Michelle Kwan's 1998 Olympic Long Program

[prettykeys]

^ ^?

 

[cooper]

^ ^?

Anyway, Kwan's 1998 olympic LP is one of the reasons why I love figureskating. Even now it's still breathtaking to watch.

 

[Olympia]

Anyway, Kwan's 1998 olympic LP is one of the reasons why I love figureskating. Even now it's still breathtaking to watch.

I'm with you, Cooper. And to think that when I first heard that music, I didn't like it as much as Salome. Now if I hear it in my head, I feel better about life. I even love that middle section of Erik Satie music, and normally I think that listening to Satie is as boring as watching paint peel. The way Kwan's movements seem to float on the music is simply sublime.

 

[jenaj]

Michelle dominated ladies figure skating from 1996 to 2004. She was never off the podium during that time. From 1996 to most of 2001, she was never lower than second. She won 5 World Championships during those 9 seasons and 3 silver medals. That is domination. Furthermore, her bronze in 2004 was not the result of a drop-off in her skating. She was penalized for a time violation in the short program and had the streaker incident right before her long program. Several judge placed her ahead of Arakawa in the long, depite only 5 triples. Irina's technical skills are overrated. She jumped high, but that was about it. Her spirals were fairly awful. Her dependence on the Biellman position has proven not that impressive. since just about all competitive skaters do them now, and do them better than she did. Overall, her artistry was forced, when it was present at all.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Nah, no year is better than one that includes winning the Olympic Gold, the prize Kwan always wanted to win and the only reason she stayed in the sport so long. Do you seriously think Kwan wouldnt trade her 1996 to have Evan's 2006 Oly Gold included? And I never said Michelle's 1996 wasnt phenomenal and that she wasnt dominant in that season, other than the ridiculous standards you hold Lysacek and Yamaguchi to that you must go undefeated (Kwan did not) and you must win the big event decisively by a clear marging (which Kwan again did not). You claimed falsely she went undefeated and I pointed out that you were wrong.

Again, Centennial On Ice was not a relevant competition to the season. Kwan WAS undefeated for the competitions that actually get listed for the season. Also, the argument was not if Olympics is more important than Worlds. Of course it is. What we are talking about is who was more dominant. Sarah Hughes was not the most dominate skater in the 2 years leading up to the Olympics just because she won that event.

This if she skated her best nonsense is meaningless. Kwan's biggest edge over her competitors was usually her consistency. Alot of her main rivals who could have beaten her over the years like Slutskaya, Cohen, Chen, Bobek, cracked under pressure often. Well Tara's biggest weapon was that she was even more consistent than Michelle, hence why she regularly beat her in important events at ages 14 and 15. Tara was clearly the top skater of 1997 since she beat Kwan in the 3 biggest events both were in together in a row- U.S Nationals, Grand Prix final, and Worlds. To deny otherwise is foolish. Kwan also lost the biggest events of the year in both 1998 and 1999. That is not dominating.

It's not meaningless at all. The way that people perceive you is very important. If you give the best performance of the season, that shows you are the best skater and the person to beat. Kwan gave the best performances of 1998 and 1999 and she only lost 1 competition each season (coming in 2nd, and one of those times many people felt she deserved Gold). She may have lost the biggest competitions of each season, but regardless she was still very dominant in a way that Lysacek was not. I never said Tara wasn't the more dominant skater of 1997 either.

So the ridiculous Pro Am events which Cinquanta put in place just to get rid of professional skating altogether (and succeeded and now the sports popularity is going down the drain under his watch so backfired on him) which only lasted a year or two, where Kwan was mostly competing against eligible retired old ladies who couldnt even do all the triples is now more important than actual ISU events? And this isnt desperate/

A lot of them weren't more important than ISU events, but the big ones were definitely relevant, stressful competitions and Kwan delivered the goods time and again. Kwan's showing at 1999 Nationals was better than Butyrskaya's at Worlds as well. She was by far the best skater of the season, despite underperforming at Worlds and having to settle for the Silver.

As I mentioned already Slutskaya at her best would have won the 2000 and 2001 Worlds. Maria at her best would have also won the 2000 Worlds.

They wouldn't have deserved to. Kwan's performances at 2000 and 2001 Worlds were both better than anything Slutskaya or Butyrskaya have ever done.

