You just answered your own question.
Free Dance
- Thread starter blue_idealist
- Start date
You just answered your own question.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
Nope. He didn't. The question then is : Why should D&W choose to skate a 3rd event, in which they meet V&M when if they wanted to do 3 events, they could choose to meet the third place team instead?
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
Are top athletes really such wimps that they don't want to face their main rivals?
Back in those 2000-2002 seasons, the skaters also could sign up for 3 events. I remember the russian archrivals kept going to events where the other wasn't (Yagudin and Plushenko, Slutskaya and Butyrskaya). They kept avoiding each other, until their Nationals. It is strategy, I would not consider them wimp
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
Well, phooey. No wonder people don't consider this a sport.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
USFS should invite Virtue and Moir to Skate America.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
When it comes down to it, the place for great rivals to meet is at great events--Worlds, Olympics, even 4CC's and the GPF. And what those rivals don't need to be doing is putting themselves at a disadvantage when they go to the big events.
These days, it is explicit in the start order: the team with the most points starts last, which is an advantage.
Why should either team give that away without there being something in it for them.
If SC wants to attract D&W, they should consider having them as guest artists at the Gala and offer to donate the gate, or a portion of the gate, to some charity favored by D&W.
U Michigan
Or USFS
Something like that
These days, it is explicit in the start order: the team with the most points starts last, which is an advantage.
Why should either team give that away without there being something in it for them.
If SC wants to attract D&W, they should consider having them as guest artists at the Gala and offer to donate the gate, or a portion of the gate, to some charity favored by D&W.
U Michigan
Or USFS
Something like that
Traditionally, D/W compete at Skate America and V/M at Skate Canada. I doubt either one would want to do two competitions in a row. V/M have usually chosen SC and the last GP, but this year, D/W had first choice and chose CoR, so V/M took TEB.
Obviously, both teams see the wisdom in competing early, getting feedback, then having several weeks to work on the areas that could be improved.
I doubt that either team would want to do three events anyway.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
I understand the logic, but my point is, why would they consider a matchup a giveaway, rather than "my chance to crush my rivals"? The answer will probably concern points again, but my question is about the athletes' mindset, not to mention that of the fans.
Imagine the Yankees and Red Sox. "Well, it would be nice to go up against them, but one of us might lose, so guess we'll have to nix that."
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I thought is part of the choreography:think:
me too?!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
If the Red Sox and the Yankees could do anything to skew the season so that they could end up with home field advantage when it came time for the World Series, do you think they would not take it? Their owners might conceivably make it all about the money, and schedule the extra series to feather their pockets, and the team would go along because of contractual issues, but when push comes to shove, the big deal each year is Who Won the World Series or The American League East or the American League Championship. Who got the Series Ring, the bonus prizes and endorsements for winning the Series, even who got the parade, carrying a broom and dressed in a kilt and got to dance an Irish jig to Tessie?
That sort of stuff.
For Meryl & Charlie, there is the negative effect to their college of screwing up the schedule in successive weeks. The negative of having no chance to rearrange programs to respond to judges input. The loss of an extra week's training. An extra week of wear on expensive costumes.
And what would they gain by this?
Crush their rivals? And I assume their rivals are supposed to remain crushed?
Just because one or the other team won Skate Canada? When the same rivals didn't feel crushed when they were beaten at Worlds?
This reminds me of Monty Python and The Holy Grail
2 Groups of people who think that they make sense, but who think each other are insane:
That sort of stuff.
For Meryl & Charlie, there is the negative effect to their college of screwing up the schedule in successive weeks. The negative of having no chance to rearrange programs to respond to judges input. The loss of an extra week's training. An extra week of wear on expensive costumes.
And what would they gain by this?
Crush their rivals? And I assume their rivals are supposed to remain crushed?
Just because one or the other team won Skate Canada? When the same rivals didn't feel crushed when they were beaten at Worlds?
This reminds me of Monty Python and The Holy Grail
2 Groups of people who think that they make sense, but who think each other are insane:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Country
-
Winter sports have always been more popular in Canada than the US. Summer sports have a more popular pasttime in the States.
I understand the skating rationale for not wishing to meet head to head until late in the season, I just don't agree with it.
I'm not saying D/W should compete in SC next year, in part because of its proximity to SA (although that was Kwan's and even Hughes's schedule during a least a few seasons) and in part because of their school schedule. However I disagree with some of the other reasons being put forward.
Until the last ten years, the men's tennis tour was not set up as it is now with their mandatory Masters 1000 tournaments (Nine events throughout the year which require all the top players to play; absences or withdrawals incur a heavy fine). These events are the equivalent of the GP in skating. So today, the top men are virtually guaranteed to play each other multiple times during the year outside the Grand Slams. Whereas in the 80s and 90s such mandatory events did not exist and the top players met less often. That explains how Djokovic and Nadal have already played more often (29 matches) then McEnroe and Borg (16 matches) in about the same period of time (5 years) and nearly as much as Sampras and Agassi (34 matches) in less than half the time (14 years). Most of Novak and Rafa's matches have happened in those Masters events, rather than the majors and have often been of far better quality than some Grand Slam finals (Their semifinal in Madrid a couple of years ago was the match of the year and lasted 4 hours for 3 sets). Those frequent meetings between them, along with Federer's rivalry with both players, Andy Murray's frequent success at that level and other big names, have served to boost the worldwide popularity of men's tennis to its highest level in some time. The big names draw more attention of less dedicated fans to these other events, rather than waiting for the majors, which are mostly crammed into a 4 month window. That has had the effect of building up momentum throughout the year, so by the time the majors come around fan interest is peaking. All the majors routinely break attendance records these days and network bidding wars for coverage have become more intense.
Conversely, the women have come to play each other less and less often, due to injury, inconsistent performances and more lax tour scheduling rules than the men. Their tour's health and popularity is far less secure and is constantly being revamped. That is the opposite of its status in the 70s, 80s and 90s. In the 70s, the women played a much smaller tour, met far more often (almost weekly) and took a more active role in promoting the sport out of necessity. Arguably the greatest head to head rivalry in all of sports, Chris Evert vs Martina Navratilova, lasted 15 years from 1973-1988 and encompassed 80 official matches and dozens of exhibitions. Obviously those matches were not just in majors, but in smaller events all over the world. It served to internationalize the success of women's tennis. Everyone was talking about them and waiting for them to meet regardless of the venue. The fact that they were playing each other was the source of the drama as much as the tournament. Graf and Navratilova, Graf and Seles, Graf and Sabatini and Graf and Sanchez-Vicario all met in big and small events as well. I'd argue the game was healthier for it.
If skating truly wishes to break out of its niche status, the path out of the wilderness will be carved by its stars rather than its events. D/W and V/M are the biggest active stars in the sport right now in any discipline. With Mao, Yu-Na and Lysacek and Plushenko up in the air, the main draw now is dance. Using them in some kind of coordinated way (be that at SC, a made for TV competition, etc.) could draw in new eyes. Build up the rivalry. Generate interest for the betterment of the sport.
As for the discussion of Funny Face, I share ChuckM's impression of the film. I think the dance itself is very good, but not optimal for them. A bit like D/Ws tango last season. It can certainly grow and improve, an possible win for them. I think it is likely a good vehicle to allow them to try out new things.
I do find it interesting how different the impressions are among those who love the program vs those who only appreciate it. There was a newspaper article from the weekend on the program that praised it and went on about the lost beauty of old films and the universal lack of quality in contemporary ones. He used that point to assert that skating today is similarly devoid of inspiration. I find that to be a lazy approach to remembering the past or evaluating the present. Not every old Hollywood film was a classic or created with a pure artistic intent. Similarly, not every contemporary film is a contrived collage of CGI or screenwriting by committee. V/M are phenomenal skaters and almost anything they do will be generally well received. That does not mean every endeavor is a masterpiece or that it has to be. (Same applies to D/W, T/D, K/P, etc. btw)
I'm not saying D/W should compete in SC next year, in part because of its proximity to SA (although that was Kwan's and even Hughes's schedule during a least a few seasons) and in part because of their school schedule. However I disagree with some of the other reasons being put forward.
