Michelle Kwan's 1998 Olympic Long Program

fairly4 · Nov 5, 2010

mathman--regarding the TIME ISsue at the 2004's worlds it wasn't in effect-and the JUDGES didn't have to take it off and they wasn't sure they was supposed to yet they did. in fact in the same worlds a russian went over time and guess what no time called for it , in fact michelle was the only skated taken off for time limit at worlds in 2004 when their should have been more . the rules was hit and miss and ENFORCED ON MICHELLE KWAN ONLY.

also in regards to sasha 2004 worlds performance--yes that was consider by some people --me included her BEST performance.
which was overrated--why sasha skated welll guess what-no pressure--us bascially told press and public wanted her to win and michelle was done.it was in the verbage and you can reread between the lines with all the gushing the U.s did for sasha despite her screwups. (like miria-gushing despite screws and not in same league.)

Tonichelle · Nov 5, 2010

um, the "time rule" had been in effect well before 2004.

heyang · Nov 5, 2010

Originally Posted by Blades of Passion
She didn't dominate womens skating 2 seasons in a row. She was beaten by Midori Ito and Tonya Harding multiple times each.

Originally posted by pangtongfan
She won Worlds 91, Olympics 92, Worlds 92, U.S Nationals 92, Goodwill Games 1990. That is dominating womens skating like it or not.

I love Kristi, but the above just means she dominated 1992. Kristi was not the presumptive lock for Oly Gold. Midori edged out over her due to the threat of the 3A.

Never realized it before, but Kristi only skated sr singles for 4 seasons - finishing 6th, 4th, 1st and 1st at Worlds, and 2nd 3 times and 1st once. She was a pro for so long that it all just blended in together. Kristi was very fortunate to peak when she did both from an amateur perspective and from a professional perspective.

Blades of Passion · Nov 5, 2010

pangtongfan said:
She won Worlds 91, Olympics 92, Worlds 92, U.S Nationals 92, Goodwill Games 1990. That is dominating womens skating like it or not. Except for U.S Nationals 91 she won all the biggest events she was in. Nobody cares if she lost to Harding at Skate America or Ito at Trophee Lalique when you win all the events that matteer.

Yes it does matter. Going into the Olympics Yamaguchi's losses were certainly significant. She was NOT considered to be dominant over the sport. After her victory at Worlds in 1992 she then gained that aura, but certainly not going into the Olympics.

pangtongfan said:
You dont have to win every single event you enter to be dominant. Otherwise Michelle Kwan would have never dominated womens skating since the only season she was ever undefeated was 02-03 where she didnt even do the Grand Prix.

No, she was also undefeated in 1996 (she did do a Grand prix event for the 2002-2003 season

). You're not looking it in the right way either. Michelle Kwan was the person everyone said "if she skates her best, she will win." Her personal bests were the undisputed bar for the sport. She had long stretches of being undefeated as well and then would just get beaten once in a season. Kristi was NOT thought of that way during her amateur career.

pangtongfan said:
No the best in a field at a given time does not automatically get all 5.9s on the 2nd mark. In many of the years of womens skating from 77-84 there were World events without nobody getting 5.9s on the 2nd mark, and even when someone did it was never unaminous.

LOL, that time period is hardly what we are talking about. It pretty much never was unanimous in the time period I am talking about, correct, which is what makes Kwan's straight 5.9's across the board pretty telling of the way she was seen. But the most artistic person at an event (the person who was considered as such anyway) always got 5.9's on the second mark unless they blew it. Look at Nancy Kerrigan's poor performances when she was considered to be the incumbent person to win Worlds in 1993 -- 5.9's.

pangtongfan said:
Yes Yuka is a better competitive skater than prime Kristi on the planet you live on which is not Earth. Next.

Oh but wait apparent skating queen Yuka Sato was in the field (she finished 7th) so I guess Kristi wasnt really the most artistic skater that year.

Your reading comprehension is quite low. Yuka Sato in 1992 was not as good as she would be later so I'm unsure why you would make that comparison. Yet again you are only looking at competition results as well and have nothing to say of the actual skating. And, no, I did not say Yuka was a better competitor. I said she was a better SKATER outside of the jumps. Which is true, in terms of skating skills at least.

pangtongfan said:
She would not have gotten as high of scores as she did nor would she have even been close to Mao in scores had the Olympics not been in Canada, had the performances been the same. Fact. I really dont care about your delusional viewpoint on the matter either.

It's hardly a "fact" and you're the delusional person to continually make such a statement. Joannie was the reigning World Silver Medalist and her choreography WAS considered to be better than Mao's. She was also more consistent than Mao leading up to the Olympics. Combine that with the tragedy of her mother dying right before the competition and you have plenty of reason for the judges to mark her PCS ahead of Mao's.

pangtongfan said:
Yet that same program was given 4 6.0s at Nationals even not skated that well anyway. I guess that already dispells the significance of how many 6.0 received at Nationals which you were using as your "proof" of something higher.

The 6.0's for Kwan's 2005 LP at Nationals was the result of momentum and it being the last 6.0 competition ever. You are so, so bad at drawing comparisons. And again only looking at scores/results. The way people talked about Kwan's 1998 program was along the lines of it being THE best program they have ever seen. So, back to the point of the thread, yes Kwan's 1998 Olympic performance easily would have beaten Yamaguchi's 1992 Olympic performance.

pangtongfan said:
You really look more clueless by the minute. Miki Ando in 2004 was a horrible skater outside of her jumps

And yet the judges put her ahead of Kwan in the SP after Kwan skated clean (even if there was a time issue, which the judges could have ignored or only tapped her on the hand for if they felt that strongly about the performance). I'm hardly clueless, that's your terrain. I'm sure Kwan knew she wasn't invincible without a 3-3, as she experienced in the past. It's not just Miki Ando, but the others as well. Regardless of the potential that Kwan could beat a multiple 3-3 program from Arakawa with a 6-Triple program (or a multiple 3-3 + Quad program from Miki Ando), there is NO way you can say that everyone knew for sure Kwan could win with a 6-Triple program. Especially if Cohen managed to do a 7 Triple program with a 3-3. It's obvious that Kwan needed the 3-3 to be most competitive and the fact that she didn't try it shows that she was technically past her prime in 2004. In 2005 her technical consistency faded more. CoP certainly hindered Kwan since she never took it seriously and tried to compete under the system before 2005 Worlds but it was hardly the sole reason, or the biggest reason, for her downfall.

pangtongfan said:
It really shows your complete ignorance that you call Cohen's performance at Worlds (or Nationals) her very best.

I never said that. Fail at reading yet again. It was her performance AFTER Worlds at the competition where she skated cleanly with 7 Triples which was her best. That performance did not receive the same rapturous response as Kwan's 2004 LP. So, clearly, Kwan was still artistically better then Cohen at that point in time.

Olympia · Nov 5, 2010

heyang said:
Never realized it before, but Kristi only skated sr singles for 4 seasons - finishing 6th, 4th, 1st and 1st at Worlds, and 2nd 3 times and 1st once. She was a pro for so long that it all just blended in together. Kristi was very fortunate to peak when she did both from an amateur perspective and from a professional perspective.

Though many other ladies' skaters of the past only skated senior singles for about 4 seasons, I know what you mean, Heyang: Kristi only devoted herself exclusively to singles for a relatively short time. Before that, she was equally intense about singles and pairs (with Rudy Galindo), and so her importance to American singles skating was kind of muted. After all, we had a dynasty of singles skaters at that time, and Harding was on the scene. By contrast, we were never rich in pairs skaters, and she and Galindo got more spotlight for that. At some point she had to choose one or the other or forever remain a pleasing B+ -level skater. I guess she figured that an American pair, especially one with a smaller guy, could never reach the world podium in that era of Russian superiority. She seems to have made the right decision!