No that is not what you said, and you are still wrong. No 5.9s here either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eh_uYYfQ3w

Yes, that IS what I said. I do grant that you are correct about the specifics with regards to this competition, but my overall point remains - her marks were boosted solely for being "the chosen one". Getting a bunch of 5.8's for that performance is LOL.

Nearly everyone at the time said no way Joannie should have been that close to Mao in points in the end.

Joannie wouldn't have been that close in points under this season's scoring system. Triple Axels weren't worth as much and Mao got a jump downgraded, which was FAR too overpenalized up until this season. When people talk about a performance their first instinct is to look at it in terms of what actually makes sense, not the arbitrary CoP rules.

You are assuming no additional points at all in GOE and PCS without a fall which is frankly stupid, especialy the way the judges were scoring in Vancouver.

No, I'm assuming a small boost in PCS as well. As for GOE, they rarely do the sbs Salchow well, so it's not illegitimate to assume they would probably break even. If Dube/Davison were consistent and great on their 3Sal, then they would be a more highly regarded team.

So you say Kwan was clean, then she wasnt clean because of the time violation (which is what I said all along anyway), and now again she was clean. Make up your mind please. :scowl:

Part of reading comprehension is context clues. In one part I was talking about "clean" in regards to how the judges scored her. In the other, I was talking about how the perception of the performance if you take away that bell+whistle.

[lots of talk about how Kwan didn't need the 3-3 because of the way the judges ended up scoring her]

Again, there was no way of Kwan herself knowing. She had been beaten several times in the past as a result of competitors having higher tech. Why would she suddenly assume that she would be assured a 1st place in the LP with 6 Triples when she had to dig herself out of a 4th place hole from the previous stages of the competition? That makes no sense. Kwan tried to go out there and do her realistic best, and her best at that point in time did not include a 3-3 or else she WOULD have planned it.

She did not plan 6 triples. She planned 7. And had she not doubled the second triple lutz, which was essentialy a fluke as she was still regularly landing it, she would have ended up with 7. So stop with this 6 triple nonsense, that was never the plan.

*sigh*. So wrong. You make baby Jesus cry. Kwan planned 6 Triples. She did 6 Triples at Nationals and she didn't change her layout at all for Worlds (except for adding a Double Toeloop to her Salchow, since it was standard at that time to have 2 combinations in the LP...that was probably planned for Nationals as well and she just forgot or didn't feel like it or whatnot). Doubling the second Lutz at Worlds left her with 5 Triples. Go watch the performances.

The only time Cohen skated Swan Lake cleanly under the 6.0 system was at the post Worlds Cheesefest and she received 6.0s for presentation for it. At Nationals she had a bad fall and another two footed jump and still received a 6.0 for presentation (the rest all 5.8 or 5.9).

She didn't receive nearly the same percentage of 6.0's for her perfect performance as Kwan did, that's the point. Nor was the critical response (or audience response, for what it's worth) as strong as it was for Kwan's performance.

Kwan by that point didnt have any real edge on Sasha other than a big edge in jump consistency and superior basic skating skills. Sasha had superior spins, superior flexability and positions on spirals (despite this being Kwan's biggest trump card), excellent footwork in the mid 2000 years, and was just as musical and even more polished.

Cohen's performances never reached the same emotional level as Kwan at her best (aside from the 2004 Worlds SP and both performances at 2006 Olympics). I wouldn't say she was more polished either. Kwan had more command and confidence.

 

[pangtongfan]

Again, Centennial On Ice was not a relevant competition to the season. Kwan WAS undefeated for the competitions that actually get listed for the season.

The Centennial on Ice not a relevant competition to the season. Here are some of the fields that showed up at the Centennial On Ice that year:

Ladies- Kwan, Slutskaya, Butyrskaya, Bobek, Bonaly, Kwiatkowski
Men- Yagudin, Urmanov, Kulik, Pashkevitch, Davis, Candelero, Galindo
Pairs- Kazahkova/Dmitriev, Eltsova/Bushkov, Ina/Dungen, Woetzel/Steuer, Shishkova/
Naumov

Those are stronger fields that showed up for any event that whole season other than Worlds and the GP final (barely).