Until the last ten years, the men's tennis tour was not set up as it is now with their mandatory Masters 1000 tournaments (Nine events throughout the year which require all the top players to play; absences or withdrawals incur a heavy fine). These events are the equivalent of the GP in skating. So today, the top men are virtually guaranteed to play each other multiple times during the year outside the Grand Slams. Whereas in the 80s and 90s such mandatory events did not exist and the top players met less often. That explains how Djokovic and Nadal have already played more often (29 matches) then McEnroe and Borg (16 matches) in about the same period of time (5 years) and nearly as much as Sampras and Agassi (34 matches) in less than half the time (14 years). Most of Novak and Rafa's matches have happened in those Masters events, rather than the majors and have often been of far better quality than some Grand Slam finals (Their semifinal in Madrid a couple of years ago was the match of the year and lasted 4 hours for 3 sets). Those frequent meetings between them, along with Federer's rivalry with both players, Andy Murray's frequent success at that level and other big names, have served to boost the worldwide popularity of men's tennis to its highest level in some time. The big names draw more attention of less dedicated fans to these other events, rather than waiting for the majors, which are mostly crammed into a 4 month window. That has had the effect of building up momentum throughout the year, so by the time the majors come around fan interest is peaking. All the majors routinely break attendance records these days and network bidding wars for coverage have become more intense.
Conversely, the women have come to play each other less and less often, due to injury, inconsistent performances and more lax tour scheduling rules than the men. Their tour's health and popularity is far less secure and is constantly being revamped. That is the opposite of its status in the 70s, 80s and 90s. In the 70s, the women played a much smaller tour, met far more often (almost weekly) and took a more active role in promoting the sport out of necessity. Arguably the greatest head to head rivalry in all of sports, Chris Evert vs Martina Navratilova, lasted 15 years from 1973-1988 and encompassed 80 official matches and dozens of exhibitions. Obviously those matches were not just in majors, but in smaller events all over the world. It served to internationalize the success of women's tennis. Everyone was talking about them and waiting for them to meet regardless of the venue. The fact that they were playing each other was the source of the drama as much as the tournament. Graf and Navratilova, Graf and Seles, Graf and Sabatini and Graf and Sanchez-Vicario all met in big and small events as well. I'd argue the game was healthier for it.
If skating truly wishes to break out of its niche status, the path out of the wilderness will be carved by its stars rather than its events. D/W and V/M are the biggest active stars in the sport right now in any discipline. With Mao, Yu-Na and Lysacek and Plushenko up in the air, the main draw now is dance. Using them in some kind of coordinated way (be that at SC, a made for TV competition, etc.) could draw in new eyes. Build up the rivalry. Generate interest for the betterment of the sport.
As for the discussion of Funny Face, I share ChuckM's impression of the film. I think the dance itself is very good, but not optimal for them. A bit like D/Ws tango last season. It can certainly grow and improve, an possible win for them. I think it is likely a good vehicle to allow them to try out new things.
I do find it interesting how different the impressions are among those who love the program vs those who only appreciate it. There was a newspaper article from the weekend on the program that praised it and went on about the lost beauty of old films and the universal lack of quality in contemporary ones. He used that point to assert that skating today is similarly devoid of inspiration. I find that to be a lazy approach to remembering the past or evaluating the present. Not every old Hollywood film was a classic or created with a pure artistic intent. Similarly, not every contemporary film is a contrived collage of CGI or screenwriting by committee. V/M are phenomenal skaters and almost anything they do will be generally well received. That does not mean every endeavor is a masterpiece or that it has to be. (Same applies to D/W, T/D, K/P, etc. btw)
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
This is true. But then skating needs to recognize what a draw the two teams are and pay them appearance fees accordingly. Especially, USFS should not expect V&M to show up at Skate America just because they are noble people seeking to advance skating, and SC should not expect D&W to just show up at SC, again because they are nice, noble people wishing to advance skating, while the federations line their pockets. It should be remembered that V&M owe nothing to USFS, and D&W owe nothing whatever to SC either.
I still can't imagine why anyone would think it would work that way.
It seems fans of D/W and/or V/M are itching for an early matchup just for the fans' own satisfaction.
D/W and V/M will meet at the GPF, and then again at 4 Continents (in Colorado Springs this year) before Worlds. I think that 3 meetups are sufficient. Let the teams face off when their programs are more polished, rather than in the formative stages as they are now.
