B&S vs S&P - revisit 2001 worlds and SLC pairs

Re: War and Pairs

After reading everyone's thoughts here, I have come to the conclusion that noone really knows for sure what happened, or who is telling the truth. It is for that reason that I feel maybe the 2 sets of gold medals were not such a bad idea. I hated the move originally, and I would not like to see it happen again ... but since there is so much question here, I am satisfied that neither of the pairs were penalized for things out of their control.
One thing we can probably all agree on is that both pairs skated beautifully that night.

TV

As Joe said, Here we go again!!!

TV, I find it rather intriguing that you are complaining about people having agendas when it seems apparent that you most definitely have an agenda of your own. From signature lines bashing administrators to your constant referral of S&P as "Snobby and Pathetic" on another forum(s), it is quite obvious that you have an extreme dislike/disdain of S&P, and as a result of this, I must question your objectivity in being able to discuss this topic for what must be the 900th time.

S&P and B&S both brought a lot to pairs skating, and I assume that we can agree that while both are quite talented, their styles are completely different. *edited to add* I personally prefer the style of skating possessed by B&S to that of S&P, but as someone after me stated so eloquently, "[B&S] skated with the enthusiasm of houseplants." They had no spark, so emotion, and from the look on Elena's face, I wondered if she would have preferred to be back in her hotel room tending to the sunburn she got from the tanning bed prior to the competition. S&P that night had the same spark and life on the ice that Tara possessed the night of her FS in Nagano. They truly looked as though they were having a ball out there on the ice, and while many might not want to reward that, it does tend to hold weight with many of the judges.

Your unhappiness with the result isn't the fault of the skaters, and it certainly isn't the fault of the US judges, Scott Hamilton (yes his comments were premature, but that doesn't change what happened), or Sandra Bezic (and you know, she was dead-on about being embarrassed for this sport. That night brought to a climax all the issues that people who discredit FS as a sport and only reinforced their opinion of the sport). If you want to blame anyone, blame the Russian Skating Federation (not just for the SLC scandal, but for numerous violations of judging that layed forth the groundwork for the SLC scandal to occur), the French Skating Federation, Marie LeGougne (for her Sybil-esque explanations of the pairs judging scandal), and Speedy Cinquanta for possibly permanently damaging the credibility of the sport.

With Tonya's burgeoning career in boxing, and the laughable "unbiased" judging in skating, I wouldn't be surprised to see this sport relegated to the same category as professional wrestling. This IMO, would be a travesty, and I hope it doesn't degenerate to this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re: War and Pairs

I'm a mild skating fan, not a die-hard. I can't tell all the jumps apart, and I didn't see 2001 Worlds. But I know what I like, and that's emotion on the ice; the type of skate in which the skater is on fire, glowing, and brings the crowd to their feet.

I watched live the night of the Pairs controversy. I watched B&S skate with all the enthusiasm of house plants. In both their SP and LP, they looked like they'd rather be doing laundry or something. Maybe a stoic style is highly valued in Russian skating; I'm prepared to accept it if it is, but that possibility didn't occur to me at the time, and it probably didn't occur to most other North Americans, either.

All I know was that S&P's performance was electrifying and B&S's was dull. Never mind that flubbed landing; that was my overall impression. I was grinning from ear to ear when Jamie and David finished their skate, and when they didn't win I just about fell out of my chair.

That's still my reaction today.

I've heard the arguments/theories: S&P went over their time limit by 17 seconds; they used a 2-year-old program; they won Worlds so B&S were given the Olympics; etc. I don't know much about any of this stuff.

I just wanted to post the impression from the viewpoint of a layman, FWIW.

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What I would have loved would be given that a judge admitted cheating, skate the darn thing over on a sudden death playoff (S&P skate against B&S) and any other placings that went 4/4 without LeGougne's vote should also skate off.[/quote]

Now this is an interesting topic: alternate ideas of what should have been done.

Here's mine: S&P vs. B&S in a 2-on-2 hockey match.

Ehhhhhhhhh, maybe not.

Re: War and Pairs

In 2001, I though B&S should have won for sure. I still believe they got silver because the Chaplin program was so unorthodox.

In 2002, I really thought it could have gone either way. I was sure the judges would give the nod to S&P, but was not outraged when it was B&S instead.

The two gold medals... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=""> I did not like it, but then again may be it was worth it to put the scandal out.

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>TV, I find it rather intriguing that you are complaining about people having agendas when it seems apparent that you most definitely have an agenda of your own. From signature lines bashing administrators to your constant referral of S&P as "Snobby and Pathetic" on another forum(s), it is quite obvious that you have an extreme dislike/disdain of S&P, and as a result of this, I must question your objectivity in being able to discuss this topic for what must be the 900th time.[/quote]

Actually, in my posts in this topic, i was trying very hard to be objective. I even said i would have had no problem with S&P winning if they had used orchid and skated brilliantly, with B&S's mistakes, but they didn't. They copped out by using the much simpler Love Story, a decision I don't completely understand. Also, it was Snobby and Pointless, not "Snobby and Pathetic". Also, I should point out my extreme dislike is for Jamie, I have no dislike for David, he seems like a great guy.

Now to the rest.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Your unhappiness with the result isn't the fault of the skaters, and it certainly isn't the fault of the US judges, Scott Hamilton (yes his comments were premature, but that doesn't change what happened), or Sandra Bezic (and you know, she was dead-on about being embarrassed for this sport. That night brought to a climax all the issues that people who discredit FS as a sport and only reinforced their opinion of the sport). If you want to blame anyone, blame the Russian Skating Federation (not just for the SLC scandal, but for numerous violations of judging that layed forth the groundwork for the SLC scandal to occur), the French Skating Federation, Marie LeGougne (for her Sybil-esque explanations of the pairs judging scandal), and Speedy Cinquanta for possibly permanently damaging the credibility of the sport. [/quote]

My view has changed, I used to think as you do. Now, I see where the fault lies. If Scott and Sandra didn't make such slanderous comments on air that were totally out of line, the average NA audience wouldn't have ate it up. Also, you blame the Russian and French Federations, when i see little fault in them. It's like saying that Yuri Balkov is to blame for the whole 1998 Oly Ice Dance scandal when he clearly isn't. The only judge who actually went in the order said in the telephone conversation is Jean Senft. This supposed "whistleblower" did nothing but blow the whistle on herself, she's the only proven "cheater". This explains Balkov's light sentance, nothing wrong here.

Also, don't bring Tonya into the whole mess. It has never been proven that she had anything to do with the attempt to sabotage Nancy, only that she knew after the event occured.

TV

Re: War and Pairs

<span style="color:red;font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:medium;">OK OK OK - I think all has been said on this topic and it appears no one has come up with any different analysis since the lst time the topic was introduced and the subsequent 20 topics of a similar nature. Let us put it to rest until 2018.</span>

Joe

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If Scott and Sandra didn't make such slanderous comments on air that were totally out of line, the average NA audience wouldn't have ate it up.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

I feel the commentators' shock at the decision was genuine. They're ex-skaters- and choreographers-turned-announcers, not actors; they can't fake incredulity to that degree. They were stunned at the result and voiced their opinions on the air. I'm not sure how that becomes "slanderous".

Secondly, I'm sure that thousands of people -- for myself, I know -- also felt the shock when they didn't win. We didn't need the words of Hamilton and Bezic to influence our opinions.

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

I feel the commentators' shock at the decision was genuine. They're ex-skaters- and choreographers-turned-announcers, not actors; they can't fake incredulity to that degree. They were stunned at the result and voiced their opinions on the air. I'm not sure how that becomes "slanderous".

Secondly, I'm sure that thousands of people -- for myself, I know -- also felt the shock when they didn't win. We didn't need the words of Hamilton and Bezic to influence our opinions.
[/quote]

slanderous: untrue; tending to discredit or malign

Now, just because what Hamilton and Bezic said was what they believed, doesn't disqualify their statements as being slanderous. As you stated, they are skaters and choreographers and <span style="text-decoration:underline">should</span> know what they're talking about, but they don't. They said the decision was wrong, discrediting the 5 judges who put them 1st. Scott Hamilton didn't even know that unison was scored in the presentation mark, just watch the Pairs SP.

On their statements influencing the gullible NA audience, of course they did. Maybe if they attempted to be obective, and presented both sides and scenerios where either could be the winner, some would have thought B&S should have won, some S&P. What really sickens me is that to "casual" fans I ask, all but 1 of them think that S&P should have won. Their reasons go from "they were perfect" to "the commentators thought they should have won" or "they made me cry" when in fact none of them knew what pertains to pairs skating.

TV

Re: War and Pairs

You know what would be interesting? To go back over these programs and evaluate them with Code of Points scoring. It still wouldn't settle anything, of course, but I wonder how it would turn out. (Any volunteers, TV? :lol: )

In general, let's make sure that we are talking about figure skating on this thread, and not about each other, OK?