Kwan did not go undefeated in the 95-96 season. Get over it. You are the first person who follows skating I have heard to ever even try and argue Kwan went undefeated in the 95-96 season including the worst of the Kwaniacs. And what is with this listed for the season nonsense. In your own words you praise Kwan for her dominance in non ISU events, and now you are discounting a loss by Kwan at a so called non listed event.

Also, the argument was not if Olympics is more important than Worlds. Of course it is. What we are talking about is who was more dominant. Sarah Hughes was not the most dominate skater in the 2 years leading up to the Olympics just because she won that event.

Evan in 2009-2010 won 3 of the 5 events he was in. Those including the Olympics and Grand Prix final. I would say Kwan would prefer that year to any of her own, even if she had a full season with only 1 loss and another with no losses in limited comptetion (2002-2003).

It's not meaningless at all. The way that people perceive you is very important. If you give the best performance of the season, that shows you are the best skater and the person to beat. Kwan gave the best performances of 1998 and 1999 and she only lost 1 competition each season (coming in 2nd, and one of those times many people felt she deserved Gold). She may have lost the biggest competitions of each season, but regardless she was still very dominant in a way that Lysacek was not. I never said Tara wasn't the more dominant skater of 1997 either.

Michelle in 1998 skated very well and still lost the biggest competition of the season to Tara, a skater who had beaten her 3 times in major competitions in the previous year as well. I would not say she was perceived as dominant at that point. Maybe going into the Olympics she was, but after losing such a major title to Tara, a skater who had beaten her multiple times in recent memory, that would have changed again. Coming out of the 1998 February Olympics tdhe biggest event she had beaten Tara in since 1996 at that point was U.S Nationals (or Skate America). And at years end Tara had won the years biggest and 3rd biggest events- Olympics and the Grand Prix final and Kwan the years 2nd and 4th biggest events- Worlds and U.S Nationals. And despite this Kwan was still obviously dominant? No.

A lot of them weren't more important than ISU events, but the big ones were definitely relevant, stressful competitions and Kwan delivered the goods time and again. Kwan's showing at 1999 Nationals was better than Butyrskaya's at Worlds as well.

Kwan fell at Nationals in 1999. The rest of the skate was excellent, but she was never beating Maria's Worlds performance that year with a fall.

And stressful competitions? Please. A series of cheesy pro ams against retired competitive skaters with people like Kwan shouldnt have been in, in the first place. Here is the toughest field Kwan faced until Nationals that year at the World Pros:

Yuka Sato- nothing harder than a triple loop in her arsenal anymore. Triple lutz and triple flip had lone gone by the wayside. Still by far Kwan's closest competition here and easily finished 2nd.

Nicole Bobek- dont even remember if she was pro or amateur around then. Either way a complete washed up has been who would never again be more than a footnote in skating.

Lu Chen- couldnt even land a triple toe or double axel anymore by then.

Oksana Baiul- no comment needed.

Katarina Witt-

And to think you are dismissing the Centennial On Ice Event to exclude Kwan's defeat yet praising Kwan's dominance for winning non amateur based events over fields like this!?!? It would be funny if it wasnt truly sad on your part.

She was by far the best skater of the season, despite underperforming at Worlds and having to settle for the Silver.

Sorry but when you skip the entire Grand Prix and the only events you do of semi significance that year are of course Worlds and your own Nationals which this year was against 13 year olds and journeywomen you are not the best skater of the season after getting beaten soundly at Worlds. If Kwan had skated the Grand Prix and swept the rest of the season including the Grand Prix final you would have a case but as it is you dont. You arent the best of the season based on beating up on a bunch of old retired women mostly doing doubles in Pro Ams.

They wouldn't have deserved to. Kwan's performances at 2000 and 2001 Worlds were both better than anything Slutskaya or Butyrskaya have ever done.

Slutskaya in her prime years was superior to Kwan technically, even with both at their best. She had higher and stronger jumpers, could do harder jump combinations, could do faster and stronger spins, could even do as strong or stronger footwork by then, and was capable of skating with more speed and power. She wasnt the best artistic skater but her overall presentation had improved enough that if she delivered at 100% with her then World leading technical abilities she would be very hard to beat. As it was even with Kwan's own lights out performance Irina with a big popped open salchow, sacrificing the choreography to retry another triple sal-triple loop attempt (which she still didnt get leaving her with 1 less triple than Kwan and no triple-triple) and a possibly two footed triple lutz Irina still won the technical mark and took judges off Michelle. So would Irina with a great skate have lost? Sorry dont think so.

Butyrskaya was the defending World Champion and skated beautifully to convincingly win the short program over both Irina and Michelle who both skated well. Had she delivered a similar effort in her long program few would would have complained had she defended her World title. Add to that she only had to place over Irina's less than top performance in the long program to win due to the short program placings, something that with even a fairly clean skate she would have been certain to do.

Yes, that IS what I said. I do grant that you are correct about the specifics with regards to this competition, but my overall point remains - her marks were boosted solely for being "the chosen one". Getting a bunch of 5.8's for that performance is LOL.

I didnt think it was that bad. She landed most of her triples, she only had one fall, and her Beauty in the Beast was the best program amongst the women that year, far better than the overrated Baiul's mugging and incomplete medley of American Musicals. So some 5.8s on the 2nd mark and lower than that on the tech. mark hardly seems out of line.

Joannie wouldn't have been that close in points under this season's scoring system. Triple Axels weren't worth as much and Mao got a jump downgraded, which was FAR too overpenalized up until this season. When people talk about a performance their first instinct is to look at it in terms of what actually makes sense, not the arbitrary CoP rules.

In the end it doesnt matter. The bottom line is nearly everyone at the time felt, as did I, that Joannie was overscored relative to Mao in Vancouver and should have not even been close. Even her PCS should not be better than Mao's. Choreography is only one aspect. Mao has superior skating skills, interpretation, and performance skills to Joannie, and as much as people hated her Tarasova programs they were full of transitions as well. So your use of Joannie aka overscored home girl as some sort of proof Kwan would have beaten Mao in Vancouver with her 98 performances even under COP is a very weak one. Joannie also clearly got some sympathy points for skating so soon after her mom's tragic passing, and honestly I cant even blame the judges for that as she was incredibly courageous.

No, I'm assuming a small boost in PCS as well. As for GOE, they rarely do the sbs Salchow well, so it's not illegitimate to assume they would probably break even. If Dube/Davison were consistent and great on their 3Sal, then they would be a more highly regarded team.

They were still overscored. Mukhortova & Trankov would have easily beaten Dube & Davison in both programs with the same performances anywhere else. At Worlds soon after Dube & Davison turned in virtully the same short program and didnt even crack 60. Ooops not in Canada anymore.

 

[Mathman]

To get back to the original question (well, not the original question, but one that came up along the way ), would Michelle's 1998 LP have beaten Kristi's 1992 LP?

I don't think there is any serious question here. Michelle's performance was better. Kristi's hand down and doubled jump would take her out of the top spot without the need of any further analysis. Michelle's gave a near-perfect seven-triple performance whose only "flaw" was that perhaps she did not skate with quite the freedom that she had at U.S. nationals.

As for the second mark, Kristi's performance was fine, not her best, not "oooh and ahhh." It's not like Michelle had to compete against Kristi's Doop Doop or Bridge Over Troubled Waters. (Although, in that case, Michelle could pull out Fields of Gold and the 1998 world pro East of Eden.)

 

[janetfan]

To get back to the original question (well, not the original question, but one that came up along the way ), would Michelle's 1998 LP have beaten Kristi's 1992 LP?

I don't think there is any serious question here. Michelle's performance was better. Kristi's hand down and doubled jump would take her out of the top spot without the need of any further analysis. Michelle's gave a near-perfect seven-triple performance whose only "flaw" was that perhaps she did not skate with quite the freedom that she had at U.S. nationals.

As for the second mark, Kristi's performance was fine, not her best, not "oooh and ahhh." It's not like Michelle had to compete against Kristi's Doop Doop or Bridge Over Troubled Waters. (Although, in that case, Michelle could pull out Fields of Gold and the 1998 world pro East of Eden.)

I never put much stock in comparisons between Dorothy and Kat or Kristi and Michelle, etc, because skating continues to evolve. If Yuna had skated her 2010 programs back in '98 the superiority of her jumps alone would have blown Michelle and Tara off the ice. IMO Tara's jumps are those of a small child compared to Yuna.

I wouldn't have it any other way and certainly hope the OGM winner in 2018 surpasses Yuna's 2010 performance.
I haven't read through the thread but would find a CoP analysis of Michelle vs Tara from Nagano of more interest.

Am sure it has already been done (to death perhaps ) but wonder if in today's CoP if Michelle would have won easily much in the manner Patrick just won SC. For me there was never much comparison in their SS, IN, and CH.
As much as I like Sandra's choreo the idea of a happy child beating a much more artistically mature performance never felt right.

I always would have placed Michelle first and although Lu-Lu was not at her best her skating was much more enjoyable for me than Tara's. I see "Butterfly Lovers" as one of the great 6.0 programs and rewatch it atleast once a year. I have re-watched Tara's Nagano programs maybe once and that was only for evaluation purposes and not for pleasure.

Most definitely a very biased fans opinion

 

[Olympia]

I never put much stock in comparisons between Dorothy and Kat or Kristi and Michelle, etc, because skating continues to evolve. If Yuna had skated her 2010 programs back in '98 the superiority of her jumps alone would have blown Michelle and Tara off the ice. IMO Tara's jumps are those of a small child compared to Yuna.

I wouldn't have it any other way and certainly hope the OGM winner in 2018 surpasses Yuna's 2010 performance.
I haven't read through the thread but would find a CoP analysis of Michelle vs Tara from Nagano of more interest.

Am sure it has already been done (to death perhaps ) but wonder if in today's CoP if Michelle would have won easily much in the manner Patrick just won SC. For me there was never much comparison in their SS, IN, and CH.
As much as I like Sandra's choreo the idea of a happy child beating a much more artistically mature performance never felt right.

I always would have placed Michelle first and although Lu-Lu was not at her best her skating was much more enjoyable for me than Tara's. I see "Butterfly Lovers" as one of the great 6.0 programs and rewatch it atleast once a year. I have re-watched Tara's Nagano programs maybe once and that was only for evaluation purposes and not for pleasure.

A late lamented friend of mine once remarked that you couldn't put a piece of paper under Tara's jumps. I don't begrudge her the OGM. But to me the real victory was getting to be the kind of skater Michelle was—inside the music, and able to bring us inside it too. She had that quality at fifteen. She had it at nineteen and twenty. She had it in her mid-twenties. If she trained full time, she'd still have it today, as Kurt still has his magic.

I'm sure many girls want to grow up to be Tara in terms of having her achievements: winning the World and Olympic medals. But does anyone want to grow up to emulate her skating style? Doubtful. Time, and YuNa, have already passed it by. But when people want to be like Michelle, they want to skate like her, the way people (including Michelle) wanted to skate like Janet.

Like you, I'm glad skating has moved on, and thus stroke-by-stroke point comparisons of YuNa, Michelle, and Kristi are only interesting as an intellectual challenge. But as Michelle once said, when ladies are doing quintuple jumps and skating is all weird, she hoped people would remember her. So far, so good.

And I've never really rewatched Tara's skate either. When she won all those competitions that year, I was terrified that we skating fans would have a lifetime of adorable little pre-pubescent girls in high-necked, ruffled white dresses skating to age-appropriate music, and I'd never hear skating music in a minor key again. Thank goodness that didn't happen!

 

[Mathman]

...and I'd never hear skating music in a minor key again.

Although...Mao's cut of Predlude in C sharp minor satisfied my urge for the minor key for a good little while.

 

[miki88]

Gosh, some of these long analysis are hurting my eyes. Michelle's Olympic LP can be summed up with just one word: inspiring. Her nationals performance was magical.

 

[Blades of Passion]

The Centennial on Ice not a relevant competition to the season. Here are some of the fields that showed up at the Centennial On Ice that year:

Plenty of top-notch fields showed up for Marshall's/Campbell's as well. Doesn't mean they were significant competitions for the season.

Kwan did not go undefeated in the 95-96 season. Get over it. You are the first person who follows skating I have heard to ever even try and argue Kwan went undefeated in the 95-96 season including the worst of the Kwaniacs. And what is with this listed for the season nonsense. In your own words you praise Kwan for her dominance in non ISU events, and now you are discounting a loss by Kwan at a so called non listed event.

I don't feel the competition was a truly serious one. We will have to agree to disagree because I'm not budging. Centennial On Ice was planned directly before the GPF. Nobody who was trying to build momentum for Worlds would want to give it their all at Centennial On Ice and then be left drained for the GPF. The events in 1999 may have had less competition but several were still very prestigious and Kwan took them completely seriously and skated programs with technical content as if she was trying to win the World Championships.

Michelle in 1998 skated very well and still lost the biggest competition of the season to Tara, a skater who had beaten her 3 times in major competitions in the previous year as well. I would not say she was perceived as dominant at that point. Maybe going into the Olympics she was, but after losing such a major title to Tara, a skater who had beaten her multiple times in recent memory, that would have changed again. Coming out of the 1998 February Olympics tdhe biggest event she had beaten Tara in since 1996 at that point was U.S Nationals (or Skate America). And at years end Tara had won the years biggest and 3rd biggest events- Olympics and the Grand Prix final and Kwan the years 2nd and 4th biggest events- Worlds and U.S Nationals. And despite this Kwan was still obviously dominant? No.

Kwan had more World titles/medals, more National titles/medals, and more Grand Prix titles/medals than Lipsinki at the end of 1998. She beat Lipinski by a long way twice in the season and then barely lost to Lipinski once, at Olympics. She had more wins overall in the season than Lipinski. She was still considered the most artistic skater out there and she gave the best performances in both the SP and LP of 1998. Her presence over the sport and her achievements were more respected. Perhaps on paper her value after barely losing the Olympics was not as significant to you, but art extends beyond the superficial values you've assigned to them.

Kwan fell at Nationals in 1999. The rest of the skate was excellent, but she was never beating Maria's Worlds performance that year with a fall.

And yet Yamguchi with a near fall + doubled jump was on the same level as Kwan's 1998 Olympic performance, in your mind. Right.

I'm not going to debate about how Kwan's 1999 Nationals performance would have scored vs. Maria's 1999 Worlds performance, but I believe she would have deserved to beat Maria. A technically more difficult program + superior artistry = better than the difference of 1 fall.

Slutskaya in her prime years was superior to Kwan technically, even with both at their best.

I don't think anyone would deny that. And I completely understand that Kwan would have lost 2000 Worlds if Slutskaya skated her absolute best because of the momentum Slutskaya had. I would NOT agree with that result, though. Slutskaya was a 5.8 at best on the second mark, whereas Kwan was a 6.0.

 

[MKFSfan]

Michelle fell on a simple triple toe in the short program and was still placed 3rd over Nikidinov who skated cleanly. That was the real gift. Yes Angela was the most boring skater ever around that time but her technical elements were all very solid, so there was no justification to place her below Kwan with a fall in the short program especialy under inflated National scoring. I agree Kwan deserved to win the LP but if she were 4th in the SP Sasha would have won. E.M Swift wrote an article in Sports Illustrated criticizing the judging and the judges decision to give Kwan the title at the years U.S Championships as well. Anyway irregardless of my opinion many media and fans did complain about her win at those Championships. I do agree Sasha was overrated at the time. I would have actually placed Hughes 1st in the SP, 2nd in the LP, and given her title with Kwan being 4th (where she should have been for sure) in the SP.

Not to keep beating this dead horse...Like I said I was there that year and as much as I LOVE Angela, I think two things left in her 4th: she skated very early (maybe 1st?) and she was s-l-o-w. Her music that year certainly did not help keep her memorable. I can't remember how impressed me most, but I do remember thinking Sarah should've been above Sasha just in terms of edges, more speed, more ice coverage and for once, less of a lutz. I THINK I thought it was a toss up between Michelle and Angela for 3rd, so I will concede Michelle probably edged out thanks to reputation. NNN was gifted 5th with a doubled flip and messed up on the combo (I forget who was the last girl to make top 6, but she was clean), so IMO, top 4 was right.

I would have had LP Michelle-Sarah-Sasha though.

I think it is very telling every year Michelle has won a National title, she won every single ordinal. How can every judge be biased?

JMHO!

Back on topic...I thought Michelle's Olympic LP was the 2nd best she skated that year, and in most years would have won the OG. Including 1992 if Kristin skated as she did.

