S
SkateFan4Life
Guest
With all due respect to Timothy Goebel, IMHO, if he had trained in the school figures, he would have a far, far better posture, a straight back, and no slouch.
SusanBeth said:I agree! It's amazing how much that combination of skaters helped change the sport. I don't think televising figures would have worked. The people with that kind of interest in it were few. I think you have to be a true fanatic to watch figures and not have your eyes glaze over. It might have wound up costing fans.
I always thought Magnussen got the short end of the stick. She was probably the best all around skater.
SusanBeth said:. enjoyed Dorothy's skating in 1976. I watched her long program again over 25 years later. She had the beautiful carriage and the smooth flowing movements that I had remembered. However, I was a bit shocked that she had won with that empty program. Crossovers were the whole basis to the program. If it weren't for a couple of walleys, split jumps, her camel and scratch the last section of her program would have been pretty empty. I had to do a major memory readjustment when I saw that again.
SkateFan4Life said:mememe said:I do wish people would stop propigating this myth. You can NOT say who would have won ANY competition that included figures by simply eliminating the results of the figures and counting the results of the other phases. There WERE figures, they were a part of the competition that EVERY competitor knew were a part of the competition.
Hey,, let's take a tape of a college basketball game back in the early 1980s and draw a 3-point line on the court. And hey, let's also include a 45- (or is it now 35-)second shot clock, too. Now, let's total up the score from that game with all shots taken from 19 feet, 9 inches or more now counting 3 points rather than two, and any shot taken after a non-existent (then) shot clock would have expired, and figure out who would have won the game -- and, just to make it fun, let's take a whole YEAR of games and decide who should have been the NCAA champion "under today's rules."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you finished your sermon? You really need to realize that people have opinions, and yours isn't the only one. What I wrote was that if the school figures were not part of the 1984 Olympic competition, and Orser won both short and long as he did in Sarajevo - he would have won the gold medal.
I was NOT bashing Hamilton, for Heaven's sakes. However, the media at that time really tore into him for his long program. The "New York Times' labeled it as "subdued, flawed and tentative." Ouch.
Well, I never felt I was sermonizing -- I figured I was stating my opinion, just as you were stating yours.
I never said you were "bashing" Scott Hamilton. Scott's short and long programs in 1984 were both sub-par, no argument there, and Orser deservingly beat him in both of those phases of the competition. My opinion, which I guess I have a right to, is differed from yours when you said,Had there not been school figures, Orser would have won the title. [UNQUOTE]
That seemed a pretty straightforward opinion that Orser lost because of figures and that he absolutely he would have won that particular competition without them. That's your opinion, and that's fine. My opinion is simply different. I believe that Orser lost because of how he and Hamilton skated all three phases of the competition, and there's no guarantee the final two phases would have happened the same without the first phase as a part of that. He might have won, he might not have, but I don't think it's a given Orser "would have won" the 1984 Olympic gold medal if there hadn't been figures.
If all you were going for was to say that in any SP-LP only competition, the person who wins the SP and the LP would win overall -- well, I agree with that.
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I wasn't trying to do that -- I have enjoyed your reminisces and looks back. I have simply gotten very tired of the "so-and-so would have won" under whatever
different circumstances people can come up with. And I guess I think it's still more accurate and correct to observe that figures affected the outcome of every event in which they were a part of the competition, rather than using the what has become to me very tired mantra of "Orser would have won without figures."
You chose to state your opinion one way, I chose to state mine in another way. Sorry mine offended you. I'll try to think twice or three times before I hit the send button next time.
SkateFan4Life said:I've seen countless replays of Dorothy Hamill's 1976 Olympic long program. She started out strongly, but as I saw it, she omitted one or two jumps in the final minute of her program. The final half minute or so was decidedly void of technical content. Hamill really cut back on her long program at the 1976 US Nationals. She had a comfortable lead going into the long program, and she chose to omit several of her key jumps. Her coach, Carlo Fassi, stood at the rink, and he screamed at her "Where's the flip?" At that same competition,
15-year-old Linda Fratianne won the silver medal with a long program that included two triple jumps, something few women landed at that time. I remember reading press reports of how "Hamill was given the title on a plate by the judges." While that might not be true, it was obvious that the judges wanted Hamill to go into the Olympics as the national champion.
SusanBeth said:The main thing I remembered from 1976 Nationals was seeing Fratianne for the first time. I was very impressed by her triple jumps! Button kept calling her a firecracker, but her jumps did seem to pop into the air. I don't recall ever being as impressed by her skating again.
I also remember being stunned by her costume. If memory serves and sometimes it doesn't, she was definitely well feathered! She was the one who started the Going-to-the-Olympics-via-Vegas fashion trend. The sequin industry must have loved her.
Eeyora said:Didn't Bob Mackie design Linda's costumes?