JenniferLyon, [Note: Major changes made to content from initial version.]
I loved your second post! Very well thought out, rational, and well articulated ideas. It would be great if the majority of other posters would agree or disagree with what you actually said, but as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, a lot of people are still going to read statements such as "I'm not saying Michelle should necessarily do any or all of these things. But she'd seem more 'real' to me if she did" as if you were saying, "You want Michelle to be something she's not."
I also thought you clarified a lot of your opinions from your first post. But I think that often when one tries to write about ideas that are multifaceted, beyond stereostypes, and not based simply on fan worship it takes more than one post to do so. At least for myself, when I see something in print, especially something dealing with complicated issues, I always see things that seem too generalized, repetitive, or just not saying what I meant. Forums like this are great for ideas that can be expressed in a couple of short sentences or at most a paragraph. But if what you are trying to get across is more complex or has arguments that go beyond pigeonholing or ad hominem, it's tough. I think most posters either don't have the desire or time to read a post where you take the time to flesh out and substantiate ideas that may be considered "subtle"--at least in the context of an online message forum--and thus often respond emotionally. It's understandable, but still frustrating--especially if your opinions are not the same as the majority. But as long as things are expressed within the guidelines, I think it's best to be yourself. Even if I disagree with some or all of what someone says, even if they make me angry--as long as it's not an attack, which neither of your posts were, toward anyone--IMO the whole point of a general forum is to be tolerant of others' ideas and to consider others' points of view.
In other words, people don't read these forums as if they were reading a magazine, which I'm sure you know.
Having said that and speaking of being oneself, I'm going to be myself and write a long response that may be misinterpreted and certainly will be read by very few
Anyway, it seemed very clear to me that you were NOT saying that Michelle Kwan should do anything other than what she's doing. I thought you made it clear that just for your own interest in figure skating, it would be nice to see some top US skater, perhaps not any current skater, but someone in the near future who is naturally less conservative, naturally more open about speaking out about controversial issues, naturally more inclined to say whatever is on her mind whether it makes for good PR or not, naturally more "fiesty" for lack of a better word. Such a skater won't be everyone's cup of tea, but neither are some of the current or recent "ideal" skaters. In other words, you say tomato, I say tomahto
I didn't get the idea that you wanted Michelle or any current skater to change. In your first post you said you find MK boring, but that's your prerogative. Others find her endlessly fascinating and that's their prerogative. That's how I interpreted what you said.
However, you also said in your first post--and I realize you clarified and reconsidered some of your opinions in your second post, which is fine, in fact we could probably all use more reconsideration of our opinions; even if we don't change them, I think the process is valuable--that you felt the eligible skating world needed a Madonna or Cher. To many people, both skating fans and the average viewer, Michelle is their figure skating "Madonna" in that they find her endlessly fascinating. But I think for the vast majority of US viewers of televised skating, where the really big money is, their feelings about Michelle, be they positive, neutral, or negative, do not affect whether or not they watch figure skating. IMO the same would be true if over the last 10 years the US ladies' skater with Michelle's record were the skating equivalent of Madonna or Cher.
My rationale for saying this is based on the enormous popularity of talk radio from the late '80s to the mid '90s. In terms of ratings--and for the sake of simplifying the argument--the two biggest jocks were Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh. Liberals had Stern; conservatives had Limbaugh. For a number of years, each was a superstar, but neither one was enough to sustain the popularity of what I'll call "extreme" talk radio. Even Madonna and Cher's careers go in cycles. Therefore, I think that even if the US had a ladies skater who since '96 had won everything Michelle has, heck, even if she had an OGM, I don't think the trends in skating overall would be any different. Same numbers of viewers, just different viewers.
Also, I think the decline in figure skating viewership is a relative one. I think a lot of people, especially those who came of age in the early or mid '90s, feel that that level of interest in figure skating was normal. It wasn't. Those were "boom" years that came about due to a combination of factors, ie, two instead of four years between Winter Olympics in '92 and '94; Kristi Yamaguchi becoming the first US OGM in ladies FS since Dorothy Hamill in '76; the Harding/Kerrigan scandal; Perestroika and its affect on skaters such as Gordeeva & Grinkov, Katerina Witt, and especially Oksana Baiul because of the whole orphan story, which the media got hold of and speed skated; an unusually rich time in pro skating with skaters such as Kristi Yamaguchi, Paul Wylie, and Kurt Browning entering the pros, not to mention Oksana Baiul, who at the '94 Olympics audiences met, were generally mesmerized by, and then saw her immediately turn pro; and the whole mega fitness movement of the '90s. Plus I'm sure there are others.
