Olympic Pairs -2002

Technical
Sbs 3 toes –S&P’s are out of unison because David jumps bigger than Jamie and therefore causes the timing problem. B&S had better unison, jumped bigger, held their edges, and have perfect extension. B&S get equal height on their jumps.Winner: B&S

SBS 2 axel/2 toe sequence – S&P are out of unison & David’s toe digs in. Anton had the turn out on the landing, but the unison, posture, and extension on the second jump is excellent. Winner: S&P

Throw 3 salchow – Jamie lands forward. Elena’s takeoff isn’t clean and she also lands forward. Winner: S&P

Throw 3 loop – again, Jamie lands a little forward. Elena’s landing doesn’t look like it was *easy* but there is no real flaw. B&S’s throws dwarf S&P’s throws, Elena has a better landing position, hold the edges longer, Anton keeps moving through the throw, and Anton’s position is better than David’s. Winner: B&S

Death spiral – Elena doesn’t get enough arch in her back. I never really understood her problem with it as her back is probably the most flexible I’ve seen. Winner: S&P

Lifts – B&S had better positions and positions on the dismounts. S&P had more difficult lifts and *I think* cover more ice, but there was a clear illegal lift (hand to thigh). But since I’m pretty sure deductions for illegal moves are taken off the program as a whole and I seriously doubt the judges actually took the required deduction, this one goes to S&P. Winner: S&P

Footwork – S&P’s footwork is very simplistic. For a footwork sequence, there really isn’t much footwork there. B&S’s footwork isn’t all that intricate either, but they have more actual bladework and better unison. Winner: B&S

Twist – B&S has a 2 foot landing + a bad catch. S&P has a 2 foot landing + not caught in the air. While B&S’s mistake was more glaring, these are considered equally bad mistakes. Under COP, they would BOTH get a -3 GOE. B&S had a superior split and extension though S&P looked like they had more control.

Sbs spins – David travels significantly, though they have a more difficult entry. B&S have better unison, centering, form. Winner: B&S

Pair spins – I don’t see any clear winner here. I guess I’ll give the edge to S&P because I think they did more revolutions, though I’m not sure.

Spirals – B&S have better positions, more speed, and do them closer together. Winner:B&S

Presentation
Speed & ice coverage – I wasn’t there, but I think we can trust Vash. Plus, B&S have always been better in these areas, even when they’re not going full out. Winner: B&S

Skating skills (edge quality and difficulty of turns) - B&S have the deepest edges in the competition. Their program contained much more intricate blade work. Winner: B&S

Originality – Meditation was unique in the way it utilizes the potential created by having 2 bodies create shapes. The choreography intertwined. I realize this isn’t the first time something like this was done, but it’s still unusual. Also, they have some individual moves that only they did at the time. winner: B&S

Transitions: most of S&P’s between elements skating consists of plain stroking, two foot skating, posing, upper body movements, and facial expressions. B&S had moves in the fields between elements, had difficult entries into the elements, more turns and steps, and continuous movement from beginning to end. Winner: B&S

Choreography: They both had cohesive programs, but B&S had a lot more actual content. Winner: B&S

Unison: it used to be that this was supposed to be the most important in pairs. I feel like that attitude has shifted slightly. B&S have better matching lines, posture, technique, and timing. Winner: B&S

Interpretation/Expression: Most of S&P’s expression came from the face. Without the facial expressions, you’d have little idea of what the program was about. B&S didn’t have the facial expressions, but they expressed the music through body movement and overall choreography. The latter is much more valued in scoring. Winner: B&S

Line & posture: B&S always are excellent in these areas. S&P have mediocre posture. They would be fine if they were singles skaters, but the biggest problem with their posture is that they don’t match. Their line is okay, but not spectacular. Winner: B&S

Sureness (execution): Even with some minor flaws, S&P looked steady throughout. B&S looked like they had to think through their program. Winner: S&P

Final score
S&P: 5.8/5.8
B&S:5.7/5.9

Someone let me know if there’s some presentation description I forgot, though considering that I only have 1/8 going to S&P, I doubt anything I missed would tip the judgment.

I’m actually surprised by my overall assessment because before doing this, I thought it was closer. Now that I have, it’s clear to me that B&S won. Before, I thought B&S slightly edged out S&P, but now I think they obviously won. Under COP, B&S would have won comfortably.

Vash01 said:

You and several other posters here seem to be influenced by the comments of Scott and Sandra. I drew my own conclusions since I was watching it live, without a biased commentary.

Click to expand...

And you didn't read my comment in the other thread either. I hate Thais and ended up watching the rest of the competition in mute. I was still shocked that B/S won and S/P came in second. At that point, I went back and watched the rest with the volume on and heard the over-the-top commentary. BTW, I don't like listening to Scott Hamilton either. Between the two, the tv had to be on mute.

I still think S/P won. And no, that wasn't the commentary speaking.

I meant to also touch on I/Z... I thought they were held down and I have never really understood why. Granted I can't go back and watch the competition as I had a crappy VCR that though the "record" command meant "eat the tape" so I never got to record the stuff... I'm still upset about it, as you can tell LOL

I'm not a big fan of I/Z. I like John Zimmerman's personality, but their programs don't do much for me. That being said they had something that night.


there were some decisions by the judges through the whole competition that made me go "huh?" but for some reason the only judging weirdness the most subjective one of the whole bunch... :sheesh:

Thanks Tazban for taking time to do the analysis. And I'm not just saying that because I agree with your final results.

Tonichelle said:

I meant to also touch on I/Z... I thought they were held down and I have never really understood why. Granted I can't go back and watch the competition as I had a crappy VCR that though the "record" command meant "eat the tape" so I never got to record the stuff... I'm still upset about it, as you can tell LOL

I'm not a big fan of I/Z. I like John Zimmerman's personality, but their programs don't do much for me. That being said they had something that night.


there were some decisions by the judges through the whole competition that made me go "huh?" but for some reason the only judging weirdness the most subjective one of the whole bunch... :sheesh:

Click to expand...

I&Z had a fall in the SP. They were too low to medal anyway.

tazban01 said:

Technical
Sbs 3 toes –S&P’s are out of unison because David jumps bigger than Jamie and therefore causes the timing problem. B&S had better unison, jumped bigger, held their edges, and have perfect extension. B&S get equal height on their jumps.Winner: B&S

SBS 2 axel/2 toe sequence – S&P are out of unison & David’s toe digs in. Anton had the turn out on the landing, but the unison, posture, and extension on the second jump is excellent. Winner: S&P

Throw 3 salchow – Jamie lands forward. Elena’s takeoff isn’t clean and she also lands forward. Winner: S&P

Throw 3 loop – again, Jamie lands a little forward. Elena’s landing doesn’t look like it was *easy* but there is no real flaw. B&S’s throws dwarf S&P’s throws, Elena has a better landing position, hold the edges longer, Anton keeps moving through the throw, and Anton’s position is better than David’s. Winner: B&S

Death spiral – Elena doesn’t get enough arch in her back. I never really understood her problem with it as her back is probably the most flexible I’ve seen. Winner: S&P

Lifts – B&S had better positions and positions on the dismounts. S&P had more difficult lifts and *I think* cover more ice, but there was a clear illegal lift (hand to thigh). But since I’m pretty sure deductions for illegal moves are taken off the program as a whole and I seriously doubt the judges actually took the required deduction, this one goes to S&P. Winner: S&P

Footwork – S&P’s footwork is very simplistic. For a footwork sequence, there really isn’t much footwork there. B&S’s footwork isn’t all that intricate either, but they have more actual bladework and better unison. Winner: B&S

Twist – B&S has a 2 foot landing + a bad catch. S&P has a 2 foot landing + not caught in the air. While B&S’s mistake was more glaring, these are considered equally bad mistakes. Under COP, they would BOTH get a -3 GOE. B&S had a superior split and extension though S&P looked like they had more control.

Sbs spins – David travels significantly, though they have a more difficult entry. B&S have better unison, centering, form. Winner: B&S

Pair spins – I don’t see any clear winner here. I guess I’ll give the edge to S&P because I think they did more revolutions, though I’m not sure.

Spirals – B&S have better positions, more speed, and do them closer together. Winner:B&S

Presentation
Speed & ice coverage – I wasn’t there, but I think we can trust Vash. Plus, B&S have always been better in these areas, even when they’re not going full out. Winner: B&S

Skating skills (edge quality and difficulty of turns) - B&S have the deepest edges in the competition. Their program contained much more intricate blade work. Winner: B&S

Originality – Meditation was unique in the way it utilizes the potential created by having 2 bodies create shapes. The choreography intertwined. I realize this isn’t the first time something like this was done, but it’s still unusual. Also, they have some individual moves that only they did at the time. winner: B&S

