Re 1994 Olympics, this is true. It's not surprising that 2 of my choices come from that Olympics, since it was on a short cycle.
agreed S/P whining and crocodile tears were disgusting
the most vile and nastiest pair that ever existed
I think Schuba triumphs over Hughes as the most underserved lady
no need to include Oksana she was a one World wonder even more than Tara
Oksana was an artist; Tara really wasn't anything - could she jump sort of but oh so tiny - Julia has far more elegance and flow.
I donno know whether there should be any 'least talented' Olympic Champ. To reach that level and win gold is something most can only dream of.
Unworthy? That is very subjective. It sounds like 'wuzrobbed'.
Trixie Schuba was absolutely the best ever in a sport (figure skating) that no longer exists on the competitive scene. She is no more undeserving than Gillis Grafstrom, who also excelled in that sport, and won 3 Olympics.
Anyone who thinks figures is not skating has never done figures. It's all about deep, correct edging and turns-something a lot of our current skaters could use more of, IMO.
No one who is the all time best at anything is undeserving, IMO. Outdated, maybe, but deserving.
I'm OK with dissing Wolfgang Schwarz though...who wouldn't be.
And I agree that the first Olympic win of G&P, (who were great, deserving, skaters and deserved their OGM win in 1998); their 1994 win was undeserved because they also had illegal moves, and they weren't penalized for them, while T&D were-I'd have docked both T&D and G&P for illegal moves, and given the gold medal to U&Z.
If you want to fault Sara Hughes for 2002, you should also fault Tara for 1998- if she skated today, her flutzing, UR's and most of all, the impossibility today of getting credit for a 3Lo3Lo combo would have sunk her in the standings. But I don't think either of them are undeserving, so I won't vote for either. They didn't skate under modern rules.
A case can be made for Oksana Baiul, because in her era you were not supposed to get credit for 2 footed jumps, and she had plenty of them, and appeared to receive credit. Also you were supposed to have a combination. Nancy should have won, as much as I have always found her a boring skater.
In pairs, the 2nd win of G&G in 1994 was probably the pairs win that I find most troubling-I would have given it to Mishketunok & Dmitriev. G&G just made too many mistakes and had lesser difficulty. They won the second medal on reputation. Their first win in 1988 was utterly sublime, though. They were, like G&P, deserving skaters, they just didn't deserve one of their 2 OGMs.
Sarah Hughes for ladies. Evan Lysacek for men. S/P for pairs and Navka/Kostomarov for dance.
The entire whining by S/P was just riddiculous. Had they let it be and taken that silver home, they would've been much better remembered than they actually are IMO.
Sarah Hughes was by no means better than Slustkaya or Kwan and yet one stupid competition gave her the right to be among world's best skaters
Lysacek will go down in history as the champion without a quad. Not a very good thing to be remembered for.
And finally N/K. they were so mediocre and frankly, nobody even remembers them any more, nobody talks about them. they were simply so-so and yet beat many much better and more talented teams in Torino (both D/S, D/V, B/A).
Grischuk/Platov's second gold was also well-deserved.
I would contest your last sentence, actually. The level of skating in 1992 was actually higher than it was in almost everyone in 1998. Remember that Kristi had a triple-triple, and her jumps were bigger than Tara's. And Ito, of course, had a triple axel, which she managed to execute at the 1992 Olympics. So if those two ladies had shown up in 1998 at their 1992 peaks, they might have beaten both Michelle and Tara.
Under 6.0, a fall or major mistake would place below a clean performance for equally artistic skaters. Even assuming Kristi's artistic level equaled Michelle (which I don't think it was, as Michelle had already gotten many 6.0's for her artistry from international judging panels), Kristi wasn't as clean as Michelle, who landed 7 triples. Michelle Nagano > Kristi Albertville.
This seems like a thinly veiled bashing thread. The obvious answer is that if skaters won Olympic gold, they're all very talented. As far as being worthy, I would say Plushenko deserved to beat Lysacek (although, Lysacek maximized the rules and Plushenko left points on the table, so it's understandable why Lysacek won). I don't get the Hughes bashing... she had a decent SP, and in her FS, she was the only one who truly went for it - even with the URs. It would have been a bit of a downer if Kwan or Slutskaya won when their freeskates had visible errors and were tentatively skated.
I want a woman to win Sochi. A veteran who has worked long and hard. Here's to Akiko. What a story that would be!
Well, good point. Thanks! Because of course I'd put Michelle ahead of anyone in my deepest wishes. (I put her ahead of Tara at Nagano, but alas, they didn't listen to me....) But the actual technical level of Kristi's skating skills (leaving out the fall) was about the same as the skating in 1998 in terms of jump content, and probably even 2002, for the most part, which was what I was thinking about when I made that statement. (I stand corrected for not taking Kristi's fall into consideration.) I was intending to refute the earlier poster's comment to the effect that one couldn't consider skating before 1994 in comparison with the skating later on. What I was getting at was that ladies' skating had evolved in 1992 to just about modern levels, especially in terms of Kristi and Midori. Sorry if I wasn't clear.