- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
exactly, which would shoot the US nationals down to the basement in terms of prestige. It would kill the tradition, spectacle... and there in kills the sport in the US as far as TV interest.
How much should U.S. Nationals count for World team selection?
- Thread starter Sylvia
- Start date
exactly, which would shoot the US nationals down to the basement in terms of prestige. It would kill the tradition, spectacle... and there in kills the sport in the US as far as TV interest.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
But Japan uses GP and previous history to determine world and Olympic teams, and Nationals doesn't suffer as a result. I don't think we can argue that Russian Nationals aren't prestigious in its own right either.
The only reason that you'd see that kind of "shoot to the basement" is if the line-up itself isn't all that strong (France), imo.
The only reason that you'd see that kind of "shoot to the basement" is if the line-up itself isn't all that strong (France), imo.
And still, let me illustrate another point, this time using another hypothetical example and another victim.
Rachel Flatt has gone 2nd/2nd in her 2 GPs. She had a promising start in 2009 finishing 5th, but in recent comps the judges have given her lower program components, which means even at her best she is really not that competitive with the Top Skaters in the World...and this is WITHOUT Kim or a 100% Asada in the picture. Say she goes to GPF and has an uncharacteristic performance, missing the podium (4th, 5th or last). Czisny does better than her, even if it's not a podium finish. Maybe the injury is bothering her or she just had an off day. Then she goes to Nats, gets a close 3rd to Czisny and Nagasu, in fact, so close it's a virtual tie. Based on recent results, Flatt stays home and Alyssa and Mirai go to Japan. But what if the roles are reversed and Flatt and Czisny are in a virtual tie, but Flatt is the one in 2nd? Can an argument be made to bump Flatt in favor of Czisny based on recent results? AHA (there you go Janetfan, it works both ways!)
But we forgot somebody...what about Wagner? She flamed out of the GP, at least at NHK...but as we know, she's usually in the mix come Nationals. It hasn't happened yet but supposing she blows the roof off and lands in the top 2? Should she go over Nagasu, Flatt or even Czisny? Perhaps the proposal of a "points system" makes the most sense. It's less arbitrary that way and less subject to committee bias.
Rachel Flatt has gone 2nd/2nd in her 2 GPs. She had a promising start in 2009 finishing 5th, but in recent comps the judges have given her lower program components, which means even at her best she is really not that competitive with the Top Skaters in the World...and this is WITHOUT Kim or a 100% Asada in the picture. Say she goes to GPF and has an uncharacteristic performance, missing the podium (4th, 5th or last). Czisny does better than her, even if it's not a podium finish. Maybe the injury is bothering her or she just had an off day. Then she goes to Nats, gets a close 3rd to Czisny and Nagasu, in fact, so close it's a virtual tie. Based on recent results, Flatt stays home and Alyssa and Mirai go to Japan. But what if the roles are reversed and Flatt and Czisny are in a virtual tie, but Flatt is the one in 2nd? Can an argument be made to bump Flatt in favor of Czisny based on recent results? AHA (there you go Janetfan, it works both ways!)
But we forgot somebody...what about Wagner? She flamed out of the GP, at least at NHK...but as we know, she's usually in the mix come Nationals. It hasn't happened yet but supposing she blows the roof off and lands in the top 2? Should she go over Nagasu, Flatt or even Czisny? Perhaps the proposal of a "points system" makes the most sense. It's less arbitrary that way and less subject to committee bias.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
If Flatt beats Czisny at nationals, even if it's a virtual tie, no way will she be bumped off the World Team to let Czisny go, that would just be asking for controversy. And if Alissa went to Worlds and bombed there, well then it would just make the USFSA look like big idiots for sending Czisny when she finished behind Flatt at nationals.
The top 2 finishers at nationals will go to Worlds, I'm confident of this. The only way this won't happen is if someone in the top 2 is not old enough to go, for example Yasmin, in which case the 3rd place finisher would go. Even if it's Gao or Zawadzki that finishes in 2nd and someone like Czisny, Flatt, or Wagner finishes 3rd, I still think the top 2 finishers will be sent. After seeing what happened last year where Mirai was sent to the Olympics and Worlds after narrowly edging out Ashley, who had had a more successful GP season, for 2nd place, I honestly think the top 2 will go, regardless of who that may be, even if it's Gao and Zawadzki who go 1 and 2. I just don't think it would be fair otherwise.
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
No, it does not work both ways in sport, and your example has no appeal to me. I may have my favorites - but I don't want them gifted.
If Christina or Agnes finish second at natls I would hope they join the champion on the Natl team.
It doesn't matter if I like Mirai and Alissa. As a fan I hope they will do well. But no gifts or favors are needed and are not good for the sport.
Some of us have said Natls is our favorite event of the season. It wasn't said it was the most important - just our favorite. Part of that is due to the competitive, winner take all nature of Natls. If they make it a less important event it will lose appeal and prestige.
So if Ashley wins the silver medal but they send a thrid place Mirai in her place to Worlds I will be upset. Or any type of substitution you come up with will disappoint me.
It is most simple and direct, not to mention fair to let them skate for it and the medalists make the Natl team. If USA Ladies had not won so many medals over the years you might have a point. The lack of success now is not due to the selection process but a matter of the USA Ladies having slipped down a notch.
This obsession with three spots also feels like a little bit of a bad joke to me. When the two US Ladies skate well enough because they are good enough and competitive enough the three spots will return. Until then all of this nonsense about devaluing Natls feels more like a flight from reality.
Anyway - just my opinion and maybe you are right and I am wrong
But I don't see the selection process as the problem - I see two consectutive US champions bombing at Worlds as the problem.
Yes, Flatt's 9th place finish was just about as bad as Czisny's 11th place finish.
I think last season Rachael and Mirai earned the right to skate at the Olympics and Worlds. At Worlds the two of them were not good enough to get back the third spot.
Last edited:
Absolutely.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the rules for world team selection and Olympic team selection were changed so that once a skater or team had established themselves on the international circuit they can have the option skipping Nationals without decreasing their chances of being selected for those teams.
Maybe Nationals would even be held at a different time of year (e.g., in April, after Worlds), when it would make less sense to think of it as a direct qualifier for Worlds.
What would be some of the real sporting purposes that Nationals would serve in that case?
1. To name a U.S. champion in each discipline for that season.
This, obviously, is the single most important purpose, indeed the raison d'etre, for holding a national championship each year.
To the extent that the US title continues to hold prestige, US skaters with strong international results would still be motivated to compete for that title, even if it would have little to no effect on the chances of their being sent to Worlds.
2. To establish national rankings by providing one central opportunity for all the skaters who qualified for Nationals (through regionals and sectionals or through international byes) to compete against each other in one event.
This is the only way for newcomers to prove themselves against the established international skaters. Otherwise, how does one become an international skater in the first place?
3. To provide a basis for the international committee to choose which skaters to send to international events other than Worlds and Olympics.
Depending on the timing, level, and the importance of each international event, Nationals might be used as a direct qualifier for the international or as a way of narrowing down, e.g., which ten or twenty out of the hundred or two hundred best age-eligible female skaters in the US should be considered for JGP assignments next summer, perhaps with additional competitions or monitoring in between also taken into account.
4. To name national champions in each discipline at the novice and junior levels.
5. To establish which skaters to provide some funding for the following year, invite to federation-sponsored training camps, or otherwise support with various benefits that have to be earned through successful competition within the US.
In addition to the above functions that depend directly on Nationals results, there are also other functions that Nationals serves that are not directly related to the results but that are a little more serious in their relation to advancing the sport than just showcasing pretty costumes and nice music. A few examples:
*To allow skaters and coaches from various parts of the country to see firsthand the standard of skating and the kinds of technical and choreographic choices being made by the best skaters from outside their own part of the country.
*To allow ice dancers and pair skaters, and singles skaters who might consider switching to dance or pairs, to see what opposite-sex skaters are out there competing (in dance, pairs, or singles) who might make appropriate dance or pair partners, should they become available as such.
*To allow officials who might be considered for international appointments to show their skill by officiating at Nationals.
*To allow officials a step or two behind that level in the process to trial judge, etc., at the national level.
*To hold educational seminars and meetings for skaters most likely to earn international assignments in the future, while they're already all in one place.
*To provide a reason for former skaters, including former champions, to gather in one place to keep in touch with each other once a year.
*To present certain awards (Hall of Fame inductions, Scholastic Honors awards) at a national event
*To give fans one big central event at which to be able to watch most of the best skaters in the country all in the same place.
*To allow officials on various committees needed for running the business of the organization, much of it conducted by e-mail etc., to have an occasion to meet in person each year.
And, yeah, some attendees do enjoy the opportunity to admire each other's costumes or off-ice fashion. But that's incidental.
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
Good post and it is good to be reminded of many of the wonderful things US Skating does.
But aside from all of that - what about picking a Natl team? :think:
I like the system that is in place now but others feel it is shortchanging our federation.
Despite the things you listed many posters want Natls devalued.
I think US Skating is reluctant to do this as US Natls is a wonderful showcase not only for skating but also has an exciting competitive feel about it.