I also think the tennis analogy is a poor one. Top-seeded professional tennis players make TONS of money at each tournament, whether they win or not, and that's because of the wide and diverse popularity of tennis as a sport. TV sponsors will hand out big $$ to showcase tennis on major TV outlets all over the world. Figure skating (ice dancing in particular) is a niche sport that doesn't draw huge audiences, hence the limited availability on TV worldwide. A matchup between D/W and V/M would draw yawns from TV sponsors.
D/W and V/M will meet at the GPF, and then again at 4 Continents (in Colorado Springs this year) before Worlds. I think that 3 meetups are sufficient. Let the teams face off when their programs are more polished, rather than in the formative stages as they are now.
I also think the tennis analogy is a poor one. Top-seeded professional tennis players make TONS of money at each tournament, whether they win or not, and that's because of the wide and diverse popularity of tennis as a sport. TV sponsors will hand out big $$ to showcase tennis on major TV outlets all over the world. Figure skating (ice dancing in particular) is a niche sport that doesn't draw huge audiences, hence the limited availability on TV worldwide. A matchup between D/W and V/M would draw yawns from TV sponsors.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
chuckm, I totally agree.
I see this as equivalent to the seeding system in tennis, where the top seeds are kept apart in the draw so they don't cancel one another out in the early rounds. The hope is of course that all the best players get through and the quality of play/competition will be is at its peak during the final rounds. Of course in tennis this process is completed during the course of one tournament. In figure skating it takes a season as there are only so many major events available.
Additionally, the top-ranked tennis players don't usually all play the same event unless they are tier 1 or major events. In this week's tournaments for instance, Djokovic and Murray play Basel while Ferrer and Tsonga are at Valencia.
Doris, that's an excellent point and one I was making quite vigorously in the Lysacek/SA thread.
chuckm, I believe you overlooked the point I made in my last post where I explicitly mentioned that the women's tour built itself up on the strength of it top women. Pro tennis, male or female was not always at the level of popularity it is now. It certainly lacked today's relative level or prize money in its early days. That was doubly true for the women. They were as niche as it gets, a practical sideshow in the world of pro sports. Mainstream people doubted the viability of female athletes being able to carry their own tour without support from the men or the Grand Slams (just as skating is now assumed to not be viable apart from the Olympics). The men's tour deliberately tried to undermine the women. TV networks were really interested in covering joint male-female tournaments in the beginning and the only notable sponsor they could round up for themselves was a cigarette line aimed at women. Women's tour events rarely drew more than a few hundred people in many cases in their early days. Still the women built up their tour and increased its popularity on the backs of its stars, initially Billie Jean King, Rosie Casals, etc. and later Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong and Martina Navratilova. They not only played their matches against each other virtually weekly, but they shared resources (coaches, practice time, hotel rooms, planes, cars), supported each other and did constant promotion on local radio, tv and in print often on the same days when they were competing. They played wherever they would be welcomed, talked to whomever would listen to them, and developed as much word of mouth as they could. It took time and there were many setbacks, but they did eventually succeed. They literally built their tour from the ground up while everyone was telling them they would fail or that they needed the men to succeed. By the late 70s, they had clearly proven their detractors wrong. My point in this thread and in others is that skating is not doomed to be a niche sport. It can grow again. But at this point, it is being mismanaged and poorly marketed to such a degree as to make that possibility distinctly less likely. I still contend that the model of women's tennis and its grassroots growth into an international sport is a valid one and worthy of consideration.
BTW indieboi, the top men's schedule of top tier events plus Davis cup routinely make up well over half of their annual tournament entries. They are required to play 9 masters level event over a total of 11 weeks, plus four majors over 8 weeks, plus the year end championships over another week. That's 14 events over 20 weeks. Factor in at least one week off in the lead up to each major for training, travel and pre-tournament physio work, and an avg 3 weeks off for the "off-season" and you have more than half the year taken up right there. Then take into account training time for most in the spring and mid summer and early fall, an avg of 10 weeks total and you've go about 39-40 weeks there. Then there are Davis Cup commitments, sponsor events and the various charities they support. Plus many of the top men are in tour leadership now as well. That leaves very little time left over to fit any more small events in given how much travel is involved. Federer for example has played only 15 events this year including Davis Cup. Of those, only three plus Davis Cup are not Masters or Grand Slam level tournaments. The first two are in the Middle East and pay massive appearance fees to him well above any prize money he might win and the third is his hometown event which he's played since he was a teen.
