France's noble gesture resonates in midst of crisis

[janetfan]

Lambiel did two flawed Quads, not two "successful" Quads.

Interesting comments and very fair coming from a Lambiel fan.

CoP be damned, a laymen could see Patrick's flaws were more severe in Vancouver than Johnny's. And USA fans did not BUY IT.

I don't want to say Patrick looked like a "deer in the headlights" in Vancouver because such a remark would be unkind to the deer of the world.

Johnny's flip? Gimme a freakin' break. I saw many things more questionable and flat out worse in Vancouver than that. Evan's 3A combo comes to mind as did a bunch of jumps that resembled the "Leaning Tower of Pisa."

We saw Flatt had a chance to catch Rochette and she was conveniently nailed with phantom calls that took her out of medal contention.

Surprise, surprise. Not sport, but figure skating under the same ISU GANG that brought us the SLC scandal.

Now I wait for an uber CoP fan like to post the deductions in Flatt's jumps.
Helloooooo, just because the CoP makes a call does not validate it.

Other agendas, one's we are not privy to determined the outcomes in Vancouver.

For sure, a North American sweep of the Dance podium was just a part of it.

[SkateFiguring]

Helloooooo, just because the CoP makes a call does not validate it.:

Only your call counts then? Sadly, even if judging were subjective and opinion based, and even if you were a judge, there would still be other judges' opinions in the mix.

All competitions have rules. Competitors win or lose by these rules. Are fans assessing the placements by these rules to be despised and dismissed as CoP uber fans? I always say Lysacek deserved the win even though I am no fan of his nor did I particularly enjoy or appreciate his winning skate. There are flawed performances I like a lot better. But competition is competition. One's favorite doesn't necessarily win as one wishes.

Other agendas, one's we are not privy to determined the outcomes in Vancouver.

Just because you make the call does not validate it. How and what do you know about what you are not privy to? I will buy it when you present convincing supporting evidences. Until then, phantom agendas, conspiracies, and politics are just easy convenient villains to brandish about.

For sure, a North American sweep of the Dance podium was just a part of it. :yes

[Mathman]

Here is what I think.

1. Going back in time and guessing who might have won a contest if different rules had been in place is an academic exercise at best.

Would the Philadelphia Athletics have beaten the New York Giants in the 1905 Worlds series if batters had been allowed four strikes instead of three (thus negating, in part, Christy Mathewson's dominance. )? They weren't, and they didn't.

2. What kind of scoring system we like best -- 6.0 or CoP -- has little to do with whether or not the Olympic games are marred by crooked politics. Politicians politic and crooks crook whatever the system. In particular, the idea that Weir might have been scored higher in 6.0 than with CoP does not provide evidence one way or another on the issue of whether or not Weir was low-balled for political/personal reasons. He could have been low-balled in either system. Rachael Flatt could have been deliberately held below Joannie Rochette -- or not -- in either system. Lambiel could have been scored overgenerously -- or not -- in either system.

I think Hernando means, Belbin and Agosto should have placed ahead of Domnina and Shabulin, but political wheeling and dealing intervened to prevent a North American sweep.

[janetfan]

Here is what I think.

1. Going back in time and guessing who might have won a contest if different rules had been in place is an academic exercise at best.

Would the Philadelphia Athletics have beaten the New York Giants in the 1905 Worlds series if batters had been allowed four strikes instead of three (thus negating, in part, Christy Mathewson's dominance. )? They weren't, and they didn't.

2. What kind of scoring system we like best -- 6.0 or CoP -- has little to do with whether or not the Olympic games are marred by crooked politics. Politicians politic and crooks crook whatever the system. In particular, the idea that Weir might have been scored higher in 6.0 than with CoP does not provide evidence one way or another on the issue of whether or not Weir was low-balled for political/personal reasons. He could have been low-balled in either system. Rachael Flatt could have been deliberately held below Joannie Rochette -- or not -- in either system. Lambiel could have been scored overgenerously -- or not -- in either system.



I think Hernando means, Belbin and Agosto should have placed ahead of Domnina and Shabulin, but political wheeling and dealing intervened to prevent a North American sweep.

A good take on my post mathman.
But I do want to be clear that I thought (just my opinion) that Johnny outskated Patrick in Vancouver.

I also could see that from the choice of the compulsory dance (it was clear it was the only Dance the Russians had a chance with) to the way the OD and FD were scored it was not hard to see agendas were at work in Ice Dancing ....again ....sigh.

Those who are not familiar with the most crooked of all skating disciplines and I dare say of any judged sport might not know enough to get my point..

