Least Talented/Worthy Olympic Champion(s) ever?

I don't think this thread should have mixed "talented" and "worthy". They are very different things. Hamilton was definitely talented but I can't say he was worthy at that championship. He was outskated by Orser and Boitano in the SP and he simply blew it in the LP. That's just the way it went.

Blades of Passion said:

The thing is...Scott Hamilton might have to deserved to be as low as 7th in the LP at that Olympics. He definitely shouldn't have been higher than 4th when compared to the performances I've seen of Orser, Boitano, and Cerne. Then there was also Fadeev, Kotin, and Sabovcik, whom I haven't seen full performances of. However, from what I know, Fadeev was doing ALL the jumps and actually landed a slightly two-footed Quad at that event (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlIfwwq-BUo). He must have had a fall to place only 7th, but he probably still landed 5 Triples + that solid Quad attempt, which is way beyond Hamilton's offering. Kotin was a great freestyle skater and always undermarked throughout his whole career. Sabovcik landed 6 Triples including a Triple Axel, I'm told.

Anyway, if Hamilton was placed as 3rd in SP and 4th LP, that already would be enough to lose to Brian Orser placing 1st in the SP and 1st in the LP. So, Orser is definitely the REAL 1984 Olympic Champion in my mind.

Click to expand...

I agree. Two judges actually did place Hamilton 5th in the LP which would have lost him the gold, which shows that such a placing was in no ways far fetched. Not just one, but two judges, had the guts to place him there. Of course most of the judges held up 3 time World Champion Hamilton, and thus finished 2nd in the LP to keep the gold.

drivingmissdaisy said:

I think pairs could have gone either way, but G&G were so good that they deserved high marks on both technical and presentation for the high level skills they exhibited. Had M&D won I could see why as well. Mens was very clear-cut; Elvis only did 6 triples IIRC with one popped axel, and Urmanov did 7, one with a turnout. Even the CAN judge placed Alexi ahead.

Click to expand...

I think the only clearly wrong result was the ladies.

The dance event there are arguments for and against each of G&P, U&Z, or T&D winning.

Pairs could have gone either way between G&G and M&D.

Mens could have gone either way between Stojko and Urmanov. There are strong cases for Stojko to have possibly won as he had a triple axel-triple toe which Urmanov had no triple-triple, Stojko had much better spins, better footwork, and his program did not have long rest periods like Urmanov's did. Actually Urmanov had 8 triples and Stojko 7, but Urmanov's extra triple was just a second triple toe which might not have even counted as it was done in a sort of sequence to end, and Urmanov had an obvious error on one of his triples- the triple flip, which Stojko did not (he had a singled axel but then threw in the triple axel-triple toe in place of the planned quad).

Stojko easily won the technical mark, but Urmanov won by much higher presentation scores.

Olympia said:

I'm beginning to get uncomfortable with the idea of a "least deserving" Olympic winner (I was happy for the first page or two, but now the negativity of the idea is making me squirm). But even if I were still feeling enthusiastic about this topic, I can't think of Scott that way. He didn't just show up out of nowhere and win. He wasn't at his best in the 1984 Games, it's true, but he won by the numbers. Additionally, he was a major skater with several consecutive world championships by that time. (Had he won just three at that point, or all four of his WC's?) So his qualifications overall were very high. Whether people think that Orser should have won on that night is a different story, but Scott wasn't exactly untalented.

Click to expand...

He was a three time World Champ at the time of the 84 Games, he won his fourth the month after his Olympic Title.

gkelly said:

I seem to remember Elena Sokolova doing some about the same time, but I can't quickly find on youtube.

I don't remember 3-3-2 or 3-2-2 before then. 2-2-2 seemed to be pretty common in the early 90s and probably 80s from juniors or lower level seniors who didn't have enough (or any) triples to fill their programs.

2A or triple - half loop - 2S or 2F or rarely 3S was not unknown.

Nicole Bobek once did something (one-foot)1A - 3S - 2T.

Click to expand...

WAY back in the day, I'm almost certain that Elaine Zayak did at 3T-2T-2T, at a time when triples of any kind were only performed by a very few elite women.

I'll try to scrounge around You Tube to confirm when I get a chance.

Zayak did 3Toe+2Toe+2Loop in 1984.

I'm most upset about M/D losing to G/G in 94. What the eff!
M/D had better and harder programs, and they were clean. If their programs are graded under CoP, M/D would have crushed G/G.

One of the most outrageous judging event in the history of the sport. G/G aren't worthy. They are talented, though.

FlattFan said:

I'm most upset about M/D losing to G/G in 94. What the eff!
M/D had better and harder programs, and they were clean. If their programs are graded under CoP, M/D would have crushed G/G.

One of the most outrageous judging event in the history of the sport. G/G aren't worthy. They are talented, though.

Click to expand...

Olympic champions and 4 time World champions and legends of the sport and they weren't worthy?

Jammers said:

Olympic champions and 4 time World champions and legends of the sport and they weren't worthy?

Click to expand...

I agree. Even if you disagree with the decision of the judges, the winner is not "unworthy."

From 1980 until he retired in 1984, Scott Hamilton never finished lower than
1st at any competition. I'd say that makes him pretty "worthy."

FlattFan said:

I'm most upset about M/D losing to G/G in 94. What the eff!
M/D had better and harder programs, and they were clean. If their programs are graded under CoP, M/D would have crushed G/G.

One of the most outrageous judging event in the history of the sport. G/G aren't worthy. They are talented, though.

Click to expand...

M/D have weaker lifts, twists, throws, and death spirals, basically all the pair technical elements, than not only G&G but even Brasseur & Eisler and Shishkova & Naumov who finished 3rd and 4th. Compared to G&G they also have less speed, less edge and basic skating quality, and her extensions are not as good as Katia.

The result could have gone either way but the superior overall quality of G&G, and that M&D's pair elements weren't up to snuff with other top teams, was enough to justify G&G's win.

Jammers said:

Olympic champions and 4 time World champions and legends of the sport and they weren't worthy?

Click to expand...

Worthy of that Olympic Championship in 1994? No, they weren't. Especially when there are a superior team doing superior programs cleanly.

Blades of Passion said:

I don't think this thread should have mixed "talented" and "worthy". They are very different things. Hamilton was definitely talented but I can't say he was worthy at that championship. He was outskated by Orser and Boitano in the SP and he simply blew it in the LP. That's just the way it went.

Click to expand...

I started the thread and did not intend to mix the two but actually to allow people to separate them out. I was open to answers on both least talented and least worthy. In some cases these are one and the same thing, but in many cases they are not.

kovarkovaelegant said:

M/D have weaker lifts, twists, throws, and death spirals, basically all the pair technical elements, than not only G&G but even Brasseur & Eisler and Shishkova & Naumov who finished 3rd and 4th. Compared to G&G they also have less speed, less edge and basic skating quality, and her extensions are not as good as Katia.

The result could have gone either way but the superior overall quality of G&G, and that M&D's pair elements weren't up to snuff with other top teams, was enough to justify G&G's win.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. In general, I do not favor clean programs beating very minorly flawed programs if the overall skating of the flawed program is better. and G & G were peerless in their speed, line, extension, and connection.

Blades of Passion said:

Zayak did 3Toe+2Toe+2Loop in 1984.

Click to expand...

Even earlier than that, Blades.

1980 US Nats LP. Check about the 3:40 mark for the combo you cited. She was 14. Impressively, this program also featured a 2A-3T, which many women today would like to have in their arsenals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNB3las_0Wk

As I was rewatching this program, I am somewhat surprised that her artistry, while admittedly on the rough side and needed some maturity, wasn't nearly as bad as I remembered.

