Sonja Henie
Katarina Witt
Michelle Kwan
Kim Yu-Na
Mao Asada
Tara Lipinski
Kristi Yamaguchi
Oksana Baiul
Carol Heiss
Other
A while back on the Michelle Kwan forum, the question was asked as to who was the greatest female figure skater of all time. Not surprisingly, given that the site is frequented mostly by Michelle's fans, Michelle won by a very long distance. Michelle is certainly one of the main candidates, but lets see if a more objective view can be arrived at as to who is the greatest ever female figure skater of all time.
Oksanafan-did you know you can vote on your own poll...or did you vote for Katarina or Michelle?
Despite the fact that my favourite skater is Oksana Baiul, I think Katarina was the greatest. Winning two Olympic gold medals in the modern era takes some doing.Originally Posted by dorispulaski
I dont know who is the greatest. In the pairs, dance, and mens I feel like there are 2 or 3 extremely worthy of the title. In ladies I sort of feel like while there are so many outstanding skaters there are none that are really worthy of the title:
Henjie- best medal haul, but seriously how much stock can you put in her record considering the time.
Witt- best modern day record, but can anyone seriously say technically and artistically she is a better skater than people like Kwan, Yamaguchi, Kim, and others who followed her, or a better pure skater than previous stars like Hamill.
Ito- doesnt have the competitive record needed.
Yamaguchi- not a long enough time on top as an amateur.
Kwan- no Olympic Gold, not as dominant competitively (on the World scene) in her time as Witt, Yamaguchi, Fleming, Heiss, and others in theirs. Hefty medal haul largely based on longevity.
Kim- not nearly enough big titles yet to be worthy of the title.
Asada- same as Kim.
Slutskaya- not the # of big titles nor the skating quality to be the greatest ever.
Fleming and Hamill- I dont think any of them are seriously considered as the greatest ever, as impactful as they all were.
Lynn- no major titles at all.
I think the title should be left vacant for now, like the 94 U.S ladies titles. There are alot of women who seem fitting for the 5th greatest of all time, none for the greatest.
I'd say the top three of all time were Henie, Witt and Kwan, but I can't just choose one, because skating was at different levels when all three of them were on top. Henie has the most impressive resume, Witt was the best technically and Kwan was the best artistically IMO.
I voted for Michelle Kwan because I think she is a better SKATER than all the other choices. I also voted for her because of her longevity. Even though she didn't win any Olympic golds, she was dominant for almost ten years and managed to be on the podium at two Olympics and I think every world championship since '96 (correct me if I'm wrong). There were also her 9? or is it 8? US titles. If we're looking at results only, a case could be made for Katarina Witt with two OGMs but she wasn't as dominant for as long, and her skating skills just weren't as nice as Michelle's. I also considered voting for Yu-Na Kim, but I don't think she's dominated long enough to establish herself as the best. Maybe in a few years, if she continues her impressive results, she can be called that..
Michelle wasnt "dominant" most of the time.
96/97 and 97/98 seasons- lost 4 of 5 major meetings to Lipinski (4 of 7 counting the minor events)
98/99 and 99/2000 seasons- was trounced by Butyrskaya at the 99 Worlds and by Slutskaya at the 2000 Grand Prix final, but was able to rally from 3rd after the short to win the 2000 Worlds.
2000/2001 and 2001/2002 seasons- not even close to dominant. Lost every head to head meeting with Slutskaya except for the 2001 Worlds, so something like 7 out 8. Lost to Hughes twice in 01-02 as well.
2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons- came 3rd at the 2004 Worlds after another limited year of competition, then finished 4th at the 2005 Worlds.
The only seasons she was dominant was 95/96 and 2002/2003. And during the prime years of Lipinski and Slutskaya she lost more often than won against both of them.
Maybe dominant is the wrong word. I probably should have said highly successful.
Tara Lipinski and Oksana Baiul are silly poll options. Neither are even worthy of remote discussion for the greatest skater ever. Midori Ito, Irina Slutskaya, Dorothy Hamill, and Peggy Fleming should have been included as well. Ito especialy is a must inclusion.
