Coaches' Corner | Page 8 | Golden Skate

Coaches' Corner

Song of the Witches:​

BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

(from Macbeth)

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good


There are no state sponsored skating schools in US, but the popular sports are trained and competed through the state-funded public school system. Schools are limited to the athletes who live within the district of their jurisdiction, but controversy erupts whenever records are falsified to enable the "poaching" of talent from outside the district. Additionally, while the athletes must maintain amateur status, expensive private schools stir the pot by providing very expensive scholarship opportunities to "lure" athletes away from their home district in order to burnish the reputation of the school by assembling powerhouse teams of athletes.

Olympic ideals of pure sport are simply that, ideals, as rare as a human being who has never once transgressed their own principles, avowed or ordained. The fire beneath the cauldron is almost always power; and the witches who stir it are money, fame and influence. (Though one could find humor in casting the three witches with Eteri and her sisters: just kidding, calm down.)

It is plain that the stormy weather snatching at umbrellas, scattering the patio furniture and breaking limbs from great trees throughout Russian Figure skating is, for this season at least, centered around the Ladies discipline, because the accomplishments of these ladies and the attention that they command is the powerhouse of the entire sport.

I find the caldron to be a particularly apt metaphor as it frames the question this way: If the fire is power; desires are the witches; the ingredients are the skating elements and the packaging; and the incantation summons a spell which will place an athlete(s) atop the podium; then, what is the caldron itself?

Is it too obvious? But it must be the National Federation. Some feds may be better or worse, but RusFed cannot be considered unique here, as USFSA, and many other national feds are frequently cited as more often troublesome than wholesome. Is it the first duty of a governing body to promote the general welfare? Perhaps, but we are not so naive as to overlook that the first step is always to consolidate and maintain the position of power.

The target of Rudkovskaya's ambition is not Eteri Georgievna, it is a battle with Gorshkov, in a war against Lakernik. RusFed recognizes that the battle between the established system and the upstart private business at Angels of Plyushenko has put at stake control of all of figure skating.

These IG flares, and media bombs are minor splashes over the rim of the caldron. Just wait until the caldron itself is overturned!
Thanks for this. Making figure skating commercial, with leagues, clubs and transfers is what Rudkovskaya and Zakaryan aspire. A league owned by them, with the best, most powerful, most winning skaters owned by them. A bit like Formula 1 and many commercial USA sports.

Plyushchenko is only a tool in Rudkovskaya's ambitions. He is the 'enabler' that connects money to skaters, given how he brags he knows and advises so many skaters from all over the world. There are still a couple of good ones with enough competitive potential left to pick up, Vanessa James perhaps?

A commercial league in adult skaters is probably commercially viable, feasible and financially rewarding in Russia alone, a RUS-JPN-CAN-USA league aka 4CC under ownership of Rudkovskaya/Zakaryan even too.

But exploiting children, no! Because how to acquire players anyway, without poaching them from the skate schools?

Akin to the commercial USA gym clubs, with girls' gymnastics one of the top sports, it takes a club like 15 years and 15000 kids' parents paying their monthly dues to raise one of these kids to the National Team.

Plyushchenko has these kind of ambitions? No, he might have Rudkovskaya's money and resources, but how about the long term stamina and stability required to equal somebody like Mary Lee Tracy in gymnastics?
 
Last edited:
Eteri also poaching them from the other schools it was not she who gave birth to them or raised them. She only accepts skilled skaters. I don't remember when Eteri mentioned the old coaches in her interviews. But maybe I'm wrong.
 
Eteri also poaching them from the other schools it was not she who gave birth to them or raised them. She only accepts skilled skaters. I don't remember when Eteri mentioned the old coaches in her interviews. But maybe I'm wrong.

Poaching means you go actively on a hunt for new students. She never did that. Parents were literally traveling through half of the country to approach her - see Zagitova's story. If she was poaching them, she wouldn't need the "test skates" she has been doing in order to see if they have the qualities she considers important. Lipnitskaya and Sachkanovich were her very own "products". Scherbakova and Medvedeva also. Don't forget that at the time after the Sochi Olympics and the following 2 striking seasons of Medvedeva, Tutberidze's success allured a lot of newcomers. I can understand some of your arguments pro/against whoever, but this is already on the border to losing any contact to reality....

And by the way, I will name you same examples - Tarakanova and Valieva. Both had great skating skills before entering the group, but troubles with jumps. Those were obviously improved only after entering team Tutberidze. To say that she has ready made skaters is silly.
 
