In the history of the Olympics, was anyone robbed?

[Michibanana]

JMHO, but I think it's ridiculous to say ANY skater was robbed based on the SP results. If Irina was in first after the SP in 2002, EVERYTHING would have been different in the LP, starting with the skate order. I think each and every one of the top for ladies was, in some was affected mentally by her placement in the SP - from Sarah's fire to Michelle's fall to Irina's very conservative, blah performance. If the results after the SP had been even slightly different, everything could have played out totally differently.

[NorthernLite]

Originally posted by Michibanana
If Irina was in first after the SP in 2002, EVERYTHING would have been different in the LP, starting with the skate order.

Reverse order was not used, it was a random draw. So it still could have ended up being the same skating order.

[thvudragon]

Originally posted by Mathman
She's got you on that one, TV. If the judges had given Irina first place in the short program, but then if she had finished behind Sarah and behind one of the other American ladies (i.e., in third place or lower), then Sarah would have won. If the "other American lady" had been Michelle, it would have been a tie between Sarah and Michelle, with Sarah winning the tie breaker.

I was when i read this, but then I noticed "and one of the other American ladies." My mistake. I thought she meant Irina 2nd.

Originally posted by Mathman
PS. ...and third or fourth in the LP. Robbed is robbed.

I don't understand this consensus that Irina should have been 3rd or 4th. She had, IMO, a much stronger program then both Sasha and MK, and was basically cleaner then both of them. The quality of her elements were overall, better. I think the only weakness in Tosca was ice coverage. The beginning stays too much to one side of the ice, not getting to the other until around the 2 min mark.

TV

[icenut84]

I don't understand why some of you think Irina's LP should have been behind Michelle's or Sasha's. I think second was fair. And even though Sarah gave a great performance and Irina's was more careful, several of Sarah's jumps were flawed (3sal-3loop = both jumps were underrotated. Lutz = badly cheated. IIRC, the flip was also underrotated). Maybe the judges who put Irina first took this into consideration, and gave the first place to the skater with better technique, despite not performing quite as well. And Irina's technique is superb. I still would have probably given first to Sarah, but I'm just pointing out that there are legitimate arguments that can be made for putting her behind Irina, despite the "performance" aspect. The jump layout in Sarah's programme wasn't very good either - all three of her combination jumps were in the same place on the ice and going in the same direction, and all of her other jumps were in another same place on the ice and going in the same direction. Which should also be taken into account in the marks.

I remember when I was watching it and Robin Cousins was the commentator. Between Irina's performance and her marks, there was a shot of Sarah backstage and he said that she could well be the winner of the free programme but it was "iffy, with Irina here". He obviously saw the difference in technique aswell and didn't think it was a slam-dunk by any means. The commentators also said that "there was far more in [Irina's] programme than in that offered by Michelle Kwan". Michelle skated just as carefully as Irina. Her programme was inferior, and she only had any spark right at the very end when she got into her last spin and ending pose (Irina also had more spark at this point, towards the end). Plus, she FELL. Which you can't ignore. Her spins weren't as good as Irina's, and her "footwork" was one of the easiest sequences I've ever seen, IIRC.

As for Sasha - yes, she has a beautiful style, but her routine was very front-loaded, she had dodgy landings on both her lutzes (which she also flutzed, whereas Irina's were clean), fell on the second jump in her 3-3 attempt, 2-footed the flip, and made a mess of the camel position in her combo spin at the end, although she managed to get the centring back for the sit position.

I think the result for the LP was fair - Sarah, Irina, Michelle, Sasha. For me, the question is whether Fumie deserved to be in there somewhere rather than behind - she gave a great performance, very musical and with difficulty, with only 2 errors (doubled the loop [?] and one of her lutz landings).

For me, the SP should have been Irina first, either Michelle or Sasha 2nd and 3rd. Maria should probably have been higher than she was aswell, although I'd have to watch them again to check where I'd have put her.

[lulu]

Just some food for thought. I wonder if seeing a performance "live" influences if you believe there was any "robbing" done? A lot of times, seeing a performance live, one notices speed, smoothness and other qualities that may influence a judging that do not come across on TV

Did anyone here attend SLC?

[Mathman]

"I don't understand this consensus that Irina should have been 3rd or 4th." -- TVDragon

I don't think there is a consensus at all. See Icenut's opinion above, for instance.

The judges lacked a consensus, too. Four judges thought Michelle's performance was better than Irina's (and one thought Sasha's was, too), and five thought Irina's performance was better than Michelle's. That's skating.