Transitions: most of S&P’s between elements skating consists of plain stroking, two foot skating, posing, upper body movements, and facial expressions. B&S had moves in the fields between elements, had difficult entries into the elements, more turns and steps, and continuous movement from beginning to end. Winner: B&S

Choreography: They both had cohesive programs, but B&S had a lot more actual content. Winner: B&S

Unison: it used to be that this was supposed to be the most important in pairs. I feel like that attitude has shifted slightly. B&S have better matching lines, posture, technique, and timing. Winner: B&S

Interpretation/Expression: Most of S&P’s expression came from the face. Without the facial expressions, you’d have little idea of what the program was about. B&S didn’t have the facial expressions, but they expressed the music through body movement and overall choreography. The latter is much more valued in scoring. Winner: B&S

Line & posture: B&S always are excellent in these areas. S&P have mediocre posture. They would be fine if they were singles skaters, but the biggest problem with their posture is that they don’t match. Their line is okay, but not spectacular. Winner: B&S

Sureness (execution): Even with some minor flaws, S&P looked steady throughout. B&S looked like they had to think through their program. Winner: S&P

Final score
S&P: 5.8/5.8
B&S:5.7/5.9

Someone let me know if there’s some presentation description I forgot, though considering that I only have 1/8 going to S&P, I doubt anything I missed would tip the judgment.

I’m actually surprised by my overall assessment because before doing this, I thought it was closer. Now that I have, it’s clear to me that B&S won. Before, I thought B&S slightly edged out S&P, but now I think they obviously won. Under COP, B&S would have won comfortably.

Click to expand...

bleuchick, you sure are succinct in your reactions! Um....I don't really know what to say about that rather arbitrary analysis....these two pairs are undoubtedly talented in their own ways, and like many have said before, it is precisely because they exhibit such virtuosity in two very different styles that they continue to fuel these 'who is the better team' debates. Based on a performance that happened three years ago. I often get the impression that to side with one team or the other is not a matter of mere preference in skating style....no, it's somehow intimately bound with one's sense of identity or something, judging by the amount of vitriol that I've come across whenever there's a S&P vs. B&S thread, with most of the spite aimed at S&P, it seems to me.

Saint-Exupery said:

bleuchick, you sure are succinct in your reactions! Um....I don't really know what to say about that rather arbitrary analysis....these two pairs are undoubtedly talented in their own ways, and like many have said before, it is precisely because they exhibit such virtuosity in two very different styles that they continue to fuel these 'who is the better team' debates. Based on a performance that happened three years ago. I often get the impression that to side with one team or the other is not a matter of mere preference in skating style....no, it's somehow intimately bound with one's sense of identity or something, judging by the amount of vitriol that I've come across whenever there's a S&P vs. B&S thread, with most of the spite aimed at S&P, it seems to me.

Click to expand...

What made the anaylsis "arbitary", because it had B&S on top?
How would you have analyze SLC?
At least in my case, prefering B&S over S&P, has nothing to do with some deep sense of "identity" I just like B&S more. And IMO there has been spite aimed at both couples.

Perhaps arbitrary wasn't the best word to use....as simply an expression of preference, that's fine. And I wasn't aiming at anyone in particular when I said that these two couples seem to set off such violent reactions sometimes. Just a personal observation....

bleuchick said:

Click to expand...

yes, we would hate to actually take into account the actual guidelines and logic when deciding winners. "I like them better" is a much better argument.

Tazban01,

I'm not going to quote your entire post again -- this wouldn't fit if I did -- but I do have the following comments:

Obviously if I think S/P had it by a nose, I disagree with your pre assessments. For one, the list of the categories doesn't quite agree with the list that the ISU published in the Program for the 2003 European Championships:

*Composition and its agreement with the music
*Variation in speed
*Synchronicity of movements and accuracy in tact to the music
*Use of the rink area
*Position and style
*Originality
*Interpretation of music
*Unison (pairs)

I sometimes feel like I am :banging: when discussing the second: speed is not one of the eight components of pre; variation in speed is. And variation in speed is related to synchonicity of movements and accuracy in tact to the music. If the music changes speed, rhythm, and/or character, then there can be variations in speed that reflect the music. The point is not who gets around the rink the fastest, because, again according to the Program, "speed" is a critera for technical merit, as is "synchronicity of movements," as you noted in your critique of the throws and SBS elements. I think B/S's music cut had fewer contrasts in the music and fewer variations in speed in the music itself, while S/P's had more, and their respective programs reflected this. One of the things that makes me scratch my head about using the Nutcracker pas de deux is that the character of the music is the same for about the first 2/3 of the music, where it picks up, and then levels off again. Not much chance to show variations in speed, but, hey, who cares, it's not a criterion any more. Why worry.

