Peggy Fleming said (Is MK the best?)

[Olympia]

When one thinks of the debacle of 1993 Worlds...when so many people fell that Oksana Baiul ended up the champion almost by default. Kristi could have won easily there. But she was probably tired of the stress, and as luck would have it, her pro career began just as pro competitions hit their peak, so she was able to have an interesting, lucrative, and lengthy career as a competitive skater without going through the grind of Olympic-division skating for any more time. Kristi was actually one of the older Olympic champs at about 20 or 21 (not sure where her birthday came that year), so it wasn't as if she had just nipped in and out of competition like Hughes or Lipinski, to grab the OGM during a whirlwind year or two. She had been training hard, in two disciplines in fact, for almost two decades already. And in those days, the economic burden for her family must have been a consideration. It wasn't like the Kwan era, where skaters could earn quite a lot as eligible skaters.

 

[miki88]

No one has quite matched Michelle's body of work (and this is not including her exhibitions!). The only other female skater that has come close is Lu Chen who has had a number of memorable programs throughout her career.

 

[pangtongfan]

I love Chen but her pro career was a joke with virtually no memorable performances. She also wasnt a truly memorable artist until 1995, and the only years she combined both top level technical skating and great artistry as an amateur were 1996 and to a lesser degree 1995. So I wouldnt say her body of work was the best. She was a very good and complete skater for amateur skating standards from 92-96 I would say.

The 1993 Worlds was actually quite a spectacular event. Many clean performances and Baiul, Bonaly, and Chen all did competitions potentially worthy of winning. There just wasnt anyone skating up to Kristi or Midoris early 90s level yet, but as a whole the event was great and I wouldnt say Baiul won by default as the judges could have easily placed either or possibly both Chen and Bonaly over her (some thought should have).

 

[Mathman]

If we open it up to pro and show skating, that's a whole new ball game. That would put Scott hamilton, Kurt Browning, and Kristi Yamaguchi into the mix, for sure. Not to mention all the skaters who saw their amateur and Olympic titles as stepping stones to lucrative gigs with Ice Capades or Ice Follies. :yes:

 

[miki88]

From 1995 to 1998, Lu Chen performed several programs that has since become classics among skating programs.
1995 The Last Emperor
1996 Rach 2
1998 Adios Nonino and Butterfly Lovers

In addition, her "Spring Breeze" SP and "Take Five" programs also have their share of fans.

In my opinion, Michelle Kwan is the only other female skater who has produced more signature competitive programs on a consecutive basis.

 

[skateluvr]

id like to mention a skater with same oly medals as MK and overlooked. Nancy Kerrigan has many nice skates. She didn't skate with the huge smile, but Nancy was great technically and very lovely on ice. She deserved a gold medal. Roz Sumners had many great skates as am and pro. I was watching Karen Kadavy and was amazed how beautiful her Tosca was. Karen had a stellar pro career after the whack. Elegant, refined, beautiful. We have decades of stunning We may not dominate Asia but we still have great skaters in every quadrennial, and we always will, even with MK gone into history.

 

[pangtongfan]

Nancy won all her World and Olympic medals except the 1994 Olympics with weak performances. A sample of what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82WhHrEyfV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiB7znMColc

She finally got herself in shape for the 93-94 Worlds after her disaesterous Worlds result in 93, and got her act together, finally showing the skating she always should have been capable of. Then when it came to her pro career she eased right off and basically had a nothing pro career. There is a reason she isnt remembered for more than the whack and the Lillehammer controversy vs Baiul.

 

[jenaj]

I think it is possible in the U.S most consider her the best ever (but not even sure on that) but in the rest of the World I dont think so. Her lack of an Olympic Gold prevents her from having a serious claim to the title IMO.

So many Olympic gold medalists are far from the best-ever or even among the best and so many legendary or soon-to-be legendary skaters do not have an Olympic gold medal (Browning-no Olympic medal at all!, Kwan, Lynn, Ito, Chen, Asada (probably), Takahashi (probably)) , that I don't think that should be an absolute requirement for "best ever."

 

[venlac]

So many Olympic gold medalists are far from the best-ever or even among the best and so many legendary or soon-to-be legendary skaters do not have an Olympic gold medal (Browning-no Olympic medal at all!, Kwan, Lynn, Ito, Chen, Asada (probably), Takahashi (probably)) , that I don't think that should be an absolute requirement for "best ever."

when i see #16 her post in this thread, it seems that poster thought this way.
"without OGM, you can still be one the greatest skaters ever, just not the greatest skater ever. Olympic Gold is definitely a prerequisite for anyone to be given the label of best ever."

 

[zschultz1986]

id like to mention a skater with same oly medals as MK and overlooked. Nancy Kerrigan has many nice skates. She didn't skate with the huge smile, but Nancy was great technically and very lovely on ice. She deserved a gold medal. Roz Sumners had many great skates as am and pro. I was watching Karen Kadavy and was amazed how beautiful her Tosca was. Karen had a stellar pro career after the whack. Elegant, refined, beautiful. We have decades of stunning We may not dominate Asia but we still have great skaters in every quadrennial, and we always will, even with MK gone into history.

That great and all, but really, Lilehammer was a "throwaway" Olympics. Nancy has many "nice" skates, sure, but she's no Kwan. There's a reason she's overlooked: She got her two medals two years apart, and never won worlds. I say that even though we really shouldn't/can't compare skaters between eras. You can say "X was the greatest of her generation" or "Y was the greatest of the past 20 years" and such, but really, each era is different. Also, those top women of each generation have an impact on the next.

We also have to consider the fact that Kwan skated in the generation just following figures and pre-CoP (mostly). Where figures were used as a tool to prop people up and that the best "free skaters" and the best "figures skaters" were often different people. Also, CoP has shifted the focus away from a comprehensive program that convey something into many elements connected by "transitions".

My gut feeling is to say that: 1. Yuna 1a. Kwan... However, if we broke it down, the only place Yuna would have the edge (for me) is jumps and speed across the ice (though, Kwan wasn't a slouch at this), everything else, Kwan beats her hands down: Edges, Flow, Spirals, Extension, Carriage, Spins, etc. However, they're skating to two completely different sets of rules, and anyone who says they can say, without a doubt, how Yuna would fare in 6.0 against Kwan, and how Kwan would compare to Yuna if she has grown up with CoP and trained in that system, is completely whacked

Kwan was the greatest of her generation (and really, her career spanned 3 quads, so it was probably two generations.) People may have burned brighter for short periods, but her star was the most consistent and consistently great.

Yuna will probably be looked at as the greatest of her generation and she was dominant when she wanted to be, but she did take time off, and she has only won 2 world titles. Of course, her OGM and upcoming medal from Sochi (most likely Gold, barring a disaster) make up for that. Asada is a close second and we should be clear that Asada was hosed out of a sure medal at the 2006 Olympics (most likely Gold) and we always seems to overlook Mao, even though she's always there.

At the end of the day, the competition between them is only in the message boards. There's a reason that most skaters talk about "The Greats" and not "The Greatest." They all know each of the "Greats" has some quality that is unique, and can not be duplicated. Kwan's was: Consistent Longevity + Emotional Impact.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

So many Olympic gold medalists are far from the best-ever or even among the best and so many legendary or soon-to-be legendary skaters do not have an Olympic gold medal (Browning-no Olympic medal at all!, Kwan, Lynn, Ito, Chen, Asada (probably), Takahashi (probably)) , that I don't think that should be an absolute requirement for "best ever."

Sure it should, if one skater has to be the best in a category. Depending on whether you favor jumps or artistry or competitiveness, you have Yuna, Peggy, and Katarina who all won a lot in women's, and Plushenko, Curry, and Yagudin for the men. What separated them from the field is that they were able to handle the pressure of being gold medal favorites and skate well, whereas the great who didn't win beat themselves on the biggest stage. That has to count for something.

 

[Moment]

Kwan a better spinner than Kim? Good grief.

Kim has superior flow and edge quality as well. Kwan can have extensions.

 

[pangtongfan]

So many Olympic gold medalists are far from the best-ever

An irrelevant argument since the poorest Olympic gold medalits (no doubt the ones you are referring to) indicate nothing. Like my post said of course some of the legendary skaters without an Olympic Gold can rank over some of the Olympic winners, but it is hard to make a case for them to rank over all the Olympics winners who also dominated World competition for years, also made a huge impact on the sport, also displayed great longevity, but actually have the hardware of Olympic Golds and winning at the biggest event in the sport too. When people defend favorites without an Olympic Gold they always attack and reference the runt of the litter like Hughes, Baiul, Lysacek, maybe Lipinski, as if that is somehow proof that they can be elevated above ALL Olympic Gold medalists without one somehow, lol!

The Olympic Gold is absolutely a prerequisite for any consideration as THE best ever. Perhaps you can be top 5 without one at absolute max. No athlete in any sport, especialy an individual sport, who didnt win the biggest event in their sport atleast once, can ever be called the best ever.

 

[zschultz1986]

Kwan a better spinner than Kim? Good grief.

Kim has superior flow and edge quality as well. Kwan can have extensions.

Yes, a better spinner. Kwan beats Kim on basic Camel and Sit in position and centering. Layback is a wash (though, the arch in their back is similar, and Kwan DID flirt briefly with a good free leg position in 2000 and 2001 before going to the lowered free leg layback. ) Again, CoP positions are NOT indicative of "good spinning". Sure, Kwan was no amazing spin doctor and neither is Yuna, but she (Kwan) was better at the basics than Kim.

Look at the change of edge on their spirals, Kwan is MARKEDLY better, which shows you the comparison of edges fairly well. Look at the lutzes between the two. Kwan's entrance edge (especially Earlier in her career) is a true, deep BO edge (which, admittedly, flattened out towards the jump sometimes.) Kim's is just a flip entrance with her ankle rolled over to the outside edge. Kwan has better edges.

Flow: Well, CoP really doesn't have time for flow, either between elements or out of jumps. Flow is ALSO indicative of good edges (usually) so....

By all means, show me direct comparisons of the edges between the two.

 

[Moment]

Don't know where to begin with. Stop making up lies about what you don't know, especially about the Lutz entrance. YNK uses her knee for her Lutz takeoff, not her ankle. It is impossible to jump with such power and efficiency when you have to force your ankle to maintain an LBO. A good example of such imperfect technique is Joannie Rochette who has to pre-rotate her upper body to land a fixed Lutz.

Not to mention Michelle Kwan flutzed. It was a flutz. It's simple as that. So how does a fact that YNK has a better Lutz technique than MK or anyone work in your favor?

 

[jaylee]

To answer the question, Michelle is great, one of the greatest ladies skaters ever. THE greatest? Don't think there's a definitive answer to that. Clearly, it's the off-season.

It's enough to just be in the conversation as the greatest. That said, I think the answer may differ depending on what country you're in.

Yes, a better spinner. Kwan beats Kim on basic Camel and Sit in position and centering. Layback is a wash (though, the arch in their back is similar, and Kwan DID flirt briefly with a good free leg position in 2000 and 2001 before going to the lowered free leg layback. ) Again, CoP positions are NOT indicative of "good spinning". Sure, Kwan was no amazing spin doctor and neither is Yuna, but she (Kwan) was better at the basics than Kim.

No, Michelle was not a better spinner than Yu-Na Kim. Yu-Na would never have dominated CoP the way she did had she not been an excellent spinner. Michelle was never a strong spinner under 6.0, and that was one reason why she found it difficult to adjust to CoP (in addition to her injury).

In terms of speed, variety of positions, difficulty of positions, and spin features, Yu-Na blows Michelle out of the water. It's tough arguing with someone who thinks that their layback arch "is a wash," though. Find me a Michelle Kwan layback that has the speed, centering, variety of positions, and back positioning that this one by Yu-Na Kim does.

All you're focusing on is basic positions and I don't even think that Michelle really "beats" Kim there in a definitive way. But quantitatively, in terms of other criteria for the quality of a good spin--Yu-Na wins hands down. Michelle just didn't have the variety of positions that some of her peers then and today's CoP skaters have. She didn't have a lot of speed. She didn't hold her positions for a long time. Yu-Na does.

One could argue that if Michelle had trained under CoP her entire career, her spins would've been more CoP friendly. And yes, I think they would have, but she would never have been like Alissa Czisny because she simply lacked the flexibility and the natural spinning skill. I suspect that spin wise, she would've done similarly as Joannie Rochette and Rachael Flatt did under CoP (who even did the same feature that Michelle did, spinning in opposite directions). Michelle would've been lucky to get close to Yu-Na's ability to maximize levels and GOE on spins. And note that Michelle had the incentive under 6.0 to improve her spins--her peers, starting with the baby ballerinas (Naomi Nari Nam, Sasha Cohen, Sarah Hughes) had far superior spins with more positions and more features than Michelle, as did her greatest competitor, Irina Slutskaya. And while spins didn't count for a whole lot under 6.0, they did count for something--Sarah Hughes would never have won the Olympics had she not had great spins in addition to those triple/triples.

Look at the lutzes between the two. Kwan's entrance edge (especially Earlier in her career) is a true, deep BO edge (which, admittedly, flattened out towards the jump sometimes.) Kim's is just a flip entrance with her ankle rolled over to the outside edge. Kwan has better edges.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. The fact that you claim Michelle's lutz has a "true, deep BO edge" and that it's better than Kim's lutz (...Kim's lutz has a flip entrance??? ) is just baffling since Michelle did flutz and it was worse earlier in her career. She later improved it.

You don't have to take my word for it, you can see Michelle's flutz at the 1998 Olympics here, and the British Eurosport commentators note it as well.

Flow: Well, CoP really doesn't have time for flow, either between elements or out of jumps. Flow is ALSO indicative of good edges (usually) so....

By all means, show me direct comparisons of the edges between the two.

Yu-Na had better "flow" and speed (generated by her edges) in her Olympic performances than Michelle did in hers.