Do you think sending the Natl medalsts to Worlds is shortsighted and that other events should be more heavily weighted?
BTW, did you mention the "Memorial fund." To me it is one of the nicest and most important things US Skating does for it's skaters.
But aside from all of that - what about picking a Natl team? :think:
I like the system that is in place now but others feel it is shortchanging our federation.
Despite the things you listed many posters want Natls devalued.
I think US Skating is reluctant to do this as US Natls is a wonderful showcase not only for skating but also has an exciting competitive feel about it.
Do you think sending the Natl medalsts to Worlds is shortsighted and that other events should be more heavily weighted?
BTW, did you mention the "Memorial fund." To me it is one of the nicest and most important things US Skating does for it's skaters.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
The actual wording of the mission statement of the International Committee is quite interesting in this regard.
So far, so good. It sounds like selecting the world and Olympic teams is a big part of its responsibilities.
But no, that's not it at all:
That puts an altogether different slant on the primary job of this committee. Indeed:
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
This statement could be interpreted in different ways.
Let's say if Mirai wins Natls this season and Christina finishes second and Rachael comes in third.
Would giving Christina a spot on the Natl team and a chance to skate at Worlds be seen in part as "identifying and supporting the best qualified future prospects."
Some could rightfully argue Rachael is more expereinced. Others could say Christina represents the future and needs to be supported......not to mention being treated fairly.......
I would say if Christina wins the Silver medal she deserves the spot she eaned by outskating the others.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ I took it to mean that a big part of the committee's job is to get skaters to this point in the first place.
That is, it is their concern to guide Christina Gao's progress through the ranks, assigning her to junior grand prix events as appropriate, putting her in the team envelope for financial support, giving her an opportunity to gain experience in the senior ranks -- stuff like that.
I don't think this section of the mission statement is about the selection prcess for the World team at all. For that, the wording goes like this (emphasis mine):
The events referred to are U.S. Nationals, the Grand Prix Final, last years Worlds, etc. But what caught my eye was the part about "most performance impact." (Note the confident "will have" rather than "are, in our opinion, most likely to have" an impact.
)
That is, it is their concern to guide Christina Gao's progress through the ranks, assigning her to junior grand prix events as appropriate, putting her in the team envelope for financial support, giving her an opportunity to gain experience in the senior ranks -- stuff like that.
I don't think this section of the mission statement is about the selection prcess for the World team at all. For that, the wording goes like this (emphasis mine):
The events referred to are U.S. Nationals, the Grand Prix Final, last years Worlds, etc. But what caught my eye was the part about "most performance impact." (Note the confident "will have" rather than "are, in our opinion, most likely to have" an impact.
)I'm not sure what's so altogether different about the slant in the two quotes.
They want to win as many medals and berths as possible -- at Olympics and Worlds, but also at other international events. There are also limited but variable numbers of berths available at Jr. Worlds, on the JGP, and on the GP. USFS wants to earn or hold onto the maximum number of those and to choose skaters whose results will have that effect.
They also want to earn as many medals as possible at those events, at the GPF and JGPF, at senior B events, and at Four Continents.
So they need to choose what they expect to be the strongest possible teams for all those events for which they get to choose the teams. They also want to give experience to promising young skaters who show the possibility to medal at important events in the future. And they also want to use Nationals results in a meaningful way to make selections for international events.
Sometimes all three of those goals coincide and the choices are obvious. Sometimes they have to balance one or two of those goals against the other(s) when deciding who to send where.
The balance between winning medals and gaining experience for younger skaters may be more obvious in decisions about whether to send a 17- or 18-year-old skater to Four Continents or to Junior Worlds, to JGP or senior B event. Or the decision whether to fill the last junior slot available with an 18-year-old who has probably peaked and has an outside chance of junior medals this year or with a 14-year-old who is probably less likely to medal this year but more likely to win senior medals in the future.
Still, they don't have crystal balls to always anticipate correctly how the selections will turn out, and we don't have access to alternate histories to find out what would have happened if they'd made a different decision.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
To me, the first part of the quote made me think that the most important thing was to decide which, among our top skaters, would be most likely to come home with medals at the big events.
The second part seemed to me to shift gears and put the emphasis more on developing skaters to the point where they would be competitive at major events.
Editied to add I guiess it is the terse grammar. That "by" makes the second half of the sentence dominate the first. It should have said "and." Your pair of sentences is better:
gkelly said:
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
By wanting to send Ashley to Jr Worlds last season could we assume the federation wanted:
A. win a junior world medal
B. give Ashley more Intl experience.
C. both of the above
Ashley turned down the chance to compete at Jr Worlds last season. She also passed up a chance to skate at 4CC where her chance to medal would have been good.