"Choreography" is not an element, and even under CoP, more and complex choreography does not necessarily mean a higher choreography score. (Otherwise, anyone with a David Wilson program wins that one right off the bat.) There are skaters for whom more choreography keeps them with the program, literally and figuratively; in my opinion, this was true for Lipinski and Hughes, because it kept them busy and focused. But more choreography doesn't mean that it necessarily "agrees" with the music nor does it mean that the movements are synchronous or an accurate reflection of the music, which were the criteria under 6.0. Stroking can be in agreement and reflect the character of the music as much as steps. (Hughes' huge, powerful stroking and steps in the circular footwork in her Rachmaninov SP in 2003 are a great example of this; are the changes of speed and rhythm that Joubert had in various places in the Matrix program.)

Where you saw facial emoting only in S/P, I saw full-bodied involvement. Where you saw full-bodied involvement in B/S's program, I saw a rather perfunctory response to the music, with the exception of two particularly beautiful elements: the spiral/spread eagle combination and the final position in the pairs spin. (Which for most mortal pairs would have been enough under just about any circumstances, because B/S' equivalent of "counting," most other pairs can't touch.) And I feel that their program was marred by the egregious music cut and the false ending of the music, which, unfortunately, was reflected in the interpretation. I didn't think that B/S's choreography was wedded to the music until the very end, in that I felt I could replace "Meditation" with other pieces in the same classical genre, and nothing would have felt out of place. I didn't think I could replace the music in S/P's program, and I would say that is lucky, since music like "Love Story" isn't really my cup of tea, except for the sentimental value this particular piece had when I was 13.

I think LS was a masterpiece in its genre. Not my favorite genre, and I wish I could have seen a pristine skate to "Meditation," with the proper ending, which is much more effective and appropriate to the rest of the piece and would have avoided the awkward splice.

It's impossible for me to tell "use of rink area" from TV, and while I'm willing to concede that B/S had better "use of rink area" if that really was the assessment of those who saw it live, that's not an automatic concession, because the programs by Lori Nichols I've seen live are the equal in that regard to the programs I've seen by Moskvina live; it's one of Nichols' strengths.

I don't think either program was particularly original. Moskvina had already broken that mold with M/D's programs, which I think, in general, were superior to Meditation. Nothing S/P did could have touched the Chaplin program, particularly if they performed like they did at CoR in the Fall 2001, which I think is the greatest pairs performance I've ever seen.

Position/style and unison were definitely in B/S's court, but interpretation and composition and its agreement with the music were in S/P's, IMO, as was variations in speed. Synchronicity was a wash, IMO. In pre, I think it was pretty much a virtual tie, or that any differences were insignificant.

You are right in that unison is less important in CoP. In the old pre system, unison was supposed to be 1/8 of the pre score for pairs, although how each judge emphasized what category is unknowable. Under CoP, unison is one of nine elements of Performance/Execution, so that it's supposed value is 1/45 of the pre score.

Saint-Exupery said:

bleuchick, you sure are succinct in your reactions! Um....I don't really know what to say about that rather arbitrary analysis

...no, it's somehow intimately bound with one's sense of identity or something, judging by the amount of vitriol that I've come across whenever there's a S&P vs. B&S thread, with most of the spite aimed at S&P, it seems to me.

Click to expand...

You don't agree with I write so it's arbitrary. okay. How about actually pointing out what I wrote that you think is so wrong.

As for the second part. I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but since it's in response to my post, please explain how it applies. I gave an opinion and gave the reasons for coming to that conclusion with no snipes at any of the skaters.

Jimena said:

I
Wow. I think you might be right! I hadn't heard that take on it before. Could I ask you why? I'm just curious, that's all.

FWIW, I'd have B&S first in the SP also.

Click to expand...

I'dd have no real roblem with having B/S first in the SP of S/P first in the LP. However, I'd give S/P the SP on the orginality of Jalousie. It was quite possible the most creative SP I've seen in years. Lafy Caliph was absolutely gorgeous, but it's been done 100 times over. S/P did have unison problems on their sbs jumps, bu I think their advantage on the death spiral and lift was enough to make up for it. Overall, I think these are both gogeous performances, but if I had to make a decision, I'd tie them on required elements and go with S/P on presentaion.

