In the history of the Olympics, was anyone robbed?

thvudragon said:

Who were the US and Australian judges anyway? I'm totally at how they could even find a way to place B&E above M&D.

TV

Click to expand...

Me too.
The US judge gave M&D their lowest score with a 5.6/ 5.7 and gave B&E a 5.7/5.8.



He/She gave S&N a 5.5/5.6. I wonder what she gave Meno and Sand? (They were in 5th place-right?) I think G&G got a 5.8/5.9(or maybe it was a 5.9/5.9) from the US judge.


I think that judging decision was just wrong.
You can prefer one style to another, I for example, really enjoyed S&N program(I'm probably one of the only ones ). But objectively speaking-I can see no reason for putting B&E above M&D.

1994 pairs

Although I can understand the discussion re. the two Russian pairs (even though I personally saw a clear win for G&G) I cannot understand the poster who said that Brasseur & Eisler should have won. Their technical content were weak (spins, jumps), their tempo non-existent and their style and posture nowhere near as good as any of the Russians. In all fairness the third Russian should have placed above them.

The only case one could make for B&E in the reinstatement case. But had that not happened they would have face two other Russian couples potentially cable of outskating them as well. I remember from a former thread that a poster felt that the reinstatement should have been allowed but that Torwill & Dean should have won anyway!!

When we look at past games, it is difficult not to include our knowledge of what happened tothe skater afterwords. G&G being even greater on the professionel stage, M&D quitting the partnership. Urmanow never really getting there again vs. the consistancy of Elvis, Baiul folding, Vylie getting a great professional career, Tara fading and Michelle blooming etc. If we look at the womens past olympicsthe pattern seems to be to award the "next great thing" over the wellknown skater, but as the last three Olympics shows neither winner continued on top levell. But what if Michelle had competed at Lillehammer instead of Tonya?

printing error. theposter felt that the reinstatement should NOT have been allowed

hockeyfan228 said:

...Form, carriage, flow, and free leg position also counted toward the scores. It's the whole body impression that is supposed to be important, not just from the ankles down.

As for your question about the Biellman, judging from the tiny downloads, Pavuk did a quite lovely one at Euros, Sebestyen did a nice one from the donut position, and Timoshenko does beautiful ones to both sides. It takes back strength as well as flexibility to do a beautiful Biellmann, and that doesn't seem to be what Slutskaya has, judging from her spiral positions and some of her other spins.

Click to expand...

--Re Irina, '02: (Slapping myself for even posting on this thread.) I agree with Mathman about some of Irina's strengths being such "below the ankles" qualities as speed and ice coverage (I'd also add flow and wonderfully deep edges) and that Irina's skating does not look nearly as strong on TV as it does live. However, I think Irina is also very strong in her form, carriage, and even body line with the exception of toe point and amplitude on her arabesque spirals. She actually has excellent extension in her legs through the hip and knee (extension meaning a fully stretched position); the problem is Irina is bow-legged. Thus when she has her leg in an arabesque spiral position, it looks bent on TV because we're seeing it in only two dimensions. Her leg is curved, but not because her knee is not locked; it's because the natural bow-shape of her leg. Whether a skater should be penalized for doing the best they can with unalterable skeletal formations is, I suppose, up to individual judges. The neck/shoulder configuration of one skater I can think of gives her a short neck and high shoulders, which some might find aesthetically unappealing. However I think in skating anatomical problems with body line show up more when they occur in the legs.