What does US Skating make of Ashley declining not one but two Intl events last season?
In the case of Christina Gao, did US Skating have any say in whether she skated as a jr or sr this season?
Or was this entirely up to Christina and her coach?
I think I could mention a few more examples but it seems as if US Skating as "Big Brother" does not dictate to it's skaters the way other federations do at times.
A good thing or bad thing? If the goal of US Skating as stated is to win as many medals as possible at Intl events might they not be a little peeved at Miss Ashley for turning down two Intl events last season?
And might this impact her chances in the future when US Skating finds itself with a close decision about who to send to an event?
I'd say Nagasu's 7th place finish was worse because she could have medaled- easily. She gave up during the performance, really. She may as well have thrown the LP...or maybe she did.
I think it was the right call as well- and I said it even before the team was selected (check the archives). Wagner fell in the SP, and I did think she benefited from others' mistakes in getting to the GPF. Plus, Nagasu was on the upswing. Now, if Wagner had not fallen in the SP, I would think differently because she would have shown improvement. But then again, Wagner may have been the one in 2nd in that case.
Then again, I would have had Nagasu as the champ because she outskated Flatt in every way except on a couple of jumps. She deserved higher program component scores (or Flatt deserved lower PCS).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Is the US Nationals the Greatest Competition in the World?
With all the Pro-Nationals discussion going on (it's like desperation) to make the US Nationals a world wide great competition. Some of it sounds as if it is bigger than worlds or even the Olys.
The 'WHAT IFS' are abundant. and since the two top Ladies from the Nats will be the chosen skaters to represent the Worlds as our best representatives so why the fear?
Since it is unlikely that the Committee will select the strongest team to win back 3 places at 2012 Nats, The winner of the Nats and her runner-up will be left with the job, Whether they are strong enough or not We hope they are.
At the Nats, they should show consistency,, no flutzing (international Ladies do not Flutz), no under rotating jumps, and speed. They should not worry about Falls (penalty is just a wrist slap), and Musicality if they show emotion on their faces. (That'll take care of Interpretation.)
Not sure what international judges will do with that scenario for the two US skaters at the Worlds. remember, all judgings are not equal. Scoring at Nats, will not be the same as scoring at Worlds.
With all the Pro-Nationals discussion going on (it's like desperation) to make the US Nationals a world wide great competition. Some of it sounds as if it is bigger than worlds or even the Olys.
The 'WHAT IFS' are abundant. and since the two top Ladies from the Nats will be the chosen skaters to represent the Worlds as our best representatives so why the fear?
Since it is unlikely that the Committee will select the strongest team to win back 3 places at 2012 Nats, The winner of the Nats and her runner-up will be left with the job, Whether they are strong enough or not We hope they are.
At the Nats, they should show consistency,, no flutzing (international Ladies do not Flutz), no under rotating jumps, and speed. They should not worry about Falls (penalty is just a wrist slap), and Musicality if they show emotion on their faces. (That'll take care of Interpretation.)
Not sure what international judges will do with that scenario for the two US skaters at the Worlds. remember, all judgings are not equal. Scoring at Nats, will not be the same as scoring at Worlds.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
I believe that is the case. But what I am still not sure of is, .... How will the "two top Ladies from the Nats" be chosen? What factors will go into choosing the top two?
You know this whole Flatt versus Czisny versus Nagasu scenario reminds me of the 2002 US Nationals, except in that case it was as follows:
Nagasu = Kwan
Flatt = Hughes
Czisny = Nikodinov
***Note: I didn't put Sasha Cohen in here because she reminds me of absolutely NONE of them.***
Michelle was a lock & thought to be the best out of all of them, which is similar of Mirai, but not really (she's nowhere near Kwan's consistency nor mental toughness), yet in this scenario I put her in Michelle's place because people think she has the best chance of winning a medal at Worlds.
Sarah always medalled at Nationals except her first year as a senior (same as Rachael) because of her consistency, mental toughness, and trying the most difficult programs (she always went for a 3/3 combo). In 1999 she debuted at Worlds in 7th place, 2000 equal 5th place, and 2001 she finally medalled at Worlds with a bronze. The USA could count on her to do good.
Angela, ah, Angela. The same age as Michelle, 21 yrs. old at the time, but that's all they had in common. Michelle was a star from 15 yrs. old onward, dominating not only the USA scene, but more importantly the World. Angela was more like Alissa in every single way imagineable, long time competitor, but inconsistent, not mentally tough. Six years on the senior circuit at that time, two bronze medals, never finishing lower than 8th, couple of 4th place finishes, and one 5th place finish. Regards Worlds, she finished 12th in her debut there in 1999, 9th in 2000, and 5th in 2001.
So here comes 2002 US Nationals, everyone predicting Michelle to win easily, which she did. Sasha always a threat because there's no one like Sasha, which includes coming in 2nd place (bit of irony there). And then there was Sarah versus a renewed & invigorated Angela, whom went through a transformation the year before with a totally new look & attitude on the ice. She captured the bronze medal at Nationals the year before in what some thought should've been a silver, which instead went to Sarah. And then at Worlds that same year she beat Sarah in the SP, but fell apart in the LP falling several times, whereas Sarah, as always, made the most of the opportunities that came her way with hard work & mental toughness, roaring back in the LP to capture her first World medal that year at 15 yrs. of age.
The stage is set, 2002 US Nationals, whom will win that much coveted 3rd place spot on the team? Will it be the inconsistent but brilliant 21 yr. old Angela Nikodinov when she's *on*? Or the 16 yr. old Sarah Hughes, whom could light up the arena when she hit all her jumps & skated lights out? Tough decision, heartbreaking one I remember, but the USFSA went with the latter, which turned out to be a good decision in the end. That 16 yr. old bronze medalist at the 2002 US Nationals went on to become the 2002 Olympic Champion a month later, the last one produced by the USA, thus far.
Now jump forward to the present, 2011, it's make or break time, do or die, time to put it all on the line once again. Whom will rise to the occasion, whom will choke, winner takes all, as it should be!!!!!
GOOOOOOOOOOO U S A!!!!!!!!!
arty:
Nagasu = Kwan
Flatt = Hughes
Czisny = Nikodinov
***Note: I didn't put Sasha Cohen in here because she reminds me of absolutely NONE of them.***
Michelle was a lock & thought to be the best out of all of them, which is similar of Mirai, but not really (she's nowhere near Kwan's consistency nor mental toughness), yet in this scenario I put her in Michelle's place because people think she has the best chance of winning a medal at Worlds.
Sarah always medalled at Nationals except her first year as a senior (same as Rachael) because of her consistency, mental toughness, and trying the most difficult programs (she always went for a 3/3 combo). In 1999 she debuted at Worlds in 7th place, 2000 equal 5th place, and 2001 she finally medalled at Worlds with a bronze. The USA could count on her to do good.
Angela, ah, Angela. The same age as Michelle, 21 yrs. old at the time, but that's all they had in common. Michelle was a star from 15 yrs. old onward, dominating not only the USA scene, but more importantly the World. Angela was more like Alissa in every single way imagineable, long time competitor, but inconsistent, not mentally tough. Six years on the senior circuit at that time, two bronze medals, never finishing lower than 8th, couple of 4th place finishes, and one 5th place finish. Regards Worlds, she finished 12th in her debut there in 1999, 9th in 2000, and 5th in 2001.
So here comes 2002 US Nationals, everyone predicting Michelle to win easily, which she did. Sasha always a threat because there's no one like Sasha, which includes coming in 2nd place (bit of irony there). And then there was Sarah versus a renewed & invigorated Angela, whom went through a transformation the year before with a totally new look & attitude on the ice. She captured the bronze medal at Nationals the year before in what some thought should've been a silver, which instead went to Sarah. And then at Worlds that same year she beat Sarah in the SP, but fell apart in the LP falling several times, whereas Sarah, as always, made the most of the opportunities that came her way with hard work & mental toughness, roaring back in the LP to capture her first World medal that year at 15 yrs. of age.
The stage is set, 2002 US Nationals, whom will win that much coveted 3rd place spot on the team? Will it be the inconsistent but brilliant 21 yr. old Angela Nikodinov when she's *on*? Or the 16 yr. old Sarah Hughes, whom could light up the arena when she hit all her jumps & skated lights out? Tough decision, heartbreaking one I remember, but the USFSA went with the latter, which turned out to be a good decision in the end. That 16 yr. old bronze medalist at the 2002 US Nationals went on to become the 2002 Olympic Champion a month later, the last one produced by the USA, thus far.
Now jump forward to the present, 2011, it's make or break time, do or die, time to put it all on the line once again. Whom will rise to the occasion, whom will choke, winner takes all, as it should be!!!!!
GOOOOOOOOOOO U S A!!!!!!!!!
arty:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
American skaters have even said the pressure and desire to be national champion - for them - is greater than Worlds. Johnny Weir and Evan Lysacek both stated over the years that they wanted the national title more.
So it's not just the fans that hold it up as the grand poobah of skating.
Similar threads
