As I've said before, this boils down to the same old, never-ending argument that's been going on in skating for decades: athleticism vs artistry. Of course this is far too simplistic an argument to make, but it makes it easy for casual fans to be drawn in to watch and comment during the TV and internet age. Skating is by nature athletic, so it's disingenuous to imply that "artists" lack athleticism. By the same measure, skating has an inherent beauty due merely to its gliding movement that can be described as artistic even among the so-called "athletes". It comes down to degrees of each and striking the right balance. While Plushenko's style on the ice has never really been my cup of tea (I preferred Yagudin in the old days), his earlier programs had paid more attention to better construction when he had an acknowledged rival to measure himself against.
After SLC, I got the sense that he felt that he really was only competing against himself. It worked in Torino because his rivals collapsed and the IJS was still not yet clearly defined. But the last four years have been filled with pretty intense rivalries among the top skaters with no dominant skater until the last 12 months. The IJS has been clarified as well. So more guys were primed to be competitive, at least in some segments, this time around. I think Plushenko ignored his competitors and the adjustment to rules and standards to his own detriment. (To be fair to him, however, the competitions he did compete in prior to Vancouver mirrored Torino in that most of the competitors failed to meet to challenge of skating against him.)
Lysacek did the opposite. He set a long term goal and made his plans based on competing against the top guns. Small setbacks along the way were acceptable because he was looking at the big picture. He knew he was not the best athlete among the top guys. So he had to win by being a smarter competitor. That's what makes all sports fun, figuring out how to win when the odds are not in your favor. Otherwise it would be more like the Westminster Dog Show. In competition, the best or most talented athlete does not always win. Sometimes the smartest or hardest working one does, or the best strategist. The more paths to victory there are, the more legitimate the sport becomes. Michael Weiss echoed this point yesterday on UniSports when he used a football analogy. A team can score a touchdown lots of different ways. You can use a really long hail mary pass that catches the defense off guard or a multiple play drive that takes ten minutes. While the big pass is more spectacular and crowd pleasing for an instant, the long drive is no less legitimate and both score six points. I would add that the long drive also eats up more of the clock, giving the scoring team a strategic advantage. Dan Hollander and Tracy Wilson have also made equally adept analogies using other sports.
In skating, if we are really to buy into Plushenko and Mishin and Stojko's arguments, then we might as well declare someone like Beatrix Schuba (1972 Olympic champ) an illegitimate winner because she won on the strength of her unmatched compulsory figures. After all, she was not a spectacular free skater and we've all been instructed by these three that jumps are all that matter. So let's strip her of her title and give it to Karen Magnussen or Janet Lynn instead. For that matter, let's strip Peggy Fleming of her gold medal because she had some mistakes in her free skate which did not hurt her because her overall quality was considered superior to more dynamic jumpers and was miles ahead after the figures anyway. Then go after Dorothy Hamill for not attempting a triple jump in 1976 in a tight contest and winning with a clean skate against other women who tried triples, but made errors. What about the 1980 games where Denise Beilmann won the free skate and did a triple lutz (which even the men's OGM, Robin Cousins, did not attempt) but won no medal because her figures were poor? Same with Ito in 1988? Let's revise skating history and make them both OGM's just to satisfy some lurking desire to play armchair judge, jury and executioner to the rules and results of skating as we think they should be.
Or we could be adults and remember that skating's scoring system gets tweaked about every five or ten years in response to trends, errors, and advancements and you have to skate and win under the rules that exist on that day, not some purist, ideological ideal of what skating should be. The goal is neither to create an exhibit for the Louvre or to earn skating entry into the X-Games. It's to create the best vehicle for the skater to display his/her skills as required by the rules at hand and to win on those merits alone. The performance can be beautiful or revolutionary, certainly, but it is more important that it is complete as the rules require. In truth neither Lysacek nor Plushenko broke new ground in what they did . Evan's skate was well choreographed, but other champions have been as well. Evgeny landing a quad was not new either and any pretense to the contrary is dishonest. Both did what they do well. It came down to how well they did everything and how what they didl fits into the rules at the time. If they agree to compete under rules, they should agree to accept the result.
After SLC, I got the sense that he felt that he really was only competing against himself. It worked in Torino because his rivals collapsed and the IJS was still not yet clearly defined. But the last four years have been filled with pretty intense rivalries among the top skaters with no dominant skater until the last 12 months. The IJS has been clarified as well. So more guys were primed to be competitive, at least in some segments, this time around. I think Plushenko ignored his competitors and the adjustment to rules and standards to his own detriment. (To be fair to him, however, the competitions he did compete in prior to Vancouver mirrored Torino in that most of the competitors failed to meet to challenge of skating against him.)
Lysacek did the opposite. He set a long term goal and made his plans based on competing against the top guns. Small setbacks along the way were acceptable because he was looking at the big picture. He knew he was not the best athlete among the top guys. So he had to win by being a smarter competitor. That's what makes all sports fun, figuring out how to win when the odds are not in your favor. Otherwise it would be more like the Westminster Dog Show. In competition, the best or most talented athlete does not always win. Sometimes the smartest or hardest working one does, or the best strategist. The more paths to victory there are, the more legitimate the sport becomes. Michael Weiss echoed this point yesterday on UniSports when he used a football analogy. A team can score a touchdown lots of different ways. You can use a really long hail mary pass that catches the defense off guard or a multiple play drive that takes ten minutes. While the big pass is more spectacular and crowd pleasing for an instant, the long drive is no less legitimate and both score six points. I would add that the long drive also eats up more of the clock, giving the scoring team a strategic advantage. Dan Hollander and Tracy Wilson have also made equally adept analogies using other sports.
In skating, if we are really to buy into Plushenko and Mishin and Stojko's arguments, then we might as well declare someone like Beatrix Schuba (1972 Olympic champ) an illegitimate winner because she won on the strength of her unmatched compulsory figures. After all, she was not a spectacular free skater and we've all been instructed by these three that jumps are all that matter. So let's strip her of her title and give it to Karen Magnussen or Janet Lynn instead. For that matter, let's strip Peggy Fleming of her gold medal because she had some mistakes in her free skate which did not hurt her because her overall quality was considered superior to more dynamic jumpers and was miles ahead after the figures anyway. Then go after Dorothy Hamill for not attempting a triple jump in 1976 in a tight contest and winning with a clean skate against other women who tried triples, but made errors. What about the 1980 games where Denise Beilmann won the free skate and did a triple lutz (which even the men's OGM, Robin Cousins, did not attempt) but won no medal because her figures were poor? Same with Ito in 1988? Let's revise skating history and make them both OGM's just to satisfy some lurking desire to play armchair judge, jury and executioner to the rules and results of skating as we think they should be.
Or we could be adults and remember that skating's scoring system gets tweaked about every five or ten years in response to trends, errors, and advancements and you have to skate and win under the rules that exist on that day, not some purist, ideological ideal of what skating should be. The goal is neither to create an exhibit for the Louvre or to earn skating entry into the X-Games. It's to create the best vehicle for the skater to display his/her skills as required by the rules at hand and to win on those merits alone. The performance can be beautiful or revolutionary, certainly, but it is more important that it is complete as the rules require. In truth neither Lysacek nor Plushenko broke new ground in what they did . Evan's skate was well choreographed, but other champions have been as well. Evgeny landing a quad was not new either and any pretense to the contrary is dishonest. Both did what they do well. It came down to how well they did everything and how what they didl fits into the rules at the time. If they agree to compete under rules, they should agree to accept the result.