In the history of the Olympics, was anyone robbed?
- Thread starter tommyk75
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Didn't B&K fall on a final lift in the FD?schooner said:
Well we can argue till we drop. The fact is that the Olympic judging is as unexplainable as any other championship judging. It just seems so much harder to accept as the Olympics matters more. It seems so unfair to hardworking talented skaters that they can loose - or will based on non qualified judging. But if we look at the last 3 -4 womens olympic finals. Yamagutchi won with a less than stellar performance, but was better than the competition. The other three olympic were awrded to the gutsiest performer in each case over one or more wellknown skater, whose technical performances was almost au pair with the final winner.
I don´t have the tape from SLC anymore, but remember thinking that Irina should have been first after the short programme. A win in that would have brought her the Olympic gold, in my opinion.
About pairs in SLC: I would have given the win to B&S, and for them only... They had a more difficult programme and one tiny mistake against an easier programme which was faultless. In previous Worlds a more difficult programme with a fault brought the win to S&P against an easier and faultless programme skated by B&S. The Russians have dominated pairs skating sooo long, maybe that was the reason for these judging "examples"...
Marjaana
About pairs in SLC: I would have given the win to B&S, and for them only... They had a more difficult programme and one tiny mistake against an easier programme which was faultless. In previous Worlds a more difficult programme with a fault brought the win to S&P against an easier and faultless programme skated by B&S. The Russians have dominated pairs skating sooo long, maybe that was the reason for these judging "examples"...
Marjaana
Last edited:
Verbalgirl77 said:
I didn't say that a 2foot landing constitutes a "perfect" successful jump with full credit, but that it will be counted as successful executed element (in comparison for example to the case when a skater has a fall on a jump), however, with deductions for that error. And I agree that under CoP this will change drastically, but this is completely IRRELEVANT for the Bajul-Kerrigan issue as that time of course the old 6.0 system had been used. - And yes, take Weiss, who almost always doublefoots his quad as a shinning example how doublefooting was marked under the old system - take e.g. his SP at Worlds 2002 in Nagano and look at his marks, as he got almost no deductions for that. And BTW if doublefooted landings would not have counted more than a clean jump with one rotation less - what would have been the reason why most of the skaters rather went for a doublefooted jump than for clean one with one rotation less?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I'm pretty sure Nancy wasn't "going for" a double jump, nor did Oksana "go for" a doublefooted footed flip. Oksana landed a clean 3 flip in her warm up. If your body senses that the triple jump isn't going well on take off you're going to have problems with landing it, which either results in doubling the jump, 2 footing the jump, or falling. It all happens in a split second.
It's pretty clear that Nancy had a 3 flip planned as that element, which she landed at Piruetten and in her LP runthrough at the Olympics.
Which is clearly against the rules of that time, which required a .1-.2 deduction in the short program under the 6.0 system for a 2 foot landing.
The discussion over this one jump issue is one thing. Still, I just can't overlook the fact that Nancy was one of 2 skaters in the entire event to land a clean 3-3 combo, nor can I overlook Oksana's front loaded elements, lack of a complete footwork sequence, spins, and time spent standing in one place and posing during that program. That's why I think Nancy was robbed. So we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
There is actually a rule where by judges are allowed to give partial credit for a two-footed jump or one with a turnout on the landing, if the skater has landed the jump cleanly over time in practice and previous comps. It sort of gives the benfit of the doubt to the skaters who have proven that they can land the jump usually, but just happen to have a small mess-up during the comp due to nerves or whatever.
I don't know how sucessful Nancy and Oksana were with thier respective flips in the past, but it may have influenced the judges.
Irina fell on her SP flip at Euros and even Robin Cousins mentioned that she had been having fits with the jump ever since. If Kwan had been landing the flip cleanly all week in practice, while Irina had been hesitating/scared of the flip all week long, that may have swayed the judges since both seemed to have slight blemishes on the jump in comp (Kwan's little cheat and Irina's little telegraph).
I don't know how sucessful Nancy and Oksana were with thier respective flips in the past, but it may have influenced the judges.
Irina fell on her SP flip at Euros and even Robin Cousins mentioned that she had been having fits with the jump ever since. If Kwan had been landing the flip cleanly all week in practice, while Irina had been hesitating/scared of the flip all week long, that may have swayed the judges since both seemed to have slight blemishes on the jump in comp (Kwan's little cheat and Irina's little telegraph).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
berthes ghost said:
If such a rule exists, why not just score the skaters based on past performances and practice sessions? Why go through that whole facade of judging what one sees on that particular night?
And conversely, if Lambiel lands his quad on that particular night should the judges not give him credit because based on past performances and practice sessions he was not consistent?
When or when will this Sport grow up? No wonder it holds limited interests for most people.
Joe
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
no Canadian confusion here, Matt
Matt said:
Just to clarify to an earlier post (oh, page 3, I believe ), people are getting their Canadians confused. Ice Dancers Bourne & Kraatz had a huge fall in their final endpose. Pairs Skaters Sale and Pelletier skated a clean program (with no mistakes , I might add)
thanks, icewriter, Mathman, and others, for confirming that memory does serve me correctly (and that I'm not barreling headfirst into a premature senility where I can't tell my Canadian ice dancers from my Canadian pairs
. Nope, I was pretty sure about this one, as it was the last glimpse of them I got before the whole scandal erupted, and I remember them being rather surprised at the mishap, Mathman, at least as far as I could tell from their expressions. I also recall wondering whether this would affect the marks, and it seemed that it didn't at all, to their immense relief in the K&C moments later.
Marjaana, ITA, as I already expressed in my post.
Jeez, it seems that I'm going to have to get a copy of Lillehammer olympics so that I can get in on the fun here
Sarah
Matt said:
Just to clarify to an earlier post (oh, page 3, I believe ), people are getting their Canadians confused. Ice Dancers Bourne & Kraatz had a huge fall in their final endpose. Pairs Skaters Sale and Pelletier skated a clean program (with no mistakes , I might add)
thanks, icewriter, Mathman, and others, for confirming that memory does serve me correctly (and that I'm not barreling headfirst into a premature senility where I can't tell my Canadian ice dancers from my Canadian pairs
. Nope, I was pretty sure about this one, as it was the last glimpse of them I got before the whole scandal erupted, and I remember them being rather surprised at the mishap, Mathman, at least as far as I could tell from their expressions. I also recall wondering whether this would affect the marks, and it seemed that it didn't at all, to their immense relief in the K&C moments later.Marjaana, ITA, as I already expressed in my post.
Jeez, it seems that I'm going to have to get a copy of Lillehammer olympics so that I can get in on the fun here
Sarah
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2003
Some thing judges look for
Nancy doing her 3lutz 3 mins in her program doesn't show anything
You must not be a skater, because if you were you'd know that doing a 3lutz, anytime, is difficult, let alone doing one 3 mins in to your long program.
Let me educate you...
Doing hard elements late in the program DOES prove Stamina. Judges look for a well distribution of elements throughout the program not just all at the beginning. (i.e Doing a 3lutz 3 mins in a long program is much HARDER than doing it 20sec in a long program)Some skaters do a 3lutz late in their programs and recieve credit for the stamina it shows.(Michelle Kwan for example)
Also under the 6.0 system, landing a jumb on 2 feet means the judges don't give credit to the jump attempt.
Doubleing a jump is less a error than landing a jump on 2 feet. As the double jump still recieves credit as a sucessful double jump.
Also...
Nancy did land a triple-triple combo.
Had more foot work
Nancy didn't 2foot ANY of her jumps yet okana 2foot 2 triples and you want to convince me that Okana was better in the jump dept. :sheesh:
oskana had more "dead space" in her program, this "dead space" was filled with poseing and crossovers.
Please explain why oksana did a easy upright spin as her 3rd spin? I wanna know.
Okasana should have been 3rd in the long program.(British and Canadian judges agree with me)
I still don't see how Oksana won on her TECH marks though.
As for SLC:
Okay, folks let's say for the sake of arguement that Irina was in first. That doen't mean she would have won the LP. What if Kwan landed her 3-3? what about Cohen? Hughes? Even Maria? We just don't know...
skatepixie had the LP
Sasha(giveing sasha the gold medal)
Irina
Sarah
Michelle
That is laughable..
Sasha Fell
Irina was uber-slow
Sarah Rocked the house
Kwan was blah
Evdokia said:
Nancy doing her 3lutz 3 mins in her program doesn't show anything
You must not be a skater, because if you were you'd know that doing a 3lutz, anytime, is difficult, let alone doing one 3 mins in to your long program.
Let me educate you...
Doing hard elements late in the program DOES prove Stamina. Judges look for a well distribution of elements throughout the program not just all at the beginning. (i.e Doing a 3lutz 3 mins in a long program is much HARDER than doing it 20sec in a long program)Some skaters do a 3lutz late in their programs and recieve credit for the stamina it shows.(Michelle Kwan for example)
Also under the 6.0 system, landing a jumb on 2 feet means the judges don't give credit to the jump attempt.
Doubleing a jump is less a error than landing a jump on 2 feet. As the double jump still recieves credit as a sucessful double jump.
Also...
Nancy did land a triple-triple combo.
Had more foot work
Nancy didn't 2foot ANY of her jumps yet okana 2foot 2 triples and you want to convince me that Okana was better in the jump dept. :sheesh:
oskana had more "dead space" in her program, this "dead space" was filled with poseing and crossovers.
Please explain why oksana did a easy upright spin as her 3rd spin? I wanna know.
Okasana should have been 3rd in the long program.(British and Canadian judges agree with me)
I still don't see how Oksana won on her TECH marks though.
As for SLC:
Okay, folks let's say for the sake of arguement that Irina was in first. That doen't mean she would have won the LP. What if Kwan landed her 3-3? what about Cohen? Hughes? Even Maria? We just don't know...
skatepixie had the LP
Sasha(giveing sasha the gold medal)
Irina
Sarah
Michelle
That is laughable..
Sasha Fell
Irina was uber-slow
Sarah Rocked the house
Kwan was blah
Sale and Pelletier did not plan the fall at the end of the SP (as fitting as it may have seemed with the theme) and they spoke about it in one of the follow up interviews. Commentators commended them on their "great attitude" over it. Falling in the final pose rarely is counted against you. Artur and Natalia also fell in the final pose of their SP in 1994. In 1988, Gordeeva and Grinkov got confused in the final spin of their short program (March of the Torreadors) and came out with their backs to the judges. As they took their final bows, you could see Katia giggling about it while Sergei did not notice it - obvious when Katia had to turn him in the right direction to leave the ice. It didn't count against them at all.
As far as the controversy in 2002 with B&S and S&P... I will always look at it as a tie. Even if you take the French judge's mark out, they would have tied. Another vote could have turned it either way giving each team a 50/50 chance of winning. I will agree that S&P skated cleanly that night. But I also watched them skate the "Love Story" program for three years and was tired of it and not a bit surprised that they were able to skate it so well. Opinons are really subjective and the difference in opinion as to who should have won was not a new one. I've seen judgments go either way - gold to clean less difficult programs and gold to more difficult programs with a bobble. It will simply depend and who likes what style.
My biggest heartburn with the whole ordeal was the media coverage of it. Personalities like Rosie O'Donnell who went so far as to call Elena and Anton "Russian Cheaters". No matter what happened, who lied, who cheated, Elena and Anton did not deserve such slander! I am still disappointed in the remarks made by the commentators that night and contribute the media landslide with many of those comments. Very unprofessional. Before that night's competition even started, it was billed as the competition in which the "Soviet Dominance" might finally be broken by the Canadians. A real "us" against "them" mentality. While this might be an expected attitude during an Olympics, I find it so out of place in figure skating. When I view skaters I see their beauty, their talent, their skill. Not what country they are from.
I applaud the banning of the French judge and think justice was done. I think no less should have happened. However, I do disagree with a second gold medal being awarded. It may have quelled the public's need for "justice". But what did it really do for the skaters? S&P's gold medal does not look like all the other medals from that Olympics and it was awarded a week after the competition. Rather anti-climatic, I would think. And as for B&S, it took their winning away from them, essentially. I don't think the ISU would have ever awarded the second gold medal had they not been under tremendous pressure from the IOC and threats that figure skating might not be invited back to the Olympic Games.
Even now, these two pairs teams are not allowed to really win against each other in Pro competitions. (How I wish they'd bring back World Pro Champs.!) In the two challenges they competed in this season, both were set up where one team essentially won the short program, the other won the long program and vice versa in the next team challenge. They will forever only be allowed to tie it seems.
As far as the controversy in 2002 with B&S and S&P... I will always look at it as a tie. Even if you take the French judge's mark out, they would have tied. Another vote could have turned it either way giving each team a 50/50 chance of winning. I will agree that S&P skated cleanly that night. But I also watched them skate the "Love Story" program for three years and was tired of it and not a bit surprised that they were able to skate it so well. Opinons are really subjective and the difference in opinion as to who should have won was not a new one. I've seen judgments go either way - gold to clean less difficult programs and gold to more difficult programs with a bobble. It will simply depend and who likes what style.
My biggest heartburn with the whole ordeal was the media coverage of it. Personalities like Rosie O'Donnell who went so far as to call Elena and Anton "Russian Cheaters". No matter what happened, who lied, who cheated, Elena and Anton did not deserve such slander! I am still disappointed in the remarks made by the commentators that night and contribute the media landslide with many of those comments. Very unprofessional. Before that night's competition even started, it was billed as the competition in which the "Soviet Dominance" might finally be broken by the Canadians. A real "us" against "them" mentality. While this might be an expected attitude during an Olympics, I find it so out of place in figure skating. When I view skaters I see their beauty, their talent, their skill. Not what country they are from.
I applaud the banning of the French judge and think justice was done. I think no less should have happened. However, I do disagree with a second gold medal being awarded. It may have quelled the public's need for "justice". But what did it really do for the skaters? S&P's gold medal does not look like all the other medals from that Olympics and it was awarded a week after the competition. Rather anti-climatic, I would think. And as for B&S, it took their winning away from them, essentially. I don't think the ISU would have ever awarded the second gold medal had they not been under tremendous pressure from the IOC and threats that figure skating might not be invited back to the Olympic Games.
Even now, these two pairs teams are not allowed to really win against each other in Pro competitions. (How I wish they'd bring back World Pro Champs.!) In the two challenges they competed in this season, both were set up where one team essentially won the short program, the other won the long program and vice versa in the next team challenge. They will forever only be allowed to tie it seems.
B&S were robbed of enjoying their gold medal win, S&P's program was easier and an old program seen many times already. Don't get me wrong, I love S&P, but B&S won that night with a more difficult program with a mistake. Not the first time it happens. And the media circus that ensued after the competition was horrible, the commentators were so biased, it was terrible. I felt really bad for B&S.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
my sentiments exactly, LarasB and icewriter; the whole thing was a pity, and it sticks out in my mind to this day how they made it seem as if the whole competition only came down to a jump sequence, out of a four-minute program, a jump sequence that should have made the difference in favor of S&P, one which, mind you, was a jump combination in B&S's case and a jump sequence, with turns between jumps, in the other. Yet the incessant rebroadcasting of the different jump sequences, side by side, was intended to decide the matter, to provide the 'proof' that ended up bullying the ISU into a decision to appease the public. Again, icewriter put it best as far as the actual difference between the pairs and what it was unfairly made out to be. There is judging corruption in the sport, we all know that, and it needs to be addressed, but B&S were robbed of a victory and made an example of for all the wrong reasons.