 

[pangtongfan]

Kwan had more World titles/medals, more National titles/medals, and more Grand Prix titles/medals than Lipsinki at the end of 1998. She beat Lipinski by a long way twice in the season and then barely lost to Lipinski once, at Olympics. She had more wins overall in the season than Lipinski. She was still considered the most artistic skater out there and she gave the best performances in both the SP and LP of 1998. Her presence over the sport and her achievements were more respected. Perhaps on paper her value after barely losing the Olympics was not as significant to you, but art extends beyond the superficial values you've assigned to them.

We were talking about being dominant, not the impact and personal meaning of said skater. I definitely dont consider a skater who lost the Olympic Gold to be dominant over the skater who won the Olympic Gold, won that years Grand Prix final, and who beat said skater in 3 other major events within the last 14 months (even if all the previous season) but anyway.

And yet Yamguchi with a near fall + doubled jump was on the same level as Kwan's 1998 Olympic performance, in your mind. Right.

I already explained that was all about the value of her triple lutz-triple toe which carried alot of extra credit, especialy in any other era with the triple axels extinct again. That is of course one of the very hardest triple-triples out there, far more valuable than say a triple toe-triple toe. Just look at all the extra value Tara is credited with for her triple loop-triple loop combination and is almost unbeatable with it even with tiny jumps, flutzing, not great non jump elements, and less than top notch maturity and style.

I'm not going to debate about how Kwan's 1999 Nationals performance would have scored vs. Maria's 1999 Worlds performance, but I believe she would have deserved to beat Maria. A technically more difficult program + superior artistry = better than the difference of 1 fall.

Fair enough. I do think Maria was superior to Michelle in some ways by the time of the 99 Worlds. Her spins were better around then (Kwan's spins had regressed a bit and she worked hard to bring them up again for the following season) and her jumps had more height. And I didnt think Kwan's 99 programs were great or mesmorizing, in fact they were far below the level of her 96-98 and 2000-2001 programs. Maria was using an old program but that meant she was able to polish it to perfection. So I dont think Michelle would have won over Maria's best performance ever with a fall on an important element late but who knows.

The judges did give Maria almost all 5.9s for presentation before Michelle skated at the 99 Worlds, albeit they knew Michelle was 4th after the short program. Still it was pretty clear at that exact time Michelle was only going to win the long program if she skated cleanly.

I don't think anyone would deny that. And I completely understand that Kwan would have lost 2000 Worlds if Slutskaya skated her absolute best because of the momentum Slutskaya had. I would NOT agree with that result, though. Slutskaya was a 5.8 at best on the second mark, whereas Kwan was a 6.0.

Fair enough. I always thought Slutskaya was overscored on the 2nd mark, as most people who get the backing of the #1 Russian skater always are, especialy in the 6.0 days.

 

[pangtongfan]

I never put much stock in comparisons between Dorothy and Kat or Kristi and Michelle, etc, because skating continues to evolve. If Yuna had skated her 2010 programs back in '98 the superiority of her jumps alone would have blown Michelle and Tara off the ice. IMO Tara's jumps are those of a small child compared to Yuna.

I agree Yu Na from Vancouver would have destroyed Tara from Nagano under either system, COP or 6.0. With all the combinations Yu Na had just as much content, and the quality of her jumps would blow Tara's away. And her non jump elements were all superior to Tara's (well maybe the spiral and layback were similar), and her artistry as well. Her chances of beating Yu Na from Vancouver would be about the same as her chances of beating Kwan from Nagano if Kwan had landed a triple loop-triple loop and triple lutz-triple toe both in her program. In other words nothing.

However as you said skating continues to evolve. It isnt even really fair to compare Kim to Tara and Michelle since of course Kim should be better. If you compare Tara and Michelle to Witt from 88 the difference is even more marked, then to Hamill in 76 who had amazing basic skating and spins but didnt even do triples.