Sometimes one person can drive an entire "boom" the way Mikhail Baryshnikov did with dance from the mid '70s to the early '80s. But he was not only a dance star, but was also in several very popular movies. Baryshnikov was Hollywood A-list not as an actor, but as a celebrity. Plus his talent as a dancer (not to mention his libido--and it was the '70s) was enormous enough to keep people interested for almost 10 years. But the peak was was really only five years, at the most.
There was also a "mini boom" after the '84 Olympics due to Torvil & Dean, but it only lasted a few years. In that case, I think you had a lot of dance aficianados going to see T&D on tour because they had the money to go to a lot more cities than dance companies, which were in a slump then because of the Reagan cutbacks to arts funding.
Not that I don't think skaters' personalities aren't factors in the popularity of the sport, it's just that I think true celbrities in figure skating come along only once every 50 years at most. Sonja Henie both won everything and was a movie star, but times were much simpler then. You could carry a musical comedy film with reputation, beauty, and spins on the ice. Not so today.
Getting back to your most recent post (and trying to move this mutha along, lol), although I agree that certain sports writers, especially Christine Brennan loved Michelle and as you said "pushed the 'good little girl' image even farther," I think Brennan, of whom I am NO fan, saw the market favored a "good little girl" star and that by '97, there was a void in that area, since that was when Oksana was showing major signs of trouble. For one thing, Oksana was no longer a little girl (she grew five inches and gained 25 pounds, which is the expected weight gain for that increase in height, during the first nine months after the Olympics--not unusual, BTW, for girls at that age, and especially not unusual for female athletes at that age who go from extremely intense training and dieting, which Oksana herself has reported, to less intense training and a more appropriate caloric intake); for another she was experimenting with independence by going out to Manhattan clubs for drag queen, which I had a blast at myself in my late teens and early 20s, but Mr. and Mrs. Conservative Middle Class America don't want their doe-eyed orphan story to go that way; and of course, sadly, there was the drinking, the DUI, the increasingly bad skating, erratic behavior, etc. The poor girl needed and eventually got help, but a lot of fans who had loved her in Lillehammer really hated her by the end of '97.
So I think Christine Brennan shrewdly saw not only Michelle's potential as a champion, but also saw her as the ideal skater to be the yin to the whole Harding/Kerrigan scandal-Oksana breakdown yang.
I think that history shows that eventually, a skater like the one you described will emerge as a great champion. Though all issues of personality aside, I have no doubt that Michelle's competitive record will stand for decades. Just quickly, for one thing, she's the most consistent triple jumper ladies skating has ever seen; she's got the presentation skills; and her career as a champion began when few ladies did 3/3s and those who could were inconsistent; and her as her career has continued, those skaters who were both consistent and could do 3/3s kept suffering career-ending injuries (IMO, this is due to FS boots that are not designed for skaters to do 3/3s safely over time, but that's another topic). I'm not taking anything away from Michelle's achievements--nobody else comes close to her competitive dominance for this long--but her competitive career is occurring during a time in the sport where the technical zenith for ladies was being able to consistently do a seven-triple LP with one or two 3/2 combos.
I believe that eventually, and perhaps before the 2010 Olympics, the already designed figure skating hinged boots will be accepted, enabling more skaters to do 3/3s without injury; training techniques for doing seven-triple programs including one or two 3/3s will be refined; and someone will come along with the technical brilliance to do all that. For those who really love Michelle, no one will ever take her place. For other fans and those still very young or not yet born, Michelle will be like Peggy Fleming or Dorothy Hamill is to many younger skaters of today. And that technically brilliant skater just might also have great dance ability and artistic presentation, though might not be balletic or lyrical. And that technically brilliant with great dance ability and artistic presentation just might have a personality and charisma that is more like Madonna. I just hope she doesn't pay homage to Madonna by wearing a super torpedo bra costume
After all, it was from '84 through '88 that Katerina Witt was at her competitive peak, and TIME magazine called her "Madonna on ice." Had KW not been reigned in by the East German regime, wee doggies, there's no telling how interesting she might have been. She certainly hasn't wasted her freedom.
Historically and cyclically, it makes sense to me that the dominant ladies skater of the glam '80s was Witt and that her counterpart from the mid '90s to ??? is Kwan. So JLy (geez, I hope people don't call you that, unless you want them to
), mark my words, figure skating will have the equivalent of a Cher or Madonna soon. And after winning the 2222 OGM, when she skates her Olympic exhibition program to "Hole," I'll by jumping up and down (if I can).
Rgirl
PS Nobody will read this either