Mathman

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You know what would be interesting? To go back over these programs and evaluate them with Code of Points scoring. It still wouldn't settle anything, of course, but I wonder how it would turn out. (Any volunteers, TV? ) [/quote]

lol, I already did this awhile ago. Recap, S&P where a too close for comfort. They won the tech mark in both programs, but lost in the Pres marks in both programs. It was incredibly hard to judge the lifts since the catagories seem very arbitrary, their are 7 different groups and 3 levels for each, i was so "????". If you want a more detailed report of my findings, I can put one up in a couple of hours.

TV

Re: War and Pairs

Sure, I'd like to see it. Probably start another fight, though, LOL.

Mathman

Re: War and Pairs

thvu,

The legal definition of slander is: "An oral statement which <strong>without due cause</strong> that has the result, or is intended to have the result, of bringing its subject into disrepute."
The Websters definition is "<strong>any false</strong> and insulting statment"


Based on the sheer number of arguments on who really won from knowledgeable skating fans, skaters, judges, etc. <strong>*edited to add*</strong> I doubt everyone thinks that highly of Scott and Sandra. A lot of these people have minds of their own. <strong>*back to originial post*</strong>
1. the "without due clause" does not apply. If it was without due, there wouldn't be this many arguments from people who should know better.
2. The "any false" now becomes extremely objective. Who determines what is false? It doesn't help that Le Gougne ended up with suspension. I seriously doubt that all the facts were released. What is false now becomes opinion and not fact.

Therefore, slander does not apply in this case. <strong>*editied to add*</strong> Slander really needs to be a proven and not just an accusation. <strong>*back to original post*</strong>

Sorry to get obnoxious about it, but slander is such a harsh word and really questions the integrity of a person. If you just can't bring yourself to like Jamie and David, whiney or poor sports is probably the least offensive and least "slanderous"

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you just can't bring yourself to like Jamie and David[/quote]

Sorry, that was supposed to be Scott and Sandra since the slander comment was originally aimed at them. Also, you said you didn't like Jamie but David was ok. Just trying to keep the facts straight.

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Actually, in my posts in this topic, i was trying very hard to be objective. I even said i would have had no problem with S&P winning if they had used orchid and skated brilliantly, with B&S's mistakes, but they didn't. They copped out by using the much simpler Love Story, a decision I don't completely understand. Also, it was Snobby and Pointless, not "Snobby and Pathetic". Also, I should point out my extreme dislike is for Jamie, I have no dislike for David, he seems like a great guy.[/quote]

TV, I do stand corrected about Pointless as opposed to Pathetic (more proof that Menopausal Moments are in fact real). I also give you credit for your post here at GS being more objective than your previous posts I have read regarding S&P. That having been said, however, when I stated that I question your objectivity, it is because of the comments you have made in the past that I have a somewhat difficult time taking your claim of objectivity at face value, just as I question the objectivity of Sasha fans that continually diss Michelle (and vice-versa), fans of Plushenko's that continually diss Yagudin (and vice versa), and fans of the Loverbukhs that continually diss B&K (and vice versa). I have learned firsthand what sort of effect and reputation each of us acquires from what we write, not just on this forum, but the various ones many of us visit, and to be honest, I've done the same exact thing before, something I'm trying to work on not doing as we approach the new season.

About selecting Love Story as their LP, IIRC, didn't S&P use this program as their second LP at the GPF prior to the Olympics (and won?) I don't have this on tape, so I can't remember every last flaw and mistake the top three made, but I'm pretty sure they decided to use Love Story based on the momentum and marks coming off the GPF.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If Scott and Sandra didn't make such slanderous comments on air that were totally out of line, the average NA audience wouldn't have ate it up. [/quote]

I don't think their comments were slanderous so much as they were, in your opinion, biased in favor of S&P. They didn't bash B&S or shred their performance or call them names, rather, they were doing what commentators do - pull for the home team (I realize Scott is American and Sandra is Canadian, and while this was an NBC American broadcast, many Canadians are able to tune into NBC). What Scott and Sandra did in the way of commentating is no different than what many commentators do in a variety of sports. It happens in tennis, in baseball, in hockey, in soccer (I don't know if it happens in golf as I am usually asleep after listening to the soporific dialogue that passes as golf commentating). There will always be some sort of bias in media - be it in sports or in news. This is unfortunate, but it's reality.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Also, don't bring Tonya into the whole mess. It has never been proven that she had anything to do with the attempt to sabotage Nancy, only that she knew after the event occured.[/quote]

I didn't mention anything about Tonya that pertained to the knee-whacking incident as there was no need to. Her track record since Lillehammer speaks volumes - bankruptcy, court appearances, arrests, marriage and divorce, alleged assaults, violation of probation, boxing the likes of Paula Jones - I usually see her sort on Jerry Springer, and, from her post-Olympic activities alone, I don't think she presents a good image for the sport of figure skating.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re: War and Pairs

Anyone who thinks B/S were clean at 2001 in Vancouver needs to look again at their triple twist. It was underotated and the landing was a complete collision.

