07-29-2011, 11:59 AM
I am not happy with the current system too! But the problem is that I don't even remember the gold age of 6.0 well, I was that little! What should I do if there is no place for "let it go" ( I mean my memory lane is not that long enough).
What indeed doesn't serve the sport is winners like Evan and Chan, with their technical skating with no spikes, shrills or aventures. Yawn.
Last edited by Mathman; 07-29-2011 at 11:41 PM.
Reason: Thread management
07-29-2011, 12:34 PM
"Spikes, shrills or aventures" are subjective perceptions and not absolute truths by someone's declaration. Different people feel differently. In a competition, the judges' views pervail. At least they are trained and they are there. So calleld spikes, shrills or aventures without athletic skills don't make figure skating a sport, especially not an Olympic sport.
Originally Posted by let`s talk
07-29-2011, 10:54 PM
I respectfully disagree with your argument. Nadia's technical skills were the best in her era, and she won her gold medals fairly and squarely. How do we know that if Nadia was a teenager today that she would not be performing the types of routines that are now being performed?
Originally Posted by jatale
Are we going to dismiss Peggy Fleming and Dorothy Hamill as second-rate figure skaters and state they would not qualify for the US nationals if they were competing today? That's ridiculous. Both Fleming and Hamill were the best skaters of their era, and they excelled in every aspect of the sport, including the school figures. Sure, they did not perform triple jumps, and neither did 99 percent of the women of that era. Hamill once said she had "slow rotation" and never learned to skate triples. She didn't need them - and neither did the other women who competed in that era.
07-29-2011, 11:13 PM
silverpond, couldn't agree more with your post.
07-29-2011, 11:57 PM
I do agree with everything you say here. My previous post was not meant to diminish in any way the accomplishments of Nadia or Peggy, or Dorothy, etc. They were all great athletes and champions. I was only trying to point out that their fame was not really dependent on the scoring system in use at the time, but rather in their talent and personal charisma.
Originally Posted by silverpond
07-30-2011, 12:11 AM
While I do agree with you in general, I would say part of the sport's mystique did come from that perfect 10.0, much like Torvil/Dean's straight 6.0s in Sarejevo, nearly thirty years later, remains the defining moment in ice dancing. I have to admit I prefer "higher, faster, stronger" to "perfection," and watching the 1976 routine that got that 10 was relatively blase personally, but the mystique remains.
07-30-2011, 12:15 AM
In the 1964 Olympics, I think, an American swimmer named Don Schollander won a clutch of swimming medals including something like four golds. In one of the more recent Games, a report pointed out that his times wouldn't have gotten him a bronze medal in the girls' events of that year (1992 or somewhere around there). So what? He was still amazing in 1964. Things progress, but that doesn't negate what came before. What Nadia did was amazing, and it was exhilarating to watch. I can pretty much guarantee that none of us who watched were saying to ourselves, "ehhh, in 35 years this performance won't amount to a hill of beans." Funny thing, too: we might even feel moved by Comaneci's performance today, on YouTube. I've certainly been moved by Peggy Fleming and Janet Lynn--did they even do triples? Who cares?
07-30-2011, 12:46 AM
I agree. Skaters (and gymnasts, presumably) performed according to the system in place at the time. When Peggy, Dorothy and Janet Lynn skated, figures were 60% of the score. If a skater did well in figures, like Peggy, they didn't need to add triples to their programs to win. If they did not so well, like Janet Lynn, triples wouldn't have helped them. Janet Lynn, by the way, did triples at several competitions--1969 nationals, 1968 Olympics, perhaps others--but eventually left them out because they wouldn't have resulted in a higher placement for her.
Originally Posted by silverpond
07-30-2011, 07:38 AM
Last edited by janetfan; 07-30-2011 at 03:54 PM.
07-30-2011, 09:29 AM
Oh, I can respect the achievement, but not knowing a lot about gymnastics means that the effect is limited. I understand her impact on the sport and wouldn't want to diminish that, but her impact on me was considerably less (compare that to Gina Gogean, who I totally had a crush on when I was a 12 year old during Atlanta.)
