slutskayafan21 said:
When you say not being in "favor" with the judges, do you directly mean because he was skating first, or is there something else you are implying?
Not trying to "imply" anything -- but I guess the "in favor of the judges" does have a couple of meanings for me. Skating first, especially back then, has never been a good spot to skate. Under the 6.0 system, the judges did have to be careful what they gave to skaters coming early in the draw (and this was just a few years after figures were eliminated -- with figures, the skaters were put into the SP based on figures finishes, which usually left the top skaters in the final group or two), since they still had to "place" a lot more skaters (in this case, I think there were 24 or 30 in the field, so 23 or 29 more skaters). So yes, coming first would not be "favorable" for a chance to do well with the judges. If you do have to skate first, you had better not make a mistake and/or be someone the judges are willing to hand out some good marks for, even if the entire field is still to come.
At that point, I don't believe Boitano (and some of the other re-instatees) were skaters the judges would be willing to go out on a limb for. I'm not saying he deserved any better place than he got -- as I remember it, other than Scott Davis (who didn't make as major an error as Boitano, but did have at least two errors in his SP and finished in the top six), everyone else in the top 7 skated clean and deserved good marks. I just had the feeling that the judges were more than willing to nail him for any mistake and were certainly not going to give Boitano any benefit of the doubt or "let's-keep-you-in-the-running" technical or presentation marks that they would be likely to give to those they believed to be or wanted to be among the best.
For example, Browning was defending world champion and one of the Olympic favorites in 1992. He made mistakes on at least two elements in his SP, if I recall rightly. