Past glory doesn't mean much in the end---it's what a skater is able to put out on the ice at Nationals...].
I agree-- to an extent. A skater must put out a program that will place them in the top three at Nationals. But a case in point. ....1998 Michelle won Nats without dispute. Tara fell in the SP. At 1998 Olympics, Michelle was deemed a shoo-in. She entered the LP in first. She skated a beautiful, slightly conservative LP, without a real hitch. When she finished that program, I think it was a foregone conclusion that she had aced the gold. Then along came Tara, the last skater with a not-quite-perfect skate, but a more technically advanced LP, skating with abandon--executing a 3/3 combo, plus a 3/3 sequence. We know the result! And four years later, who wudda dared predict Sarah--that is anyone other than Time Magazine!! In neither case had Nationals picked the winner. Not a perfect analogy, but still a bit puzzling. It proves the danger of "post-figures" Olympic predictions.
Last edited by a moderator: