Top 10 "wuz robbed!" | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Top 10 "wuz robbed!"

icenut84

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
JonnyCoop said:
Brasseur & Eisler, Shishkova & Naumov, Eltsova & Bushkov, Meno & Sand, Kovarikova & Novotny, Rahkamo & Kokko, Lillehammer. Who CARES how many years (especially in the case of R/K) you've been putting the time in and working your way up to get your way into Olympic medal contention? Let's bring the pros back and place them ahead of you. You want an Olympic medal, surely you can wait around another 4 years..... :sheesh: :sheesh: :mad:

Rahkamo & Kokko didn't deserve an Olympic medal. Even though T&D came back and were placed ahead of them, R&K were actually a little lucky to stay ahead of Moniotte & Lavanchy, as they had a fall in their FD. (And I really like R&K, especially that La Strada free dance.) Yes, I know the situation might have been different (mindset etc) if T&D hadn't been there, but we'll never know that. You just make it sound like the pros came back and were just placed ahead without deserving to - which wasn't the case for any of the returning pros at all, IIRC. T&D were not held up - many thought they were held down. G&G and M&D were the two best pairs in the comp, and came top 2 deservedly. Kat Witt wasn't held up at all, and neither were the men who made mistakes in the short - and they weren't held up in the free either, although they all skated much better than they had done in the SP.

Punsalan & Swallow, 92 Nationals. I thought the unwritten rule was supposed to be, you send the best team possible to the Olympics, so therefore manipulating results at Olympic year Nationals is permissible to get the best team. So why didn't they hold up Punsalan & Swallow in 92? Defending National champs, an impressive 11th in their first Worlds, and yes they made a mistake in their free dance but SO WHAT? Mistakes have never been overlooked before? And they send Mayer & Breen instead?? What a waste of an Olympic berth. And to make things worse, this set a trend for leaving Punsalan & Swallow, arguably our best dance couple, at home for several seasons so once they finally got to go to Worlds again, they pretty much had to start moving through the ranks all over again. I've always felt that if they'd been sent to Albertville, their career would have turned out much differently.

So it's ok to hold up your favourite skaters if they make a mistake? The rules are that the best skater should win the national comp, and the national champion should go to the olympics, or whatever. Obviously it's very hard luck if someone loses their place because they amde mistakes at the crucial moment, but that's sport. While the country obviously wants the best team for the Olympics, if they make the rule that the national champion gets the place, then the national competition should be fair. If the skater/team perceived to be the best isn't the best on the night, then they shouldn't just be held up. It's unfair on everybody, and means the competition will be largely predetermined.
 

JonnyCoop

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
icenut84 said:
Rahkamo & Kokko didn't deserve an Olympic medal. Even though T&D came back and were placed ahead of them, R&K were actually a little lucky to stay ahead of Moniotte & Lavanchy, as they had a fall in their FD. (And I really like R&K, especially that La Strada free dance.) Yes, I know the situation might have been different (mindset etc) if T&D hadn't been there, but we'll never know that. You just make it sound like the pros came back and were just placed ahead without deserving to - which wasn't the case for any of the returning pros at all, IIRC. T&D were not held up - many thought they were held down. G&G and M&D were the two best pairs in the comp, and came top 2 deservedly. Kat Witt wasn't held up at all, and neither were the men who made mistakes in the short - and they weren't held up in the free either, although they all skated much better than they had done in the SP.

I agree that Moniotte & Lavanchy could have beaten Rahkamo/Kokko. However, the point I was trying to make is this: I did not feel that bringing the pros back into it was fair to the competitors who had been working their way through the ranks in the years since the pros went pro. Skating not being a sport wherein you win based on your time (as in track & field), but being a sport wherein OTHER PEOPLE DECIDE WHO FINISHES WHERE, it's a pretty dicey proposition to bring back skaters with stellar records and marvelous reputations because judging could WELL be based on reputation, and skating history has cases of this over and over again. In hindsight -- no, no-one was held up. But the fact of the matter is, they could have been. So therefore I always felt that bringing the pros back had the potential for trouble. Even beyond that, I have a problem with skaters who have already had their share of Olympic glory sitting out the eligible scene for 2-10 years and then coming back and at the very least reducing the chances of skaters who haven't had any yet.