I am not a Johnny fan and not a Rachael fan either. But I have been watching since before many of the newer CoP = Bible fans and have seen it all.

Maybe I am jaded but still I prefer that at times to being so easily fooled.

I still don't get how a few posters get so bent out of shape when the integrity of Speedy and ISU is challenged.

They are admitted cheaters and were forced to change the scoring system and clean up their act or be kicked out of the Olympic movement back in 2002. (Not opinion but FACT).

The day I was born my momma told me anyone who cheats you once will do it again given the chance.

My momma did not make that up and it is something any person of reason understands and only fools ignore. I truly wish IOC (gad , the irony ) would lower the boom again on ISU. Maybe they could start by making judge's marks transparent.

IF ISU objects because anonymous marks are necessary to maintain integrity.....well then I think my point is well taken and the "sport" is by ISU's admission still full of too many behind the scene manipulators.

[cooper]

as a more general point, people shouldn't pretend that only the french and the russians play politics. Other federations are just more subtle about it, or called out less often by fans and the media.

word.

[Kitt]

Yes, and you can be sure that Frank Carroll knows how to game the system by now, having been cheated by it in 1980. So I guess he was about due.

[Olympia]

I've never really gotten over Michelle coming in second at Nagano, so I guess I don't let myself get too invested in placement anymore, especially at the Olympics. Even not considering the quirks of judging, the best skaters often give less than their best performances at the Olympics. And sometimes they win nonetheless--witness Scott Hamilton in 1984. I'm just happy when I see a performance that's out of the ordinary, one that does the skater(s) proud. In this Olympics, I most enjoyed Lambiel's programs, the short especially, and Takahashi's among the men. Among the women, the entire final six were a gift. Ice dance was amazing up and down the rankings, and thank goodness Shen and Zhao held it together in pairs. I didn't think of the judges much at all. I don't know what this says about my expertise as a fan, but I sure had a great time.

[ImaginaryPogue]

As a more general point, people shouldn't pretend that only the French and the Russians play politics. Other federations are just more subtle about it, or called out less often by fans and the media. Now, I will not do CPR on the dead horse that is SLC, but 1. it was never fully investigated, and the roles people played are still not fully clear (read The Second Mark) and 2. There were so many shenanigans with the judging back in that quad (some of the results at 2001 Worlds were ludicrous), and it almost seems like it was just a matter of time before something like that was exposed.

Thank you. A full investigation would've revealed that there were no angels.

[SkateFiguring]

I still don't get how intelligent posters like Pogue, gkelly and skatefiguring get so bent out of shape when the integrity of Speedy and ISU is challenged.

1. Nobody is bent out of shape. Sometimes a poster's absolute but unsupported statements simply invite debate for its own sake, statements like people are bent out of shape because your statements are challenged.

2. Making unfounded declarations is not a proper challenge to someone's integrity. All this started because few trusted Didier's integrity to begin with and his motive was suspected and speculated. But suspicions and speculations are not facts to be declared as such.

Most people are not completely naive as to continuously believe and trust those with proven/convicted misdeeds. One can be guarded, distrust, and want to vet such person's words and deeds, but a blanket judgement that such persons and all associated with them are completely crooked and corrupt is unfair and inaccurate, especially when suspicions based on such premise are declared as truths and all kinds of conjectured events are invented and spun any which way one wishes.

Even a correct premise does not automatically support all scenarios built on it. Anybody could construe different scenarios with the same premise to suit their own biases. Opinions and beliefs stated as facts do not qualify them as facts and others need not accept them as facts. Chastising those not falling in line with such declarations and questioning their intelligence are not convincing arguements.

It's entirely your right to believe someone or an enitre organization as corrupt and you have the freedom of speech to express that opinion. But accusations of actions and events is a different matter for they could easily fall into unjust or even illegal catergories.

[janetfan]

It's entirely your right to believe someone or an enitre organization as corrupt and you have the freedom of speech to express that opinion. But accusations of actions and events is a different matter for they could easily fall into unjust or even illegal catergories.

Thankyou, and yes it is my right.

So what are you going to do, sue me

[SkateFiguring]

Thankyou, and yes it is my right.

So what are you going to do, sue me

No, I'm not that stupid.

Neither am I so stupid as to take your words on your construed scenarios and sweeping statements. You are not the only one with a smart Momma.

