Kwan a better spinner than Kim? Good grief.
Kim has superior flow and edge quality as well. Kwan can have extensions.
The Olympic Gold is absolutely a prerequisite for any consideration as THE best ever. Perhaps you can be top 5 without one at absolute max. No athlete in any sport, especialy an individual sport, who didnt win the biggest event in their sport atleast once, can ever be called the best ever.
Look at the change of edge on their spirals, Kwan is MARKEDLY better, which shows you the comparison of edges fairly well. Look at the lutzes between the two. Kwan's entrance edge (especially Earlier in her career) is a true, deep BO edge (which, admittedly, flattened out towards the jump sometimes.) Kim's is just a flip entrance with her ankle rolled over to the outside edge. Kwan has better edges.
Flow: Well, CoP really doesn't have time for flow, either between elements or out of jumps. Flow is ALSO indicative of good edges (usually) so....
By all means, show me direct comparisons of the edges between the two.
Don't know where to begin with. Stop making up lies about what you don't know, especially about the Lutz entrance. YNK uses her knee for her Lutz takeoff, not her ankle. It is impossible to jump with such power and efficiency when you have to force your ankle to maintain an LBO. A good example of such imperfect technique is Joannie Rochette who has to pre-rotate her upper body to land a fixed Lutz.
Not to mention Michelle Kwan flutzed. It was a flutz. It's simple as that. So how does a fact that YNK has a better Lutz technique than MK or anyone work in your favor?
To answer the question, Michelle is great, one of the greatest ladies skaters ever. THE greatest? Don't think there's a definitive answer to that. Clearly, it's the off-season.
It's enough to just be in the conversation as the greatest. That said, I think the answer may differ depending on what country you're in.
In terms of speed, variety of positions, difficulty of positions, and spin features, Yu-Na blows Michelle out of the water. It's tough arguing with someone who thinks that their layback arch "is a wash," though. Find me a Michelle Kwan layback that has the speed, centering, variety of positions, and back positioning that this one by Yu-Na Kim does.
All you're focusing on is basic positions and I don't even think that Michelle really "beats" Kim there in a definitive way. But quantitatively, in terms of other criteria for the quality of a good spin--Yu-Na wins hands down. Michelle just didn't have the variety of positions that some of her peers then and today's CoP skaters have. She didn't have a lot of speed. She didn't hold her positions for a long time. Yu-Na does.
One could argue that if Michelle had trained under CoP her entire career, her spins would've been more CoP friendly. And yes, I think they would have, but she would never have been like Alissa Czisny because she simply lacked the flexibility and the natural spinning skill. I suspect that spin wise, she would've done similarly as Joannie Rochette and Rachael Flatt did under CoP (who even did the same feature that Michelle did, spinning in opposite directions). Michelle would've been lucky to get close to Yu-Na's ability to maximize levels and GOE on spins. And note that Michelle had the incentive under 6.0 to improve her spins--her peers, starting with the baby ballerinas (Naomi Nari Nam, Sasha Cohen, Sarah Hughes) had far superior spins with more positions and more features than Michelle, as did her greatest competitor, Irina Slutskaya. And while spins didn't count for a whole lot under 6.0, they did count for something--Sarah Hughes would never have won the Olympics had she not had great spins in addition to those triple/triples.
Sorry, but this is just wrong. The fact that you claim Michelle's lutz has a "true, deep BO edge" and that it's better than Kim's lutz (...Kim's lutz has a flip entrance??? ) is just baffling since Michelle did flutz and it was worse earlier in her career. She later improved it.Look at the lutzes between the two. Kwan's entrance edge (especially Earlier in her career) is a true, deep BO edge (which, admittedly, flattened out towards the jump sometimes.) Kim's is just a flip entrance with her ankle rolled over to the outside edge. Kwan has better edges.
You don't have to take my word for it, you can see Michelle's flutz at the 1998 Olympics here, and the British Eurosport commentators note it as well.
Yu-Na had better "flow" and speed (generated by her edges) in her Olympic performances than Michelle did in hers.Flow: Well, CoP really doesn't have time for flow, either between elements or out of jumps. Flow is ALSO indicative of good edges (usually) so....
By all means, show me direct comparisons of the edges between the two.
I am a huge Michelle Kwan fan, and followed Michelle Kwan's career longer than I did Yu-Na's. They both have their unique strengths and weaknesses in their skating. Disappointing to find others try and tear down Yu-Na to make Michelle look better.