Re: Some thing judges look for
Agree, jumping at the end of the program shows staminia, judges don't like frontloaded programes and rightly so. BUT: this doesn't depend on the TYPE of jump you do - each skater has his own preferences which jumps he might find difficult or less diffcult. Most of them might find the lutz as one of the most difficult ones, but take for example Fumie Suguri: she'd rather do a lutz than a loop. - That's all I wanted to say, that a late lutz from one skater does not necessarily prove more stamnia, than a late salchow of another one.
BTW Kwanisqueen81 - I don't skate, so what? Does not playing an instrument automatically mean, that you don't have a clue of music?
And if you really think that doubleing a jump is less an error than landing a jump on 2 feet, ie. a double jump would get more credits from the judges than a double footed triple one, then I wonder why many skaters go for triples they can barely do, why they would even risk a fall instead of simply doubling out?
Any explanation???
Kwanisqueen81 said:
Agree, jumping at the end of the program shows staminia, judges don't like frontloaded programes and rightly so. BUT: this doesn't depend on the TYPE of jump you do - each skater has his own preferences which jumps he might find difficult or less diffcult. Most of them might find the lutz as one of the most difficult ones, but take for example Fumie Suguri: she'd rather do a lutz than a loop. - That's all I wanted to say, that a late lutz from one skater does not necessarily prove more stamnia, than a late salchow of another one.
BTW Kwanisqueen81 - I don't skate, so what? Does not playing an instrument automatically mean, that you don't have a clue of music?
And if you really think that doubleing a jump is less an error than landing a jump on 2 feet, ie. a double jump would get more credits from the judges than a double footed triple one, then I wonder why many skaters go for triples they can barely do, why they would even risk a fall instead of simply doubling out?
Any explanation???
thvudragon said:
I'd actually be tempted to say that IN THIS PERFORMANCE, even Irina's spiral sequence was better than Michelle's. She had great positions on all of them, probably the best I've seen them - good amplitude and extension and line. Her edges were great too, and between the first and second spiral, she only had a 1-foot turn - she didn't even put the other foot down. Then she simply turned to backwards for the third, with no other steps or crossovers to add speed. Yes, Michelle did the coe one and also has good edges, but two of her positions were quick and not held, and overall I think Irina was better, especially in regards to the difficulty of transition between her spirals.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
Re: Some thing judges look for
Exactly! People are making these statements assuming that the LP would have played out the same way. If Irina was first after the SP and Sarah skated the same performance she did, Irina might very well have ended in bronze. I say this with regards to the judges that believed Sarah should win, who would have worked their ordinals to support MK placing over Irina but under Sarah, in ORDER to give Sarah the win.
Who knows how Irina would have skated if she were in first after the SP? Who knows how much better MK might have skated NOT being first after the SP (as she often attacks when she's behind a la Worlds 2000 & 2001)? It's folly to delude oneself that Irina placing first in the SP would have INSURED her a gold medal. It's all hypothetical.
Kwanisqueen81 said:
Exactly! People are making these statements assuming that the LP would have played out the same way. If Irina was first after the SP and Sarah skated the same performance she did, Irina might very well have ended in bronze. I say this with regards to the judges that believed Sarah should win, who would have worked their ordinals to support MK placing over Irina but under Sarah, in ORDER to give Sarah the win.
Who knows how Irina would have skated if she were in first after the SP? Who knows how much better MK might have skated NOT being first after the SP (as she often attacks when she's behind a la Worlds 2000 & 2001)? It's folly to delude oneself that Irina placing first in the SP would have INSURED her a gold medal. It's all hypothetical.
Similar threads