So it's ok to hold up your favourite skaters if they make a mistake? The rules are that the best skater should win the national comp, and the national champion should go to the olympics, or whatever. Obviously it's very hard luck if someone loses their place because they amde mistakes at the crucial moment, but that's sport. While the country obviously wants the best team for the Olympics, if they make the rule that the national champion gets the place, then the national competition should be fair. If the skater/team perceived to be the best isn't the best on the night, then they shouldn't just be held up. It's unfair on everybody, and means the competition will be largely predetermined.

I agree that the best skaters should win the Nationals. In Britian, perhaps they always do. But the fact of the matter is, at least in the US, that the unwritten rule, as I mentioned in the original post, is that in an Olympic year, you send the best team possible. Now, if someone's doing a Zamboni impersonation and they get on the team, that's one thing. But one fall? (Look how many times Gritshuk & Platov fell and got held up). To put it another way -- at least there should be some consistency. Either hold people up in an Olympic year, or don't. But don't do it sometimes and other times not. (See Eldredge vs. Weiss in 98 Nationals entry) If there is a history of holding people up in Olympic years at US Nationals (and there IS), then why didn't Punsalan & Swallow get held up?? If no holding up ever took place, then I'd say fine, they didn't make the team. But since it does take place, then I'm saying they got ripped off because the "unwritten rule" was not applied consistently.
 
S

SkateFan4Life

Guest
1. Kerrigan in Lillehammar
No way. Kerrigan skated with a stiff, almost arrogant demeanor, and she doubled her first planned triple jump. Her artistry was manufactured, and it did not come from her heart. I give Kerrigan all the credit in the world for overcoming the horrendous knee clubbing, and she skated two strong programs
at the Olympics, but she fairly and squarely won silver, not gold. Oksana Baiul skated her heart and soul out at Lillehammar, and that made the difference.

2. Fratianne in Lake Placid
Oh, boy, here we go again. Annet Poetszch won fairly and squarely, according to the rules of the day. School figures counted for 30 percent of the total score, with 20 percent to the short program and 50 percent to the long program. Annet was an outstanding school figures skater, and Fratianne always buried herself with her relatively weak school figures and had to play catch up. Annet's short and long programs at Lake Placid were uninspiring, but they did the job.
Had Fratianne skated with more fire in the long program, she might have won.
She also skated before Poetszch, so the judges had to hold back on the marks.
Still, I'm not about to second guess the judges on this competition.

3. Hoffman in Lake Placid
The judges properly placed Robin Cousins first and Hoffman second. Hoffman's artistry was, well, pretty non-existent. I remember reading an article on the men's Lake Placid competition that compared Hoffman as an "expertly rotating wooden tree". Yes, he was a strong jumper, and he had better school figures than Cousins, but Cousin's was a marvelously artistic skater and a strong jumper as well. Cousins won the gold fairly and squarely.

4. Torvil&Dean in Lillehammar
Sorry, folks. T&D rolled out a "retrospective long program" that was more or less their "greatest hits" from past programs. It was a program they had just rechoreographed and were trying to refine. It was a good, solid program, but it wasn't up the level of "Bolero", "Barnum", "Mack and Mabel", or any of their other previous championship programs. They deserved to be on the podium, but not in first place. Perhaps second, but not first.

5. Blumburg &Seibert in Sarajevo
Yes, they were robbed, bigtime!!! Blumberg & Siebert should have won the bronze medal. Some of the judges scored them low due to their choice of music - a piece of music was absolutely WAS suited to figure skating. This was an injustice, which, quite frankly, should have had the USFSA screaming at the top of their lungs.

6. Sumners in Sarajevo
No - Katarina Witt won fairly and squarely. Sumners won the school figures, then finished a dismal fifth in the short and second in the long. Witt was third in figures, and she won both short and long programs. Had Sumners skated ALL of her triples in her long program, she would have won a narrow victory over Witt. As it was, the margin was 5-4 for Witt. Sumners gave that title away.
She was not robbed.

All of this IMHO, of course.
 

