- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
I haven't seen it for a while but I remember Krylova/Ovsianikov beating Anissina/Peizerat at Euros 1999 in Prague was a real nightmare for me! I'm not sure, what I would feel now, because meanwhile I admire Anjelica Krylova
The only decision that has ever really "boiled" my blood was the one that gave Oksana the gold medal over Nancy in 1994. I've never been a huge Nancy fan, but she delivered the performance of her career that night with a 3/3, another triple combination, combination spin(s), and smooth elegance. Oksana, no doubt a charismatic and genuine performer, didn't deliver that night in my opinion and was using a weak, recycled program that was inferior to her technical program. She landed just four clean triple jumps and no triple combinations (just one sloppy double axel/double toe). She had no combination spins. And, she did quite a bit of standing and posing. This girlish program worked in 1993 when she was brand new and precocious, but I had so hoped that she would go a different direction for the Olympics. I think a case could have been made to place Baiul in 3rd behind Kerrigan and Chen Lu (as two judges indeed did). 5.8s and 5.9s for technical merit...still ridiculous to this day!
This is one of the decisions that I really question. As you mention, Oksana's routine was so wobbly and immature as compared to Nancy's. One of my friend's thought Nancy's performance was 'cold', but in my book clean and cold should be beat wobble.
... I was so pleased and surprised for Nancy-what guts she had, the world down her throat, and every word scrutinized. I enjoy her skating and loved her true Irish Princess look on the ice-wow. Her LP was iconic in the Vera Dress and I think she may have doubled a flip in her lp-or was it the lutz? At any rate, Oksana made many mistakes and her ending was a hot mess...
I also thought that Nancy should have won. I preferred her powerful flowing motion to Oksana's fussy, over-ornamented style (though I loved Oksana's short program). As for Nancy's leg injury, she of course wasn't in danger of losing her leg, but an inch or two in another direction and she might have lost the use of it. What they were trying to do was kneecap her, and that's an injury that it's not easy to come back from. If her kneecap had been badly broken, she would not have skated again, or been able to take part in other sports such as jogging. My blood still runs cold when I think of this.
:agree: or beating Virtue/Moir in any competition.
:agree: or beating Virtue/Moir in any competition.
Okay now my blood is boiling lol. I do think in general D and W are overmarked compared to V and M especially in pcs. Though I do admit when V and M have made errors they didn't deserve it for the most part I don't understand the judges love of D and W. They truly are not special - good but really not special. Even A and P who I do not like had more special spark. I am flabergasted at the generosity of marks for tangos and sexy routines for D and W and I still don't know how the judging system can account for this it really bothers me than Imho D and W are not very versatile skaters. Yet I love them as people (I know it does sound like a contradiction). And I even don't like the mouth of Moir. Victories by Baiul, G and G, B and S in Salt Lake I could all see.
"Special" is a matter of opinion (people say the same about Chan's skating not being special and not everyone loves Dai's artistry or Kostner's).
I don't understand by what you mean D/W aren't versatile skaters. Their dances in the 2010 Olympics for example could not have been any more distinct and required versatility for execution and interpretation. Certainly technique wise they are versatile... interpretation wise, boils down to personal preference.
V&M's last season wasn't their sharpest skates, and their Carmen was polarizing. D/W didn't have the most imaginative programs, but they were difficult, fast, and very well-executed.
I don't miss the spiral sequence because it seemed a lot of skaters performed that element because they *had to*, like a chore or an obligation. Everyone was doing the Arabesque/Kerrigan, then some variation of the catch-foot, and then a fan or Y-spiral. I was just so bored. At least Michelle and Sasha did them to the dramatic portion or crescendo of the music. That's what made their spirals look so exciting! Not necessarily the extension, but the attitude! Then Yuna seemed to follow that as well--it somehow made her subpar spirals better.
Dear me, what has made my blood boil?
S&P beating B&S in the LP in the 2001 World Championships
S&P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELys8PkIjEM&list=PLE2EFC76E025FBA57
Why? It's not just because Jamie singled the 2A in the long, and they had a crappy SP. It's because they just skate around between the elements, there are almost no transitions. Almost every move is vanilla, and there is nothing interesting between them. It's supposed to be Tristan & Isolde, but who would ever know?
Here's B&S's wonderful program to City Lights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlb1wdxfq0k
It has great complexity. It has real artistic concept. It has humor. It has wonderful, creative lifts. The jumps are great. The landings on the triple twist and throw triple loop weren't perfect-perfect, but they were adequate. Every thing else was 100% better than S&P's totally empty program.
My blood is still boiling.
In their book, Abitbol Bernadis wrote Moskvina said to Abitbol at 2001 Euros that Sale Pelletier will win 2001 worlds regardless of what would happen on the ice. She was right. It was clearly due to politics. What I never understood is why the russian judge voted against his pair - even if it wouldn't had change the outcome - maybe to put all the pressure on the canadians and put B/S in the underdog position. Even if, it was a bit of a weird/strange move.
My blood boiled when
1. Midori did not place first in the SP and the LP at the 1988 Olympics.
Perhaps he preferred S/P over B/S, and was actually judging regardless of nationality and judging based on his actual preference?