The problem is there is a maximum of 10 slots, with one reserved for 'other'. The remaining nine then come down to personal opinion as to the nine most worthy of being nominated. I have my view. Others have theirs
Tara Lipinski definitely merited inclusion. Afterall, she beat Michelle Kwan fair and square at the 97 Worlds and 98 Olympics. Moreover, her 98 Olympic performance was one of the best ever (which included two perfectly executed triple triple combinations in the LP - apart from Sarah Hughes in 2002 (which were less well executed), this is something that has never been done before or since at the Olympics, not even by Kim (who uses the 2A 3T an awful lot in place of a second triple triple combination in her long programs)). Indeed, in my opinion, Tara's Olympic long program places a very close second to Kim's in terms of the best ever Olympic long program.
Oksana Baiul happens to be my favourite skater. Okay, so there is an argument that she was not around long enough and her professional career was blighted by returning to performing too soon after a knee operation (which ruined her jumps). Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, what she did during her short amateur career was absolutely breathtaking artistically and it rejuvenated the sport after its post Katarina lull. The injury and the fact that she did not continue her amateur career for a further 4 years up until 1998 was a real shame.
In my view, Slutskaya is most certainly not one of the all time greats. Her record and her skating simply do not merit it. Technically, she was a good skater, but artistically she simply did not have it. Indeed, I found most of her programs completely uninteresting. The same applies to Midori Ito - obviously a superb technical skater, but again, artistically, there was a lot of room for improvement. Moreover, Ito only won 1 World title despite multiple attempts. Likewise, Slutskaya was around for a very long time, but only has two World titles to her credit.
My final spot in the 9 came down to a choice between Peggy Fleming, Carol Heiss, and Dorothy Hamill. It was a difficult choice.
Last edited by oksanafan; 03-14-2011 at 07:03 PM.
Her 97 World title was highly controversial at the time. There are many that believed Tara didnt deserve to win the short program ahead of Gusermoli, in fact most believed this. There are many who felt Tara should have been 3rd in the long program behind Slutskaya. There are even some who felt Michelle should have been higher than 4th in the short. Even one of those things changing would have given Michelle the gold. Except for the 98 Olympics, Tara basically benefited from Kwan's biggest career slump in early 97 as well as how abysmal the rest of the field was then with nearly all the top 10 from 96 injured, also in slumps, or gone. A clean Michelle in 97 would have crushed Tara, and Tara's wins even over an unclean Michelle raised alot of questions (except for the 97 Nationals where Kwan completely imploded). In anycase Tara's 97 World title wasnt that impressive since it only came due to someone elses error in the short program, she was only 2nd in the long and nearly 3rd, and she barely held on to win the short program over an unknown after the top 2 favorites botched their combos.Tara Lipinski definitely merited inclusion. Afterall, she beat Michelle Kwan fair and square at the 97 Worlds and 98 Olympics.
Her 98 Olympic win was impressive I will admit, especialy as she beat a clean and very good Kwan, but it was by far her career highlight then she retired. Anyway Kwan while she skated very well has still done about 12 better performances than she did in Nagano which would have easily beaten Tara even there (and people still debate that decision to today as well).
Tara's big problem is she was a blip on the radar screen. No longevity. Just a 12 month period of glory then gone. She did not make a huge impact on the sport long term technically or artistically, despite being the first to do a triple loop-triple loop combo. One has to look beyond big titles too, she didnt even win a regular grand prix in her career being 2nd to Slutskaya twice, 3rd to Kwan and Butyrskaya, 2nd to Kwan, and 2nd to Hubert in her 5 regular grand prixs during her Championship years. She was a 1 year story, not a historic figure.
I do agree her Nagano performance was 2nd all time to Yu Na Kim of 2010 in Olympic history (well along with Kwan also from Nagano). That alone isnt enough though. All that shows is she handled Olympic pressure better than most recent stars did, but it does not lift her overall career to historic heights.
Moreover, her 98 Olympic performance was one of the best ever (which included two perfectly executed triple triple combinations in the LP - apart from Sarah Hughes in 2002 (which were less well executed), this is something that has never been done before or since at the Olympics, not even by Kim (who uses the 2A 3T an awful lot in place of a second triple triple combination in her long programs)). Indeed, in my opinion, Tara's Olympic long program places a very close second to Kim's in terms of the best ever Olympic long program.
I actually like Baiul's skating although I sort of found her overrated even at her short peak, but I can understand what many thought was special about her skating. However she too was a flash in the pan, she was great for 2 years then poof. Her pro career sucked and does not even merit a mention. And even when she won her World and Olympic Gold many still question whether people like Bonaly and Chen (93 Worlds) and Kerrigan and Chen (94 Olympics) deserved to beat her, and whether her wins were the result of poor judging. She never reached a high enough technical level, not enough clean triples in a long program and not enough combination jumps. And artistically her short programs were better than her long program which did not maximize her still to come potential as an artistic skater which we never got to seed due her decision to turn pro immediately and not take her skating seriously anymore.Oksana Baiul happens to be my favourite skater. Okay, so there is an argument that she was not around long enough and her professional career was blighted by returning to performing too soon after a knee operation (which ruined her jumps). Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, what she did during her short amateur career was absolutely breathtaking artistically and it rejuvenated the sport after its post Katarina lull. The injury and the fact that she did not continue her amateur career for a further 4 years up until 1998 was a real shame.
There is nothing that marks her as an all time great, just an interesting story who had a great couple years.
Like her or not, Slutskaya rates much higher in the all time greatest skaters list than either Lipinski or Baiul. That isnt even really an opinion, but pretty much an undisputed fact. Ask anyone close to skating and they will tell you the same thing. She has 7 European titles, a record that breaks those of multiple Olympic winners Henjie and Witt. She was Kwan's longest standing rival. Her 2 World titles is dissapointing for her as she was favored to win atleast 4 times, as well as her failure to win the Olympic Gold she was expected by many to win in 2002 and 2006, but still combined with 6 overall World medals and 2 Olympic medals, 4 Grand Prix final wins and 9 medals, and all her other international wins, and even outlasting Kwan as a longer stretch as a top skater, she has definitely had an all time great career. I defintely dont think she is the greatest ever, but for sure she belongs on a poll over either Baiul or Lipinski.In my view, Slutskaya is most certainly not one of the all time greats. Her record and her skating simply do not merit it. Technically, she was a good skater, but artistically she simply did not have it. Indeed, I found most of her programs completely uninteresting.
And if you want to get into quality of skating, Irina's best performances ever would easily beat anything Lipinski and Baiul ever did in a competition format (even Tara's Nagano efforts would be crushed by Slutskaya from the 2000 Grand Prix final, 2001 Russian Nationals, 2005 Worlds, some of her fall 2004 and 2005 performances). And she obviously has tons more longevity, consistency, and medals than they have. Irina's way bigger jumps, superior spins, superior footwork and speed, would easily beat out Tara if both skated well with a triple-triple, considering neither is an exceptional artistic skater. And Baiul's limited technical ability would not stand up at all, even with her artistry.
No offense but it is ridiculous if you think Tara Lipinski quality wise is more worthy of inclusion than Ito. Tara only had jumps for the most part and her jumps were about 20% the size and quality of Ito's while difficulty wise Ito's triple axels and triple-triple combinations even trump Tara's consistent 7 triple programs and triple loop-triple loop combo. Ito from the 89 Worlds, 90 Worlds, 93 World Pros, 94 Challenge of Champions, even 88 Olympics would blow Tara of even the 98 Olympics out of the water. And Tara most certainly did not have better spins, footwork, spirals, or artistry than Ito. The only argument for putting Lipinski on a poll over Ito is her Olympic Gold but in quality of skating Tara beats Ito in nothing, both in their by far mutual top strength (jumping) or in anything else. And if Tara came up in the era of figures like Ito did she would be an unknown today who probably never made the top 5 at U.S Nationals.The same applies to Midori Ito - obviously a superb technical skater, but again, artistically, there was a lot of room for improvement. Moreover, Ito only won 1 World title despite multiple attempts. Likewise, Slutskaya was around for a very long time, but only has two World titles to her credit.
And Baiul of 93-94 was in no way good enough to compete with skaters like either Yamaguchi or Ito yet either. The retirement of those two is the only thing that allowed skaters like Kerrigan, Baiul, and Bonaly to bid for major titles during that 2 year interim in the first place. And as we no that turned out to be her peak.
Ito was many years ahead of her time. Being by far the greatest women jumper ever is already enough to merit inclusion in all time greatest discussion since jumping is probably the most important thing in competitive skating, whether we like it or not. Not the only factor of course but an enormous one.
Fleming and Hamill had far more impact and are much more remembered today than Heiss.My final spot in the 9 came down to a choice between Peggy Fleming, Carol Heiss, and Dorothy Hamill. It was a difficult choice.
Last edited by pangtongfan; 03-15-2011 at 05:40 PM.
Lipinski's performance at 97 worlds was by far the best. Moreover, her record in major championships was not just confined to 97 worlds and the 98 Olympics. She also won the grand prix final in both 96 (beating Kwan and Slutskaya in the process) and 97. Indeed, during 96/97 and 97/98, in worlds, olympics, grand prix finals, and US Nationals (i.e. the competitions where it really mattered), she was beaten only once - in the 98 US nationals by Kwan. That is a terrific record. Lipinski usually got off to a slow start in each of the seasons she competed in - using the early grand prix events to refine her programs and experiment). Hence, her performances in grand prix events such as skate canada, skate America, etc were not that great. Yet in the 96/97 and 97/98 season, in the 5 grand prix events she competed in, she came 2nd 4 times and 3rd once. Thats pretty respectable. Yet, when it really counted in the grand prix final (and this is where temperament comes in), she was able to raise her game and win on both occasions. All in all, therefore, a fantastic record.
They key factor about Lipinski and Baiul is that they were only around for a short time, and yet they achieved a great deal in that short time at a very young age. Moreover, had they both stayed injury free and stuck around for another 4 years, they could have achieved so much more as those 4 years would have been their peak years. In many ways, we never really got to see the best of them. Nevertheless, in their one and only Olympics, they both had the temperament to win with highly memorable performances. Compare that with Slutskaya who could not bag the Olympic title in 3 attempts. Moreover, Slutskaya could only win two world titles in an 11 year career. Just think what Baiul and Lipinski could have achieved had they been around for 11 years injury free. A lot more than Slutskaya. Yes, Slutskaya improved technically over her 11 years career putting in impressive performance during the latter half of that period, but so would Lipinski and Baiul had they stayed around for that length of time
Slutskaya and Ito as artistic skaters were not even in the same league as Baiul and Lipinski.
As for Ito, literally all there was to her skating was the technical side, principally her jumping ability. Her record does not bear comparison with Lipinski's and Baiul's. Who did Ito beat to win her only worlds in 89? Her only real competition was Jill Trenary who choked in her LP making a complete hash of it. In the following 3 seasons, Ito was beaten by Trenary in 1990 Worlds (with Trenary again almost clutching defeat from the jaws of victory), she was trounced in 1991 worlds by Yamaguchi, Harding, and Kerrigan, and she was defeated by Yamaguchi again in the 92 Olympics. She then competed in 96 worlds where she was annihilated by Kwan and Slutskaya and could only finish a lowly 7th. As for her career pre 89, both she and Trenary were absolutely trounced by Witt, Manley, and Thomas at the 88 Worlds and Olympics. Indeed, Ito was 18 in 1988 and could only finish 5th (behind Trenary in 4th) at the 88 Olympics. Lipinski and Baiul won there Olympic titles at 15 and 16 respectively.
Quite simply, therefore, Ito was not in the same league as Lipinski and Baiul. As for Slutskaya, had Lipinski and Baiul been around for as long as she was, they would both have had a better record than 2 world titles without a shadow of a doubt. The problem with Lipinski and Baiul however is that injuries and the decision to turn professional curtailed their careers and we never got to see the best of them. What I would say however is that had Lipinski remained injury free and stuck around until 2002, in my view she would have won the 2002 Olympics and ended up a double Olympic champion and multiple world champion with a record comparable to Katarina Witts (i.e. far better than Slutskaya's)
As for who was better between Heiss, Fleming, and Hamill, Heiss's record of 5 world titles and 1 olympic title is better than both Flemings (3 world titles and 1 olympic title) and Hamill's (1 worlds, 1 olympics). Yes, Fleming and Hamill were technically better than Heiss. Yet, its not all about technical ability. Each generation can only beat what's in front of them and technical ability inevitably improves with each generation. In terms of greatness, I would say the two most important factors are the skaters individual record of achievement and the level of dominance they achieved over their rivals. Of the 3 of them, therefore, Heiss was the better in my view (and she beat 1956 Olympic champion, Tenley Albright, at the 56 Worlds as well).
Finally, I would also add, that at no point in her career was Slutskaya ever dominant - certainly not to the same extent as Henie, Witt, Heiss, etc. Her principal rival over her 11 year career was Michelle Kwan. Of the two of them, Kwan was quite simply the better.
Last edited by oksanafan; 03-16-2011 at 01:16 AM.
Yes which is why she didnt even win the long program, why nobody at the time questioned Kwan winning the long program, and why many complained after that Tara was not placed 3rd in the long program behind both Kwan and Slutskaya (which 3 judges did).
Like I said her early 97 success was riding off the slumps of Kwan and Slutskaya and the injury to Chen. Anyone who actually followed skating at the time and has a decent memory would know she would have never risen to the top at that point otherwise. Kwan even with very faulty programs with multiple major errors was winning ordinals from a perfect Lipinski. Of course credit to Tara she capatilized on that, but she didnt exactly awe people with her rise to the top in early 97.Moreover, her record in major championships was not just confined to 97 worlds and the 98 Olympics. She also won the grand prix final in both 96 (beating Kwan and Slutskaya in the process) and 97. Indeed, during 96/97 and 97/98, in worlds, olympics, grand prix finals, and US Nationals (i.e. the competitions where it really mattered), she was beaten only once - in the 98 US nationals by Kwan. That is a terrific record.
late 97 grand prix final was without Kwan who was her only competition at the time, although she still nearly lost to Szewcenko. Her most impressive win by far was the 98 Olympics.
Yeah her 2 year record was great but that was it. She was nothing before, and then turned into a nothing as a pro after. Even Peggy Fleming called her a blip on the radar screen, and even during her time on top she never gained universal acceptance as the best skater even briefly, which atleast Ito and Slutskaya did for atleast brief periods.
More like she didnt win those other events since the others stayed on their feet and skated well. Taras wins and defeats, other than the 98 Olympics, were tied to whether other top skaters missed, more than her own skating.Lipinski usually got off to a slow start in each of the seasons she competed in - using the early grand prix events to refine her programs and experiment). Hence, her performances in grand prix events such as skate canada, skate America, etc were not that great. Yet in the 96/97 and 97/98 season, in the 5 grand prix events she competed in, she came 2nd 4 times and 3rd once. Thats pretty respectable. Yet, when it really counted in the grand prix final (and this is where temperament comes in), she was able to raise her game and win on both occasions. All in all, therefore, a fantastic record.
Sorry being a blip on the radar isnt better than having a long standing impact on the sport. And I disagree with you on both Lipinski and Baiul having their best ahead of them. Baiul and her 4 clean triples per program was never going to cut it technically once Kwan, Chen, Lipinski, Slutskaya, all emerged over the next quad, and even her artistry wouldnt help her much with how artistic Kwan and Chen were. She got out at the right time it turned out in hindsight, too bad she botched what could have been a very good pro career but that is her problem. As a result the biggest memory of her to most will be the skater who shouldnt have won the Olympics over Kerrigan of all people. As for Lipinski her hip was always going to blow out doing that tortursome triple loop-They key factor about Lipinski and Baiul is that they were only around for a short time, and yet they achieved a great deal in that short time at a very young age. Moreover, had they both stayed injury free and stuck around for another 4 years, they could have achieved so much more as those 4 years would have been their peak years
triple loop that she needed to even have a prayer of beating a far stronger skater like Kwan (even when Kwan made mistakes). It was a price she was willing to pay, and it always meant a short career, yet it allowed her to win those big titles she never would have won without that combo, so that was her tradeoff. In any case unable to do triple-triples with her damaged hip she would have been dead meat over the next quad, even if she could do all the solo triples.
Your giving credit to Baiul and Lipinski by fantasizing over a 11 year career neither apparently had the staying power, talent, work ethic, or desire to fulfill is absurd. Their early flameouts are a mark against them, not for them. And as I said I think you are wrong. The only reason Baiul was able to win anything with her limited technical arsenal is she came in at a transition time for womens skating. Had Ito and Yamaguchi not retired she never would have reached the top. An unsensational skater like Nancy Kerrigan became the one to beat for those 2 years (or until bombing the 93 Worlds) and she cant even get through a half decent LP most of the time leaving a wide open field. Surya Bonaly was never a judges or ISU favorite and they were all to happy to have any alternative to a major title besides her, and Lu Chen was never a judges favorite and did not have a strong federation behind her. It was a case of right place and right time in hindsight. You cant honestly say there is any Worlds after 94 that Baiul could have ever dreamed of winning with her 93 World and 94 Olympic winning performances now can you.In many ways, we never really got to see the best of them. Nevertheless, in their one and only Olympics, they both had the temperament to win with highly memorable performances. Compare that with Slutskaya who could not bag the Olympic title in 3 attempts. Moreover, Slutskaya could only win two world titles in an 11 year career. Just think what Baiul and Lipinski could have achieved had they been around for 11 years injury free. A lot more than Slutskaya. Yes, Slutskaya improved technically over her 11 years career putting in impressive performance during the latter half of that period, but so would Lipinski and Baiul had they stayed around for that length of time
As for Tara I covered her above. Anyway Tara has never beaten Kwan skating like she did at the 2000 and 2001 Worlds, and never would have.
Baiul as a technical skater sucked compared to all 3 of those. Artistry alone can only take you so far. She often did long programs not even attempting a simple jump combination, doing a combination spin of any sort, or doing a single footwork section. And the idea Ito or even Slutskaya were far below Lipinski artistically is hilarious. Maybe you confuse Lipinski with Michelle Kwan by accident.Slutskaya and Ito as artistic skaters were not even in the same league as Baiul and Lipinski.
As for Ito, literally all there was to her skating was the technical side, principally her jumping ability. Her record does not bear comparison with Lipinski's and Baiul's.
Those knowledgable on skating all agree Ito from the 89 Worlds would have beaten any women skater in history. In fact people at the time said she would have won the mens event. Do you think Baiul or Lipinski would have a prayer of beating that Ito, LOL! It doesnt matter if she had no competition, no competitor who ever skated would have had a hope other than to get too far ahead in figures.Who did Ito beat to win her only worlds in 89? Her only real competition was Jill Trenary who choked in her LP making a complete hash of it.
As for competition who did Baiul beat to win her major titles. Surya cant skate Bonaly, Nancy Kerrigan the stiff and artistically cold choker who struggles to get past 4 triples in a program, Lu Chen before her prime and ignored by judges. And even then her wins were highly controversial to many people which I notice you did not dispute meaning even you must be aware of it. And who did Tara beat to win her titles other than the 98 Olympic Gold. A choking and way off form Kwan, an overweight and slumping Slutskaya well before her prime years, a past her prime Chen who was injured most of the time, Gusmeroli, Czako, Szewcenko.
Nice of you to ignore the fact that Ito blew Trenary away in free skating and only lost due to the compulsory figures. If we want to blow this game if Tara and Baiul had come up in the era of figures nobody would have ever heard of them. Tara would have probably peaked out as a 8th place finisher at Nationals before retiring to have hip surgery or go to school, while Baiul would have been a bottom feeder at the World level if she ever qualified at all. After all 15 and 16 year olds didnt just rise to the top in the figures era and Baiul and Lipinski were never any good after that age so in that scenario what were their names again. Likewise if Ito had the luxury of no compulsory figures she would have dominated the sport for years.In the following 3 seasons, Ito was beaten by Trenary in 1990 Worlds (with Trenary again almost clutching defeat from the jaws of victory)
She was badly injured at the 91 Worlds and was barely able to skate. First she was injured in a collision with Hubert on warmup, then she injured her ribs falling out of the rink early in her short program. She was not trounced by any of those women, she was trounced by a broken body and some horrible luck.she was trounced in 1991 worlds by Yamaguchi, Harding, and Kerrigan, and she was defeated by Yamaguchi again in the 92 Olympics.
ROTFL I gaurantee you there is alot of doubt on your statement, and in fact most people would doubt it. In fact most would agree Baiul was never winning another major title after 1994 even if she continued, barring HUGE improvements, although I know you will never concede that given her name. And since you are boosting Lipinski and Baiul with imaginery scenarios again I remind you that had Tara and Baiul come up with figures as Ito did they would be nobodies today. After all you are going to completely ignore that Ito would have never lost even once to skaters like Trenary had figures not been around then.Quite simply, therefore, Ito was not in the same league as Lipinski and Baiul. As for Slutskaya, had Lipinski and Baiul been around for as long as she was, they would both have had a better record than 2 world titles without a shadow of a doubt.
If Tara were ever to have a prayer of even skating to 2002 that would mean not excessively practicing the triple loop-triple loop combo which without she wouldnt have ever won the 97 World and 98 Olympic titles with anyway. So your point is moot. And your continuing to justify your ranking of these skaters by awarding them hypothetical fantasy what if medals is plain silly.The problem with Lipinski and Baiul however is that injuries and the decision to turn professional curtailed their careers and we never got to see the best of them. What I would say however is that had Lipinski remained injury free and stuck around until 2002, in my view she would have won the 2002 Olympics and ended up a double Olympic champion and multiple world champion with a record comparable to Katarina Witts (i.e. far better than Slutskaya's)
You are very wrong. Slutskaya went undefeated for a year and half from her first competition in fall 2004 until her loss at the 2006 Grand Prix final right before the Olympics. She destroyed the field in easily winning the 2005 Worlds in that span, and beat all her main competitors multiple times over. To deny she was completely dominant for that season and half would be delusional on your part. She was also fairly dominant in the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 seasons combined, winning 7 of 8 meetings with her main rival Michelle Kwan, and her only losses were to Kwan at the 2001 Worlds and Hughes at the 2002 Olympics, and to Hughes at 2001 Skate Canada.Finally, I would also add, that at no point in her career was Slutskaya ever dominant.
In fact she was much more dominant than Lipinski or Baiul ever was. Lipinski and Baiul never went undefeated for 15 months in competition like Slutskaya did late in her career, not even close. Baiul in her 2 seasons on top was 4th at Nations Cup behind Bonaly, Bingert, and Kiellmann, 2nd at Europeans to Bonaly, won Worlds, won Skate America, was 2nd at Nations Cup to Szewcenko, 2nd at Europeans to Bonaly again, and won the Olympics. And her wins at the 93 Worlds and 94 Olympics were hardly dominant, one was gifted to her by Kerrigans meltdown which she never would have won at that point otherwise (and still debated by people vs Bonaly), and the other was a controversial win over Kerrigan aided by her newfound World Champions status. Lipinski in her 2 best seasons ever was 2nd to Slutskaya at Skate Canada, 3rd to Kwan and Butyrskaya at Lalique, 2nd to Slutskaya at Nations Cup, won Nationals, Grand Prix final, and Worlds, then was 2nd to Kwan at Skate America, 2nd to Hubert at Lalique, 2nd to Kwan at Nationals, 1st at a Kwan-less Grand Prix final, and 1st at the Olympics. Better than Baiul but definitely not dominant either. And neither of her major title wins were dominant. Winning the World title by placing 2nd and nearly 3rd in the long program, and winning the short program on a 5-4 split. Winning the Olympics on a 6-3 split after losing the short program 8 judges to 1.
So as far as dominance if you dont think Slutskaya was ever dominant than Lipinski and Baiul were chasms away from ever being dominant.
Last edited by pangtongfan; 03-16-2011 at 01:54 AM.
By the way I notice ZERO votes for either Baiul and Lipinski. What a surprise. I am going to remake the poll with Ito and Slutskaya included for comparisions sake.
Er - yes well. Why don't you go and have a good stiff drink, sit down and relax
As for the poll, looks like Michelle and Kim were the clear winners, with Mao and Katarina making a respectable showing. The rest merely made up the numbers. My two week break is over. Posting on this site has been a nice diversion. Back to work. Don't expect I will be making any further contributions so good luck with the website in the future.
Last edited by oksanafan; 03-16-2011 at 04:16 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks