Johnny Weir's Chinese Interviews

[Violet Bliss]

Oh, come on, Johnny's point was about artistry in competitive programs, don't bring up an EX to make your point - that's just a cheap trick. An exhibition program has different goals from a competitive one and allows skaters to engage with audiences in a different way. Just like we do not judge Plushy's merit based on Sex Bomb, or P/B for having an inflatable crocodile on the ice, or Aliona and Robin based on Barbie Girl. Though I for one approve of anyone who does not use generic ballads for gala programs, or recycled competitive programs.

Johnny, to me, was a 6.0 skater who never fully transitioned into an IJS-friendly style, especially not the post-2008 version of it. But he was marvelous at times earlier in his career. Watch Dr. Zhivago, or the the Swan, and tell me that's not special.

What was my point? I tried to be current in showing Johnny's artistry and the ugliness that's equally current, since we are discussing Johnny's current views. And exhibition programs are where the skates are free to focus on artistry.

OK, for ugly competition program, here is one that illustrates Johnny's points very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E49QK_Fto5M&feature=related

Johnny's last perfect program is not available. Here's his latest available competition program. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqR9PuQVqiM Should he have won this competition under 6.0? And even Sochi if only ISU would wake up about what figure skating is all about.

 

[seniorita]

Sorry but how shallow am I, I have enjoyed jungle crocodile program of P/B really really a lot!

 

[Buttercup]

Johnny's last competitive program.

You are still (deliberately?) misrepresenting Johnny's argument. Did he ever claim that he was undermarked at 2010 US Nats? I do seem to recall a different medalist who was unhappy with his marks there, but most everyone knew Abbott was the rightful winner. Nor did Johnny use Patrick Chan's 2011 Nats skate as an example of the ills of the IJS. But I suppose it is easier to post links that have nothing to do with the issue at hand than to address Johnny's claims. After all, Johnny's opinion is merely that, and you can hardly argue that he's not allowed to think of himself as an artistic skater, or to have different views about what the IJS should reward than you do.

p.s. how about for variety's sake, you occasionally use someone other than Patrick Chan as an example of IJS done right? I would recommend Yu-Na Kim or Savchenko and Szolkowy to start with - they are record holders, too, you know - but would not be averse to Dai or Kozuka, if you insist on sticking to men's skating.

Seniorita, my dear, you know how much I love P/B and their exhibitions. Though I wouldn't try to mark it as a competitive program, of course!

 

[seniorita]

Johnny Weir's artistry. Enjoy.

To my humble opinion , this is one of the cases you dont make your point look good.

Buttercup I love all their programs , also this was a hit!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Practically? Well, he can speak Russian and English, perhaps some other languages.

Even without skating, he probably could get a job.

At the UN a Translator or an Interpreter must speak, read and write 3 languages. Two languages are not enoughh since the field of translators/Interpreters is quite large and testing is competitive. In criminal court, I believe an interpreter is called upon from a list in certain cases but it is not a permanent job. Maybe someone knows more about this. I'm not sure of this. He could work in big biz as a Russian to English salesman if the company is looking for a minor celebrity.

But in Johnny's case (and my point) would he be happy out of the glitz?

While he might have talent for coaching, choreography, costume design it's still not glitz and he would have to establish himself in those fields which may take some time.

 

[Buttercup]

Buttercup I love all their programs , also this was a hit!

Andyyyyy! My favorite part was the introduction - "the expression is classical and elegant". And then they went and skated Andy. I, for one, LOL'd.

Nathalie and Fabian are so awesome.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Johnny's last competitive program.

You are still (deliberately?) misrepresenting Johnny's argument. Did he ever claim that he was undermarked at US Nats? I do seem to recall a different medalist who was unhappy with his marks there, but most everyone knew Abbott was the rightful winner. Nor did Johnny use Patrick Chan's 2011 Nats skate as an example of the ills of the IJS. But I suppose it is easier to post links that have nothing to do with the issue at hand than to address Johnny's claims. After all, Johnny's opinion is merely that, and you can hardly argue that he's not allowed to think of himself as an artistic skater, or to have different views about what the IJS should reward than you do.

p.s. how about for variety's sake, you occasionally use someone other than Patrick Chan as an example of IJS done right? I would recommend Yu-Na Kim or Savchenko and Szolkowy to start with - they are record holders, too, you know - but would not be averse to Dai or Kozuka, if you insist on sticking to men's skating.

Seniorita, my dear, you know how much I love P/B and their exhibition programs. Though I wouldn't try to mark it as a competitive program, of course!

You are arguing with yourself here, making assumptions and riling up to fight. I quite enjoy it so please continue.

For the fun of it, here's another difficult competitive CoP friendly program I can't help loving. Ugly? Maybe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJorSTaB59I

And how about this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkl5k9j0aNo&playnext=1&list=PL100FDABE31A68F21

eta. Honestly, I posted these videso before I got to the suggestions in your long post which I went back to finish. Maybe our great minds do think alike. How about that?

