite iffy on the landing.
Here's her 2A in the long program at Nagano.
BTW, her flutz was not a slight flutz-the edge wobbled and then took off on a clear inside edge.
Last edited by dorispulaski; 08-15-2010 at 05:14 PM.
I couldn't care less that you think tech should be the tie breaker, . The rules in 1998 clearly gave the tie break to presentation for the lp. That is if skater A scores 6.0 tech and 5.9 presentation, and skater B scores 5.9 for tech and 6.0 for presentation the tie breaker is the presenation mark.Nahh, I will agree with MKFSfan and the other posters who said that they'd give the tech at Nagano to Lipinski and the presentation to Kwan - but that I agree with the outcome regardless, because in my view Lipinski's presentation was pretty darn good as well and the tie-breaker in my mind should defer to the tech - it's more objective.
Oh duhh, didn't I said Tara won by both tech and presentation?
Oh, I thought you siad you can make the case of Tara wining just on tech alone.But uHHhh oH wait the judges gave the tech and presentation to Tara and that's how it was and I agree and that's my argument.
What do you mean by she did "a triple loop". She did triple loop/triple loop combo. I mean nowadays triple loop is a rare thing among OGM just look at our or your looples OGM . Are you confused, because you hvaen't been seening too many triple loops, and took a triple loop/triple loop combo for a single triple loopPlus she did a triple loop, holy crap the triple loop. and a bit of a fluTz but who cares they judges still counted it so it counts as a real lutz, the judges r right.
Last edited by rtureck; 08-15-2010 at 11:30 PM.
I guess Tara's triple loop/ triple loop combo is spectacularly overwhelming. But I am not overwhelmed to the point of minimizing her triple loop/ triple loop combo just "a triple loop". I still know what is the tie breaker for lp in 1998, it was the presentation mark not the tech mark.Yeah...if anyone else wants to address this jumble of slop, feel free. Ohhh wait, dorispulaski did, but rtureck is overwhelmed, I guess.
Talk about Tara's double axel. I think her 2a techique is a bit unconventional, that does not mean her 2a was not good. She was a roller skater champ before she took on figure skating seriously , it seems like she was applying some of her roller skating technique to her axel
Last edited by rtureck; 08-15-2010 at 11:33 PM.
Maybe the ISU, too, is wondering where the loop jump went and is trying to encourage more skaters to try it.
Another new rule change that might have the same effect (to encourage triple loop attempts) is the one that limits the number of double Axels to two.
Limiting the double axels to 2 is long overdue IMO.
I am well aware of Tara's 3Lo-3Lo, which I have commented on long ago in this forum, but I believe it was my original argument that Tara's technical performance was above and beyond what Michelle laid out (or could have laid out)--and that combination is one of the factors. So, it is not clear what bone you have to pick with me, and by your repeated post editing and increasingly sloppier spelling and writing, I would guess maybe I hit some kind of nerve with you? (Or perhaps you are just sloppy by nature.) 4/9 judges at Nagano gave Tara and Michelle a tie on presentation, 5/9 already gave Michelle a higher presentation score. Saying that Michelle's Nats performance would have pushed international judges at Nagano to give her yet higher presentation marks is a stretch and a speculation I do not engage in. There are Michelle fans and skating purists who even think that Michelle may even have been undercredited on her tech, because she put out all the standard 5 jumps in a technically clean manner (with the saved landing on the flip.) Regardless, the judges unanimously said Tara owned the technical that night. See? I can still make a case for Tara winning because of her tech, which continues to be impressive today--not just for the 3Lo-3Lo (omg omg omg 3Lo?? TWO OF THEM?? IN COMBINATION? so magical! 3Lo) but also because of the layout, the fact that she spreads her jumps out throughout the program, and doesn't even do her most difficult elements right at the beginning.
ETA: The judges weren't unanimous about Tara's tech advantage over Michelle. The US judge said Michelle was just as good at her tech, and better on presentation.
Last edited by prettykeys; 08-16-2010 at 02:04 PM.