Also, I've always felt Irina had one of the most expressive upper bodies in skating. By expressive, I mean great articulation and range in the joints of the shoulders, neck, and thorax. Mathman mentioned "pretty positions" and this is not what I mean at all when I say Irina has "great expressiveness" in her upper body. In fact, from the waist up, I'd say Irina and Oksana Baiul are equally expressive with their upper bodies (or were at each skater's peak), though with very different styles. Both Irina and Oksana also had/have a great deal of flexibility in their upper bodies along with the ability to isolate and "stretch out" certain upper body joints, which gives a "bigger than life" look to their skating. However, Irina's style is "modern," for lack of a better word, whereas Oksana's is balletic, which I think is one reason why Irina is often criticized for her arm movements. In any case, I prefer the quality of the movement between positions whereas of course it's just as valid for others to prefer the look of the actual positions. I would think the same or similar differences in preference exists among judges as well. Thus results that have Irina receiving higher presentation marks than Michelle from some judges may look like "cheating" to those who love Michelle's positions.

Also, and I'll be the first one to say this, Irina didn't use her upper body flexibility well at all when she first came on the scene. When she won Europeans at age 16, she did indeed do a lot of flippy, wristy, floppy things with her arms. However, by '98 she had matured and if you look at her '98 Olympic programs, especially her SP, which was a wonderfully droll and restrained program entitled "Piano Waltz," hopefully you'll see that a lot of the criticism of Irina's "overdone arms" is a result of the choreography, not her inclination. Even with "Tosca," which got a reputation for "lots of head-grabbing" had at least 50% of the pantomime and arm movements cut out by the time of the GPF and even more cut out by the Olympics.

So in short, I'd say Irina gets very high marks for the form, carriage, flow, etc. for her entire body. What she does not have is the balletic or lyrical style that I think most people prefer to see with figure skaters. Unfortunately, Irina and her coach have chosen to go with balletic or classically themed LPs since '99, which I think dilutes the impact of Irina's style. If you see a skater doing "Don Quixote," you expect to see a balletic style. For me, Irina's most successful programs, such as "Schindler's List," have had nothing to do with ballet or opera; unfortunately, she hasn't used them for her World or Olympic LPs. The decision to go with ballet/opera programs is, I think, one that has hurt Irina in her presentation marks and, IMO, rightfully so. To use a much overused analogy, it's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. However, even within those programs, Irina still uses her upper body extremely well. It's just that the overall style of the program doesn't suit her, IMO.

As for the comment about her Biellmann spins not suiting Irina's flexibility, flexibility is specific. That is, a person can be very flexible in the joints for hip flexion, spinal extension, and shoulder rotation and have achieved great flexibility in her hamstrings, all of which are needed to do a good Biellmann spin, but have very little of the flexibility in the joints needed to achieve high amplitude in an arabesque spiral. In other words, you can be very flexibile in one certain parts of the body and not at all flexible in others. Also, the ability to achieve a position involves both flexibility and strength. Again, like flexibility, strength is specific.

To make a comparison regarding specificity: Irina can't do an arabesque spiral with anything like the amplitude and line that Michelle can. Michelle can't do a layback spin with the back arch and leg position that Irina can. Both Irina and Michelle have positions in which they show great flexibility and beautiful line, and both have positions where they've had to use nontraditional positions in order to make the most of what they have and minimize their limitations. Of course there are a few skaters who are appear flexible all over, such as Sasha Cohen and Nicole Bobek. But even there, I bet they have certain muscle groups and/or joints that are not as flexible as others.

Also, bear in mind that flexibility involves several things: the skeletal shape of the joint involved; the length of the ligaments of that joint; and the stretch in the muscles of that joint. Of the three, only muscle stretch can be affected by training after about the age of seven or eight, and even with young children, the shape of the joint can only be altered with training by a few degrees. Also, and this is somewhat OT since I read it on another thread, but being exceptionally flexible "all over" does not make one more prone to injuries or unable to hold one's jump landings, although it is a much perpetuated myth that the more flexibile you are the less strength you have. What is true is that if one is naturally extremely flexible and only works on flexibility, not strength, jumping is going to be very difficult. Nicole Bobek tends to have this problem. Sasha Cohen doesn't. Sasha's jump problems, IMO, have to do with having come from gymnastics and poor jump technique, but she doesn't show the flexibility problems that afflict jumps, such as kicking the free leg too high in the back in preparation for toe pick jumps.