I also agree with you that Kristi's eligible career and her pro career seem to melt together. I just think of her as a wonderful skater that we were privileged to see for a good long time, without making a dividing line between Olympic career and Stars on Ice. As far as whether she could have/would have/should have beaten Michelle, Tara, or anyone else out of her era, I have no opinion on that. She was a wonderful combination of athlete and artist, though her temperament did not (to me at least) lend itself to the intense and poetic artistry of Kwan or Cohen. But Kristi certainly wasn't a bulldozer, and she didn't have a tin ear: she was musical and smooth across the ice. The thing about her is that (again, this is subjective) she drew me in more as her career progressed and she became a more mature and polished performer. One of the many gifts of Stars on Ice to skating fans!

pangtongfan · Nov 5, 2010

Blades of Passion said:
Yes it does matter. Going into the Olympics Yamaguchi's losses were certainly significant. She was NOT considered to be dominant over the sport. After her victory at Worlds in 1992 she then gained that aura, but certainly not going into the Olympics.

Zzzzz........Yamaguchi won the 91 Worlds, 92 Olympics, 92 Nationals, 92 Worlds. She was the dominant skater those 2 years hands down, whether she was always expected to be or not is irrelevant. Kwan wasnt expected to win the 2001 Worlds, 2000 Worlds, maybe the 96 Worlds, and was only picked to win the 98 Worlds since the Olympic Champion wasnt there, so by your logic she was never dominant since she wasnt "supposed" to win except for times she didnt win (eg- 98 and 2002 Olympics, 97 and 99 Worlds) Next...

No, she was also undefeated in 1996 (she did do a Grand prix event for the 2002-2003 season ).

No she was not undefeated in the 96 season. She finished 3rd behind Slutskaya and Butyrskaya at Centennial On Ice.

You're not looking it in the right way either. Michelle Kwan was the person everyone said "if she skates her best, she will win." Her personal bests were the
undisputed bar for the sport

This is simply not true. Tara beat a clean Kwan at the 98 Olympics, and that was the only time both skated a clean competition against each other to boot. Michelle could only ever beat Irina during the 2000-2002 period if she skated lights out and Irina then made mistakes (2000 and 2001 Worlds). It was presumed by most in the know that (including Dick and Peggy who were Michelle's biggest backers) that Sasha would win Nationals each year from 2003 onwards if she skated cleanly as well.

She had long stretches of being undefeated as well and then would just get beaten once in a season.

95-96 season: 3rd at Centennial On Ice behind Slutskaya and Butyrskaya

96-97: 2nd to Tara at Nationals, 2nd to Tara at the Grand Prix final, 2nd to Tara at Worlds.

97-98: Lost the Olympic Gold to Tara.

98-99: Did nothing but cheesefests most of this year then lost decisively to Maria in her only real competition at Worlds (other than the battle vs 13 year olds at Nationals).

99-2000: Beaten soundly by Slutskaya at Grand Prix final then after her clean short program at Worlds was still only good enough for 3rd place capatilized on major errors by defending World winner Butyrskaya and Slutskaya to win with her best performance ever.

2000-2001: Beaten by Slutskaya at Skate Canada, beaten by her again at the Grand Prix final, but after placing a distant 2nd in the short program at Worlds again able to rally again through determination and steadier nerve.

2001-2002: Beaten by Slutskaya at Goodwill Games, by Hughes and Slutskaya at Skate Canada, by Slutskaya at the Grand Prix final, by Hughes and Slutskaya at the Olympics, and by Slutskaya at Worlds.

2002-2003: Her only undefeated season, you are right she did skate Skate America which I had forgotten, U.S Nationals, and Worlds. Still a watered down season with no intent of trying for the Grand Prix final.

Kristi was NOT thought of that way during her amateur career.

That is purely subjective. As the above proves Irina once in her prime was a HUGE threat to Michelle and Midori Ito who Kristi faced is a way better skater than Irina.

LOL, that time period is hardly what we are talking about. It pretty much never was unanimous in the time period I am talking about, correct, which is what makes Kwan's straight 5.9's across the board pretty telling of the way she was seen. But the most artistic person at an event (the person who was considered as such anyway) always got 5.9's on the second mark unless they blew it. Look at Nancy Kerrigan's poor performances when she was considered to be the incumbent person to win Worlds in 1993 -- 5.9's.

More proof you know squat about you are talking of. Kerrigan's artistic marks at the 93 Worlds were 5.3 to 5.8 range:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0pOEmhBu4E

Kristi got all 5.9s at the 92 Games on the artistic mark as the 1st skater of the last flight except for the Japanese judge (the country Ito is from). So if you are going to build that up as remarkable for Michelle then it is for Kristi too. End of.

Your reading comprehension is quite low. Yuka Sato in 1992 was not as good as she would be later so I'm unsure why you would make that comparison. Yet again you are only looking at competition results as well and have nothing to say of the actual skating. And, no, I did not say Yuka was a better competitor. I said she was a better SKATER outside of the jumps. Which is true, in terms of skating skills at least.

Sato isnt better at anything other than basic skating and footwork. Sato had very well executed spins, that scratch spin especialy with amazing, but they were all fairly simple. Spirals I would say Kristi is better. Overall choreography, interpretation, grace, maturity, polish, and flow I would all give to Kristi over Yuka.

Anyway it doesnt matter. The fact is Kristi wasnt skating or jumping as well by 97 which is why she was starting to lose to people like Sato who pose no real threat to her at the peak of her skating.

It's hardly a "fact" and you're the delusional person to continually make such a statement. Joannie was the reigning World Silver Medalist and her choreography WAS considered to be better than Mao's. She was also more consistent than Mao leading up to the Olympics. Combine that with the tragedy of her mother dying right before the competition and you have plenty of reason for the judges to mark her PCS ahead of Mao's.

Say what you want, as usual you are off in your own fantasy land but that is your problem. Nearly everyone around the time of the Olympics agreed with me that Joannie was marked higher since the Olympics were in Canada. Why dont you try starting a poll and see how it turns out. The most telling thing is she lost the silver to Mao by a few points and won the bronze over Nagasu by an ocean. Yet today what to people talk about? Nobody discusses whether Joannie deserved silver over Mao, only whether she deserved the bronze over Nagasu.

The 6.0's for Kwan's 2005 LP at Nationals was the result of momentum and it being the last 6.0 competition ever.

So your are admitting she was gifted 6.0s at Nationals that year, which in fact happened many years. 1998 I wont question, but beyond that......If not she would have been raking in the 6.0s at Worlds too. Anyway basing anything off Nationals scoring is stupid. I wonder how many 6.0s Witt and Slutskaya got at their Nationals over the years. Nationals scoring is of no significance to the big picture of things at all.

You are so, so bad at drawing comparisons. And again only looking at scores/results. The way people talked about Kwan's 1998 program was along the lines of it being THE best program they have ever seen.

and then she didnt skate it with as much conviction or attack at the Olympics and lost to a 15 year old with tiny judges, flutzes, and less than top notch artisty and maturity on ice.

And yet the judges put her ahead of Kwan in the SP after Kwan skated clean (even if there was a time issue, which the judges could have ignored or only tapped her on the hand for if they felt that strongly about the performance).

Yes indeed Kwan the unbeatable when skating clean (according to your earlier logic of comparing her to Kristi) 4th in the Worlds short program when skating clean. Interesting isnt it. :laugh:

So Kwan is supposably unbeatable in your World to main rivals when skating cleanly, just beatable to a mediocre short program skate by Shizuka and by a raw and sloppy early version of Miki Ando. Miki is a technical skater which the short program is about first and foremost. Which is why a skater like Irina regularly beat Michelle in the short program during Irina's prime years. Miki was no threat in the long program where her then ghastly artistry and lack of overall polish, skating quality, and ability to sell a performance are far more glaring.

As you will see Miki actually skated extremely well for herself in the 2004 Worlds LP and still wasnt even close to a medal. It is unlikely even without the popped planned triple salchow she would have been on the podium either considering the 5.5s and 5.6s she received on the 2nd mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geXgb2AO8TU

And without the time deduction Kwan would have been atleast 3rd over Miki and her triple lutz-triple loop in the short program anyway.