Re: War and Pairs

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>About selecting Love Story as their LP, IIRC, didn't S&P use this program as their second LP at the GPF prior to the Olympics (and won?) I don't have this on tape, so I can't remember every last flaw and mistake the top three made, but I'm pretty sure they decided to use Love Story based on the momentum and marks coming off the GPF.
[/quote]

It's hard to say they made such a choice based on this because S&P weren't clean at all in the first LP, but were so in the 2nd LP. B&S weren't clean as well in the 2nd L&P, resulting in their loss.

On the Tonya thing, my mistake. I thought you were pertaining to the whacking, not her troubles resulting.

mathman444, I've been really busy (lazy) so I won't have those detailed results up, but I can give you the totals. The first score will be tech, then pres, then total.

<span style="text-decoration:underline">SP</span>
B&S 44.2 + 39.6 = 83.8
S&P 44.6 + 36.8 = 81.4
<span style="text-decoration:underline">LP</span>
B&S 63.38 + 74.8 = 138.18
S&P 67.74 + 66.4 = 134.18
<span style="text-decoration:underline">Final Totals</span>
B&S 83.8 + 138.18 = 221.48
S&P 81.4 + 134.18 = 215.58

Now, don't take these too seriously, keep in mind that I have no idea how the group's and level's for lifts are determined as their are 21 different base point values that could be assigned. This and other factors don't make these results as good as my others, which although probably have errors somewhere, are not as great as those present here.

TV

My 2 cents contribution...hell no..

make that my $20 dollar contribution to this NEVERENDING TOPIC.

mzheng - Hello..welcome to GS!

Okay, let me see if I get your logic. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It's off season and I just reviewed the 2001 worlds and SLC tape.

Which mistake is bigger in LP?
1) singled a double axel (Jammie at 2001 World)
2) a wonking landing of triple (Anton at SLC)

Btw, you errored - Anton singled a 2A not a triple toe. In any case, let us continue with your analysis.

If S&P deserved their winning in 2001 world exclusively (single Gold Medal awarded). Then B&S deserved their winning in SLC exclusively!

I see where you going but you know how judging is.

What makes S&P think they should've win in SLC rightfully after their LP?

what with S&P 'think'. and why is it always what S&P thinks. Anyway, carry on (I did)...

May be they didn't say it out rightly but they sure behaved like they should've won. Especially Jammie.

Always Jammie...Jammie...ahem, Jamie(correct spelling).

And that NBC commentator Scott and Sandra did a good job to stir the pot. They should've looked back at 2001 world to make thier outright cry.

Comparing the podium at 2001 worlds and SLC, B&S cong the S&P at 2001 worlds graciously and geniously; while Jammie cried all the way at SLC podium in first Medal ceremery.

Jammie again - ever ungracious and therefore a sore loser.

I would say B&S behaved graciously both on and off the ice. They are the true champion at SLC.


Conclusion from your post:

- graciousness = true champion = B&S
- snobby S&P +Jammie+tears + NBC+ Sandra&Scott = should not have won the gold.

Gezz...what is the world coming to and why do we(fans of S&P) have to put up with this stuff.

We may like S&P but that does not mean that we have to come over to GS and read such negative things about them.

Here is something for you. Think of S&P and B&S are fruits. You can call B&S the apple and S&P the orange or vice versa,

- some of us like apples
- some of us like oranges
- some of us like both appples and oranges.

We all browse this site and would appreciate logging on and not have to put up with the above negativity.





1.

Re: B&S vs S&P - revisit 2001 worlds and SLC pairs

Let's "give it a rest folks." Is this Hockey night in Canada or a figure skating forum? Both pairs - S&P and B&S are great friends and have moved on - both pairs share the ice and yes, share the Olympic gold medal. They are better sports than we are and have more class.

Enough said.


Ladskater

Re: My 2 cents contribution...hell no..

First thanks for the spelling correction. I'm not a native English speeker pologize for any spelling in this post.

I know this is a Canadian based board. May be I should've not bring up the topic at this board. I thought it was OK to bring up the topic regarding old competetion since I had see so many threads here talk about the old competetion.