I think th eproblem was that the love was lost between Usova and Zhulin and they were forced to do no romantic programs which was their forte otherwise they would have won.
Originally Posted by wordsworthgirl
I think Oksana is among the most talented all-around skaters ever to compete in the sport, and she won a world title, so I don't think she should be considered either the least talented or the least worthy champion. Any champion pre-1994 also would not have won in 1998 so I'm not sure what that has to do with it.
Originally Posted by blue_idealist
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).
Or talented and worthy ones out there right now for us to still bash, for that matter!
Originally Posted by Mathman
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.
Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy
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.
agreed S/P whining and crocodile tears were disgusting
Originally Posted by SimplyLex
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
Wicked Yankee Girl
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.
Last edited by dorispulaski; 10-29-2013 at 11:05 AM.
Agreed. I don't enjoy such mean-spirited threads. :(
Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy
Often being "one for the ages" comes down to having one's best skate on a big occasion, and also being embraced by the public. Of course, to some degree it depends which public we're talking about. The way the media set up the contest and react to the results will affect how the viewers perceive the winner. And there will be different media setups/reactions in different countries, in different media outlets.
Originally Posted by wordsworthgirl
As for Urmanov, I think he had quite a few better performances than the Olympic long program later in his career. But they weren't at Worlds---the pressure of being expected to live up to the Olympic title seems to have affected his competition nerves, and later injury.
It would be harder to argue with the worthiness of these performances vs. the Lillehammer long programs, apart from the matter of taste that one might prefer different styles of choreography and costumes -- and other skaters might have also skated better at those events.
1994 Olympics wasn't the strongest event despite the number of past and future champions competing -- perhaps because of the 2-year time gap, it involved skaters past their peak vs. those who had not yet reached their peak. Urmanov improved after 1994, but so did Stojko and Eldredge and sometimes Zagorodniuk and Candeloro, and then Kulik came along, and then Yagudin, and then Plushenko...
Wicked Yankee Girl
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.
Trixie Schuba was the most dominant skater of figures in the history of the sport. No one before or since could touch her. Yes, times have changed and the figure-tracing skills that once were the heart of the sport are no longer valued. But that's not Schuba's fault. She was two time European champion and two time world champion in addition to Olympic gold medalist in 1972. A wonderful and unique Olympic champion.
Here she is in Holiday on Ice in 1974.
By the way, the Olympic gold medal in the discipline "fancy figures" has been awarded only once, to Nikolai Panin in 1908.
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.
Originally Posted by sky_fly20
that's a joke right ?
Originally Posted by Skater Boy
Baiul was the most held up skater since winning her Worlds, she won based on the judges perspective of her so called "potential" and lets not forget the orphan girl story, turns out that was bad for her in the long run like for most child stars with no parental guidance.
Lipinski may not be the most artistic but she was free and her jumps had one of the most difficult content
Oh I think people are trying to prosecute and convict the robbers here.
Originally Posted by spikydurian