I liked Johnny's skating but now he's better off doing shows. Even then I'm no fan of OTT makeup and costumes in general, prefering purer talents, whether in singing, skating or other performing arts.
He actually gets away a lot with me too because he could be funny and creative, e.g. the starfish hands comment. I've been turned off by his off ice shenanigans but I don't have to bother with that. However, it's unprofessional and unfair of him as a commetnator to deride other skaters who don't merit his biased criticism, as we can see its effect on at least one member of this board alone.
eta: I went back to read skatinginbc's post and am not sure if s/he was being snarky. Anyway, saying you wish to smack someone on the face is not a comment on that person's skating or character. It's a not so meticulous or classy way of expressing his own negative emotions. Did he explain why he felt this way?
Last edited by Violet Bliss; 12-13-2010 at 05:38 PM.
Well said. Exactly my thought.Thank you blade of passion.You shouldn't have "light body demeanor" when you are skating to Phantom of the Opera. That is BAD interpretation. Patrick Chan hardly understands the anguish and solitude of the music. Takahashi's performance at 2007 Worlds was FAR ahead of Chan's here at the GPF. That PCS mark of 87 is ridiculous (it's a new record in PCS for a single men's skater, I think). Chan's skating does not have emotional maturity, nor does he have creative content. He has a lot of transitions but those transitions are almost meaningless within the scope of the program. They don't serve the music or an overall choreographic idea or really even create a striking image on their own. They are simply extra movements.
However, I also respect Chan's beautiful skating. Issue maybe his upper body carriage and lack of details to his arm/finger usage. Also, he does not skate to the beats of music as well as Takahashi. But he is only 19 years old and this means that he has a lot of room to grow.
It's worth mentioning that in the short program, Dai had higher PCS in Performance and Interpretation, with Chan taking the rest.
As for Chan's transitions adding nothing to the overall program, I disagree. I think the spread eagle before the 3F-3T combo is a rapturous delight of a moment. It worked better when it was a lead-in for the triple loop, but I still like it.
Yes it was better when the Loop was there because it was a clean lead-in to the jump. Whereas with the Flip in that spot now, he has to take a step beforehand and it breaks the cadence. If he stayed on the edge of the left foot from the spread eagle and toepicked directly into the Flip, now THAT would be impressive.
Ultimately he doesn't really show emotion while performing the move, though, so it lacks the impact it really should have. The program as a whole doesn't connect together either. The movements are there for their own individual purpose (getting a higher Transitions score) rather than relating to each other and building towards a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. The bad music cuts are partially the problem.
I don't want to see too much "busy work". There is nothing wrong with going into a jump with NO "transition" before or after if you explode off the ice and have good speed, flow, and edges (and are staying in character to the music rather than just telegraphing). Having an unfettered entrance and exit to a jump can in fact be GREAT choreography and interpretation. A clear, simple gliding build-up to a jump can create tension and make the release more impactful. Skating cleanly out of the exit rather than doing some turn or swoopy movement allows the power of the jump to be further reveled in.
Last edited by skatinginbc; 12-14-2010 at 05:24 AM.
^^^^ OK I get it now. You are a non-native speaker and were serious, quite literal that you have changed your opinion of Chan to the negative. Thanks for clearing that up.
You know what? It did the opposit to me. My respect and admiration for Patrick Chan has grown everyday.
Chan has the right to say how he thinks about Weir if the journalists asked his thought on Weir's flower crown. I've never seen Chan's eagerness in anywhere to prove his own masculinity to anyone like Evan Lysacek did. I think Chan is totally natural on this account.
Johnny's comment has shocked you probably because you've never heard Johnny talking like this before. He has said a lot of things on that "D" level already and they've become my laughing points by now. Example, he called Lysacek a "slore". I believe if Johnny would really smack the faces of anyone who say anything to denounce his style on and off ice, his hand would be bruised soon enough.
It seems to me that you have raised up the level of both Chan's and Weir's comments to a level that should not be at. Anything has a limit. Somethings are intolerant at some level. It is 100% wrong to put everything under the protection of the words such as "Diversity" and "Freedom". I don't want to go into it too deep, or it'll become a political issue again. In short, you have your view and I have my. Yours and mine might be different. But you are fine with your own view. So there is no reason to make yourself so miserable. If you don't like Chan from now on, you are not alone. Have a nice day!
Last edited by Bluebonnet; 12-17-2010 at 06:30 PM.
Thank you skatinginbc for your explanation. I understand very well your feeling on anti-deversity as I do strongly, on both personal and societal level.
I find Patrick's comment on the flower crown pretty uptight on a harmless and playful act by Johnny. He might be too earnest and not prudent to express such opinion publicly but I don't detect any personal "attack" or anti-gay sentiment on his part. It's about a conduct he found unprofessional and disrespectful to the sport he's in and tries to represent well. We don't have to agree with him and many don't.
The ugly attacks on Johnny didn't come from Patrick. It came from Evan and the French Canadian commentators who "questioned" his gender. They owed him an apology. OTOH, Johnny has been really "flamboyant" and extreme in his attires these days. In eagerly seeking attention, he's bound to attract negative ones as well. He can't be so thin-skinned.
If Johnny really feels so hurt by Patrick comment, he should understand how hurt Patrick might have felt by the volume of much worst personal comments against him. He had known Patrick personally. If Patrick had anti-diversity sentiment, he would have known and not have to decide on one guileless comment. It was not cool to ride on the anti-Chan wagon and pile on more inaccurate portrayal. I can't deny how Johnny feels for himself, but he could be more gracious and forgiving toward someone quite a bit younger and on the cusp of adulthood, or criticize Patrick in a classier manner. He's done enough public denouncements of Patrick already.
My counsel for you, since you seek one, is to observe each person on his own and by his actual deeds and decide for yourself. If others' opionions are important, consider, on the whole, those of the people who have actual relationships or at least interactions with the person.