 

[seniorita]

haha, I thought this thread would have been aboup Tara vs Michelle thats why I never visited, now I see, locked thread and all, Evan transferred here .
I m having a past crisis after CofC, if I watch 9/10 of Michelle programs and then the 9/10 of all current ladies programs, I wanna cry. Even the Olympic ones. Now they skate from Rach to Piano F and Zzzzzzzzz and back...only exception and the ones I remember, Mirai's Carmen and Yuna 's bondgirl.
I feel like I need to compensate to be excited for ladies even If I really like Mao a lot and a couple more. Only Mirai and Kanako get me sort of excited to watch by the old standars and maybe the russian babygirls.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I already explained that was all about the value of her triple lutz-triple toe which carried alot of extra credit, especialy in any other era with the triple axels extinct again. That is of course one of the very hardest triple-triples out there, far more valuable than say a triple toe-triple toe. Just look at all the extra value Tara is credited with for her triple loop-triple loop combination and is almost unbeatable with it even with tiny jumps, flutzing, not great non jump elements, and less than top notch maturity and style.

The 3Lutz-3Toe isn't so difficult that it puts a 5 Triple program on the same level as a 7 Triple program, come now.

Tara's jumps may have been small but they had incredible snap. She pretty much had the fastest rotation ever in her jumps. Her jump layout was also the most difficult any female has ever attempted without a 3Axel or Quad. The 3Loop-3Loop is more difficult than the 3Lutz-3Toe and it came late in the program. She additionally did a 3Toe-3Sal combination at the VERY end of the program, which is phenomenally gutsy.

Tara's style and performance ability was definitely not less than top notch. She had star quality. Less maturity, sure. Her non-jump elements were better than most. She had good speed in her spins and one of the best sit positions. Her extension was above average and her footwork had very quick steps and turns.

RE: Yu-Na's Olympic LP vs. Tara's Olympic LP -- I prefer Tara. Yu-Na's jumps are much bigger (and better Lutz edge) but that just offsets the lowered difficulty. Tara's combinations were harder and executed later in the program, plus Yu-Na did not perform a full set of Triples. Yu-Na is ahead on Skating Skills/Transitions but Tara wins for me on Performance/Choreography/Interpretation.

 

[prettykeys]

As for Tara and YuNa's Olympic performances, I agree with BoP...I think there is much to applaud Tara for, and YuNa did not necessarily surpass her. (Please don't tomato me, fellow YuNa fans!)

Edit: Oh, who am I kidding. I much prefer YuNa's performance. Her jump layout was easier than Tara's, but it was so much more polished and smooth and...I do believe the overall difficulty of her Gershwin was more than Tara's Rainbow. Anyway, I admit it's a gray area and reasonable fans can see it the other way, too Heck, throw Michelle's Lyra into the mix as well. All three are up in the stratosphere for awesome.

 

[pangtongfan]

Yu Na's jumps are light years better than Tara's in quality and her artistry is definitely better. Yu Na is the best female jumper since Ito and Harding IMO. Her jumps are definitely on the whole are better than a prime Slutskaya who was considered the best female jumper in the post Ito/Harding years. Tara would not have a hope against a clean Yu Na (considering Yu Na always does atleast one fairly difficult triple-triple) under any scoring system IMO, even if she skated the performance of her life.

Tara's sit spins are nice but her camel spins are not that good. In fact her only top quality spins are the sit spins, the rest are just ok at best. Not that Yu Na is an amazing spinner either but she wouldnt have to be. She already has more than enough to beat Tara without a problem unless Yu Na fell and Tara was amazing.

The only reason Tara was any threat to Michelle was at first her own consistency in 97, then in 98 the lack of a triple-triple in Michelle's programs. Had Michelle even done a triple toe-triple toe Tara wouldnt have had even a small chance of beating a clean Michelle. By contrast Michelle would probably need to do something harder than a triple toe-triple toe to beat a clean Yu Na Kim (under 6.0, under COP I doubt there is anything she could realistically do to beat a clean Yu Na Kim due to the huge GOE points Yu Na collects on her jumps, combined with all the needed level 4s, and extremely high PCS too).

 

[Blades of Passion]

Yu-Na's artistry isn't better for me, sorry. Not with those programs (and relatively conservative expression in the LP). Tara's Olympic programs are more organic, they have more sensitivity to the music, they build throughout much better, and the exuberance in her performances is unmatched.

If Yu-Na used her 2007 programs at the Olympics it would be a different story. Those were 6.0 worthy. Unfortunately both the quality of her choreography and the emotion that came out in her performances dipped after that season.