Lastly re Irina, I find it interesting that Irina's Biellmann spin is often criticized because in many ways, Irina reminds me of Denise Biellmann. Denise was also a nonballetic skater whose style was more about speed and motion than line and position. The judges also tended, IMO, to undermark Denise on the presentation mark. And even though we may be tired of watching her do them, Irina is still, as far as I know, the only skater who can do a Biellmann spin on both feet, much less one right after the other.


--BTW, I think order of the ladies medals at the '02 Olympics was correct and that what those Olympics really showed, both in the pairs and ladies events, were the limitations of the OBO system. The reason certain judges were jockeying around with bizarre placements for some of the final skaters was that the OGM-winning performance came early in the last flight. So the judges were in the bind of having to "save" marks for the skaters after Sarah, yet nobody skated up to Sarah's level technically or in terms of presentation. Under the COP, the skate order of the last flight, whether it be random or by placement in the SP, would have no impact on who won because there is no need for the judges to "save" scores.


--Re Nancy and Oksana, '94: The music for both of Nancy Kerrigan's '94 programs were entirely composed by a friend of hers, which I don't think was a plus. Her LP had no Neil Diamond in it at all. Also, the quality of Oksana's program has come up several times before, so the last time it did, which was about six months ago, I timed the number of seconds Oksana and Nancy each spent standing still and/or doing minimal skating. I don't remember the exact number of seconds for each skater, though it was between 25 and 30 seconds each. What I do remember is that there was only a three-second difference between Nancy and Oksana regarding "standing still/minimal skating."

Also, it's virtually impossible to accurately evaluate speed based on TV. After the final results were in, one of the things Scott Hamilton said about Nancy's LP was that it was "a little cautious and a little slow." I know these weren't the Olympics, but I saw Oksana and Nancy skate live professionally four times with COI and Nancy never even came close to Oksana's speed. In fact, Nancy was one of the slowest skaters on the tour and Oksana was one of the fastest skaters I've ever seen. At her peak, she's still the fastest woman FS I've seen, except for Irina. Oksana had technical problems, no doubt about it, and a valid case can be made that Nancy should have won the gold in '94. However, IMO, the case should not be made based on Oksana "standing around doing nothing" more than Nancy nor on Nancy having more speed.

One last nit to pick: In the crash Oksana had with Germany's Tanja Swievcenko, Oksana experienced a small fracture in her lower back and a gash on one shin. After being examined by the Olympic physician, Oksana was given two approved injections of lidocaine, which numbs the injured area. One was on her shin where she had the gash and one was in her back. People often point to the fact that Oksana did not do a layback spin in her LP. This is true. However, in the LP there are no requirements and no mandatory deductions. Assuming the judges knew the nature of Oksana's injuries after the crash, I wonder if some of them took the fractured vertebra into consideration, especially since she had shown exceptional spinal flexibility in the SP with the donut spin and her side-back "star" layback. [Note: The rules for a layback spin state that the skater must either arch the spine directly backwards or to the side. Either way is valid.]


--Re Torvill & Dean, '94: As much as I love T&D, I thought they shot themselves in the foot, so to speak, by rechoreographing 80% of their free dance during the three weeks between Euros and Worlds. Somebody else already brought this up (sorry, who said what is all a blue) so I won't repeat what was said, but here's my spin on it. T&D were apparently concerned at Euros that they won by such a slim margin, so they asked some judges what they should do to improve their program. I don't know if Chris just got carried away or if they took what a couple of judges said too much to heart, but I do know that what I saw T&D do at Euros could have won the OGM, but what they did at the Olympics could not. For one thing, the Olympic version of "Let's Face the Music" mostly looked like a stringing together of "Torvill & Dean's Greatest Stunts" whereas the Euros version had the strong, well-balanced choreography that made their rhumba OD the clear winner. The new choreography lost all connection to the music, which was a paricular strong point of the Euros version, and also stayed at one frenetic level throughout, even though the music didn't. T&D also looked like they were skating "LFTM" by the seat of their pants, whereas at Euros, their edging, flow, line, relationship, and carriage were superb. Everything they had at Euros was lost in favor of things I'd seen T&D do in other programs over the years. Plus there was the controversial 3/10ths deduction for the over-the-shoulder flip that was added on as the new ending.