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Germanice said:
Thanx, Bronxe! Somehow I've managed not to notice this particular link. :)
---

Well, I began to read the thread mentioned above, but being a "classical European" in sooo many ways (prefering Urmanov over Stojko anytime!) ;) , I just stopped at a certain point and rolled my eyes, because to me it seemed to turn out into another "duuh-poor-Northamerican-skater-X-wuz-robbed-by-dull-Russian/Soviet-skater-Y-only-because-of-eville-eastern-bloc-judging!"-issue! ;)

Sorry, but after reading fs message boards for so many years one sometimes gets the impression that almost only Northamericans (especially US-Americans!) do have the unique privilege of being robbed over and over again! :laugh:

Anke

Anke,

JMO but I think that North American audiences are more accepting of the classical European style than than European audience is of appreciating the North American style.

Piel
 

PrincessLeppard

~ Evgeni's Sex Bomb ~
Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Piel, I think that's an interesting point. I seriously prefer the European style, with more drama and a bit softer. It's not in your face masculine. The North American men I like seem to follow the European style....Jeff B, Johnny W and Matt Savoie. While I appreciate Elvis' style, and even like several of his programs, I will never like them enough to think he should've beaten Urmanov. :D

But as to why European viewers don't necessarily like the North American way, I think it's just a very aggressive way of skating, and that's not what Europeans look for. But I'm tired and babbling, so disregard all this if you want.

Laura :)
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Germanice said:
Btw., I always wonder where all this "Elvis-should've-won-in-Lillehammer"-stuff comes from. This is just another legend! In fact it wasn't even close, only one judge gave a 1st place to Stojko, two went for Petrenko and six (including the CANADIAN! one!) for Urmanov.

Anke

Does it really matter whether or not it was close between the judges? Look at 1994 M/D vs. G/G debate. That is one of the most heated and debated decisions among skating fans, and it wasn't even close according to the judges...8 in favor of G/G and 1 in favor of M/D. That doesn't stop people from saying M/D was robbed, and it shouldn't if that's their opinion.
 

icenut84

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
SkateFan4Life said:
4. Torvil&Dean in Lillehammar
Sorry, folks. T&D rolled out a "retrospective long program" that was more or less their "greatest hits" from past programs. It was a program they had just rechoreographed and were trying to refine. It was a good, solid program, but it wasn't up the level of "Bolero", "Barnum", "Mack and Mabel", or any of their other previous championship programs. They deserved to be on the podium, but not in first place. Perhaps second, but not first.

When judging a competition, a skater or team is supposed to be compared to the performances of their rivals, not to their own performances in the past. If someone doesn't think Face The Music is as strong a programme as Mack & Mabel, Barnum or Bolero, that's fair enough. However, that should not be taken into account when deciding a placement in a particular competition. I believe T&D should have placed first in 1994 because I think their programme is better than either G&P's or U&Z's, that it's stronger and more difficult, and because they had the best performance on the night, among other reasons. Not because they won the Olympics with Bolero 10 years before, which should be irrelevant if you're judging a competition fairly. JMO.

It's similar to, say, Michelle Kwan in the 03 Worlds. IMO, Aranjuez isn't anywhere near as strong a programme as the likes of Salome, but when judging, that fact should be irrelevant, and Michelle won because she was better than Sokolova on the night.
 
Last edited:
S

SkateFan4Life

Guest
icenut84 said:
When judging a competition, a skater or team is supposed to be compared to the performances of their rivals, not to their own performances in the past. If someone doesn't think Face The Music is as strong a programme as Mack & Mabel, Barnum or Bolero, that's fair enough. However, that should not be taken into account when deciding a placement in a particular competition. I believe T&D should have placed first in 1994 because I think their programme is better than either G&P's or U&Z's, that it's stronger and more difficult, and because they had the best performance on the night, among other reasons. Not because they won the Olympics with Bolero 10 years before, which should be irrelevant if you're judging a competition fairly. JMO.

Ah, but that does not erase the fact that Torvill and Dean's 1994 Olympic free skate was filled with moved from their past programs. As I said, it was a well skated retrospective of their past championship programs. They skated a similar "flashback" long program at Europeans and won, narrowly; however, they received a lot of criticism for the "staleness" of the program, and they went back to the drawing board and rechoregraphed the program six weeks before the Olympics. Talk about pressure. As I wrote, they certainly skated well, but they did not have the fire or the speed of the other top two teams. I know that a lot of their fans were outraged at the decision, but I stand my my opinion.
 

tdnuva

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
SkateFan4Life said:
Ah, but that does not erase the fact that Torvill and Dean's 1994 Olympic free skate was filled with moved from their past programs. As I said, it was a well skated retrospective of their past championship programs.

Every time I read this argument I could cry. Come on - for every skater / pair / dance couple who repeats a certain move (do I have to mention a certain spiral by a certain female skater??) several people talk about "signature moves" and go WOW. If T&D choose to do it - it's a bad bad thing.

SkateFan4Life said:
They skated a similar "flashback" long program at Europeans and won, narrowly; however, they received a lot of criticism for the "staleness" of the program, and they went back to the drawing board and rechoregraphed the program six weeks before the Olympics. Talk about pressure.

Pressure yes. Does pressure mean the judges have to mark them down? If at all this would be taken into account, common sense would say - such a performance under pressure might be appreciated by the audience. Concerning the judges I would say, this should have no influence at all to the marks.

SkateFan4Life said:
As I wrote, they certainly skated well, but they did not have the fire or the speed of the other top two teams. I know that a lot of their fans were outraged at the decision, but I stand my my opinion.

So - this is the one point in your list which is completely subjective - for me (!) they had the fire. Much more than U&Z definitely. G&P were skating too frantically for me - as they did most of the time. As I said - subjective thing which would come into account in the second mark for a judge. And T&D lost on the TECH mark, not in the presentation iirc. Seems the judges hat not that much problem with T&D's enthusiasm or lack thereof.......
 
Last edited:

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Are fire , passion, heart, desire, whatever you call it supposed to make up for, flutzing, underrotated jumps, and other technical mistakes?
 

berthes ghost

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Piel said:
Are fire , passion, heart, desire, whatever you call it supposed to make up for, flutzing, underrotated jumps, and other technical mistakes?
Don't you understand?

"Kerrigan skated with a stiff, almost arrogant demeanor, and she doubled her first planned triple jump. Her artistry was manufactured, and it did not come from her heart.....Oksana Baiul skated her heart and soul out at Lillehammar, and that made the difference.....Annet's short and long programs at Lake Placid were uninspiring, but they did the job....Had Fratianne skated with more fire in the long program, she might have won.....Hoffman's artistry was, well, pretty non-existent. ...Cousin's was a marvelously artistic skater ...Had Sumners skated ALL of her triples in her long program, she would have won a narrow victory over Witt. Sumners gave that title away."

It clearly states in the rule book:

section 134.69 "If you skate your heart out, you deserve to win, unless you have no artestry to speak of, than the more artistic skater should win, unless, you give two uninspiring programs, than you win fair and square and the silver medalsit should have just skated with more fire.

section 165.33 "If the skater doubles a planned triple, she should not win if she is from the US or you just don't like her. If the skater is an orphan from the former USSR, than doubled jumps should get top technical marks."

section 123.45 "If one skater performes a difficult program with difficult triple jumps, than he/she should lose to a more artistic skater with far less technical difficulty, unless the skater skates a less difficult program but lands 3 simple triples to the more artistic skater's 2 triples of the same difficulty, than whatever we just said doesn't apply, and the more srtistic skater just gave the title away. "
 

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
So those are the rules these decisions were made on! Now I know :D .
 
S

SkateFan4Life

Guest
berthes ghost said:
It clearly states in the rule book:

section 134.69 "If you skate your heart out, you deserve to win, unless you have no artestry to speak of, than the more artistic skater should win, unless, you give two uninspiring programs, than you win fair and square and the silver medalsit should have just skated with more fire.

section 165.33 "If the skater doubles a planned triple, she should not win if she is from the US or you just don't like her. If the skater is an orphan from the former USSR, than doubled jumps should get top technical marks."

section 123.45 "If one skater performes a difficult program with difficult triple jumps, than he/she should lose to a more artistic skater with far less technical difficulty, unless the skater skates a less difficult program but lands 3 simple triples to the more artistic skater's 2 triples of the same difficulty, than whatever we just said doesn't apply, and the more srtistic skater just gave the title away. "

You are kidding, aren't you? If you aren't, then you are being sarcastic, which seems to follow the general theme of your posts.
 
Top