[Dodhiyel]

It's late, and I'm too tired to write very well, so please forgive any clumsiness on my part. I am just remembering the audience reaction to Johnny's skate. When an audience is awed by a performance, that means something. There are two very different approaches to gauging a figure skating performance. One approach is to try to score it numerically according to a set of rules. Another approach is to ask oneself how aesthetically satisfying one found it to be. When one watches ballet, one automatically uses the aesthetic method. When one watches speed skating, one automatically looks for minute measurement differences as all-important. That is really the problem; the ISU president is a speed skater, and because of that, truly aesthetic values are in danger of going the way of the dodo bird, i.e., heading toward extinction, at least in single skating. A frenetic attempt to squeeze in as many points as possible does not tend to maximize the beauty of a programme. It just tends to maximize the points.

Personally, I do not enjoy watching a frenetic programme. Such a thing bores me. I want to see beauty, control, and puissance, not desperate scrabbling about. I want to be awed, thrilled, deeply moved, or any combination of those things. That's why I watch figure skating, and to tell the truth, I think that is why most people do.

[Mathman]

It's late, and I'm too tired to write very well, so please forgive any clumsiness on my part. I am just remembering the audience reaction to Johnny's skate. When an audience is awed by a performance, that means something. There are two very different approaches to gauging a figure skating performance. One approach is to try to score it numerically according to a set of rules. Another approach is to ask oneself how aesthetically satisfying one found it to be. When one watches ballet, one automatically uses the aesthetic method. When one watches speed skating, one automatically looks for minute measurement differences as all-important. That is really the problem; the ISU president is a speed skater, and because of that, truly aesthetic values are in danger of going the way of the dodo bird, i.e., heading toward extinction, at least in single skating. A frenetic attempt to squeeze in as many points as possible does not tend to maximize the beauty of a programme. It just tends to maximize the points.

Personally, I do not enjoy watching a frenetic programme. Such a thing bores me. I want to see beauty, control, and puissance, not desperate scrabbling about. I want to be awed, thrilled, deeply moved, or any combination of those things. That's why I watch figure skating, and to tell the truth, I think that is why most people do.

^ Yes, I agree, that is the dilemma.

On the "Art" thread Blue Dog posted Michelle Kwan's 1998 short program. In those years she did 3Lz+2T. 2A, and 3T. She ran off a succession of the finest miniature gems in the history of the sport.

Then the sport advanced a little and she had to up the ante. She had to go with a triple flip instead of triple toe. Her short programs were never as good again. Sport or art?

[Buttercup]

Yes, and you can be sure that Frank Carroll knows how to game the system by now, having been cheated by it in 1980. So I guess he was about due.

Oh, please, that's a deader horse than SLC, and there's been even less proof for it than for the (alleged) 2002 conspiracy. Not that it has anything to do with 2012 Worlds, but I would encourage you to read Sonia Bianchetti's account of the judging in 1980; Ms. Bianchetti was the referee of the men's event, which was supposedly part of the fix against Fratianne. The final paragraph in particular seems relevant to the tangent this thread has been on:

...Linda was a great freeskater. We can include her name on the list of victims of the compulsory figures, together with Janet Lynn and Toller Cranston. It is said that Linda was made to believe by her coach that she had been robbed of the gold medal because of dishonest judges. And this is hard for a competitor to accept. To blame the judges for the results of their skaters is unfortunately rather common among the coaches. If they only could consider the harm they are doing to the sport and to these young kids who suddenly see all their dreams vanish because of something which is beyond their control. Such an attitude can affect all their future life.

Just because Frank Carroll is sure some of his skaters are/were wuzrobbed doesn't make it true.

Of course there is politikking in skating, and judges sometimes make questionable calls, whether intentionally or not. But even influential federations can't get weak skaters to the top of the podium. Patrick Chan may have been somewhat generously scored in Vancouver, but all it did was get him into the gala - where he likely would have performed anyway. I am certainly not a fan, but it's obvious that all the wheeling-dealing in the world wouldn't have gotten Evan Lysacek the OGM without his strong track record and successful performance when others faltered. And if Anton had fallen rather than bobbled, B/S would not have won in SLC. At the end of the day, what matters is what the skaters do on the ice.

Back on topic, the French offer was likely made as a show of support rather than a serious possibility. The news from Japan is not great and who knows when the Japanese federation might be able to host another major event. Let's not forget that skating, as important as it is to those involved in it and as much as it can sometimes move us, is secondary here.

[SkateFiguring]

Back on topic, the French offer was likely made as a show of support rather than a serious possibility. The news from Japan is not great and who knows when the Japanese federation might be able to host another major event.

Maybe M. Didier learned from a Mr. A. Bunker. "When generosity doesn't cost you anything, you might as well go all the way."