She seems to have been a very charming young girl.

wordsworthgirl said:

I completely agree. In general, I do not favor clean programs beating very minorly flawed programs if the overall skating of the flawed program is better. and G & G were peerless in their speed, line, extension, and connection.

Click to expand...

To add to this, I am a huge fan of M & D and think their program was amazing too.

Mathman said:

I agree. Even if you disagree with the decision of the judges, the winner is not "unworthy."

Click to expand...

Agreed. Unworthy is in my mind more like an Oksana or a Sarah Hughes.

kovarkovaelegant said:

M/D have weaker lifts, twists, throws, and death spirals, basically all the pair technical elements, than not only G&G but even Brasseur & Eisler and Shishkova & Naumov who finished 3rd and 4th. Compared to G&G they also have less speed, less edge and basic skating quality, and her extensions are not as good as Katia.

Click to expand...

Natalia's extensions are not as good as Katia's? Ok, whatever.

Both twists would be level 1 in today standard. No real difference in GOE. Maybe additional +1 for G/G on the twist.
Less speed? Go watch it again.

Better throw? 2A throw with problem on the landing is a better throw? What are you smoking?

Better spins? Hello, G/G were out of sync in SBS spins.

Program is super generic. Nothing's special, nothing's standing out. No SBS triple. 1A half loop 1T? Seriously?

In the new code of point, M/D would have beat them by 20 points. Go and watch the videos again.

wordsworthgirl said:

Agreed. Unworthy is in my mind more like an Oksana or a Sarah Hughes.

Click to expand...

I don't think we can just say, well I thought the other guy was better, so to me the winner isn't worthy. This is a sports contest. Sports have scoring rules.

Where did Sarah Hughes "deserve" to place in the short program? Michelle got five first place ordinals from the nine judges -- that's first in any ordinal scoring system. Irina was clear second with four firsts, two seconds, and three thirds (from the three acknowledged "Kwan judges" on the panel, USA, Germany, and Italy). Many people thought Irina should have won the SP, and four of the judges agreed. But not five.

Sarah's ordinals were 4. 4. 4. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6. 10 (from the Russian judge ) Well, that averages to 5.3. But you can't average ordinals. There is no such thing as 5.3-th place (I mean 5.3-rd place ). The scoring system in place at these Olympics was OBO (one-by-one). With ordinals all over the place after the top three skaters, when the OBO spreadsheets were tallied, Sarah landed in fourth. Only three out of nine judges agreed, but that was the system.

In the long program Sarah's ordinals were 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. Five first place ordinals. End of story. Was she really the best? Five judges thought so, four thought otherwise.

Under factored placements, this left Irina and Sarah tied, with Sarah holding the LP tie-breaker.

So, who was worthy and who was unworthy? Sarah's lucky stars were all in a row, that's for sure. :yes:

By the way, the following day the New York Times published an article stating that if the U.S. judge, Joe Inman, had put Michelle second and Irina third, then Michelle would have been second in the LP and the Olympic gold medalist overall. This turned out to be incorrect. The Times mistakenly thought that the scoring system was "majority of ordinals," which was used for national contests in the United States. But after the bizarre results of the men's competition at the previous year's Europeans, the ISU had switched from majority of ordinals to OBO. Under OBO, two judges would have had to switch for Michelle to come out on top.

Outcomes like this encouraged the ISU to press forward with the CoP.

(GKelly can correct this post for me if I made any mistakes. )

FlattFan said:

Worthy of that Olympic Championship in 1994? No, they weren't. Especially when there are a superior team doing superior programs cleanly.

Click to expand...

M/D are a superior team, LOL! Even if you think they deserved the 94 Olympic Gold, there is no way M/D are "the superior team". M/D are legends in their own right, but G/G are widely recognized as the best pairs team in history. M/D never defeated G/G and there are only 2 events their whole careers they arguably deserved to- 1990 Worlds and 1994 Olympics. That is it, and those 2 occasions only since G/G made uncharacteristic mistakes. Any other meetings between the 2 were not even remotedly close.