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.
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).
As for Oksana: I don't want to disparage her, but her world title in 1993 came because everyone else completely fell apart. It was a terrible competition, and her early skate held up after everyone else (especially poor Nancy Kerrigan) just couldn't measure up. Wasn't that the year that U.S. ladies lost their third spot for Worlds and Olympics the next year? This has nothing to do with whether or not Oksana deserved to win the Olympics the next year, but I don't think that the 1993 Worlds gold specifically was an indication of extraordinary talent on Oksana's part.