That said, the first time I heard British Eurosport commentators call out Michelle's flutz, I felt like I had just found out that there was no Santa Clause. But I celebrate Michelle for everything undeniably great that she did do, and I don't feel there's a need to portray her as a more perfect skater than she was.
Who was a better 6.0 spinner between Kwan and Kim is fairly close, still would go with Kim slightly. Kim is a WAY better COP spinner than Kwan. There isnt a single spin Kwan does better under COP thinking. Kim had much more complex positions and much superior speed.
It seems to be a GoldenSkate myth that has developed in recent months though that Kim is a weak spinner. Fans of every skater from Gold, Sotnikova, Asada, Osmond, Wagner, have all claimed at some point the last 3 months one reason they can beat a clean Kim is a supposed edge in spins, despite that all those skaters repeatedly earn less points on spins; and the only one the suggestion isnt purely laughable for are Asada and Gold perhaps. Even a Kostner fan called Kostner a better spinner, Kostner with the Worlds ugliest layback and mostly slow and awkward spins, LOL! Next thing you know we will be hearing Ando, Bonaly, Kerrigan, and Chen Lu were better spinners.
To me, this whole discussion shows how futile it is to compare skaters from different eras skating under different rules which valued different things. Here is a 6.0 program. It would not get a lot of CoP points. No triple-triple, spiral held too long, spin positions too basic, etc. And yet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=1m25s Lutz edge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=1m55s Outflowing edge on landing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=0m53s Spiral sequence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=2m50s Basic positions in combination spin. Olé!
Some people like CoP programs better. OK by me. Still...
Last edited by Mathman; 06-04-2013 at 01:09 PM.
It is definitely a futile debate as to who is the GOAT due to the differences in era, environment, competitors, rules, etc. Fun? Sure. But seriously...YuNa's Lutz is "just" a Flip entrance with her ankle rolled to the outside edge? I don't think zschultz understands this, but that leads to counter-rotation, which is part of the difficulty of a true Lutz. Michelle's "Lutz" set-up is an outside edge that is unremarkable in light of the fact that her ankle rolls towards the inside edge and which was worse earlier in her career up to and including 1998, 1999. Michelle's "Lutz" might as well be called a Flip with an outside edge in transition. There, I can play semantics, too. Every reference I've read has said that a real Lutz's outside edge gets deeper towards takeoff due to the counter-rotational mechanism.
And crossing over from the other "Who would dominate under 6.0 and CoP" thread, the notion that Michelle would have been capable of a great deal more 3-3's had she grown up under CoP is laughable because she had incentives under 6.0 to be doing 3-3's more often and of a greater difficulty than 3T-3T. For heaven's sake, look at what actually happened: she lost to Tara Lipinski in Nagano due to her lower technical difficulty and to Sarah Hughes in SLC due to her lower technical difficulty (not to mention Irina Slutskaya's jumping abilities.) Furthermore, it's not as if doing those 3-3's were asking her to revolutionize Ladies' Figure Skating; what about merely maintaining the standard set during the Ito/Yamaguchi era? And I think someone mentioned this before by tallying her clean-skate record while attempting her 3T-3T's. Her consistency starts to go down, as well as possibly her ability to perform...have at it.
Go ahead and make a case for your favourites all you want, go ahead and imagine a creative scenario where a time capsule or a message to aliens in outer space asks us to pick 10 programs by one skater only, but I really can't abide by these excuses in favour of said favourite and bizarre critiques against a suggested alternative who is widely considered to have an excellent Lutz.
Frankly, if I had to create a time capsule/alien message, I believe I could select 10 programs from a variety of skaters that would be better than the listed 10 solely by Kwan. I think that says enough--that is, one skater does not, for me, adequately encompass the best performances in and aspects about this sport.
Don't ya'll get tired of having the same frickin' argument over and over and over and over again? Sheesh...
I wasn't tearing anyone down, I was just comparing the two. I am, in fact, a fan of Yuna's. I do cede that I do have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Kwan cause she was my favorite growing up, and I have noticed her flaws as I have gotten older.
I love how "X was better than Y at Z" comes to mean "Y WAS TERRIBLE AT Z" Again, just a comparison, and I can really only do it by 6.0 standards, since Kwan really never competed with the CoP variations.
But whatever, I'm done with this thread, because instead of explaining things to those of us who never studied the biomechanics of Figure Skating and have only been fans, I get jumped on and told I am a liar. So you all can have this thread. I pray you aren't teachers or coaches.