Mathman

[pipsqueak]

I haven't read all the posts yet, so forgive me if I repeat someone else--but does this post mean that we can go back and dig up all those gawdawful competitions between large-ish (ex)Soviets and (ex) Soviet Bloc country competitiors and our athletic, artistic women's competitors? You know, the ones from when school figures counted 60% of the score---but the viewing public only got to see the free skate performances? You know, the ones from when our skaters went out and did the Janet Lynn-Linda Fratianne performances, and the eventual Gold Medalists went out and drew a few ice-daisies in low-drive, a single jump or two, and ended with a scratch spin? Those?

[SusanBeth]

With figures involved, it would be impossible to argue. It's not like we can say, ''That last figure was WAAAY off axis.'' I fell in love with figure skating while watching Janet Lynn skate. So, she is very special to me. However, she didn't win the OGM and according to the rules, she didn't deserve to win. Both Janet and Karen Magnussen have stressed that Schuba won the gold fairly. IMO- To be fair, you have to keep in mind the rules in place at the time of the skate.

[lulu]

Originally posted by pipsqueak
I haven't read all the posts yet, so forgive me if I repeat someone else--but does this post mean that we can go back and dig up all those gawdawful competitions between large-ish (ex)Soviets and (ex) Soviet Bloc country competitiors and our athletic, artistic women's competitors? You know, the ones from when school figures counted 60% of the score---but the viewing public only got to see the free skate performances? You know, the ones from when our skaters went out and did the Janet Lynn-Linda Fratianne performances, and the eventual Gold Medalists went out and drew a few ice-daisies in low-drive, a single jump or two, and ended with a scratch spin? Those?

Actually, the most famous "large-ish" woman was not from the Soviet Block, but was Trixie Schuba of Austria. And like other people had said before, in the figure years-no one was robbed! The right person one the Figures and The right person won the free skate. It was just that figure were worth so much, the person who won the figures usually won entire event. We can in 20/20 hindsight discuss the worth of the figures and how much they should have been worth. But in the end, there was no robbing.

[Joesitz]

Originally posted by thvudragon
I don't understand this consensus that Irina should have been 3rd or 4th. She had, IMO, a much stronger program then both Sasha and MK, and was basically cleaner then both of them. The quality of her elements were overall, better. I think the only weakness in Tosca was ice coverage. The beginning stays too much to one side of the ice, not getting to the other until around the 2 min mark. TV

Hi TV - I'm not so sure there is a consensus about Irina's placement in 02 Olys. I will speak for myself and say that while I am not a fan of Irina, I am also not a fan of Sarah.

My personal take on Irina was that she was skating to a heavy dramatic piece of music Her trying to act out the lead character in the opera would be extremely difficult for anyone, and imo, Irina did not do the personification of Tosca. That is coming from someone who has seen a least a dozen tosca's on the stage.

So between the forced attempt at drama and the nerves, Irina"s overall skating was not up to par. It was not her night. It was Sarah's night, and imo, Michelle should have been second and Sasha third. But this is only my opinion. No one is going to change that and no one should change yours.

In 1998 it was Michelle's to lose. She did. In 2002 it was Irina's to lose. She did. These things happen but fans don't have to switch.

Cheers - Joe

[Effy]

If I remember correctly the reason Irina lost was because one judge put her in fourth place. Which I think we all must agree was a very wrong call. We can discus whether she was first or secomd, maybee thrird but definately not fourth.

[Effy]

A few comment on earlier posts.
Re. T&D I think the judging have a lot to do with the bizarre outcome of 1994 European Championship, where first Usuva and Shulin beat T&D, then Gritchuk and Platov beat T&D and because of judges placement of the two Russian couple T&D ended up by winning the competition, which everybody found stange and unfair. Based on that performance T&D decided to change their free dance to a showier routine including a lift, which was at least borderlining the rules. They won the OD, and cannot really claim misjudgement.

Re. Nancy Oksana. I think the major press and the focus on how much commercial endorsements Nancy would get for a win made judges reluctant to wote her way, sort of sending the message back: It is us, not Disney who decides the Olympic gold. The fact that Oksana was chrashed down during rehersals also gave her some sympathy as it would have any other skater. It was a very close competion down to the judgement of Jan Hoffmann, who gave equal marks but by giving the artistic mark to Oksana swung the vote, and you cannot argue with him on that call. Four year later he was one of te judges voting for Michelle Kvan over Lipinsky so he is true to his judging.

Re. G&G and Urmanov wins there were the result of very clear majority voting. it was not one judge - but most of them, including the Canadian judge, who wotst for the most artistic skater. Re. Elvis he did not complete a quad and had other minor mistakes in his program. Four years later he could not produce the quad either but i think that nobody disputes Ilia Kuliks win, and he would probably have won without the quad.
Re. G&G one of the mistakes occured in a section, no other pair was even close to matching and their quality and speed was superior.

Re. last Olympics I think we must decides which story we believe before calling the verdict. Was the french judge part of a deal and if she was, why did the Russian judges not return the favour? Looked at as the skating it was a call between a more advanced but flaved program and a simpler but cleaner skate. Which should win?

