I get the feeling that some of this is as much about the setting as who is getting credit for the jump. Brandon is not a complete skater yet. Because of that, I sense that some wish the Chan or even Plushenko (who came darn close) had gotten there first. Fair enough. But just he's not Chan, Plushenko, Kozuka or even Rippon attempting it as he contends for medal on the big stage does not mean he should not have an equal shot at setting new marks. That introduces far too much partiality and subjectivity into the sport and frankly is why many fans of non-judged sports despise skating. They feel that action counts less than personal bias.
Let's look at this from the perspective of another sport where world records are routinely recorded and recognized: track and field. Before someone dismisses me by pointing out that a) track is not judged and b) results are determined by impartial means like time or distance, remember that judgment does play a role in determining winners in close contests like photo finishes and extremely close finishes which may break world records; and records can have and have accounted for altitude, wind, venue (indoor vs. outdoor) and surface. Nevertheless, barring an unfair advantage like excessive wind, whenever a world record is broken in a valid event, it counts in whatever relevant category is appropriate. Much of the complaints I'm reading here remind me of the complaints in track about records set at altitude.
World records in track are broken frequently enough, certainly more frequently than new jumps being landed in skating. Not just at Olympic qualifiers, worlds or the Olympics themselves when large audiences are watching or the pressure is arguably greatest. The athletes are running against time and each other, not a setting. The settings where those feats occur do not diminish the raw accomplishment. They may amplify it, but that is a different distinction which I think is being confused here. How many times have we entered a summer games and heard of the latest fastest man/woman in the world being introduced to us? Now, how many of us can say we actually saw him/her assume that title by breaking the world record beforehand (evening new highlights don't count)? Sure we all hope that same athlete will win his/her race at the Olympics in a new world record time, but they may not do it and often don't. They may instead break the existing Olympic record. That is nothing to sneeze at, especially if said Olympic record happens to be the previous world record. In that case, the athlete has broken the previous world record twice. He's just not surpassed his performance at a smaller event. Both accomplishments are very significant and given proper distinction.
From a skating point of view, the first quad I actually saw done successfully was not by Browning or Urmanov, but by Barna. Being a kid in school at the time with other activities and no access to youtube, I frequently missed all or portions of competitions. Of course, I knew the jump had been done and accepted that fact. Still Barna doing it (or at least coming as close as he did and standing up) in Albertville and being the first to do it so well up to that point it in a Olympics was a pretty freaking big deal and is an honor that will always belong to him. Yet that did not diminish the importance of Browning being first and Urmanov second, despite neither doing it in a setting where they had a legitimate chance of winning or medaling.
I don't begrudge people their desire to see the jump done on a big stage. I want to see him do it again as well, especially if it's live. I just don't think that desire should outweigh or bring into doubt the significance of what Brandon achieved.do
And then there is that Charlotte Spin!