Poaching means you go actively on a hunt for new students. She never did that. Parents were literally traveling through half of the country to approach her - see Zagitova's story. If she was poaching them, she wouldn't need the "test skates" she has been doing in order to see if they have the qualities she considers important. Lipnitskaya and Sachkanovich were her very own "products". Scherbakova and Medvedeva also. Don't forget that at the time after the Sochi Olympics and the following 2 striking seasons of Medvedeva, Tutberidze's success allured a lot of newcomers. I can understand some of your arguments pro/against whoever, but this is already on the border to losing any contact to reality....

And by the way, I will name you same examples - Tarakanova and Valieva. Both had great skating skills before entering the group, but troubles with jumps. Those were obviously improved only after entering team Tutberidze. To say that she has ready made skaters is silly.
Never?

From what Alena Kanysheva is saying, she was called there and not only once:

=============
Do you remember the first meeting?

-
The very first thing that Eteri Georgievna asked why I left. I answered her, but I will not take it out to the public. I have been long called to Eteri Georgievna. I refused, and now I think it's in vain.

- It turns out that they not only come to Tutberidze themselves, but she also invites to the group?

- Yes, it is. I was offered, they said that Eteri Georgievna would be very glad to see me in her group.

=============


https://sport.business-gazeta.ru/article/243019?utm_source=read_also
 
Never?

From what Alena Kanysheva is saying, she was called there and not only once:

=============
Do you remember the first meeting?

- The very first thing that Eteri Georgievna asked why I left. I answered her, but I will not take it out to the public. I have been long called to Eteri Georgievna. I refused, and now I think it's in vain.

- It turns out that they not only come to Tutberidze themselves, but she also invites to the group?

- Yes, it is. I was offered, they said that Eteri Georgievna would be very glad to see me in her group.
=============


https://sport.business-gazeta.ru/article/243019?utm_source=read_also
And who is they?
But at the end Kanysheva left her group and applied to TT?
 
I still don't see what Plushy is doing as particularly wrong. As we've seen Alina was asked if she wanted to join the Academy and said no. You don't have to join the Academy if you don't want to, it's not like hired goons are going to jump a skater in the parking lot, kidnap them and force them to join.

Sasha mentioned that she wanted to work with Plushy, what's wrong with that? She thanked Eteri and her team for all their work, she didn't suggest there was anything wrong with Crystal. She wants to try something new, are people saying that she should have to stay somewhere she doesn't want to be or quit skating just so Eteri doesn't get her feelings hurt?

If Kamila announced tomorrow that she wanted to train with Sergei Davydov would you suggest there must be some sort of evil machinations going on?
 
Poaching means you go actively on a hunt for new students. She never did that. Parents were literally traveling through half of the country to approach her - see Zagitova's story. If she was poaching them, she wouldn't need the "test skates" she has been doing in order to see if they have the qualities she considers important. Lipnitskaya and Sachkanovich were her very own "products". Scherbakova and Medvedeva also. Don't forget that at the time after the Sochi Olympics and the following 2 striking seasons of Medvedeva, Tutberidze's success allured a lot of newcomers. I can understand some of your arguments pro/against whoever, but this is already on the border to losing any contact to reality....

And by the way, I will name you same examples - Tarakanova and Valieva. Both had great skating skills before entering the group, but troubles with jumps. Those were obviously improved only after entering team Tutberidze. To say that she has ready made skaters is silly.
I don't say she received ready made skaters. I said she received skaters from the other coaches who gave them very good bases. When did she thank to them? She enjoys the celebrating!
And she kicked out who wasn't succesful or wasn't good enough. Or they came from her because they felt she were not working enough with them. Or they didn’t want to be humiliated and they don't want to listen their swearing, shouting.
And you don't forget her "corpses"... Pitkeev, Shelepen, Tsurskaya, Kanysheva,Voronov, plus Tursynbaeva who had to have a long time injury..
 
Last edited:
*cough* Someone hasn’t read Harry Potter *cough*
Well, if you want to go there. Spoiler, I guess, in case someone hasn‘t read it yet:

Snape was a hero but he was also, hm, not exactly a nice person. He bullied literal kids for the sole reason that they reminded him of the guy he thought stole his Eternal Crush (Harry) or for no reason at all. (Neville) And he bullied them to such a degree that the greatest fear of a thirteen year old living with his grandmother because his parents were tortured into insanity, was his teacher. I‘m fairly confident that this particular scene was played for laughs mostly but if you look into it, it‘s pretty darn dark.
So, sure, he saved them all in the end but does that excuse his past actions? That‘s debatable and it‘s what makes him such a great character.

And this was the whole point of his arc as well, wasn‘t it? That you can be a good person and do bad things but that you can also be a bad person and do good things.

So, if you‘re telling me Eteri is like Snape because she saved Ladies Figure Skating (by revolutionizing it or whatever) but also hurt tons of children in the process, then yes, I would agree with you. I just think that this might not be what you intended.

Sorry for the nerd moments and off-topic to past topic. I just saw this post and couldn‘t help myself. :laugh:
 
Well, if you want to go there. Spoiler, I guess, in case someone hasn‘t read it yet:

Snape was a hero but he was also, hm, not exactly a nice person. He bullied literal kids for the sole reason that they reminded him of the guy he thought stole his Eternal Crush (Harry) or for no reason at all. (Neville) And he bullied them to such a degree that the greatest fear of a thirteen year old living with his grandmother because his parents were tortured into insanity, was his teacher. I‘m fairly confident that this particular scene was played for laughs mostly but if you look into it, it‘s pretty darn dark.
So, sure, he saved them all in the end but does that excuse his past actions? That‘s debatable and it‘s what makes him such a great character.

And this was the whole point of his arc as well, wasn‘t it? That you can be a good person and do bad things but that you can also be a bad person and do good things.

So, if you‘re telling me Eteri is like Snape because she saved Ladies Figure Skating (by revolutionizing it or whatever) but also hurt tons of children in the process, then yes, I would agree with you. I just think that this might not be what you intended.

Sorry for the nerd moments and off-topic to past topic. I just saw this post and couldn‘t help myself. :laugh:
I’m not telling anyone she’s a Snape. I’m just commenting that Snape was actually a good guy in the story.
God, his bullying consisted of not giving Griffindor best scores, gee, so mean.
Meanwhile even in the first book we find out he was trying to save Harry from spells of Squirrel during that quidditch match.
But calling your kid after a “bully” is def a sign that an abused baby Harry just did it cause he’s so abused. Come on. He wasn’t meant to be a one dimensional character. If he was nice teacher in class AND literally the savior of those kids, it would be plain stupid.

I disagree that that’s what Rowling was trying to say.
The moral of the story is that truly mean people often can present as very nice on the exterior, like Squirrel, Lockhart, those kinds of examples were there to show early on this juxtaposition. And truly good people can often seem as “bad” until we know them better.
 
The moral of the story is that truly mean people often can present as very nice on the exterior, like Squirrel, Lockhart, those kinds of examples were there to show early on this juxtaposition. And truly good people can often seem as “bad” until we know them better.
Well. On this note, the movie did an amazing job with Umbridge's casting. She went from someone described as incredibly ugly in the books, to someone who looked like a sweet, old aunt in the movies. The juxtaposition was much more effective.

(I have nothing to add to the Harry Potter discussion that people somehow think of as masterpieces, nor about coaching. Just thought I would throw this in! I think the movies were better than the books).
 
I’m not telling anyone she’s a Snape. I’m just commenting that Snape was actually a good guy in the story.
God, his bullying consisted of not giving Griffindor best scores, gee, so mean.
Meanwhile even in the first book we find out he was trying to save Harry from spells of Squirrel during that quidditch match.
But calling your kid after a “bully” is def a sign that an abused baby Harry just did it cause he’s so abused. Come on. He wasn’t meant to be a one dimensional character. If he was nice teacher in class AND literally the savior of those kids, it would be plain stupid.

I disagree that that’s what Rowling was trying to say.
The moral of the story is that truly mean people often can present as very nice on the exterior, like Squirrel, Lockhart, those kinds of examples were there to show early on this juxtaposition. And truly good people can often seem as “bad” until we know them better.

I like Squirrel :laugh:

Also, no offence but I have no idea why you‘re getting so worked up about this?

I agree with you about the message you read into the books. But then my question is - why can‘t there be two messages at the same time? One doesn‘t exclude the other.

Snape seemed like a “bad guy” at first because he behaved like one. And I disagree he was just taking points off the Gryffindors. That‘s favoritism (which is what Dumbledore was all about, just that he did it to the proclaimed “bad guys“ in the story so no one cared) but not bullying and it‘s not what I meant. What do you call threatening to poison your student‘s pet, if not bullying? Just as an example.

In the end we find out he was a hero and, like you called it one of the “good guys“. But that doesn‘t erase the things he did before. I don‘t know why you think I want him to be ”one dimensional“. I don‘t. I like his character the way it is. I just think solely calling him a “hero“ and a “good guy“ doesn‘t do him justice. He is more morally grey than that. And honestly, by downplaying his behavior in class, I think it might be you who‘d want him to be more “one dimensional“?

And as for “naming your kid after him“. Well, first one should have a discussion about the epilogue which in itself was... problematic. And then I will say: Good for Harry for focusing on the heroic things Snape did. I mean, the guy literally saved his life, to know something like this, does a lot to a person! I‘m just not sure if, let’s say, Neville, who didn’t have such a personal connection, would have done something similar.