 

[Poodlepal]

Hmm--I haven't been here in a long time since I got a new computer and lost my password. What excitement has happened since I've been here last.

Here is the difference between Patrick and Johnny. It is not worth fighting over.

Both of them are excellent skaters, but to a non-skater tv watcher, Patrick seems to be overmarked and Johnny seems to be undermarked. All the top skaters have something "unique" about them, besides just landing all the jumps, etc. Alexei Yagudin had his footwork, Stephane has his spinning, Alexei Urmanov had his costumes, Elvis had his martial arts moves, etc. To us non-skaters, that is what we notice the most, besides the falls.

From what I understand, Patrick's "unique" talent is something that most of us don't understand and/or can't see on television. He has beautiful knee bends and edges? He gets across the rink in fewer strokes than everyone else? That's nice. But it doesn't seem like enough to make up for falling several times, like what happened last year in that infamous GP event. Maybe it IS, but it doesn't seem like it. (His win at the WC, where he was clean, should not be disputed, as he was outstanding that day)

Johnny's "unique" talent is his gender-bending flamboyance and his delicate smoothness. At his best, he seems so graceful and is so entertaining that if he lands everything, it seems like he should win. When they count up all his rotations and his edges on his footworks and it comes up short, it seems like he was robbed. Was he really? Probably not.

Under 6.0, it was easier for a typical viewer to guess who would win. I suspect if people who fall win based on edges and fan favorites lose on footwork technicalities, it is to the detriment of the sport (or at least, the tv viewing of it.)

 

[Violet Bliss]

^^^^ But Lysacek won, so her point is moot. Unless, of course, if Carroll, Brennen, and fellow believers of the power of lobbying were right, Lysacek might have won with a greater and assured margin if such politics were played.

Hmmm, what to believe? What to believe? :think:

 

[Bluebonnet]

Johnny's "unique" talent is his gender-bending flamboyance and his delicate smoothness. At his best, he seems so graceful and is so entertaining that if he lands everything, it seems like he should win. When they count up all his rotations and his edges on his footworks and it comes up short, it seems like he was robbed. Was he really? Probably not.

Two things, men's skating is, and it should be, different from ladies' skating. Maybe that gender-bending flamboyance was not the artistry that the judges were looking for in men's skating. So Johnny received what he deserved. He was not robbed.

Second, as you said, when all the details were counted, as CoP intended, the result wasn't like what people thought the first time they see it. So Johnny wasn't robbed.

 

[Mathman]

Thread temporarily closed for administrative review.

 

[Mathman]

Thread re-opened. All posters are expected to adhere to the Golden Skate guidelines. No ranting, flaming, personal attacks on other posters, or ethnic and nationalistic insults.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Two things, men's skating is, and it should be, different from ladies' skating. Maybe that gender-bending flamboyance was not the artistry that the judges were looking for in men's skating. So Johnny received what he deserved. He wanot robbed.

So the old standbye is still valid? Boys wear blue and Girls wear Pink? If there was Free Skating and not Restrictive Skating, a competitor can feel a presentation any which way. At least that's what I believe. Men are better performers by being different among themselves. The Ladies all struggle with this dumb concept of ballet-like. Johnny is no ballerina.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Mathman - I believe you also zapped your comments on Carroll, Brennen where you implied that they believed Lysacek should have been held up.

Given your implication has some validity, pray tell me, how such prominent names in figure skating would ever go for 'holding up' a skater? Also what is meant by lobbying and how is it practiced?

This is strange talk after the 2006 scandal.

 

[Bluebonnet]

So the old standbye is still valid? Boys wear blue and Girls wear Pink? If there was Free Skating and not Restrictive Skating, a competitor can feel a presentation any which way. At least that's what I believe. Men are better performers by being different among themselves. The Ladies all struggle with this dumb concept of ballet-like. Johnny is no ballerina.

I'm trying to interprete the judges' decision. This might be the reason in my guess. Like Bianchetti wrote after 2011 Worlds. she was thrilled and cried for Patrick's beautiful-without-effeminacy artistry. And said, if I recall correctly, that that was the men's figure skating should be. And I agree with her.

 

[Mathman]

Mathman - I believe you also zapped your comments on Carroll, Brennen where you implied that they believed Lysacek should have been held up.

Given your implication has some validity, pray tell me, how such prominent names in figure skating would ever go for 'holding up' a skater?

I was surprised at that, too.

I believe that Frank Carroll's point was that Lysacek had been getting strong scores from the international judges all season, now all of a sudden at nationals his scores were lower. How come?

Brennan also seems to be making the point that other federations give inflated scores to their skaters at nationals, so we should, too. Somehow or other this is supposed to impress the international judges, presumably in terms of momentum-building.

