E
engrsktr
Guest
Olympics
maxell -
I think that last post was rather unfair... who says I was even THINKING about michelle. In fact, I wasn't....
so please spare all posters from unecessary grudges. :|
I was merely referring to a comment made by another poster about being a consistent champion over someone who can win when he/she gears up for a particular event... I was actually thinking of skaters who have won major events straight through - like Katarina Witt for example... Katarina putt her skating together (mentally and physically) through her nationals, europeans, AND the olympics.... a completely consistent year at major events.... there hasn't been a skater since Kristi that has done this. So "forgive" me if I wasn't being clear in my first post.
Since you want to talk about michelle, here's what I think -
I do tend to think that some people (not necessarily anyone here but maybe) now place less emphasis on the importance of the olympic gold medal simply because she hasn't won it. they are free to do so if that's how they feel. I on the other hand believe that the olympics is something important in that to be able to come through when it is absolutely necessary is an outstanding thing. It shows a lot of guts and trust in yourself and your abilities. I believe that if a skater is truly truly that gifted, it will ultimately show when it is needed because an olympic champion is that good. Some may say that Sarah or Tara got lucky - I disagree. Skaters train programs everyday and for the most part skate them cleanly 85% of the time. So Tara and Sarah did what they knew how to do. It's as simple as that. They did their job.
Now granted we all have our off days.... and maybe for some their one shot at the olympics is just that (look at Debi Thomas). But I tend to wonder about people like Kurt Browning and Michelle Kwan (since you brought it up) as far as their reputations versus what they display at the crucial moment - especially when they have been to the olympics more than once. Perhaps they have a mental block with that particular competition - I don't know and I won't pretend to know. To me, it seems easier when you know you have multiple shots at an event like nationals and worlds that occur ever year. the olympics however is something that comes along only once every four years.... it is rarer and this is what makes it so coveted a prize for athletes.
it's almost akin to the saying that there are practice skaters and competition skaters. A practice skater is flawless and spectacular on practice ice, but she has trouble putting it together when it counts at the competition (see Tonia Kwiatkowski's early years at nationals). A competition skater is one that may not be much to look at in practice but when the judges are there and the music starts, something inside explodes and they are spectacular.
Some people can turn it one when it counts (counts = important to the athlete), and others have trouble with it. This isn't to say that the skater in question (no matter who it may be) isn't a wonderful skater, a great skater..... but there seems to be something missing when after winning 4+ world championships he/she cannot pull it off at the olympics despite TWO chances at it. To me, and to more that are willing to admit it, it leaves something to be desired.
So maxell, for you to say that I dislike michelle is untrue. I've said this a million times but some people still don't believe me. Just because I don't necessarily say great things about a skater doesn't mean that I actually "dislike" him/her. In fact, I've complimented michelle on many occasions on her artistry and programs.
but some (yourself included) choose to ignore those parts and only concentrate on things that I may say that anger you personally. I can't control that. All I can comment on is the skating and the topic at hand. I hope you will in the future as well.
Thanks.
maxell -
I think that last post was rather unfair... who says I was even THINKING about michelle. In fact, I wasn't....
so please spare all posters from unecessary grudges. :|
I was merely referring to a comment made by another poster about being a consistent champion over someone who can win when he/she gears up for a particular event... I was actually thinking of skaters who have won major events straight through - like Katarina Witt for example... Katarina putt her skating together (mentally and physically) through her nationals, europeans, AND the olympics.... a completely consistent year at major events.... there hasn't been a skater since Kristi that has done this. So "forgive" me if I wasn't being clear in my first post.
Since you want to talk about michelle, here's what I think -
I do tend to think that some people (not necessarily anyone here but maybe) now place less emphasis on the importance of the olympic gold medal simply because she hasn't won it. they are free to do so if that's how they feel. I on the other hand believe that the olympics is something important in that to be able to come through when it is absolutely necessary is an outstanding thing. It shows a lot of guts and trust in yourself and your abilities. I believe that if a skater is truly truly that gifted, it will ultimately show when it is needed because an olympic champion is that good. Some may say that Sarah or Tara got lucky - I disagree. Skaters train programs everyday and for the most part skate them cleanly 85% of the time. So Tara and Sarah did what they knew how to do. It's as simple as that. They did their job.
Now granted we all have our off days.... and maybe for some their one shot at the olympics is just that (look at Debi Thomas). But I tend to wonder about people like Kurt Browning and Michelle Kwan (since you brought it up) as far as their reputations versus what they display at the crucial moment - especially when they have been to the olympics more than once. Perhaps they have a mental block with that particular competition - I don't know and I won't pretend to know. To me, it seems easier when you know you have multiple shots at an event like nationals and worlds that occur ever year. the olympics however is something that comes along only once every four years.... it is rarer and this is what makes it so coveted a prize for athletes.
it's almost akin to the saying that there are practice skaters and competition skaters. A practice skater is flawless and spectacular on practice ice, but she has trouble putting it together when it counts at the competition (see Tonia Kwiatkowski's early years at nationals). A competition skater is one that may not be much to look at in practice but when the judges are there and the music starts, something inside explodes and they are spectacular.
Some people can turn it one when it counts (counts = important to the athlete), and others have trouble with it. This isn't to say that the skater in question (no matter who it may be) isn't a wonderful skater, a great skater..... but there seems to be something missing when after winning 4+ world championships he/she cannot pull it off at the olympics despite TWO chances at it. To me, and to more that are willing to admit it, it leaves something to be desired.
So maxell, for you to say that I dislike michelle is untrue. I've said this a million times but some people still don't believe me. Just because I don't necessarily say great things about a skater doesn't mean that I actually "dislike" him/her. In fact, I've complimented michelle on many occasions on her artistry and programs.
but some (yourself included) choose to ignore those parts and only concentrate on things that I may say that anger you personally. I can't control that. All I can comment on is the skating and the topic at hand. I hope you will in the future as well.
Thanks.