As my post implies judges are influenced by hype and PR and I think that will continue regardless of judging system. The only way to shange that is to apply judged who are not part of national federations but responsible only to the international union, and who will be dismissed if their judging is to far away from the majority.

[Skate Sandee]

It was a very close competion down to the judgement of Jan Hoffmann, who gave equal marks but by giving the artistic mark to Oksana swung the vote, and you cannot argue with him on that call. Four year later he was one of te judges voting for Michelle Kvan over Lipinsky so he is true to his judging.>>

This has got to be one of the biggest misconceptions adopted by fans. And I blame CBS for it. While Hoffman did give the nod to Oksana in artistry, that's not where the "Robbing" occurred!! It was in the Technical mark.

There's a discussion about this competition going on at MKF. I'm going to excerpt some of the posts because these posters were more eloquent than I:



Compare their footwork sequences, spins, entrances to jumps, and 'well-distributed highlights.'. . .a 3lutz as an opening triple as opposed to a 3lutz as a closing triple. A 2a-2t (Oksana) versus a 3t-3t & 3sal-2t (Nancy)

Oksana's Olympic LP is used in judges camps as a tool to demonstrate a poorly contructed program. She stood in one place gesturing with her arms for almost a full minute in the middle of the program. She only landed 3-4 clean triples and none of them in combination. She didn't even have any difficult footwork. Oksana never even did a change of foot spin or a combination spin.

Oksana two footed two of her jumps (the flip and her second attempt at the toe loop), had a shaky double/axel as her ONLY combination jump while Nancy had 2 perfeact combination jumps -triple toe/triple toe, triple flip/double toe. Unfortuantely there was no instant replay for the judges as there is today.

We can generalize and say that Oksana won with her Artistry, but when we look at the judges' marks we realize that she and Nancy tied artistically. (Each received six 5.9s and three 5.8s).

If we say that Nancy had the technical edge, then we would be wrong too, because the judges also tied them technically (at least collectively), but three gave Oksana higher technical scores, which I don't understand because as we all seem to agree, Nancy had the harder, cleaner performance. Granted, most of the judges gave Nancy the edge technically, it was such a close decision, that these few tenths of a point decided the Gold Medal question.

It was the TECHNICAL mark that cost Kerrigan a (IMHO) rightful gold medal, not the ARTISTIC mark.

[Mathman]

Originally posted by Effy
If I remember correctly the reason Irina lost was because one judge put her in fourth place. Which I think we all must agree was a very wrong call. We can discuss whether she was first or second, maybe thrird but definitely not fourth.

Hi Effy. Thanks for joining the discussion.

The reason Irina lost was because five of the nine judges put Sarah first. Under OBO scoring, that's all that matters.

Likewise, Irina was placed ahead of Michelle because five of the nine judges gave Irina first or second place ordinals, compared to only four for Michelle.

So both first and second places were decided by five to four splits. As Joe points out, that's about as far from a consensus as possible.

Gosh, I hope you're wrong when you suggest that the ISU judges gave the 1994 gold medal to Oksana unfairly just because they wanted to "send a message" to Disney. I am trying my hardest to believe that for the most part the judging panels actually try to judge what they see on the ice. Maybe I am naive.

Mathman

[Effy]

Thank you for replying back. Re. Oksana vs Nancy as I remember the judging system at that day, each judge would be acounted as one combined vote, but the term technical/artistic only gave them the ability to review. whether Jan Hoffmann has voted 5.8/5.8 or 5.9/5.8 to Nancy it would not matter as long as he clearly indicated by placing Oksana one nod higher that she was his choice. Looking at marks given whether it was down to a 0.1 split, it really did not matter because placements was everything. Likewise even though Nancy won the short program with a substansial margin in the charaters, she could not use that for anything, because as long as Oksana was a clear second the placement margin would not move.

I do agree with you re. Oksanas long program. It do not really stand the test of time.

Yes I do thing that judges are influenced by opinions, pr, personal dislikes, national bias etc. and it sometimes reflects on the judging. If you take the ladies competition at SLC, I think more judges than one was to instantly impressed with Sarah Hughes and gave her a higher mark, than the might have done under other circumstances. She got the title for being gutsy rather than clean. As far at Slutskaya was concerned the whole season have given her the impression that a conservative skate would secure her win. She was badly mistaken. The judges did not hold her up which has been the tendency with high profile skaters. If Nancy Kerrigan had had say one championship before Lillehammer she might have had slightly higher marks. Oksana was considered the future of female skating and was a defending world champinon. It should not have been a factor in the judging, but it might as well as the judges knowing that a first mark to Nancy would make her not just a champ but a multi millioneress.