Should the pros have been reinstated in 1994?

**Ptichka** · 04-12-2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Koroleva
Yes. Seeing M&D and G&G again was amazing. I loved seeing Viktor again as well.

I too wish we could see this again.

I don't think there is a need to do it again, since today's "eligible" athletes can pretty much do what they want.

A couple of Russian pairs could have gone in place of G & G and M & D

To me, the big question is who can provide the best performance. Shishkova & Naumov came 4th; none of the other teams could have done nearly as well as G&G and M&D did. I am a supporter of "market place economics"-skating equivalent. Meaning if you can deliver, you should be able to compete as much as possible. Also, would it have been all right for M&D to compete had they not announced they were going pro after 92? Or should we just force everyone to retire after winning Olympic gold?

The only reason I understand against letting pros in is the name-recognition factor. Hopefully, that will diminish with CoP.

**BronzeisGolden** · 04-13-2004, 07:56 PM

Great post, Ptichka. I agree. If you can still do it, there really isn't any reason why you shouldn't. This is the same type of argument that goes on in the "Should Michelle Retire?" threads. I don't buy the whole "glory hogs" thing. Sure, these pros all had their moments of greatness. But, G&G and M&D came back and improved upon what they had done in 88 and 92. Both teams were far better than they had been in Calgary or Albertville (in my opinion). Also, the pairs event would not have been very exciting without them. B&E would have gotten Gold, and Shiskova & Naumov the Silver (UGHH!!)....and overall, it would have been a pretty boring event. Name recognition had nothing to do with it. Also, it doesn't appear that name recognition had all that much effect on the men's competition either. Sure, the three favorites made mistakes....but they were placed exactly where they should have been in the short program. Urmanov, Stojko and Candeloro all gave wonderful performances and beat the favorites. They knew they needed to be spectacular to beat two Olympic Champions and a four-time World Champion...and they were. The same goes for the Dance event. Even the uber-legendary T&D were not given anything based on prior accomplishments.
However, I do think name recognition and favoritism is an issue that could prove troublesome if this reinstatement situation were to occur frequently. But, I don't think it was an issue in Lillehammer. I can't think of one instance where I felt a pro was placed where they didn't belong. LOL, except for T&D....I would have gone with Gold!

**Antilles** · 05-11-2004, 06:06 PM

I said no. I agree with JonnyCoop, the pros already had their shot at glory.

I don't think it's the same as people asking if Michelle should go. She is still eligible. If someone decides they really want to go, I don't think they should be able to change their minds, especially today. If a skater is on the fence, there is no reason to give up their eligibility. They can compete in Open events and tour without losing that status.

**Grgranny** · 06-23-2004, 09:39 AM

How about this, if they're skaters I like let them go and if I don't like them, no.

**gkelly** · 06-24-2004, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by JonnyCoop

yeah, Davis did beat Boitano at Nationals, but there was no way on earth Boitano was NOT going to be sent, which left Mark Mitchell out in the cold.

Do you mean Aren Nielsen? Mitchell was injured and finished 6th at 1994 Nationals. Even without Boitano, he wouldn't have made it to Lillehammer.

**LarasB** · 06-27-2004, 06:44 PM

I voted no, but I'm happy that G&G won the gold medal.

**berthes ghost** · 06-28-2004, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by BronzeisGolden

Also, the pairs event would not have been very exciting without them. B&E would have gotten Gold, and Shiskova & Naumov the Silver (UGHH!!)....and overall, it would have been a pretty boring event.

In other worlds, 94 pairs event would have been just like 98 pairs event.

**Joesitz** · 06-28-2004, 06:08 AM

Of course they should have been reinstated.

Do not the eligibles make money? Yes! So the difference is not money.

What it seems to me, is that the misnomer "going Pro" has only to do with being affilitated with a Federation.

I believe it is only the USFSA which prohibits the skater from joining a travelling troupe. Skaters non American can join a troupe and retain their good graces with the Federation and skate ISU competitions.

Am I correct?

Joe

**temujin** · 07-15-2004, 05:58 AM

Yes, and I think they should allow re-instatement again. If a "pro" skater wants to re-instate, they should be able to prove it by qualifying for their country's team.

**berthes ghost** · 07-15-2004, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Ptichka

I don't think there is a need to do it again, since today's "eligible" athletes can pretty much do what they want.

To me, the big question is who can provide the best performance. Shishkova & Naumov came 4th; none of the other teams could have done nearly as well as G&G and M&D did. I am a supporter of "market place economics"-skating equivalent. Meaning if you can deliver, you should be able to compete as much as possible. Also, would it have been all right for M&D to compete had they not announced they were going pro after 92? Or should we just force everyone to retire after winning Olympic gold?

The only reason I understand against letting pros in is the name-recognition factor. Hopefully, that will diminish with CoP.

I think the most important thing driving this is if the pros actually want to reinstate. Back in 94 they did, but since the majority of them were unsucessful (Zayak, Boitano, Patrenko, T&D, Midori , Josee vs. G&G and M&D) probably most pro skaters don't want to reinlist. Even people who take a "break" like Eldridge and MK are cautionary tales.

As for 94 pairs, who can remember how B&E did compared to S&N? B&E actually won 3rd with a 5/4 split. Totally unscientific and paranoid I know, but I think that a non-Russian winning the Olys in the late 20th century is about as likely as a woman being elected US president. I could see world champs being held up to bronze rather than a one country sweep of medals, but a Russian pair behind a Canadian pair for gold and silver? B&E may be convinced they were robbed, but I wouldn't be surprised to S&N as Oly champs.

**Ptichka** · 07-16-2004, 03:05 PM

I never liked Shishkova & Naumov. To me, they were very similar to today's Petrova & Tikhonov. Brasseur & Eisler, OTOH, while I never really liked them, at least have character. BTW, I recall an interview with S&N's coach Velikova -- she absolutely 100% believes that S&N were robbed at the Olympics, and that the ONLY reason they did not medal was because politically nobody wanted a Russian sweep. Go figure!

But I do agree with your point on pros not being interested in coming back today. In fact, when you say "vs. G&G and M&D" -- I would only list G&G, since I don't think M&D would have gone pro in 1992 had it not been known that pros will get reinstated in '94.

BTW, I've just had another idea. '94 Olympics came only two years afte '92. Could it be that pros were re-instated to ensure better viewership? After all, all of US watching FS because of Tonya/ Nancy thing couldn't exactly be predicted.

**alina** · 07-22-2004, 01:46 PM

I voted yes.
The best skaters should compete at Olympics. The differentiation between pro and amateur athletes at Olympics is outdated since tennis and basketball players took part.

**berthes ghost** · 07-28-2004, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by Ptichka

I never liked Shishkova & Naumov. To me, they were very similar to today's Petrova & Tikhonov. Brasseur & Eisler, OTOH, while I never really liked them, at least have character. BTW, I recall an interview with S&N's coach Velikova -- she absolutely 100% believes that S&N were robbed at the Olympics, and that the ONLY reason they did not medal was because politically nobody wanted a Russian sweep. Go figure!

But I do agree with your point on pros not being interested in coming back today. In fact, when you say "vs. G&G and M&D" -- I would only list G&G, since I don't think M&D would have gone pro in 1992 had it not been known that pros will get reinstated in '94.

BTW, I've just had another idea. '94 Olympics came only two years afte '92. Could it be that pros were re-instated to ensure better viewership? After all, all of US watching FS because of Tonya/ Nancy thing couldn't exactly be predicted.

Well, I don't remember what happened at 94 worlds, but S&N winning over defending champs B&E supports the coach's argument.

I too wouldn't have been surprised to see M&D and Petrenko stay in thru 93 ala Nancy.

IIRC, the names for ratings idea was always talked about as a major reason why the ISU allowed the reinstatement.

**RealtorGal** · 07-28-2004, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Joesitz

Of course they should have been reinstated.

Do not the eligibles make money? Yes! So the difference is not money.

Being a "pro" in '94 was different from being a "pro" today, isn't it?

**berthes ghost** · 07-29-2004, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by RealtorGal

Being a "pro" in '94 was different from being a "pro" today, isn't it?

They started allowing endorsement money in 93, Nancy had a Seiko contract, a Rebok, a Revlon and a big one with Disney while still eligable.
It wasn't until 95-96 with the creation of the GPS and prize money that skaters without endorsement contracts could make money for skating as an eligable.