I am a huge Michelle Kwan fan, and followed Michelle Kwan's career longer than I did Yu-Na's. They both have their unique strengths and weaknesses in their skating. Disappointing to find others try and tear down Yu-Na to make Michelle look better.

That said, the first time I heard British Eurosport commentators call out Michelle's flutz, I felt like I had just found out that there was no Santa Clause. But I celebrate Michelle for everything undeniably great that she did do, and I don't feel there's a need to portray her as a more perfect skater than she was.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

You don't have to take my word for it, you can see Michelle's flutz at the 1998 Olympics here, and the British Eurosport commentators note it as well.

I always thought it was funny that Frank Carroll pushed the flutz issue in between the 1997 and 1998 seasons, when commentators were coming down much harder on Lipinski for her flutz in the Olympic year. Yet Michelle also flutzed (not as bad as Lipinski) but that was not brought up much by the US commentators.

 

[pangtongfan]

Who was a better 6.0 spinner between Kwan and Kim is fairly close, still would go with Kim slightly. Kim is a WAY better COP spinner than Kwan. There isnt a single spin Kwan does better under COP thinking. Kim had much more complex positions and much superior speed.

It seems to be a GoldenSkate myth that has developed in recent months though that Kim is a weak spinner. Fans of every skater from Gold, Sotnikova, Asada, Osmond, Wagner, have all claimed at some point the last 3 months one reason they can beat a clean Kim is a supposed edge in spins, despite that all those skaters repeatedly earn less points on spins; and the only one the suggestion isnt purely laughable for are Asada and Gold perhaps. Even a Kostner fan called Kostner a better spinner, Kostner with the Worlds ugliest layback and mostly slow and awkward spins, LOL! Next thing you know we will be hearing Ando, Bonaly, Kerrigan, and Chen Lu were better spinners.

 

[Mathman]

To me, this whole discussion shows how futile it is to compare skaters from different eras skating under different rules which valued different things. Here is a 6.0 program. It would not get a lot of CoP points. No triple-triple, spiral held too long, spin positions too basic, etc. And yet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=1m25s Lutz edge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=1m55s Outflowing edge on landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=0m53s Spiral sequence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q#t=2m50s Basic positions in combination spin. Olé!

Some people like CoP programs better. OK by me. Still...

 

[prettykeys]

I always thought it was funny that Frank Carroll pushed the flutz issue in between the 1997 and 1998 seasons, when commentators were coming down much harder on Lipinski for her flutz in the Olympic year. Yet Michelle also flutzed (not as bad as Lipinski) but that was not brought up much by the US commentators.

And the sheep continue to bleat the same things...they are experts on flutzes as long as they are not the ones executed by Kwan.

It is definitely a futile debate as to who is the GOAT due to the differences in era, environment, competitors, rules, etc. Fun? Sure. But seriously...YuNa's Lutz is "just" a Flip entrance with her ankle rolled to the outside edge? I don't think zschultz understands this, but that leads to counter-rotation, which is part of the difficulty of a true Lutz. Michelle's "Lutz" set-up is an outside edge that is unremarkable in light of the fact that her ankle rolls towards the inside edge and which was worse earlier in her career up to and including 1998, 1999. Michelle's "Lutz" might as well be called a Flip with an outside edge in transition. There, I can play semantics, too. Every reference I've read has said that a real Lutz's outside edge gets deeper towards takeoff due to the counter-rotational mechanism.

And crossing over from the other "Who would dominate under 6.0 and CoP" thread, the notion that Michelle would have been capable of a great deal more 3-3's had she grown up under CoP is laughable because she had incentives under 6.0 to be doing 3-3's more often and of a greater difficulty than 3T-3T. For heaven's sake, look at what actually happened: she lost to Tara Lipinski in Nagano due to her lower technical difficulty and to Sarah Hughes in SLC due to her lower technical difficulty (not to mention Irina Slutskaya's jumping abilities.) Furthermore, it's not as if doing those 3-3's were asking her to revolutionize Ladies' Figure Skating; what about merely maintaining the standard set during the Ito/Yamaguchi era? And I think someone mentioned this before by tallying her clean-skate record while attempting her 3T-3T's. Her consistency starts to go down, as well as possibly her ability to perform...have at it.

Go ahead and make a case for your favourites all you want, go ahead and imagine a creative scenario where a time capsule or a message to aliens in outer space asks us to pick 10 programs by one skater only, but I really can't abide by these excuses in favour of said favourite and bizarre critiques against a suggested alternative who is widely considered to have an excellent Lutz.

Frankly, if I had to create a time capsule/alien message, I believe I could select 10 programs from a variety of skaters that would be better than the listed 10 solely by Kwan. I think that says enough--that is, one skater does not, for me, adequately encompass the best performances in and aspects about this sport.