Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: What does it mean to be an "all-around skater" or have the "complete package"

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,853
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post
    Although the words don't technically mean that, often in the US, commentators say, "So and So has the complete package," when they are excusing a lack of technical prowess at the highest level.

    <snip>
    It would never be used of Johnny Weir, an artistic skater too flamboyant for his federation's taste.
    I'm not sure that's the case, even with the narrow use you describe in the first paragraph.

    Usually the "complete package" metaphor would be used either to mean either "well rounded" or, more narrowly, "has enough of everything needed to be successful at the highest level."

    It would often be used by commentators discussing contenders at the highest level to compare skaters who reached that level purely on extreme technical strength (figures and/or jumps) vs. a skater who was merely good to very good in that technical area and also good to very good in areas where the technically superior rival was distinctly lacking.


    For example, consider the following quote from the heyday of the "complete package" discourse:
    "The biggest thing is that I've made people happy by skating," he said. "The biggest thing I've tried to emphasize is the more diverse choreography and artistry through technical ability, so you have a more complete package. I think that's a wonderful thing, and I'm proud of it."
    This was coming from a skater who was known to be flamboyant and to be inconsistent at a jump that defined medal-winning programs at the time.

    And here's a fan(?) writing 2 years ago that
    Chan, Lysacek, Oda, Takahashi, and Weir have the complete package! It will depend on who will make the least number of errors.
    You can find the term used in several different shadings of meanings, but I can't imagine any shading in which the presence of something (flamboyance) would disqualify one from complete package status. What would disqualify would be incompleteness -- a lack of something -- whether that be edge quality or jumps or "artistry" or head for competition or whatever.

  2. #17
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,544
    Once Weir was superceded by Lysacek, it was interesting that somehow in commentator land.Weir suddenly did not have the whole package

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,853
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post
    Once Weir was superceded by Lysacek, it was interesting that somehow in commentator land.Weir suddenly did not have the whole package
    If so, maybe the consensus was that Weir was lacking something -- competitive focus? transitions? jump combinations? -- needed to achieve results he could theoretically be in contention for.

  4. #19
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    If so, maybe the consensus was that Weir was lacking something -- competitive focus? transitions? jump combinations? -- needed to achieve results he could theoretically be in contention for.
    Based upon the ISU video on Transitions that I recently saw on YouTube, I would assume that the judges felt Weir's programs lacked difficult transitions. (One of Weir's programs was used as an example of a skater that had little difficulty in transitions. It highlighted, that although the transition elements were performed at a high level of quality, they were of minimal difficulty)

  5. #20
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,544
    Indeed, Johnny needed more transitions in 2010, according to commentators in 2010.

    In 2006, he was said to have had the whole package.

    Granted there were rule changes, but not significant changes in what transitions were (as in presence/absence of transitions)

    Since "whole package" is not a COP usage; it is used by commentators. And forum posters.

    So since it has no firm COP definition, it means what the person using it or perhaps the person hearing/reading it, believes it means.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •