Nope. He didn't. The question then is : Why should D&W choose to skate a 3rd event, in which they meet V&M when if they wanted to do 3 events, they could choose to meet the third place team instead?
Are top athletes really such wimps that they don't want to face their main rivals?
Last edited by herios; 10-31-2011 at 02:25 PM.
Well, phooey. No wonder people don't consider this a sport.
When it comes down to it, the place for great rivals to meet is at great events--Worlds, Olympics, even 4CC's and the GPF. And what those rivals don't need to be doing is putting themselves at a disadvantage when they go to the big events.
These days, it is explicit in the start order: the team with the most points starts last, which is an advantage.
Why should either team give that away without there being something in it for them.
If SC wants to attract D&W, they should consider having them as guest artists at the Gala and offer to donate the gate, or a portion of the gate, to some charity favored by D&W.
Something like that
Obviously, both teams see the wisdom in competing early, getting feedback, then having several weeks to work on the areas that could be improved.
I doubt that either team would want to do three events anyway.
Imagine the Yankees and Red Sox. "Well, it would be nice to go up against them, but one of us might lose, so guess we'll have to nix that."
If the Red Sox and the Yankees could do anything to skew the season so that they could end up with home field advantage when it came time for the World Series, do you think they would not take it? Their owners might conceivably make it all about the money, and schedule the extra series to feather their pockets, and the team would go along because of contractual issues, but when push comes to shove, the big deal each year is Who Won the World Series or The American League East or the American League Championship. Who got the Series Ring, the bonus prizes and endorsements for winning the Series, even who got the parade, carrying a broom and dressed in a kilt and got to dance an Irish jig to Tessie?
That sort of stuff.
For Meryl & Charlie, there is the negative effect to their college of screwing up the schedule in successive weeks. The negative of having no chance to rearrange programs to respond to judges input. The loss of an extra week's training. An extra week of wear on expensive costumes.
And what would they gain by this?
Crush their rivals? And I assume their rivals are supposed to remain crushed?
Just because one or the other team won Skate Canada? When the same rivals didn't feel crushed when they were beaten at Worlds?
This reminds me of Monty Python and The Holy Grail
2 Groups of people who think that they make sense, but who think each other are insane:
Last edited by dorispulaski; 10-31-2011 at 02:59 PM.
"USFS should invite Virtue and Moir to Skate America."
Yes, I guess it would help them to fill up the arena(s). Watching TV, I noticed many empty places at Skate America On the other hand in Mississauga majority of places were full.
I understand the skating rationale for not wishing to meet head to head until late in the season, I just don't agree with it.
I'm not saying D/W should compete in SC next year, in part because of its proximity to SA (although that was Kwan's and even Hughes's schedule during a least a few seasons) and in part because of their school schedule. However I disagree with some of the other reasons being put forward.
Until the last ten years, the men's tennis tour was not set up as it is now with their mandatory Masters 1000 tournaments (Nine events throughout the year which require all the top players to play; absences or withdrawals incur a heavy fine). These events are the equivalent of the GP in skating. So today, the top men are virtually guaranteed to play each other multiple times during the year outside the Grand Slams. Whereas in the 80s and 90s such mandatory events did not exist and the top players met less often. That explains how Djokovic and Nadal have already played more often (29 matches) then McEnroe and Borg (16 matches) in about the same period of time (5 years) and nearly as much as Sampras and Agassi (34 matches) in less than half the time (14 years). Most of Novak and Rafa's matches have happened in those Masters events, rather than the majors and have often been of far better quality than some Grand Slam finals (Their semifinal in Madrid a couple of years ago was the match of the year and lasted 4 hours for 3 sets). Those frequent meetings between them, along with Federer's rivalry with both players, Andy Murray's frequent success at that level and other big names, have served to boost the worldwide popularity of men's tennis to its highest level in some time. The big names draw more attention of less dedicated fans to these other events, rather than waiting for the majors, which are mostly crammed into a 4 month window. That has had the effect of building up momentum throughout the year, so by the time the majors come around fan interest is peaking. All the majors routinely break attendance records these days and network bidding wars for coverage have become more intense.
Conversely, the women have come to play each other less and less often, due to injury, inconsistent performances and more lax tour scheduling rules than the men. Their tour's health and popularity is far less secure and is constantly being revamped. That is the opposite of its status in the 70s, 80s and 90s. In the 70s, the women played a much smaller tour, met far more often (almost weekly) and took a more active role in promoting the sport out of necessity. Arguably the greatest head to head rivalry in all of sports, Chris Evert vs Martina Navratilova, lasted 15 years from 1973-1988 and encompassed 80 official matches and dozens of exhibitions. Obviously those matches were not just in majors, but in smaller events all over the world. It served to internationalize the success of women's tennis. Everyone was talking about them and waiting for them to meet regardless of the venue. The fact that they were playing each other was the source of the drama as much as the tournament. Graf and Navratilova, Graf and Seles, Graf and Sabatini and Graf and Sanchez-Vicario all met in big and small events as well. I'd argue the game was healthier for it.
If skating truly wishes to break out of its niche status, the path out of the wilderness will be carved by its stars rather than its events. D/W and V/M are the biggest active stars in the sport right now in any discipline. With Mao, Yu-Na and Lysacek and Plushenko up in the air, the main draw now is dance. Using them in some kind of coordinated way (be that at SC, a made for TV competition, etc.) could draw in new eyes. Build up the rivalry. Generate interest for the betterment of the sport.
As for the discussion of Funny Face, I share ChuckM's impression of the film. I think the dance itself is very good, but not optimal for them. A bit like D/Ws tango last season. It can certainly grow and improve, an possible win for them. I think it is likely a good vehicle to allow them to try out new things.
I do find it interesting how different the impressions are among those who love the program vs those who only appreciate it. There was a newspaper article from the weekend on the program that praised it and went on about the lost beauty of old films and the universal lack of quality in contemporary ones. He used that point to assert that skating today is similarly devoid of inspiration. I find that to be a lazy approach to remembering the past or evaluating the present. Not every old Hollywood film was a classic or created with a pure artistic intent. Similarly, not every contemporary film is a contrived collage of CGI or screenwriting by committee. V/M are phenomenal skaters and almost anything they do will be generally well received. That does not mean every endeavor is a masterpiece or that it has to be. (Same applies to D/W, T/D, K/P, etc. btw)