I felt awful for T&D because I think Chris got caught up in trying to please the judges and ensure their win rather than having confidence in his own judgment. Perhaps one or two stunts or "highlight moves" would have added some spark to the Euros version of "LFTM," but to completely rechoreograph 80% of what you had meticulously worked on for six months--that was a bad move. I know they got telegrams from people like Gene Kelly saying it was the best ballroom dancing on ice they'd ever seen, or something to that effect, but I think you can't really assess what the judges saw until you compare the '94 Euros version of "LFTM" to the Olympic version. After comparing the two, you may still feel T&D deserved the OGM, but I know for myself, my jaw dropped in disappointment as I watched the Olympic version unfold. My reaction was that there was no way they would win the OGM with that and that they'd be lucky to win the silver. I had wanted T&D to win and I'm still a big fan of theirs, but IMO Grishuk & Platov set a new standard for speed and intricacy that night, plus the choreography was well balanced and G&P's playful relationship was very effective. I know there's the whole thing about mandatory deductions, but I think what happened is T&D got nailed for what the judges saw as more than one illegal move, whereas timing 24 seconds without touching is more difficult to see, especially if everything else about the choreography and performance is strong. With T&D, you could see them thinking through virtually the whole thing, IMO, and I found it uncomfortable to watch.

If you can't compare T&D's Euros "LFTM" with the Olympic version, just compare their Olympic OD, the rhumba, with "LFTM." I think the rhumba shows everything "LFTM" had at Euros both in choreographic sophistication and performance quality, but lost at the Olympics. I felt very bad for T&D, but I hope the result was that Chris would never doubt his own choreographic judgment again, at least not to that extent.


--Who do I think wuz robbed at the Olympics? ME! I lived in Salt Lake City 11 damn years, through tons of snow, and the Winter Olympics didn't go there until 17 years after I'd moved to NY! But at least I got to see '84 Nationals there, where Scott Hamilton had the LP skate he wished he'd had at the Olympics and Tiffany Chin was a knock-out. BTW, if anybody wonders what figure skating might go back to if audience interest keeps dropping off, I think '84 Nationals may, unfortunately, be a good indicator. These were Nationals in an Olympic year and the 18,000 seat Salt Palace was only about a third full for the ladies finals. Sigh.
Rgirl

That was the post of the year, Rgirl. Outstanding analysis of Irina's skating. Your expalnation of the physical mechanics of how skaters manmage that "larger than life" look was very illuminating.

"Thus results that have Irina receiving higher presentation marks than Michelle from some judges may look like "cheating" to those who love Michelle's positions."

Click to expand...

That was me, me, me (big surprize, LOL), until the first time I saw Irina skate live (in the Detroit cheesefest). Then I did a 180 and thought, poor Michelle, how can she compete against this? (Of course that was the year that Michelle was doing her weakest ever exhibition number -- I mercifully forgot what it was, but it was in a pink dress; she even lost to Josee Chiounard at the Canadian open with it.)

Anyway, when I first started reading Golden Skate two years ago, my only understanding of figure skating was, oh look how pretty these girls are. Thanks to posts like yours, I am slowly but surely getting hooked on the sport.

One technical question: Is it really true that you can't stretch your tendons after age seven or eight? So that if you want to be an acrobatic dancer, you have to start as a toddler? (So much for my dreams of a second career as a contortionist in the circus.)

Mathman

Nancy's long program did contain Neil Diamond music. In fact, when they announced her program , the commentators remarked that she was skating to a Neil Diamond medley by the Boston Pops. Plus I recognized the middle of her program as music from Neil Diamond's America(?). Jill Trenary used that same piece in her long program. Maybe Nancy's friend rewrote pieces of the music so it could flow together.

Great post, Rgirl. Very interesting to read, especially your analysis of Irina.

Rgirl said:

--Re Torvill & Dean, '94: As much as I love T&D, I thought they shot themselves in the foot, so to speak, by rechoreographing 80% of their free dance during the three weeks between Euros and Worlds. Somebody else already brought this up (sorry, who said what is all a blue) so I won't repeat what was said, but here's my spin on it. T&D were apparently concerned at Euros that they won by such a slim margin, so they asked some judges what they should do to improve their program. I don't know if Chris just got carried away or if they took what a couple of judges said too much to heart, but I do know that what I saw T&D do at Euros could have won the OGM, but what they did at the Olympics could not. For one thing, the Olympic version of "Let's Face the Music" mostly looked like a stringing together of "Torvill & Dean's Greatest Stunts" whereas the Euros version had the strong, well-balanced choreography that made their rhumba OD the clear winner. The new choreography lost all connection to the music, which was a paricular strong point of the Euros version, and also stayed at one frenetic level throughout, even though the music didn't. T&D also looked like they were skating "LFTM" by the seat of their pants, whereas at Euros, their edging, flow, line, relationship, and carriage were superb. Everything they had at Euros was lost in favor of things I'd seen T&D do in other programs over the years. Plus there was the controversial 3/10ths deduction for the over-the-shoulder flip that was added on as the new ending.

I felt awful for T&D because I think Chris got caught up in trying to please the judges and ensure their win rather than having confidence in his own judgment. Perhaps one or two stunts or "highlight moves" would have added some spark to the Euros version of "LFTM," but to completely rechoreograph 80% of what you had meticulously worked on for six months--that was a bad move. I know they got telegrams from people like Gene Kelly saying it was the best ballroom dancing on ice they'd ever seen, or something to that effect, but I think you can't really assess what the judges saw until you compare the '94 Euros version of "LFTM" to the Olympic version. After comparing the two, you may still feel T&D deserved the OGM, but I know for myself, my jaw dropped in disappointment as I watched the Olympic version unfold. My reaction was that there was no way they would win the OGM with that and that they'd be lucky to win the silver. I had wanted T&D to win and I'm still a big fan of theirs, but IMO Grishuk & Platov set a new standard for speed and intricacy that night, plus the choreography was well balanced and G&P's playful relationship was very effective. I know there's the whole thing about mandatory deductions, but I think what happened is T&D got nailed for what the judges saw as more than one illegal move, whereas timing 24 seconds without touching is more difficult to see, especially if everything else about the choreography and performance is strong. With T&D, you could see them thinking through virtually the whole thing, IMO, and I found it uncomfortable to watch.

If you can't compare T&D's Euros "LFTM" with the Olympic version, just compare their Olympic OD, the rhumba, with "LFTM." I think the rhumba shows everything "LFTM" had at Euros both in choreographic sophistication and performance quality, but lost at the Olympics. I felt very bad for T&D, but I hope the result was that Chris would never doubt his own choreographic judgment again, at least not to that extent.

Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts. I don't really agree, but your opinion is still valid and very interesting and thought-provoking to read.

In my opinion, Torvill & Dean should have won the OGM. I'm a fan of them, but that's not my reason for what I think. I'll try to explain it nearly as well as you did

When T&D made the decision to change their FD, it was because they hadn't won the FD portion of Euros - they'd been second in it, although won overall. Their Euros FD was very well choreographed, like you said - it was intricate, packed with difficulty, and encompassed the ballroom style well. They started to feel after Euros (and IIRC were told/hinted at) that the judges preferred the more showbizzy routine of Grishuk & Platov, despite what T&D had been led to believe earlier in the season (that they didn't want showbizzy numbers - in fact, the ISU had said that they wanted dance to go back to it's roots, to more traditional routines, e.g. ballroom).

They didn't take the decision lightly to change the routine (Jayne didn't want to change anything) but felt that they needed to change it to put in more highlights, more audience-grabbing moves, that kind of thing. They'd competed with a highly-difficult, highly-styled FD before, but it wasn't put in first, so they decided to go the other way since it appeared that was what was required.

Maybe you're right that they did change too much - maybe the ideal would have been somewhere between the two routines. We'll never know. However, the judging on the night in question had to be between the routines as they were presented.

In my opinion, the FDs as performed on the night, I don't think Grishuk & Platov's should have been put in first. They certainly did have some great qualities - great speed, fast movements etc, and I definitely think these qualities have influenced the importance of speed in ice dancing today. However, I don't think their programme was that strong. A lot of the "footwork" they did was actually little more than hops and kicks. They did have some nice changes of position/hold and some nice steps. But a lot of it was not as difficult as it may have appeared. Their lifts also weren't really that strong, or difficult (or aesthetically pleasing, really, but that may just be my opinion). It was certainly an entertaining routine (the rock n roll sections especially - although the middle section was a complete change of style and really had nothing to do with the former at all, no connection. I know that's not a deduction or requirement, but just an observation of the structure of the prorgamme which I think was lacking a little in this respect.) There was also the issue of the separations, that they weren't given deductions for. When the limit is 5 seconds and a team separates for 13 seconds, it should be noticed - that's what the judges are supposed to do.

As for Usova & Zhulin - again, they also had a nice routine, with some good steps etc. However, I htought this programme was also quite weak, choreographically and musically. Plus, they didn't give the performance-level of either T&D or G&P. There was also a noticeable wobble by Zhulin on one of the lifts. I don't think this programme highlighted their strengths very well.

As for T&D - I think they were certainly the leaders in performance quality. They have said that they think it was the performance of their lives - obviously the things that had gone on previously shouldn'd be taken into accout, but they had had all those changes made in only 3 weeks before the competition, they'd both been ill (food poisoning IIRC) the week before, they were under enormous pressure, and they had been told rumours about where they were going to place. It all makes for a pretty unenviable situation. However, when they got onto the ice for their FD, it all went away and they skated all-out.

Anyroad - back to the actual FD. Like I said before, maybe they should have changed less of the Euros version of the FD than they did, but what's done is done, and that's what they felt they had to do. I felt that they gave the best performance on the night. They didn't have any slow parts, but that is not a requirement in the FD. They included lots of difficult steps and manouveres. They had good changes of hold (IIRC), great technique and edges of course, and plenty of innovation despite the fact that many of their moves had been performed in previous routines. I think they had more variety in their movements and lifts than the other 2 teams, and plenty of difficulty. There was also less 2-footed skating than (e.g.) G&P. I think they had more sweeping edges and edge foorwork than the other teams, and despite the fact that there were no slow sections, they did change with the music. As for the somersault at the end - that was a controversial one with the judges. It certainly went close to the rules, but the judges didn'd even agree on what rule it broke. IIRC, one said it lifted over the shoulders, one said it was "too athletic", etc. You get the picture. Chris later pointed out though that it was impossible to lift someone over your head from behind. It was Jayne that initiated the movement, and that should have been clear to anyone watching (Chris bent his head and jerked his back - Jayne swung her legs round and flipped herself over. His hands were not lifting her at that moment, they couldn't have been). I also thought their routine, with the highlights and the steps and the movements etc, worked well with the music. They actually won on the artictic mark (by about 0.1), but it was the technical mark that was very low.

Re: 1994 pairs

Effy said:

In all fairness the third Russian should have placed above them.

Click to expand...

S&N had great extension and excellent lines. I really like this team
As I said before, I did enjoy B&E skate, but I can see S&N beating them. IIRC-it was very close between B&E and S&N for the bronze with the judges.
But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind,that M&D should have been higher than B&E with all of the judges.