But in the LP, both teams were slightly off. Both teams were a bit tense, and it showed. I have no clue what S/P were smoking when they called it their best performance ever, because IMO, their program at the GPF was better. But still, Love Story, in terms of choreography, is a piece of crap. Other than the first death spiral, this program does absolutely nothing for me. B/S's Meditation certainly isn't perfect, and of course Anton did have that mistake. But it went with the music better. I give it to B/S on the presentation mark.

So that's my extremely unique take on the SLC pairs competition.

hockeyfan228 said:

*Composition and its agreement with the music
*Variation in speed
*Synchronicity of movements and accuracy in tact to the music
*Use of the rink area
*Position and style
*Originality
*Interpretation of music
*Unison (pairs).

Click to expand...

I was just going by memory of aspects that have been discussed over the years. I think I mixed up a lot of the COP things. But I'm sure "sureness" was listed at least at one time.

hockeyfan228 said:

speed is not one of the eight components of pre; variation in speed is. And variation in speed is related to synchonicity of movements and accuracy in tact to the music. If the music changes speed, rhythm, and/or character, then there can be variations in speed that reflect the music. The point is not who gets around the rink the fastest, because, again according to the Program, "speed" is a critera for technical merit,

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Though if a skater has the ability to build up greater speed than they can show a greater contrast. I've heard variation of speed before, but I thought you merely had to show ability to skate to various tempos, not necessarily a lot of constant changing. I always thought that was why so many programs have the one slow section in between the fast sections. My impression was that as long as there is at least a slow part to demonstrate that a skater can skate a slow section (and that the speed of the skating was appropriate of course), then the skater fulfilled that requirement.

hockeyfan228 said:

One of the things that makes me scratch my head about using the Nutcracker pas de deux is that the character of the music is the same for about the first 2/3 of the music, where it picks up, and then levels off again.

Click to expand...

That, and it's boring.

hockeyfan228 said:

But more choreography doesn't mean that it necessarily "agrees" with the music nor does it mean that the movements are synchronous or an accurate

Click to expand...

By "choreography", I meant quality of the program as a whole not simply who has the most.

hockeyfan228 said:

Where you saw facial emoting only in S/P, I saw full-bodied involvement. ... in that I felt I could replace "Meditation" with other pieces in the same classical genre, and nothing would have felt out of place.

Click to expand...

I agree that the changes to the music cuts was a step down for meditation. I'm not sure what music would be considered in the "same classical genre" as meditation. The choreography doesn't suit any music that comes to my mind, but I'm not all that familiar with classical music outside of skating. What music were you thinking? As for the rest, I respectfully agree to disagree.

hockeyfan228 said:

I don't think either program was particularly original. Moskvina had already broken that mold with M/D's programs,

Click to expand...

I acknowledged that it wasn't a brand new thing. I just meant in comparison between S&P and B&S (as opposed to against the history of skating).

hockeyfan228 *Composition and its agreement with the music *Variation in speed *Synchronicity of movements and accuracy in tact to the music *Use of the rink area *Position and style *Originality *Interpretation of music *Unison (pairs) I sometimes feel like I am :banging: when discussing the second: speed is not one of the eight components of pre; [i said:

variation[/i] in speed is. And variation in speed is related to synchonicity of movements and accuracy in tact to the music. If the music changes speed, rhythm, and/or character, then there can be variations in speed that reflect the music. The point is not who gets around the rink the fastest, because, again according to the Program, "speed" is a critera for technical merit, as is "synchronicity of movements," as you noted in your critique of the throws and SBS elements. I think B/S's music cut had fewer contrasts in the music and fewer variations in speed in the music itself, while S/P's had more, and their respective programs reflected this.

Click to expand...

Thanks hockeyfan for showing the list to be considered in a program which being the old fashioned figure skating fan still believe in the Whole Program. Each of these classifications are worthy of a 10 page discussion, and imo, all are interrelated to make up the whole program.

Singling out Variations in Speed I totally agree with you that it does not mean one has to skate like Eric Heiden. It's the variations in tempo that one has to demonstrate for the variations in speed. Better still, it all must conform with everyone of those items listed to make up the whole package.

As to Nucracker, when I think of Tschaikowsky's genius and having Petipa hanging over his shoulder telling him he wants 8 bars of this and 12 bars of that, I am in total sympathy with Peter Illich. What symphonies those melodies could have made as themes!

Joe

I have no clue what S/P were smoking when they called it their best performance ever, because IMO, their program at the GPF was better. But still, Love Story, in terms of choreography, is a piece of crap.

