If one were to pick and choose performances to illustrate a point, even Takahashi could be damned to having no solid skills of any kind, having fallen on all kinds of jumps and stumbled on footwork just this last season alone. And if one were to pick and choose one aspect of skating to illustrate excellence and dominence, then various skaters can be proclaimed the Skating God, the best without peers.
Ice is slippery, especially when a skater challenges himself/herself to try to reach the next level. And it doesn't take a skater to know we all have off days.
Conveniently, a biased judgement can be made for or against someone by picking out specific performances or a period in their career. It is convenient to pick the one tumultuous year of Chan's heretofore young brilliant career and the early following season when he was trying to make a huge stride forward. At the time, it was about the mental state which affected everything, not really about his technical abilities. During this period, he even fell during a footwork sequence, and 3As which he had been able to land in competitions since age 16. Should his whole career be judged by this period? Should anybody's be judged on a bad year, which can be due to various reasons? In his worst year, Chan won a Worlds silver, at 19.
This thread is about Chan's quads but looking at the presented videos of Goeber's 2002 Olympic LP and Fedéric Dambier's 2005 Worlds, one can clearly see the difference in the qualities of the skatings and of the choreographies. Quads are just highlights of Chan's programs, something he flows in and out of amidist intricate choreography accented by other elements as well. Take out the quads of the other two programs, what is left?
Many great skaters win Worlds or even the Olympics at their peak (close to age 25 for Men) so they don't continue with a winning streak. To be dominent in the sport of skating, meaning a longevity at major podiums and putting out memorable programs, a male skater has to break out relatively young, winning major events, or being extremely promising, before 20 with real results, not just hope and hype, and to continue to improve and excel after the initial success, not being a one hit wonder. Prime examples off the top of my head are Plushenko and Chan. These days, CoP mandates a complete package to be the winners. The quadsters are not at the top, with the exception of Chan. For him, it's just a scary additional arsenal to propel him out of reach of most others clustered at the top of the field, forcing them to learn and to attempt quads in competitions, taking more risk.
As I said last year, when someone who doesn't need a quad to win has a quad, noone can win without one. Just look at this year's Worlds podium.
Chan is always striving to improve, an oft-repeated theme. He doesn't need a quad to win, or an amazing 3A, but it's his nature and goal to try to reach ever closer to perfection. And he delivers.