In other worlds, 94 pairs event would have been just like 98 pairs event.BronzeisGolden said:Also, the pairs event would not have been very exciting without them. B&E would have gotten Gold, and Shiskova & Naumov the Silver (UGHH!!)....and overall, it would have been a pretty boring event.
I think the most important thing driving this is if the pros actually want to reinstate. Back in 94 they did, but since the majority of them were unsucessful (Zayak, Boitano, Patrenko, T&D, Midori , Josee vs. G&G and M&D) probably most pro skaters don't want to reinlist. Even people who take a "break" like Eldridge and MK are cautionary tales.Ptichka said:I don't think there is a need to do it again, since today's "eligible" athletes can pretty much do what they want.
To me, the big question is who can provide the best performance. Shishkova & Naumov came 4th; none of the other teams could have done nearly as well as G&G and M&D did. I am a supporter of "market place economics"-skating equivalent. Meaning if you can deliver, you should be able to compete as much as possible. Also, would it have been all right for M&D to compete had they not announced they were going pro after 92? Or should we just force everyone to retire after winning Olympic gold?
The only reason I understand against letting pros in is the name-recognition factor. Hopefully, that will diminish with CoP.
Well, I don't remember what happened at 94 worlds, but S&N winning over defending champs B&E supports the coach's argument.Ptichka said:I never liked Shishkova & Naumov. To me, they were very similar to today's Petrova & Tikhonov. Brasseur & Eisler, OTOH, while I never really liked them, at least have character. BTW, I recall an interview with S&N's coach Velikova -- she absolutely 100% believes that S&N were robbed at the Olympics, and that the ONLY reason they did not medal was because politically nobody wanted a Russian sweep. Go figure!
But I do agree with your point on pros not being interested in coming back today. In fact, when you say "vs. G&G and M&D" -- I would only list G&G, since I don't think M&D would have gone pro in 1992 had it not been known that pros will get reinstated in '94.
BTW, I've just had another idea. '94 Olympics came only two years afte '92. Could it be that pros were re-instated to ensure better viewership? After all, all of US watching FS because of Tonya/ Nancy thing couldn't exactly be predicted.
Joesitz said:Of course they should have been reinstated.
Do not the eligibles make money? Yes! So the difference is not money.
They started allowing endorsement money in 93, Nancy had a Seiko contract, a Rebok, a Revlon and a big one with Disney while still eligable.RealtorGal said:Being a "pro" in '94 was different from being a "pro" today, isn't it?
I don't understand.Ladskater said:I am from the old school of figure skating and feel once skaters have entered the pro ranks then that is where they should stay; no going back to their amateur status. It's not fair to the new crop of skaters and those who have "hung in there" waiting for their turn. So in answer to your question "no, the pros should not have been reinstated in 1994.
berthes ghost said:I don't understand.
In "the old school of figure skating" Sonja Henie reighned for 10 straight years and no one could beat her. Do you really feel that she should have stepped down after St. Moritz and given the titles to Burger and Colledge? Sonja certainly kept many a skater from getting "her turn" atop the podium.
How is M&D turning pro for one year any different than R&Z taking one year off to have a baby?
Patrenko and Browning were neck and neck rivals for years. Was it ok for Kurt to deny those "waiting their turn" in 93 just because Viktor won an Oy medal and Kurt didn't in Albertville?
Was it Ok for Todd to comeback in 2001, just becasue he didn't become what "the old school of figure skating" called a pro? He didn't skate in eligable comps and he made a lot of money from skating.