Click to expand...

-Originally posted by boggartlaura

I strongly disagree. S/P weren't smoking anything, they were telling the truth, they were telling it how it was.That program is one of the most amazing, breath-taking, amazingly, brilliantly choreographed programs I've ever seen and nobody could ever skate it as well as S/P did that night. I have nothing against B/S. I think they are equally great skaters, so nice to watch, very balletic and graceful. They are fantastic, theres no doubt about it! And IF B/S had had a clean skate that night, it could've gone either way.

One question-did the judges take into account the fall at the end of S/P's short? Is that why they were in 2nd? Because if not, they should've been in first.

If you think about the premise of the Jalousie program (Jamie is teaching a clutzy David to Tango), a fall in the closing pose is really the perfect ending. If Lori didn't choreograph it that way, she should have!

Mathman

tazban, I wasn't referring to you when I made the comment about some fans going a bit overboard....again, it was just a general observation. Maybe I should have made that clear. And no, I don't think what you said was so wrong, you were just expressing your opinion and that's fine. And the word 'arbitrary' - I had in mind the meaning of 'based on or subject to individual judgment or preference'.
I don't even know why I used that word....it's rather redundant and causing more fuss than I intended. Anyway, your analysis is your analysis. If there's one point where I strongly differ with you, it's your take on S&P's presentation/expression. Yes, they use facial expressions well, but I always thought Love Story also excelled at using body movement and choreography to convey the story. There's a power in their movements, they seem to be propelled by the music itself. I always get this 'organic' feel about their choreo and Love Story is no exception. First of all, there's an economy of movement, nothing extraneous....and then there's this musical affinity that's hard to describe. It's such a cliche to say this but they really seem to be one with the music.

For starters this topic has been discussed to "ad infinitum." It's become one of those topics similar to discussing an old NHL Hockey game play by a bunch of disgruntled hockey fans. It's time to move on.

S&P had the skate of their lives on that night; B&S made mistakes and by rights should have come second.

I have seen both pairs skate live and have never been disappointed by either pair. To compare them is like comparing apples to oranges. Both pairs have their "special features."

S&P are very musical and do wonderful lifts. Jamie is fearless. They are both very versatile and able to interpet different types of music. They also bring a very youthful and fresh appeal to their skating.

B&S are trained in the traditional Russian school of pair skating. Skating to classical music suits them. Elaina is very flexible and of course this is featured in their skating; always adds to any pairs program.

Probably, S&P and B&S are tired of hearing the rhetoric surrounding this topic and have moved on with their skating and their lives. Strangely enough, both pairs have remained good friends and even toured together. It shows class and good sportsmanship on both sides of the map.

Of course, the media was all over this when it happened and helped to fuel the fire that resulted in a double gold medal at that particular Olympics. Jamie and David would have accepted the Silver and gone home with pride knowing they skated their best. After all, it would not have been the first time for a judging controversy in figure skating or any other sport, at the Olympics.

It's too bad it had to happen; but, one could say it was inevitable. Figure skating judging is at best controversial and something was bound to happen sooner or later. I would have thought the ice dance discipline would have brought it on more than pairs, but that is how it played out.

We are all hoping the new judging system will improve things, but I would not count on it or "bet the farm." People are people and judging any sport - especially the Olympics - involves politics. It usually manages to "raise it's ugly head" and spoil things. That is why competing is not necessarily a good thing.

Okay, now I am "off my soap box." I will continue to watch figure skating for the love of it and appreciate all the skaters.

hockeyfan228 said:

Where you saw facial emoting only in S/P, I saw full-bodied involvement. Where you saw full-bodied involvement in B/S's program, I saw a rather perfunctory response to the music, with the exception of two particularly beautiful elements: the spiral/spread eagle combination and the final position in the pairs spin. (Which for most mortal pairs would have been enough under just about any circumstances, because B/S' equivalent of "counting," most other pairs can't touch.) And I feel that their program was marred by the egregious music cut and the false ending of the music, which, unfortunately, was reflected in the interpretation. I didn't think that B/S's choreography was wedded to the music until the very end, in that I felt I could replace "Meditation" with other pieces in the same classical genre, and nothing would have felt out of place. I didn't think I could replace the music in S/P's program, and I would say that is lucky, since music like "Love Story" isn't really my cup of tea, except for the sentimental value this particular piece had when I was 13.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh....That's something I've been trying to put in words but couldn't. That was the same impression I had. Thanks! :yes: