Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I see nothing wrong in what Stojko said. It is rather a reaction to the praises of the others, calling Chan the best skater ever. We know which part of figure skating matters the most to Stojko and it is his right to think that way. For him the best skater ever has to be technically far above all, which also means doing jumps and combinations and spins that have not already been shown 12 years ago.
Twelve or two years ago nobody skated a program with multiple quads and the kind of complex transitions and footwork sequences of today. Should figure skating progress the way Stojko deems fit, there would be jumping contests filled with quads and quints and not much of anything else.

Nobody would complain if Chan got 270 points or so, but reaching 300 subjectively demands more, for Stoijko and people who judge figure skating like he does. He is quite right though in saying that Chan is "the poster child of the new scoring system, with the ability to chalk up points with all facets of skating."
Getting no complaints is impossible and not the basis for scoring a performance. How did you come up with 270 anyway besides that it might perhaps stop your complaints? Can you demonstrate and rationalize such a mark with scoring protocols of your own for discussion here?

Saying somebody is a poster child of the current scoring system is a dismissive statement about that person's accomplishments. Stojko was judged by the 6.0 of his days and he won legitimately by the system. Nobody has deemed him unfit champion because his skating would not win by COP. But why should today's skaters skate as if they were competing under the same system as he did? That would be utterly ridiculous and moronic.