I agree with the rest (particularly the world record comment. The ISU no longer really cares about personal bests for that very reason, so doesn't it make more sense to just point out the season best each year?). That said, I do wonder if Chan can break his record and that does excite me, because that would generally mean he skated a harder program and/or skated better, which would be truly thrilling.
Relative perfection doesn't do much for me.
07-30-2011, 10:10 AM
Maybe in 10 years, if the CoP eventually gets it right and settles into a more stable set of point values and requirements the world records will actually mean something.
Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue
Let's compare the impact of Yuna's performances in Vancouver with that of Nadia from Montreal.
If 6.0 had still been used I believe Yuna would have come close to breaking the record for most 6.0's and certainly the most by a singles skater.
Instead her near perfect skating broke a point record.
Yuna is not American and contrary to what some of her fans believe she is basically unknown to the American public despite winning the OGM.
Nadia came from Romania, and unlike Korea, America did not have friendly relations with Nadia's country.
Yet Nadia became a sensation in USA based on her Olympic performances. I am sure gymnastics at the time was not as popular in USA as skating was so how do we explain the phenominal popularity of Nadia in USA?
Several factors could be mentioned but I think the scoring system was the biggest difference.
One system makes the sport more exciting to casual viewers and the other befuddles casual viewers.
Nadia was unknown to the American public heading into the '76 Olympics.
Yuna was unknown to the majority of Americans but skating fans knew her and she had been seen winning the WC in LA a year before Vancouver.
Yuna is from a democratic country, speaks English and has Nike as one of her sponsors.
How did Nadia, a totally unknown girl from an Eastern bloc communist country become such a sensation here while Yuna remains close to anonymous?
Yuna seems to have many advantages over Nadia. She is beautiful and charasmatic, lives a good life, donates more to charity than most athletes and seems like the type of athlete Americans have always embraced.
What Nadia had was the advantage of a scoring system that made her performances seem bigger than life.
Yuna did not.
Sorry, but "243" will never beat a "perfect 10."
Last edited by janetfan; 07-30-2011 at 01:30 PM.
07-30-2011, 10:57 AM
That's a fascinating thought, Hernando. I don't know if I completely agree with your answer, partly because of a difference in TV viewing these days, but the question you posed has importance in itself.
Here's what I mean by the TV factor. In the days of the last episode of the hit show M*A*S*H*, an extraordinary percentage of American households watched the show. It could be called a shared national experience. The same was true for the Montreal Olympics. Moreover, because Nadia's exploits took several days (I think she got her seven 10's across three or four days), word of mouth as well as news reports gathered more and more viewers.
By contrast, entertainment broadcasting (now an inaccurate word) has gotten far more fragmented, with many cable channel viewing opportunities as well as non-TV outlets (the Web, gaming, and so on) as well as network TV. So the Olympics, and especially the Winter Games, have become niche viewing. I don't like it any more than you do, because a lot of people miss out on the gems of magnificent Olympic performance.
To us, skating is the center of the sports world (and an art form besides), but we're what Shakespeare would call a "happy few." It's not everyone's cup of tea--silly them!
But I repeat: your supposition makes a wonderful issue to ponder, and I think there's lots more to say about it, because it reveals a lot about both of these sterling athletes. Thanks for putting it that way!
07-30-2011, 01:53 PM
Last edited by janetfan; 07-30-2011 at 04:02 PM.
07-30-2011, 05:56 PM
Sorry Hernando, I was enjoying your reflections on Nadia and Yuna until you accused CoP as being the culprit. I really think you are wrong in asserting that the CoP is the reason USA TV stations are not covering skating like they used to. If TV coverage and the money it brings in is still essential for the sport of figure skating, and I think it is, and the CoP was the cause of major money decline then the ISU would drop CoP like a hot potato in order to get TV revenues back up again. It is that simple. Anyway, this argument is futile because people have entrenched positions, so I'm not going to pursue it any further.
Originally Posted by Hernando
07-30-2011, 06:17 PM
Last edited by janetfan; 07-30-2011 at 06:36 PM.