I'm hardly clueless, that's your terrain. I'm sure Kwan knew she wasn't invincible without a 3-3, as she experienced in the past. It's not just Miki Ando, but the others as well. Regardless of the potential that Kwan could beat a multiple 3-3 program from Arakawa with a 6-Triple program (or a multiple 3-3 + Quad program from Miki Ando), there is NO way you can say that everyone knew for sure Kwan could win with a 6-Triple program.

Kwan had planned to 7 triples. She happened to double the last triple lutz which is why she didnt win the LP which she nearly won anyway.

Especially if Cohen managed to do a 7 Triple program with a 3-3.

Cohen wasnt even attempting a 3-3 combination anymore by 2004.

I never said that. Fail at reading yet again. It was her performance AFTER Worlds at the competition where she skated cleanly with 7 Triples which was her best. That performance did not receive the same rapturous response as Kwan's 2004 LP. So, clearly, Kwan was still artistically better then Cohen at that point in time.

So Kwan the megastar after years of great success and being in the public eye is more popular than Cohen, thus gets better ovations, thus must be more artistic. Great logic. :laugh:

pangtongfan · Nov 5, 2010

According to Blades of Passion typical genius logic being favored to win events is actually more important and better than actually winning events. Note too how Evan wasnt really the best in 2009-2010 since he just won all the big events, he wasnt favored to which is more important. :laugh:

So I have an idea, instead of awarding gold medals and determining greatness by who actually won big events lets award then based on who was favored to.

So since 1984:

1984 Olympics: Women- Sumners, Men- Hamilton
1984 Worlds: Women- Witt, Men- Hamilton
1985 Worlds: Women- Witt, Men- Orser
1986 Worlds: Women- Witt, Men- Fadeev
1987 Worlds: Women- Thomas, Men- Orser
1988 Olympics: Women- Witt, Men- Orser
1988 Worlds: Women- Witt, Men- Boitano
1989 Worlds: Women- Ito, Men- Fadeev
1990 Worlds: Women- Ito, Men- Petrenko
1991 Worlds: Women- Ito, Men- Browning
1992 Olympics: Women- Ito, Men- Browning
1992 Worlds: Women- Yamaguchi, Men-Petrenko
1993 Worlds: Women- Kerrigan, Men- Browning
1994 Olympics: Women- Baiul, Men- Browning
1994 Worlds: Women- Bonaly, Men- Urmanov
1995 Worlds: Women- Bonaly, Men- Stojko
1996 Worlds: Women- Ito or Chen or Kwan, Men- Stojko
1997 Worlds: Women- Lipinski, Men- Stojko
1998 Olympics: Women- Kwan, Men- Stojko
1998 Worlds: Women- Kwan, Men- Eldredge
1999 Worlds: Women- Kwan, Men- Yagudin
2000 Worlds: Women- Slutskaya, Men- Plushenko
2001 Worlds: Women- Slutskaya, Men- Plushenko
2002 Olympics: Women- Slutskaya or Kwan, Men- Yagudin or Plushenko
2002 Worlds: Women- Slutskaya, Men- Yagudin
2003 Worlds: Women- Kwan, Men- Plushenko
2004 Worlds: Women- Kwan, Men- Plushenko
2005 Worlds: Women- Slutskaya, Men- Plushenko
2006 Olympics: Women- Slutskaya, Men- Plushenko
2006 Worlds: Women- Cohen, Men- Lambiel
2007 Worlds: Women- Asada, Men- Joubert
2008 Worlds: Women- Kim, Men- Takahashi
2009 Worlds: Women- Kim, Men- Chan
2010 Olympics: Women- Kim, Men- Plushenko
2010 Worlds: Women- Kim, Men- Takahashi

Wow Ito is now suddenly a 4 time World Champion and Olympic Gold medalist. She must be happy. As must be Slutskaya who is now a 4 time World Champion and the 2006 Olympic Champion (and possibly 2002 as well). I guess Slutskaya is now the new Katarina Witt. :laugh:

Speaking of Witt, so much for being a 2 time Olympic Champion. And Boitano now is suddenly only a 1 time World and 0 time Olympic Champion. Poor Yagudin is only a 2 time World Champion now. Plushenko must be thrilled, he is now a 2 or maybe 3 time Olympic Champion. Poor Lambiel is now only a 1 time World Champion. Lucky Kim is now a 3 time World Champion and Olympic Champ. And Bonaly is all of a sudden a 2 time World Champion (eeks).

Mathman · Nov 5, 2010

fairly4 said:
mathman--regarding the TIME ISsue at the 2004's worlds it wasn't in effect-and the JUDGES didn't have to take it off and they wasn't sure they was supposed to yet they did.

I am pretty sure that starting with the 1988-89 season the time limit for the short program was 2 minutes and 40 seconds. I was extended to 2 minutes 50 seconds in 2005, I believe.

The judges do not call a time violation. Time violations are called by the referee. Under 6.0 judging, if the referee called a time violation, each judge was required to take one-tenth of a point off both the technical score and the presentation score. (Michelle got four 5.9's in presentation, which would have been 6.0s.)

The referee for this event was Jan Hoffmann (Germany). Hoffmann, by the way, was one of the three judges that favored Michelle over Tara in 1998, and he also cast the deciding vote for Oksana Baiul over Nancy Kerrigan in 1994, breaking the four-four East-West split on the judging panel.

Michelle was clearly over the time limit by a second or two. (There is a "game clock" visible to the referee throughout the competition.) I do not think it is true to say that other skaters went over the time limit.

Anyway, by losing a mandatory tenth of point in each of the two marks for each judge, this put Michelle down in fourth place, behind Miki Ando (who skated great) as well as Arakawa and Cohen. This, along with a disastrous qualifying round, cooked Michelle's goose.

Michelle did have one "enemy" on the judging panel, though. One judge gave her a 4.9 in tech in the qualifying round and a 5.1 in tech in the short program.

pangtongfan · Nov 5, 2010

The judging of the 2004 Worlds was ridiculous in many respects anyway. Shizuka was majorly gifted in the short program. Her triple lutz-triple toe was badly underrotated as was her triple flip. Under COP she would have been credited with a poorly done triple lutz-double toe and a double flip. Her camel spin was short of revolutions. The program was nice but most of the elements were mediocre that day. EuroSport commentators felt she deserved about 6th place in the short so 2nd was a huge gift. On the other hand her long program was sheer brilliance and should have received unaminous 1st place votes which it did not.

On the other hand Sasha after her outstanding short program was overmarked for her tedious, flat, and flawed long program performance. She barely hung onto any landings, botched her triple salchow attempt, left out some combinations, and the choreography had been stripped down by Wagner. 3 judges still put her over Shizuka's masterpiece of a long program.

If the judges was correct in all aspects of the event Kwan probably would have won the gold with a 3rd in her qualifying group, 2nd in the short program behind Cohen either with or without the time deduction (with Shizuka down in 5th, 6th, or 7th where she belonged in this phase), and 2nd to Shizuka in the long program.

The biggest laugher of all though was Kostner's scores in the free skate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGZ8Gu_shO0

With this performance she finished 5th and passed the reining European Champion Sebeysten who skated very well. :laugh:

Mathman · Nov 5, 2010

pangtongfan said:
And Bonaly is all of a sudden a 2 time World Champion (eeks).

And well-deserved for the dominant skater of Europe from 1992 to 1995.

I think one of the reasons for some of these differences of opinion (besides the obvious, "everyone else but me is stupid"

), both here and on the Lysacek thread, is that we are using different definitions of "dominance." Plushenko was "dominant" in the sense that he utterly crushed everyone and there was no reason for anyone else even to show up (except the ever-inventive Sandhu. :rock:

).

Winning three closely contested events, with a couple of losses in lesser events in between, is a "less dominant form of dominance," it seems to me.

pangtongfan · Nov 5, 2010

I agree there are different definitions of dominant. For me winning all or most the major events over a briefer or extended period makes you dominant either in the short term (Evan 2009 and 2010) or over an extended period. Of course if ones definition is crushing everyone else then yes Evan would not be dominant in that sense.

I liked Bonaly but unfortunately she couldnt really skate (edges, use of the blade, flow, etc...). That said I still think she was actually robbed of the gold to the overrated Baiul at the 93 Worlds. That was the year she should have taken her medal off.

Blades of Passion · Nov 6, 2010

pangtongfan said:
Zzzzz........Yamaguchi won the 91 Worlds, 92 Olympics, 92 Nationals, 92 Worlds. She was the dominant skater those 2 years hands down, whether she was always expected to be or not is irrelevant. Kwan wasnt expected to win the 2001 Worlds, 2000 Worlds, maybe the 96 Worlds, and was only picked to win the 98 Worlds since the Olympic Champion wasnt there, so by your logic she was never dominant since she wasnt "supposed" to win except for times she didnt win (eg- 98 and 2002 Olympics, 97 and 99 Worlds)

Kwan was certainly the best skater at 2000 Worlds and 2001 Worlds. Slutskaya absolutely never deserved to win if Kwan skated her best, regardless of if she manged to beat a non-perfect Kwan earlier in the season.

Kwan did have long stretches of dominance which you are ignoring. All of the 1996 season + her first Grand Prix events of the 1997 season. Didn't lose a thing. That is dominance. She was undefeated in every non-ISU competition she entered from 1996 forward, if I remember correctly. She may not have done the Grand Prix circuit in 1998-1999, but she did perfect 7-Triple programs at other competitions and established herself as by far the best women's skater. In 1998, 1999, and 2000, she only lost one competition each season, placing 2nd each time. That is dominance. Then after 2002 she won all of the competitions she entered up until 2004 Worlds. Again, dominance.

pangtongfan said:
No she was not undefeated in the 96 season. She finished 3rd behind Slutskaya and Butyrskaya at Centennial On Ice.

Centennial On Ice. OH BABY. Weren't you just trying to lecture me about Grand Prix events not meaning anything? But then suddenly Centennial On Ice is important? Just stop it. The World doesn't need more hypocrisy.

pangtongfan said:
This is simply not true. Tara beat a clean Kwan at the 98 Olympics

A clean Kwan, not a perfect Kwan. There is a difference. Tara had to give THE performance of life to beat a clean-but-not-perfect Kwan.

pangtongfan said:
More proof you know squat about you are talking of. Kerrigan's artistic marks at the 93 Worlds were 5.3 to 5.8 range:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0pOEmhBu4E

Are you retarded? Kerrigan BOMBED in the LP. Of course she wasn't going to get 5.9's for that. It's hilarious how she even got 5.8's and 5.7's! Which is a clear display that they obviously would have thrown 5.9's at her if she hadn't bombed. In every OTHER performance before her LP at 1993 Worlds, however, she received at least one 5.9 on the second mark. Including the SP at Worlds.

pangtongfan said:
Kristi got all 5.9s at the 92 Games on the artistic mark as the 1st skater of the last flight except for the Japanese judge (the country Ito is from). So if you are going to build that up as remarkable for Michelle then it is for Kristi too. End of.

You're not looking at the circumstances surrounding the marks. Kristi was basically the ONLY choice after the SP and she was already considered the most artistic skater of the competition. After she skated, the judges were saying "Okay, you've won Gold. It doesn't matter if Midori Ito beats you in the LP because she already blew in the SP and we don't think anyone else can give a better performance." If Kristi gave that exact performance in 1998, her marks would have been .1 lower across the board for both technical and artistic, guaranteed.

pangtongfan said:
Sato isnt better at anything other than basic skating and footwork. Sato had very well executed spins, that scratch spin especialy with amazing, but they were all fairly simple. Spirals I would say Kristi is better. Overall choreography, interpretation, grace, maturity, polish, and flow I would all give to Kristi over Yuka.

How does Kristi have more flow than Yuka? Her turns and transitions between edges are not as good as Yuka's, nor does she have as much speed, and she ESPECIALLY does not stroke with the same lightness. More mature? I don't see that. I'd say some of Yuka's programs are more challenging than Kristi's, actually. Kristi had better arms and better facial expression. And she was a much more consistent jumper, of course. I don't see her as being better than Yuka in any other area.

pangtongfan said:
Nearly everyone around the time of the Olympics agreed with me that Joannie was marked higher since the Olympics were in Canada. Why dont you try starting a poll and see how it turns out. The most telling thing is she lost the silver to Mao by a few points and won the bronze over Nagasu by an ocean. Yet today what to people talk about? Nobody discusses whether Joannie deserved silver over Mao, only whether she deserved the bronze over Nagasu.

The discussion hasn't changed since the Olympics. Almost nobody thought Joannie deserved Silver, even if her choreography was better than Mao's. The power of Mao's Triple Axels is respected. The bigger discussion was always about if Nagasu deserved a medal. I don't think Joannie was given a boost because I don't think there was a need for it. Everyone knew that 1. Yu-Na, 2. Mao, 3. Joannie was the most desired placement going into the competition anyway. Plus, the Olympics always has the least amount of "boost the home skater up". It's bigger than that. Do you think Virtue/Moir were overscored because they were in Canada?

pangtongfan said:
Yes indeed Kwan the unbeatable when skating clean (according to your earlier logic of comparing her to Kristi) 4th in the Worlds short program when skating clean.

She wasn't clean, though. There was a time violation. The REAL issue, of course, was that she skated poorly in the qualifying round. She lost her momentum. Momentum is nearly everything when it comes to Figure Skating judges. When are you going to understand that?

pangtongfan said:
Cohen wasnt even attempting a 3-3 combination anymore by 2004.

There was always talk and possibility.

pangtongfan said:
So Kwan the megastar after years of great success and being in the public eye is more popular than Cohen, thus gets better ovations, thus must be more artistic. Great logic.

Better ovations, more 6.0's, bigger gushing by commentators round the World...these aren't infallible proof that she was more artistic, of course, but the point is that everyone was talking about Kwan's LP as being an all-time best performance. Nobody said that about Cohen's performance. It was more like "Oh, that was really nice! It's so great to see her skate clean!" And when we look back at the performances now those qualities are obvious. Cohen did a lot of pretty positions, whereas Michelle bared her soul.

pangtongfan · Nov 7, 2010

Blades of Passion said:
Kwan was certainly the best skater at 2000 Worlds and 2001 Worlds. Slutskaya absolutely never deserved to win if Kwan skated her best, regardless of if she manged to beat a non-perfect Kwan earlier in the season.

Slutskaya was the favorite both times and would have won both times if she skated her best. End of story. Butyrskaya also would have won in 2000 had she skated her long program nearly as well as her short.

Kwan did have long stretches of dominance which you are ignoring. All of the 1996 season + her first Grand Prix events of the 1997 season. Didn't lose a thing. That is dominance.

She lost all the most important events of the 1997 season. 1996 and 2003 are the only seasons she ever dominated. And I have already pointed out you were wrong on her being undefeated in the 96 season. And in the 96 season she had to come from 4th after the short program to win the Grand Prix final then won a very close and still debated today decision over Chen at the 96 Worlds. By the standards you hold Lysacek to that is not utter dominance at all. And 2003 was a really weak season for womens skating- Slutskaya sick and skating poorly, Hughes out of shape and skating poorly, Cohen bombing at all the big events, the Japanese not strong this year (other than Fumie Suguri who would never win a big event).

She was undefeated in every non-ISU competition she entered from 1996 forward, if I remember correctly.

every non-ISU competition? Could you get anymore desperate. And even then I am pretty sure you are wrong. She lost some of the USFSA cheesefests to Cohen and Slutskaya.

She may not have done the Grand Prix circuit in 1998-1999, but she did perfect 7-Triple programs at other competitions and established herself as by far the best women's skater.

She only did 2 real events this year, Nationals where she beat some 13 year olds, and Worlds where she placed a distant 2nd to Butyrskaya, where many felt her silver was a gift with a majorly held up short program. She did not establish anything.

In 1998, 1999, and 2000, she only lost one competition each season, placing 2nd each time. That is dominance.

Yeah when the events you lose are the Olympics, 99 Worlds, and your only appearance in the Grand Prix final of the 3 years, and when the 2 Worlds you win you the Olympic Gold medalist was missing and you come from 3rd after the short when the 2 leaders mess up inthe other. So winning 2 of the 4 (actually 2 of the 5) biggest events you are in, losing the biggest, and scraping to win 1 of the other 2, that is some dominance. :laugh:

Centennial On Ice. OH BABY. Weren't you just trying to lecture me about Grand Prix events not meaning anything? But then suddenly Centennial On Ice is important? Just stop it. The World doesn't need more hypocrisy.

You said she was undefeated, as usual your facts were WRONG and I proved it and now you are butthurt at getting exposed as an idiot yet again. Get over it. And Centennial On Ice had a stronger field across all disciplines than any of the Grand Prix events except the Grand Prix final that season, something if you werent so clueless to all things figure skating you would know. You are praising Kwan for nearly undefeated or undefeated seasons were internationally all she did were silly pro ams and 1 Skate America (eg 98-99 season and 2002-2003 season except for 03 Worlds) and now the Centennial on Ice does not count as an official loss for Michelle. And you call me a hypocrite. :laugh:

A clean Kwan, not a perfect Kwan. There is a difference. Tara had to give THE performance of life to beat a clean-but-not-perfect Kwan.

Tara was only 15. She was not even close to her potential prime, and likely had many better performances ahead had she continue. Kwan had improved so much since when she was 15 and first won Worlds.

Are you retarded? Kerrigan BOMBED in the LP. Of course she wasn't going to get 5.9's for that. It's hilarious how she even got 5.8's and 5.7's! Which is a clear display that they obviously would have thrown 5.9's at her if she hadn't bombed. In every OTHER performance before her LP at 1993 Worlds, however, she received at least one 5.9 on the second mark. Including the SP at Worlds.

Ummm read your own first post. You said even Kerrigan who bombed got 5.9s on the 2nd mark. I pointed out she did not, and now you are saying of course she wasnt going to get the marks that only you would be clueless enough to think she got for that performance in the first place.

How does Kristi have more flow than Yuka? Her turns and transitions between edges are not as good as Yuka's, nor does she have as much speed, and she ESPECIALLY does not stroke with the same lightness. More mature? I don't see that. I'd say some of Yuka's programs are more challenging than Kristi's, actually. Kristi had better arms and better facial expression. And she was a much more consistent jumper, of course. I don't see her as being better than Yuka in any other area.

Sandra Bezic has often called Yuka's programs simple choreographically. I would say she is a pretty good judge. Either way we can disagree, but if you started a poll on who people believed was a better skater Kristi or Yuka, and even put ignore medal count, Kristi would win by a landslide.

The discussion hasn't changed since the Olympics. Almost nobody thought Joannie deserved Silver, even if her choreography was better than Mao's. The power of Mao's Triple Axels is respected. The bigger discussion was always about if Nagasu deserved a medal. I don't think Joannie was given a boost because I don't think there was a need for it. Everyone knew that 1. Yu-Na, 2. Mao, 3. Joannie was the most desired placement going into the competition anyway. Plus, the Olympics always has the least amount of "boost the home skater up". It's bigger than that. Do you think Virtue/Moir were overscored because they were in Canada?

So you admit people dont even discuss the silver medal result between Mao and Joannie, and only the bronze medal result between Joannie and Mirai. This despite that Joannie finished only 3 points back of Mao and 13 points ahead of Mirai. You are essentialy conceding I am right that she was overscored since it was in Canada which was my point all along, thanks.

Virtue & Moir definitely deserved their win but yes they were also overmarked. Look at the difference between them and Davis & White compared to other events that season. All the Canadians skaters were overscored in Vancouver, which was a consensus at the time. Dube & Davison probably would have beaten a clean Pang & Tong (well other than the silly 1 point deduction) in the short program without a fall, imagine that anywhere else, LOL!

She wasn't clean, though. There was a time violation. The REAL issue, of course, was that she skated poorly in the qualifying round. She lost her momentum. Momentum is nearly everything when it comes to Figure Skating judges. When are you going to understand that?

YOU are the one who claimed she was clean and still lost to Ando in your bizarre attempt to build up Ando in 2004 when I was the one saying she was just a jumping flea with no polish, spins, or anything beyond jumps at that point and no major threat to Kwan (and that she only beat Kwan in the SP due to the time violation). You are the one who downplayed the time violation and stated that Ando finished over a clean Kwan in the short, not me, read your OWN post. Your arguments are so twisted and skewed you cant even keep track of them and the times you contradict yourself. You are really one of the dumbest people I have ever encountered. :laugh:

There was always talk and possibility.

Umm no there was not. There was never anyone thinking Sasha was going to attempt a triple-triple at the 2004 Worlds. She wasnt even practicing them, and the consensus was she didnt need one to win. And she didnt, she would have won the World over Shizuka and the U.S gold over Michelle that year if she so much as stayed on her feet.

It is funny too how when I have already shown it is pretty clear Michelle was going to beat Shizuka in the 2004 Worlds LP even without a triple-triple you have to resort to such desperations as Sasha's imagined planned triple-triple or building up the newbie Miki Ando as some big threat (which you then go back on when you forget what your original argument was ).

Better ovations, more 6.0's, bigger gushing by commentators round the World...these aren't infallible proof that she was more artistic, of course, but the point is that everyone was talking about Kwan's LP as being an all-time best performance. Nobody said that about Cohen's performance. It was more like "Oh, that was really nice! It's so great to see her skate clean!" And when we look back at the performances now those qualities are obvious. Cohen did a lot of pretty positions, whereas Michelle bared her soul.

Sasha in 2003-2006 was considered every bit as artistic as Michelle, if not moreso. Similar to how Lu Chen in her heyday was as well. Kwan is just fortunate that neither had any technical consistency whatsoever in their days of competing against her. Kwan being always regarded as hands down the best artist is another of your urban legends.

aftertherain · Nov 7, 2010

pangtongfan said:
She lost all the most important events of the 1997 season. 1996 and 2003 are the only seasons she ever dominated. And I have already pointed out you were wrong on her being undefeated in the 96 season. And in the 96 season she had to come from 4th after the short program to win the Grand Prix final then won a very close and still debated today decision over Chen at the 96 Worlds. By the standards you hold Lysacek to that is not utter dominance at all. And 2003 was a really weak season for womens skating- Slutskaya sick and skating poorly, Hughes out of shape and skating poorly, Cohen bombing at all the big events, the Japanese not strong this year (other than Fumie Suguri who would never win a big event).

Even if it is "debated", she still won gold overall in all her competitions. It's still considered dominating. And in 2003, she won all her competitions over a "weak field". That's still dominating as well.

pangtongfan said:
Sasha in 2003-2006 was considered every bit as artistic as Michelle, if not moreso. Similar to how Lu Chen in her heyday was as well. Kwan is just fortunate that neither had any technical consistency whatsoever in their days of competing against her. Kwan being always regarded as hands down the best artist is another of your urban legends.

I'll have to agree with this though. Michelle lost a lot of her artistry after 2001/2002. And although her 2003 Worlds FS performance is a favorite of mine, it left me wondering where most of her artistry had gone. (and I have to say that Chen Lu's 1996 SP was magical).

pangtongfan · Nov 7, 2010

aftertherain said:
Even if it is "debated", she still won gold overall in all her competitions. It's still considered dominating. And in 2003, she won all her competitions over a "weak field". That's still dominating as well.

She did not win gold in all her competitions though. She was 3rd at a competition behind Slutskaya and Butyrskaya in the 95-96 season. As for winning all the "major" events that season meaning Kwan dominated, I agree with that, but by the same token Lysacek dominated 2009 and 2010 winning Worlds, Grand Prix final, and the Olympics, the 3 biggest events during that stretch, which bitter Blades fails to acknowledge.

I'll have to agree with this though. Michelle lost a lot of her artistry after 2001/2002. And although her 2003 Worlds FS performance is a favorite of mine, it left me wondering where most of her artistry had gone. (and I have to say that Chen Lu's 1996 SP was magical).

I think firing Lori Nichol and Frank Carroll was a big mistake. That threesome worked as an amazing tandem together.

Blades of Passion · Nov 7, 2010

pangtongfan said:
Slutskaya was the favorite both times and would have won both times if she skated her best.

Good for her. She wasn't better than Kwan. Slutskaya was wildly overpraised as a successor to Kwan because of her performance at the 2000 GPF. She NEVER skated as well as that during any competition thereafter and the performance wasn't as good as Kwan's best performances to begin with. Her "artistic reneissance" was massively overstated.

pangtongfan said:
1996 and 2003 are the only seasons she ever dominated. And in the 96 season she had to come from 4th after the short program to win the Grand Prix final then won a very close and still debated today decision over Chen at the 96 Worlds. By the standards you hold Lysacek to that is not utter dominance at all.

She had a phenomonal 1996, better than any Lysacek ever had, stop trying to downplay it. She continued that streak by winning every competition she entered, until the LP at 1997 Nationals. Despite her struggles in the later part of the 1997 season, she was still considered to be by far the best if she skated her best.

Kwan only lost one competition in each of the 1998, 1999, and 2000 seasons. She placed 2nd at the ones she lost and was always considered to be the best if she skated her best (aside from maybe 2000 Worlds but I disagree with that sentiment). Yes, that is dominance. Lysacek, on the other hand, ONLY won Worlds in 2009, he lost multiple times in 2010, and he was not considered the absolute favorite for any event. He was never dominant, even if he did win the 3 biggest titles in the year long period from 2009 Worlds to 2010 Olympics.

pangtongfan said:
every non-ISU competition? Could you get anymore desperate. And even then I am pretty sure you are wrong.

Hardly desperate. It speaks to the way Kwan was undefeated at competitions that were considered very significant within the Professional World, not just cheesefests. Especially since several of those performances were 7-Triple programs. Kwan's performance of "Ariane" at the 1998 World Pro would have absolutely trashed Maria Butyrskaya at 1999 Worlds and Kwan went into 1999 Worlds as the undisputed, nobody-is-even-close-to-her favorite. She WAS the dominant fixture of Women's Figure Skating.

pangtongfan said:
You said she was undefeated, as usual your facts were WRONG and I proved it and now you are butthurt at getting exposed as an idiot yet again. Get over it. And Centennial On Ice had a stronger field across all disciplines than any of the Grand Prix events except the Grand Prix final that season.

Centennial On Ice was not a real part of the competitive season. It was like Marshalls or Campbells and didn't have much meaning. Individual Grand Prix events may have weaker fields, but they are more important.

pangtongfan said:
Ummm read your own first post. You said even Kerrigan who bombed got 5.9s on the 2nd mark. I pointed out she did not, and now you are saying of course she wasnt going to get the marks that only you would be clueless enough to think she got for that performance in the first place.

No, I never said Kerrigan got 5.9's when she bombed. YOU should read my post, since your reading comprehension has failed you again. What I said was her weak performances (which characterized her entire season lead up to Worlds) got 5.9's.

pangtongfan said:
Sandra Bezic has often called Yuka's programs simple choreographically. I would say she is a pretty good judge.

Simple doesn't necessarily mean worse. Simple, beautiful, interpretative moves used to be very well regarded before CoP.

pangtongfan said:
So you admit people dont even discuss the silver medal result between Mao and Joannie, and only the bronze medal result between Joannie and Mirai. This despite that Joannie finished only 3 points back of Mao and 13 points ahead of Mirai. You are essentialy conceding I am right that she was overscored since it was in Canada which was my point all along, thanks.

Yet again you try to connect two unrelated things. Mirai being talked about as underscored doesn't at all prove Joannie was overscored. People looked at Mirai's performance and said "Wow, she was clean and had awesome spins and extensions and a big smile, I wonder if she was undermarked." The point differences aren't the most important thing (you're looking only on paper, what a surprise). Asada was considered on a higher level over both of them because of her record-making Triple Axels. People mostly ignored Asada's mistakes later in the program, even though they were incredibly costly in terms of the points. That's why there isn't much debate about who deserved Silver between Asada and Joannie.

pangtongfan said:
Virtue & Moir definitely deserved their win but yes they were also overmarked. Look at the difference between them and Davis & White compared to other events that season. All the Canadians skaters were overscored in Vancouver, which was a consensus at the time. Dube & Davison probably would have beaten a clean Pang & Tong (well other than the silly 1 point deduction) in the short program without a fall, imagine that anywhere else, LOL!

Dube & Davison would have been 2 points behind Pang & Tong (who didn't skate their best, considering their Death Spiral was called as Level 1) without the fall. They would have still been behind Z/Z (who the judges were coming down on) as well. That doesn't sound off.

pangtongfan said:
YOU are the one who claimed she was clean and still lost to Ando in your bizarre attempt to build up Ando in 2004 when I was the one saying she was just a jumping flea with no polish, spins, or anything beyond jumps at that point and no major threat to Kwan (and that she only beat Kwan in the SP due to the time violation). You are the one who downplayed the time violation and stated that Ando finished over a clean Kwan in the short, not me, read your OWN post. Your arguments are so twisted and skewed you cant even keep track of them and the times you contradict yourself. You are really one of the dumbest people I have ever encountered.

I'm not contradicting myself at all, you simply fail to understand what I am saying. I downplayed the time violation because I don't believe it was as damaging to the scores Kwan received as the momentum she lost from her poor skate in the qualifying round. The judges could have just barely slapped her on the hand for the time violation if they wanted to but instead they seriously marked her down. It wasn't her best performance regardless (the way she skated the program the year before was better) but the fact that she went clean and was out of the top 3 was something that had never happened to her before.

Ando wasn't considered as poorly as you state either. Listen to both the U.S. and British commentary of her SP. They were very appreciative and thought Ando had a lot of confidence in her performance and a GREAT scratch spin (where on earth has that spin gone for Ando, I wonder). Dick Button even called her Layback "very pleasant". It is very likely that Ando would have received massive scores in the LP if she skated clean with a Quad and two 3-3's.

pangtongfan said:
Umm no there was not. There was never anyone thinking Sasha was going to attempt a triple-triple at the 2004 Worlds. She wasnt even practicing them, and the consensus was she didnt need one to win. And she didnt, she would have won the World over Shizuka and the U.S gold over Michelle that year if she so much as stayed on her feet.

Incorrect, she was still practicing them. She wasn't PLANNING to do it in the LP, although in retrospect it's debatable whether she would have beaten Michelle and Shizuka without a 3-3 considering the way they skated at those respective competitions. Nobody was expecting Michelle and Shizuka to skate that well. That's why Cohen was the favorite for both of those titles after the SP.

pangtongfan said:
It is funny too how when I have already shown it is pretty clear Michelle was going to beat Shizuka in the 2004 Worlds LP even without a triple-triple you have to resort to such desperations as Sasha's imagined planned triple-triple or building up the newbie Miki Ando as some big threat (which you then go back on when you forget what your original argument was ).

You're not looking at things in the moment. The judges might have ultimately decided that a 6-Triple Kwan with no 3-3 was better than Shizuka with multiple 3-3's, or Miki with a Quad + multiple 3-3's, or a clean Cohen with no 3-3, but Kwan herself did not know that before skating the LP (and she needed to win the LP + have someone beat Cohen as well in order to win the title). She was coming from behind and there was absolutely NO guarantee that her artistry would hold her up. She DID objectively need to do a 3-3 to have a chance at Gold if others skated their best. But, unlike earlier in her career, she didn't attempt it. Which, yes, is a sign that she was technically past her prime.

pangtongfan said:
Sasha in 2003-2006 was considered every bit as artistic as Michelle, if not moreso. Kwan being always regarded as hands down the best artist is another of your urban legends.

Wrong. She was considered to be potentially more talented than Michelle, and everyone wanted to see her achieve a legendary level of artistry, but her Long Programs in 2003 and 2004 did not surpass Kwan's. Again, look at the artistic marks Cohen received for a perfect performance of Swan Lake vs. the artistic marks Kwan received for Tosca. More importantly, look at the way people talked about those performances and how much people talk about them now.

MKFSfan · Nov 7, 2010

I haven't watched in a long time, but I thought Sasha did stay on her feet in her 2004 Worlds LP, just UR and turned out on the salchow? I think she also had a tight landing and omitted a combo, giving her 5, maybe 6 clean triples and 2 combos. Problem was, the program was very watered down by that point (hence "Robin Lake") and unless she skated perfectly clean ala the Spring Cheesefest, the program was boring and lifeless.

P.S...speaking of Sasha, whatever happened to her forum? I went to check it out the other day and the page wouldn't load. Just tried now and same deal.

pangtongfan · Nov 7, 2010

Blades of Passion said:
Good for her. She wasn't better than Kwan. Slutskaya was wildly overpraised as a successor to Kwan because of her performance at the 2000 GPF. She NEVER skated as well as that during any competition thereafter and the performance wasn't as good as Kwan's best performances to begin with. Her "artistic reneissance" was massively overstated.

Irina in her prime was technically superior to Kwan if both were at their best. Her jumps, spins, and even footwork were all superior, and she skated with more power and speed. And while her "artistry" wasnt very good, her presentation which is what the 2nd mark was, was actually quite strong. Not better than Michelle's but it didnt have to be to win since she was superior technically on a good day.

She had a phenomonal 1996, better than any Lysacek ever had, stop trying to downplay it.

Nah, no year is better than one that includes winning the Olympic Gold, the prize Kwan always wanted to win and the only reason she stayed in the sport so long. Do you seriously think Kwan wouldnt trade her 1996 to have Evan's 2006 Oly Gold included? And I never said Michelle's 1996 wasnt phenomenal and that she wasnt dominant in that season, other than the ridiculous standards you hold Lysacek and Yamaguchi to that you must go undefeated (Kwan did not) and you must win the big event decisively by a clear marging (which Kwan again did not). You claimed falsely she went undefeated and I pointed out that you were wrong.

She continued that streak by winning every competition she entered, until the LP at 1997 Nationals. Despite her struggles in the later part of the 1997 season, she was still considered to be by far the best if she skated her best.

This if she skated her best nonsense is meaningless. Kwan's biggest edge over her competitors was usually her consistency. Alot of her main rivals who could have beaten her over the years like Slutskaya, Cohen, Chen, Bobek, cracked under pressure often. Well Tara's biggest weapon was that she was even more consistent than Michelle, hence why she regularly beat her in important events at ages 14 and 15. Tara was clearly the top skater of 1997 since she beat Kwan in the 3 biggest events both were in together in a row- U.S Nationals, Grand Prix final, and Worlds. To deny otherwise is foolish.

Kwan only lost one competition in each of the 1998, 1999, and 2000 seasons. She placed 2nd at the ones she lost and was always considered to be the best if she skated her best (aside from maybe 2000 Worlds but I disagree with that sentiment). Yes, that is dominance.

Kwan lost the biggest events of the year in both 1998 and 1999. That is not dominating.
That is like saying a tennis player who doesnt win the Grand Slams that year is dominant.

And since you like to qualify Evan's wins Kwan had to come from 3rd after the short to win both Nationals and Worlds in 2000. 2000 Nationals many felt she was gifted the title on reputation with her sluggish performances, and 2000 Worlds where she skated brilliantly she still was gifted the title (using the line of reasoning you did for Evan's wins that is) by Butyrskaya and Slutskaya both making major errors in the long program.

Lysacek, on the other hand, ONLY won Worlds in 2009, he lost multiple times in 2010, and he was not considered the absolute favorite for any event. He was never dominant, even if he did win the 3 biggest titles in the year long period from 2009 Worlds to 2010 Olympics.

It is pretty silly to say Lysacek did not dominate 2009-2010 then say Kwan dominated 1998-2000. Lysacek won the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix final in 2 years. Kwan from 1998-2000 won 2 Worlds, so less important titles in a 3 year span than Evan in a 2 year span, yet she was dominant those 3 years and he wasnt those 2 years? Please.

Hardly desperate. It speaks to the way Kwan was undefeated at competitions that were considered very significant within the Professional World, not just cheesefests.

So the ridiculous Pro Am events which Cinquanta put in place just to get rid of professional skating altogether (and succeeded and now the sports popularity is going down the drain under his watch so backfired on him) which only lasted a year or two, where Kwan was mostly competing against eligible retired old ladies who couldnt even do all the triples is now more important than actual ISU events? :rolleye:

And this isnt desperate/

Especially since several of those performances were 7-Triple programs. Kwan's performance of "Ariane" at the 1998 World Pro would have absolutely trashed Maria Butyrskaya at 1999 Worlds and Kwan went into 1999 Worlds as the undisputed, nobody-is-even-close-to-her favorite. She WAS the dominant fixture of Women's Figure Skating.

As I mentioned already Slutskaya at her best would have won the 2000 and 2001 Worlds. Maria at her best would have also won the 2000 Worlds. Cohen at her best would have won the 2003 and 2004 and 2005 Nationals over Kwan and probably the 2003 Worlds had she skated her best. Ito at her best might have won the 96 Worlds. Chen would have for sure won the 96 Worlds if she hadnt bombed the rest of the season leading up to it which cost her her favorites status. Lipinski would have probably won the 98 Worlds over Kwan (who fell) had she skated. Does any of this matter? Of course not, Michelle skated the best of anyone at those events (well other than maybe 96 Worlds) so rightfully won. Maria skated far and away better than Michelle at the 99 Worlds so fully deserved to win, whereas Michelle won a controversial silver after being held up in the short program. So Michelle could produce her best in an event against where she by rights shouldnt have even been eligible (it was a disgrace seeing people like Kwan, Shen & Zhou, and Yagudin at the World PRO Championships) against women with 3 max, 2, 1, or 0 triples, but couldnt when it really mattered at Worlds of the Worlds that year? Oh well better luck next time.

Centennial On Ice was not a real part of the competitive season. It was like Marshalls or Campbells and didn't have much meaning. Individual Grand Prix events may have weaker fields, but they are more important.

Hogwash. Centennial On Ice was 10x the legitimacy of an event for an "eligible" skater as the now falsely named and soon to be extinct as a result World Pros and other cheese pro ams Kwan competed in throughout the 98-99 season. If you actually followed skating you would realize the event attracted some of the strongest fields of the whole season.

No, I never said Kerrigan got 5.9's when she bombed. YOU should read my post, since your reading comprehension has failed you again. What I said was her weak performances (which characterized her entire season lead up to Worlds) got 5.9's.

No that is not what you said, and you are still wrong. No 5.9s here either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eh_uYYfQ3w

The only events she got 5.9s in were her only Nationals and a Pro Am event (and contrary to what you believe pro ams against 30 and 40 year old women are far less important for eligible skaters than various events that now compose the current Grand Prix).

Yet again you try to connect two unrelated things. Mirai being talked about as underscored doesn't at all prove Joannie was overscored. People looked at Mirai's performance and said "Wow, she was clean and had awesome spins and extensions and a big smile, I wonder if she was undermarked." The point differences aren't the most important thing (you're looking only on paper, what a surprise). Asada was considered on a higher level over both of them because of her record-making Triple Axels. People mostly ignored Asada's mistakes later in the program, even though they were incredibly costly in terms of the points. That's why there isn't much debate about who deserved Silver between Asada and Joannie.

1. Nearly everyone at the time said Joannie was overscored. Even most Canadians who post on various skating forums.

2. Nearly everyone at the time said no way Joannie should have been that close to Mao in points in the end.

Yes in addition to those things that Nagasu was underscored.

Dube & Davison would have been 2 points behind Pang & Tong (who didn't skate their best, considering their Death Spiral was called as Level 1) without the fall. They would have still been behind Z/Z (who the judges were coming down on) as well. That doesn't sound off.

You are assuming no additional points at all in GOE and PCS without a fall which is frankly stupid, especialy the way the judges were scoring in Vancouver. They were ahead of Mukhortova & Trankov with comparable mistakes which is also a far cry from the rest of the season.

I'm not contradicting myself at all, you simply fail to understand what I am saying. I downplayed the time violation because I don't believe it was as damaging to the scores Kwan received as the momentum she lost from her poor skate in the qualifying round. The judges could have just barely slapped her on the hand for the time violation if they wanted to but instead they seriously marked her down. It wasn't her best performance regardless (the way she skated the program the year before was better) but the fact that she went clean and was out of the top 3 was something that had never happened to her before.

So you say Kwan was clean, then she wasnt clean because of the time violation (which is what I said all along anyway), and now again she was clean. Make up your mind please. :scowl:

Either way it doesnt matter to my original point. Kwan did not need a triple-triple to win the LP at those Worlds unless Cohen skated cleanly and everyone knows Sasha was going to mess up in the LP. She did not need it to beat Shizuka as proven by that with a doubled 2nd triple lutz she barely lost the LP on the closest split to Shizuka with 2 triple-triples. And she certainly did not need it to beat junior phenom Ando who was not even a seriousu consideration for the title (for a medal maybe).

Ando wasn't considered as poorly as you state either. Listen to both the U.S. and British commentary of her SP. They were very appreciative and thought Ando had a lot of confidence in her performance and a GREAT scratch spin (where on earth has that spin gone for Ando, I wonder). Dick Button even called her Layback "very pleasant". It is very likely that Ando would have received massive scores in the LP if she skated clean with a Quad and two 3-3's.

Ando received 5.5s and 5.6s for presentation at those Worlds. They werent magically going to go up to the 5.8s she needed to win the LP with just a quad salchow (which she would have needed to win the LP even with 6.0s for technical merit). The SP was better for the completely unartistic and raw 2004 version of Ando since her flaws of ghastly posture, not so good basics, lack of quality and pitched forward landings on many of her jumps, were not as evident in the short program. Similar to how Slutskaya's flaws are less exposed in a short program, but Slutskaya is a far better skater than 2004 Ando was. In the LP the same commentators you refer to were far less complimentary about Ando.

Incorrect, she was still practicing them. She wasn't PLANNING to do it in the LP, although in retrospect it's debatable whether she would have beaten Michelle and Shizuka without a 3-3 considering the way they skated at those respective competitions. Nobody was expecting Michelle and Shizuka to skate that well. That's why Cohen was the favorite for both of those titles after the SP.

Sasha skated a very subpar and rather weak LP at Worlds and still took 3 judges off Shizuka. Had she skated cleanly without a 3-3 she would have dusted Shizuka without a problem. Shizuka did not have even close to the rep of Cohen and Kwan, the way the judges viewed her was nothing like how they viewed her after winning Worlds. The only way she was going to beat them at the 2004 Worlds was to blow them out of the water which she did (in reality, not the judges scores) in the LP at those Worlds.

You're not looking at things in the moment. The judges might have ultimately decided that a 6-Triple Kwan with no 3-3 was better than Shizuka with multiple 3-3's, or Miki with a Quad + multiple 3-3's, or a clean Cohen with no 3-3, but Kwan herself did not know that before skating the LP (and she needed to win the LP + have someone beat Cohen as well in order to win the title). She was coming from behind and there was absolutely NO guarantee that her artistry would hold her up. She DID objectively need to do a 3-3 to have a chance at Gold if others skated their best. But, unlike earlier in her career, she didn't attempt it. Which, yes, is a sign that she was technically past her prime.

She did not plan 6 triples. She planned 7. And had she not doubled the second triple lutz, which was essentialy a fluke as she was still regularly landing it, she would have ended up with 7. So stop with this 6 triple nonsense, that was never the plan. She planned 7, and all she did not plan was the triple toe-triple toe which she only did about 6 times after 1997 (keeping in mind this is someone who skated almost another decade, and considering her undefeated 02-03 season was in her prime atleast another 6 years).

Wrong. She was considered to be potentially more talented than Michelle, and everyone wanted to see her achieve a legendary level of artistry, but her Long Programs in 2003 and 2004 did not surpass Kwan's. Again, look at the artistic marks Cohen received for a perfect performance of Swan Lake vs. the artistic marks Kwan received for Tosca. More importantly, look at the way people talked about those performances and how much people talk about them now.

The only time Cohen skated Swan Lake cleanly under the 6.0 system was at the post Worlds Cheesefest and she received 6.0s for presentation for it. At Nationals she had a bad fall and another two footed jump and still received a 6.0 for presentation (the rest all 5.8 or 5.9). So given that you would have to be delusional to think had she skated cleanly it wouldnt have rained 6.0s for her at those Nationals. Kwan was able to receive all those 6.0s since she skated brilliantly and flawlessly after Cohen had already fallen and messed up. At Worlds she skated even worse than Nationals (despite not falling) and still got almost all 5.9s for presentation. And the rest of the year she was competing under COP, but was crushing everyone on the active circuit at the time (which by choice did not include Kwan yes) in PCS. So your comment on the marks makes no sense. I agree her 2004 LP did not live up to her full artistic potential but it was still a winner had she skated it cleanly. You keep bringing up Dick and Peggy which is funny since they praised and gushed on Sasha's skating and her "artistry" more than any other skater during this period, including even Michelle who they loved.

Kwan by that point didnt have any real edge on Sasha other than a big edge in jump consistency and superior basic skating skills. Sasha had superior spins, superior flexability and positions on spirals (despite this being Kwan's biggest trump card), excellent footwork in the mid 2000 years, and was just as musical and even more polished.

MKFSfan · Nov 7, 2010

pangtongfan said:
And since you like to qualify Evan's wins Kwan had to come from 3rd after the short to win both Nationals and Worlds in 2000. 2000 Nationals many felt she was gifted the title on reputation with her sluggish performances

I was there and it was pretty clear to me Michelle was the winner. Yes, Michelle was hardly her BEST that week, but she was still the class of the field. Sasha was the talk of the week, but she was very rough around the edges-fast and flexible spinner yet her entries and exits were sloppy and spins at times seemed out of control, her spirals were well extended and on flats, she had very little ice coverage and was slow. I remember loving the spunk and fiesty-ness, but she was clearly beneath Michelle's level. In fact, I thought Sarah, who I have very little to like about, should've been 2nd. Sasha landed 4 clean triples to Sarah's 5 (with a 3/3) and Michelle's 6. I thought Michelle's The Red Violin program hit it's peak at Worlds that year, but she was a deserving 2000 US National Champion.

pangtongfan · Nov 7, 2010

Michelle fell on a simple triple toe in the short program and was still placed 3rd over Nikidinov who skated cleanly. That was the real gift. Yes Angela was the most boring skater ever around that time but her technical elements were all very solid, so there was no justification to place her below Kwan with a fall in the short program especialy under inflated National scoring. I agree Kwan deserved to win the LP but if she were 4th in the SP Sasha would have won. E.M Swift wrote an article in Sports Illustrated criticizing the judging and the judges decision to give Kwan the title at the years U.S Championships as well. Anyway irregardless of my opinion many media and fans did complain about her win at those Championships. I do agree Sasha was overrated at the time. I would have actually placed Hughes 1st in the SP, 2nd in the LP, and given her title with Kwan being 4th (where she should have been for sure) in the SP.

Michelle Kwan's 1998 Olympic Long Program

fairly4

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

heyang

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Olympia

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

Mathman

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

Mathman

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

aftertherain

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

MKFSfan

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

MKFSfan

pangtongfan

Match Penalty

Similar threads

Connect with us