MATHMAN,Mathman said:
You're too kind. I'm either getting a big head or I had one too many shots of Jaegermeister in honor of Worlds
But re "I am slowly but surely getting hooked on the sport"--puh-lease! If you aren't hooked on skating, especially a particular skater
, then people catch fish with spoons.
J/K. But what am I supposed to do when you give me a set-up like that?
As for, "Is it really true that you can't stretch your tendons after age seven or eight?" Actually what I said was, "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." In other words, you can only alter the shape of the joint with training up to the age of about seven or eight and even then only by a few degrees. You can stretch your muscles and tendons (the tendon is actually just the noncontractile connective tissue of the muscle, which attaches the muscle to the bone) as long as you live and are healthy, although muscle loses elasticity as we age. Ligaments, which attach bone to bone, are nonelastic and you want to keep them that way. Think of ligaments as plastic wrap. Once you stretch it out of shape, it never goes back to its original length or tensile strength. Some people are born with joints that are shaped in such a way that allows for great range of motion, plus naturally long ligaments, plus naturally long muscle fibers. These folks are candidates for becoming ballet dancers, gymnasts, rhythmic gymnasts, or contortionists. Judging by what you've achieved as a contortionist given your upcoming birthday, I wouldn't give up your day job to join the Cirque du Soleil.
However, even the most twisty-turny, inside-out contortionists have to work on it every day. I think we need you more to help us with our knowledge of cosmology. Besides, how many contortionists can even integrate? (Don't answer that)ICENUT,
Wow, I really loved your response! I always enjoy your posts, but especially when there's a controversial disagreement, I love when anyone writes his/her opinion in a way that is articulate, well-informed, specific, and strong, but with equal regard for the other person's POV. Your post certainly was all that. Earlier today I rewatched my '94 Olympics tape of the top three finishers in the free dance and also the top three in ladies singles, as well as T/D, G/P, and U/Z from '94 Euros. When it comes to T/D vs. G/P for the gold, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But then this is why people like Phil Hersh believe ice dancing should not be a judged sport, because they feel it is impossible to judge fairly. Although I think the ISU has made strides in judging ice dancing--a lot of them because of the controversy over T&D's bronze in '94--there are still so many things that are purely subjective. Choreography I thought was cohesive you thought wasn't and vice versa; footwork I thought was difficult you felt was easy and vice versa; etc. Also, comparing a rock 'n roll program to a classic ballroom program is enough apples and oranges right there.
However, while recognizing that all your points are completely valid, I would like to respond to a few things just to clarify. For one thing, I thought T&D's "LFTM" should have easily won the silver over Usova/Zhulin's "Fellini" program, which was unfortunately U&Z at their worst. ITA that some (not all
) of the deductions T/D got were at best unclear and at worst should not have been deductions. The word that comes to mind when I think of U/Z's FD is "dinky"-and Usova/Zhulin were NOT dinky skaters. The program was full of pantomime; virtually "nothing" footwork; had too much emphasis on making interconnecting arm shapes and not nearly enough on difficult arm holds; and finally U/Z never seemed to perform the program as if they knew what they were trying to achieve. At Euros they seemed to be trying for a "La Strada" feeling, whereas at the Olympics they seemed to be trying for a black and white comedia del arte feeling. I was about to write that with T/D and G/P, at least it was very clear what they were going for; however, as I started writing it, I stopped and thought about it. I think if I had to name one quality that separated LFTM-Euros from LFTM-Olys it was clarity of intent. At Euros, the whole feeling of ballroom dancing came through at every moment. At the Olympics, I felt it was neither fish nor fowl. Also, when I said the Olympic version of LFTM mostly looked like a stringing together of "Torvill & Dean's Greatest Stunts" whereas the Euros version had the kind of strong, well-balanced choreography that made their rhumba OD the clear winner, I didn't mean that I was against T/D using material from other programs or that the judges should have held down their marks for doing so. I meant that, for me, LFTM-Oly lacked the choreographic phrasing and nuance of LFTM-Euros. To me LFTM-Oly looked like a first draft of a program, one that was too heavy on the stunts and highlight moves, which made it lose one of LFTM-Euros biggest assets--Jayne and Chris's relationship as both people and in the dancing. LFTM-Euros looked like a finished product--and as we both said, perhaps adding less in terms of stunts or highlights would have resulted in more. I thought LFTM-Oly lost the flow of LFTM-Euros.
As for the performance quality, Jayne and Chris definitely skated a clean, energetic, mistake-free program. But to me it looked frenetic. I thought about what you said about judging LFTM-Oly based on its qualities, not comparing it to an earlier version of itself. It's impossible to "unring the bell" and pretend I'd never seen LFTM-Euros. But I tried by watching LFTM-Oly first (I hadn't watched it or LFTM-Euros in years). Maybe I'm just stuck in what I feel about LFTM-Oly, but I just felt it stayed at one hectic level. As I've said before, I'm big fans of T&D, I continue to be a big fan of Chris's choreography, and it goes without saying that all that's good about ice dancing started with them. So in no way do I mean this as a disrespectful analogy when I say LFTM-Oly reminded me of one of those plate-spinning acts. I felt it had so much going on--Chris doing the splits, Jayne running in the air, this stunt, another stunt--that the performance quality was one of trying to keep all the "plates spinning" rather than doing what they did in the OD, which was show their mastery of form, content, and execution with Chris's thorough choreographic understanding of the aesthetics of time, space, and energy. I felt LFTM-Euros was just shy of being as good as their rhumba and that with a couple of well-placed highlights added to it, LFTM-Oly would have been unbeatable. However, you clearly make a good case for your opinion, which I'm not trying to change, BTW. If I'm reading you correctly, you felt LFTM-Oly stood on its own merits as the (should have been) gold medal winner. Forgetting about LFTM-Euros as best I can, I don't think LFTM-Oly should have won the gold medal over G/P. And you could have knocked me over with a feather when I found myself agreeing with G/P winning the OGM. But that's aesthetics for ya.
Speaking of which, back in the '80s I served for three years on the Western States Arts Foundation Dance Grants committee, as well as a similar program for the state of Utah. The WSAF decided which dance companies would receive grants to tour to the western parts of the US. Your term was for three years on a committe of nine, with terms staggered so the committee was different every year. The most difficult thing was to learn how to quickly articulate why you thought a given company or performer should or should not receive funding. And I mean QUICKLY! We had one day to look at videos from about 50 companies so we literally had to set a timer. Fortunately some companies were either so bad or so good it was a one-minute unanimous agreement. But the rest--Oy! There was one very influential guy from New York who usually had at least one new "genius" choreographer he was promoting. The one that stands out was good enough--well-crafted dances, interesting point of view--but to everyone on the committee except this one guy, the choreography and performers were pretty blah and nothing special. This guy went nuts. He stomped around the room yelling, "CAN'T YOU SEE THE HUMANITY IN THIS WORK?! IT'S SO VIVID!"
Anyway (or anyroad), the point is I think it's very hard to find an agreed upon point of reference for dance, especially when styles start to mix. In ballet, you have a strict set of rules for the body, which dictate a lot of the choreography. But once you get into contemporary ballet or modern dance, or what we have in ice dancing, which I see as a mixture of ballet, modern, ballroom, broadway, and popular social dancing, what do you use as your standard of excellence? You can't even name a program like "Bolero" as the standard because the sport has changed so much since then. One of the reasons my head swims when I look at the COP for ice dancing is that more than any other discipline, an ice dancing program can be so much more (or less) than the sum of its technical elements and component scores. But no matter which team you felt should have won the ice dancing OGM in '94, we've still got history and despite G/P's two OGMs and four World golds, '94 and '98 marked the beginning and end of their career. Torvill and Dean toured the world with their own group, are known around the world, and Chris's choreography continues to be seen with SOI. Not only that, but Christopher Dean is held in the same esteem as a choreographer as every other top choreographer of the past 30 years--and Chris has decades of great choreography yet to create. I don't mean to sound all treacly like "See, T&D got the better prize in the end!" I know for you the better prize would have been the '94 OGM and everything else. Still, it is true. One hundred years from now, the figure skating cogniscenti will know the names Torvill & Dean and Christopher Dean for the many things they contributed to all disciplines of figure skating, not just dance, both as a team and individually via Chris's choreography. Grishuk & Platov will be on a list of ice dancers who have won two OGMs and four World golds. (Yeesh. I hope that didn't sound like some "chin up" talk your mom gives you when your softball team loses regionals, lol.)
SOOGAR,
I rewatched my tape of Nancy's '94 Olympic free skate. It definitely sounds like it was put together by the same guy who composed Nancy's SP music, which doesn't mean it might not include versions of Neil Diamond. On US TV, we only hear the commentators talking--Verne Lundquist and Scott Hamilton--who don't say anything about the music, and there's nothing about the music beneath Nancy's name. There could be Neil Diamond in it that I just don't recognize. However, I do remember thinking for both Nancy's short and long programs that the only music worse than this would be a bad medley of Broadway showtunes, which is exactly what Oksana skated to, lol. In any case, you and a couple of other people recognize Neil Diamond in that arrangement and since I don't recognize any of my Neil Diamond memories--no "Holly Holy," "Sweet Caroline," "America," "Cherry, Cherry," "Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show," not even any "Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon"--I'll take your word for it. (I couldn't find anything about Nancy's Olympic music with a Google search.) Also, the beginning and a section towards the middle sound different from the electronic-pop music of Nancy's composer friend, so it could be what you said, that Nancy's friend combined some Boston Pops' arrangement of Neil Diamond, some of his own arrangement of Neil, and some of his own composition.
And now that I've listened to Nancy Kerrigan's music twice in one day, I'm done.
Rgirl
PS Mathman--"Anyroad" goes to "Nevermind."