About lobbying, I don't know how it works. At the lower levels, I think it goes something like this. A coach has a sketer entered as one of 50 little girls in the juvenal division. The coach casually mentions to his buddy, the judge, "Hey, I've got a promising skaker here. Give her a look, OK?"

So the judge gives her a look and she ends up 12th instead of 34th among a lot of similar performances.

 

[LuCN]

Johnny, to me, was a 6.0 skater who never fully transitioned into an IJS-friendly style, especially not the post-2008 version of it. But he was marvelous at times earlier in his career. Watch Dr. Zhivago, or the the Swan, and tell me that's not special.

I'm sorry to hear that,cause if no COP,then Johnny will get nothing from the senior competitions.being a fan don't mean you can deny the truth.under 6.0,he'll never have change to get medals from guy like Joubert——he doesn't had a QUAD.AND,Johnny kept saying he loves COP and it gave him a convernient.he just began to attack it after the 2010 Olympics.

Originally Posted by Buttercup
You are still (deliberately?) misrepresenting Johnny's argument. Did he ever claim that he was undermarked at US Nats?

YES,HE DID.although you may not notice.and not only once.

and Poodlepal,you can't represent everybody,I really don't want people see Johnny's fans as a megalomania.how many people you asked?do they all think that way?I love Johnny,but many people around me who don't know anything about figure skating thought Daisuka or Lambiel should win on 2010 Olympics.you can express your opinions,but don't say IMO as a public identification.that only makes you unbelievable.

 

[seniorita]

^They indeed didnt know anything abut fs, cause Lambiel is my second ever loved skater but a Vancouver winner with the skates he had? Nope. Daisuke sure.

 

[LuCN]

yeah,the non-skater tv watchers are hilarious,they may want some to win just because the music,or the costume or something weird.for Dai,someone support him just because he's an Asian.but most of the times,they are cutter than most of the fans.they just express their opinion and never say they are always right or want to change the rules.

 

[Buttercup]

From what I understand, Patrick's "unique" talent is something that most of us don't understand and/or can't see on television. He has beautiful knee bends and edges? He gets across the rink in fewer strokes than everyone else? That's nice. But it doesn't seem like enough to make up for falling several times, like what happened last year in that infamous GP event. Maybe it IS, but it doesn't seem like it. (His win at the WC, where he was clean, should not be disputed, as he was outstanding that day)

Johnny's "unique" talent is his gender-bending flamboyance and his delicate smoothness. At his best, he seems so graceful and is so entertaining that if he lands everything, it seems like he should win. When they count up all his rotations and his edges on his footworks and it comes up short, it seems like he was robbed. Was he really? Probably not.

That is a very good point. It's important to remember that forums tend to attract people who are very interested in the subject matter - skating, in our case - and that there are a lot of fans out there whose knowledge of the sport is probably such that they rely more on the overall impression (more along the lines of the 6.0 second mark). Patrick Chan's skating is more easily quantifiable than some people's; there are relevant PCS and GOE bullets, so he gets rewarded for what he does. There are skaters, though, whose strengths aren't ones that can be fully reflected in the scores, and I do see that to some degree with Johnny.

I think in the Youtube video of his 2005 Nats LP (Otonal) someone says that he's "athletically graceful beyond belief" and I find that a very good description of Johnny at his best. But how do you quantify that? GOEs deal mostly with more technical stuff, and PCS can't really do much with it, either. Or how do you score a skater whose power and charisma add an extra something to his performances? Does the current system have a way to reward it? Maybe in P&E, but the way PCS marks are given, even that's not always the case, because they tend to cluster around the skating skills mark. So viewers might see a skater who has those intangibles which can't really be scored, and think, hey, what's going on here?

Quantifying that extra something is a problem not just in skating. I'm also a baseball fan, and the statistics there are super-detailed these days (I swear, people are forever inventing new sabermetric stuff) but every once in a while you will find a player whose contribution seems to be more meaningful than the numbers would indicate. How to explain it? Sometimes you can't. Not everything in life is quantifiable.

I believe that Frank Carroll's point was that Lysacek had been getting strong scores from the international judges all season, now all of a sudden at nationals his scores were lower. How come?

Brennan also seems to be making the point that other federations give inflated scores to their skaters at nationals, so we should, too. Somehow or other this is supposed to impress the international judges, presumably in terms of momentum-building.

The funny thing is that at the time, I looked up Lysacek's PCS in several events, and IIRC, his 2010 Nats marks were higher than they'd been at the previous year's Nationals, 2009 Worlds, and 2009 CoC (where Carroll had some choice things to say about the integrity of the judging). So it wasn't even a fact-based argument! I will keep my opinion of Ms. Brennan's writing to myself, other than to say the tone of the column and the use of incorrect information did not surprise me.