I didn‘t know if a follow up to my original post would be acceptable but given that someone posted a wall of a text on Faust above (haven‘t read it yet), made me think it was. I like this thread even if I blame it for now having “Eteri=Snape of figure skating" stuck in my head forever.:biggrin:

I have nothing to add to the Harry Potter discussion that people somehow think of as masterpieces

Why do you have to think of something as a masterpiece to discuss it?

Also, for whatever it’s worth, with Rowling‘s recent “actions“ one should probably read through her works again and conclude that they are everything but masterpieces. There’s a reason they’re so successful, of course, but her prejudices can still be found on virtually every page, not to mention that her writing isn‘t exactly as great as could be. (those adverbs are killing me lol) Many famous and popular books and authors are “problematic“ though. Rowling is no exception to that.
 
I like Squirrel :laugh:

Also, no offence but I have no idea why you‘re getting so worked up about this?

I agree with you about the message you read into the books. But then my question is - why can‘t there be two messages at the same time? One doesn‘t exclude the other.

Snape seemed like a “bad guy” at first because he behaved like one. And I disagree he was just taking points off the Gryffindors. That‘s favoritism (which is what Dumbledore was all about, just that he did it to the proclaimed “bad guys“ in the story so no one cared) but not bullying and it‘s not what I meant. What do you call threatening to poison your student‘s pet, if not bullying? Just as an example.

In the end we find out he was a hero and, like you called it one of the “good guys“. But that doesn‘t erase the things he did before. I don‘t know why you think I want him to be ”one dimensional“. I don‘t. I like his character the way it is. I just think solely calling him a “hero“ and a “good guy“ doesn‘t do him justice. He is more morally grey than that. And honestly, by downplaying his behavior in class, I think it might be you who‘d want him to be more “one dimensional“?

And as for “naming your kid after him“. Well, first one should have a discussion about the epilogue which in itself was... problematic. And then I will say: Good for Harry for focusing on the heroic things Snape did. I mean, the guy literally saved his life, to know something like this, does a lot to a person! I‘m just not sure if, let’s say, Neville, who didn’t have such a personal connection, would have done something similar.

I didn‘t know if a follow up to my original post would be acceptable but given that someone posted a wall of a text on Faust above (haven‘t read it yet), made me think it was. I like this thread even if I blame it for now having “Eteri=Snape of figure skating" stuck in my head forever.:biggrin:



Why do you have to think of something as a masterpiece to discuss it?

Also, for whatever it’s worth, with Rowling‘s recent “actions“ one should probably read through her works again and conclude that they are everything but masterpieces. There’s a reason they’re so successful, of course, but her prejudices can still be found on virtually every page, not to mention that her writing isn‘t exactly as great as could be. (those adverbs are killing me lol) Many famous and popular books and authors are “problematic“ though. Rowling is no exception to that.
I am not worked up, tf? You wrote an entire mini-novel to me writing 4 words, so I felt like I had to reply.
It’s not “downplaying”, it’s taking it for what it is. Try reading it again, I say one dimensional would be having him as a nice “ sunshine and rainbows” teacher and a hero. That’s not what happened. He has flaws, but it’s not “bullying”. This whole discussion is irrelevant anyways. You may think of Snape whatever you want for all I care 😂
 
Why do you have to think of something as a masterpiece to discuss it?
It wasn't directed at this thread. HP mania is tiresome for me, including the current trend.

In general, I don't spend all my time analysing things I think are shallow, because I think there are deeper things out there, which would require more of my time. For HP, been there, done that, that's 5 years of my time I'm never getting back. :) You don't have to follow that rule.
 
even without names, poaching is there...
I still don‘t get what the big deal is overall. So what if Plushenko offered Aliona and Sasha to join him? So what if Eteri asked Kanysheva? They‘re promoting their schools/academies and if they believe they have the best possible conditions for an athlete, why not tell them as such? No one‘s forced to join. I might be missing something but this whole poaching business confuses me. The athletes will make their decisions independently anyway, no matter what they‘re offered. If you‘re happy with your coaches and think they can lead you to victories, you won‘t leave. So...obviously this wasn‘t the case for Sasha and Aliona (or Kanysheva). It‘s not like either Eteri or Plushenko “stole“ them. They made an offer that was accepted. Simple as that. Happens all the time, everywhere.
 
Is Plyushchenko interested in furthering Medvyedeva's career, or is she considered a wreck by him?

If he has so many contacts the world over, including presuming Shae-Lynn Bourne is his friend, no doubt some lure must have been thrown at Medvyedeva?
 
Back
Top