I would be interested to hear from people who thought B&E should have won, or should have gotten the silver medal. I promise I won't bite off your head .


Dance: Does anyone think that U&Z would have won the gold medal had they done a program like their Four Seasons? (BTW- love that program) It was U&Z at their best.

Re: Re: 1994 pairs

lulu said:

I would be interested to hear from people who thought B&E should have won, or should have gotten the silver medal. I promise I won't bite off your head .

Click to expand...

I think it's obvious that anyone who thinks B&E should have won is not interested in objectivity or fairness. All they care about is blind fandom and absurdity.

TV

Great post Icenut. Keep 'em coming, I will learn something about ice dancing yet!

OT -- "Anyroad -- back to the actual FD." Anyroad? Is that a British expression, or did you invent that? Cool!

Mathman

Re: Re: Re: 1994 pairs

thvudragon said:

I think it's obvious that anyone who thinks B&E should have won is not interested in objectivity or fairness. All they care about is blind fandom and absurdity.

TV

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but part of me is still curious as to why anyone would think B&E should have been above G&G or M&D in 1994. Even though I don't see any objective reasoning for it. But if someone does-please explain it to me. Because I'm
S&N(aka the third Russians) also did a really great job-and I prefer their program to B&E(completely my personal opinion here).


And on a different topic-I love the pharse "anyroad"

I'm gonna have to start using it now.
Thanks icenut

Originally posted by Mevrouw

And I think the wrong Brian won that year too.

Brian Orser Program elements: 7 triples with the toe loop repeated in combination. Also had some decrease in energy level late in the program (looked really tired)

Triple Lutz
Triple Axle-double toe combination
Camel Spin
Triple flip (step out of the landing)
Triple salchow-double loop
Camel-Sit spin combination
Triple Loop
Jump series beginning with a double axle and ending with a triple toe loop
Flying sit
Double axle
Delayed axle
split jump series
Double axle
Triple toe


Brian Boitano Program elements: Eight triples, with triple axle and triple flip repeated in combination, including a triple-triple combination.

Triple Lutz (Tano Lutz)
Triple axle-double toe combination
Triple Flip
Flying Camel
Triple Salchow
Death Drop
Triple Flip-triple toe combination
Camel sit spin combination
Triple Axle (Slightly two footed)
Triple Loop
Split jump series
Double axle


I felt badly for Orser, since I felt he was robbed in 84, but since in 88 the tie-breaker was the technical mark, and Boitano had the more difficult technical program, the correct Brian won the Gold that night.

Poor Orser, he won the LP in 1984, when figures still made the difference. And in 1988 he (I believe) won on the presentation mark, but lost on the technical mark. When the technical mark was the tie breaker.

I had a wallet stolen during the 1998 Olympics. Does that count as being robbed?

Mevrouw said:

I think that the 1988 Olympics were even worse than the more recent ones. Certainly, the "best skaters" did not win the golds.

Both Liz Manley & Debi Thomas should have finished higher than Witt. I had never understood how she did so well as her SP & FP were way below both Maley & Thomas.

I know, I know - it was the figures and that's how it was then. Witt has always seemed VASTLY overrated.

And I think the wrong Brian won that year too.

Click to expand...

Manley over Witt: most definitely (and Manley did score higher marks on the long program), but Thomas?!? I'm sorry, but did you even SEE the program? No offense to Debi, but her skate that night was pretty much a choke-a-thon disaster, while Witt, while not at her very best, was pretty solid and had great presentation. And like others have said, the right Brian DID win.

Mathman said:

Great post Icenut. Keep 'em coming, I will learn something about ice dancing yet!

Click to expand...

Glad you liked it! lol. What's your opinion of that comp?

OT -- "Anyroad -- back to the actual FD." Anyroad? Is that a British expression, or did you invent that? Cool![/B]

Click to expand...

No I didn't invent it, lol. It's not used all the time in Britain or anything, but I have heard it used here before (such as on Coronation Street). Glad to spread the wisdom and the phrases to you guys across the pond!

Re B&E for bronze- absolutely! Shiskova had the most god-awful dress I have ever seen. (Up to that point-I've seen worst since.) You can't put someone on a podium looking like that.

Seriously, I don't think there's any contest. S&N had great basics but were so boring most of the time-at least, they could never hold my attention. One of the reason Shen & Zhoa are so popular is their exciting big tricks and B&E were doing moves no one else could do. I don't remember the marks, but I believe they should have scored the highest on tech.

IMO Nancy Kerrigan & Paul Wylie are the most clear "waz robbed" victims. I've never understood how anyone who knows the rules can defend Oksana's or Victor's wins. I think Victor got a lifetime acheivement gold but I can't understand Oksana's at all. IMO 3rd place would have been more appropriate. And I like her and her skating.

In 88 I also think the right Brian won. I think he should have won the pres mark too. And IF the figures were judged fairly, then I agree with the ladies' placements too. But I would have had Wilson & McCall winning the ice dance, and I would have had Watson & Oppergard winning the pairs silver.

In 84 Tiffany Chin should have won the SP-who knows what would have happened then in the long? And I would have put the Carruthers over V&V in pairs-I'm not sure that qualifies as a robbery though-maybe it's just personal taste. But I always found V&V rather boring too. BTW, I had a discussion with their coach Ron Luddington at 03 Nats about my belief Kitty & Peter should have won. He said going in they were told 2nd would be the best they could do-the deal was already in place.

RE B&S in SLC. I felt bad for both pairs initially and then I just got sick of them both, but it's hard for me to feel too bad for B&S. IMO they have received so many gifts in their career. I think they are one of the most beautiful and talented pairs I have ever seen, but they were so seldom clean, and they never got the deductions they deserved. I completely believe the deal was made for gold before they ever stepped out on the ice in SLC. And they shouldn't have ANY medal from Nagano, much less silver. If their beautiful skating means you can ignore the technical errors, then Michelle Kwan should have 2 Oly gold medals.

BTW I disagree about Irina in person. I've only seen her live once and that was when she did that cowgirl exhibition but she was not noticibly faster than Michelle there and she was very rough around the edges. On TV she always looks sloppy to me.

Just curious, why would you have W&O over V&V in 1988? I have the comp on tape, and I just don't see that. To me G&G had the gold locked up and V&V had the silver locked up. There's no way I can see W&O beating V&V.

Just to clearify, are you saying that B&E should have had the highest tech scores out of all of the pairs in Lillehammer or just out of S&N?

And I don't think that being boring is a mark for deduction
If that's true then Meno & Sand would have never won anything

Oh well, at least you don't have B&E ahead of G&G or M&D (if you do-explain please)

I disagree with you about SLC. B&S have a very classical style of skating and excellent basic skills. If hypothetically, teams like B&E and S&Z deserve high tech points for their athletic skills shouldn't B&S get high tech scores for their basics and their technique?

I agree about the judges awarding B&S the silver in the 1998 Olympics. As far as I was concerned, the German team was robbed of the silver. S dropped B at the end of the program from a lift and the Germans skated cleanly, if slow.

icenut84 said:

Glad you liked it! lol. What's your opinion of that comp?

No I didn't invent it ["anyroad"], lol. It's not used all the time in Britain or anything, but I have heard it used here before (such as on Coronation Street). Glad to spread the wisdom and the phrases to you guys across the pond!

Click to expand...

Mrs. MM is a huge fan of Coronation Street. She goes online every day to read what happens, because we see it (on Canadian TV) about three months after it's shown in England. I just asked her if she had ever heard that phrase. She said, oh yeah, they say it all the time, LOL.

I thought Torville and Dean should have won. I wouldn't dare to put my analysis up against yours or Rgirl's (or Doris Pulaski's), but I just liked them better.

Mathman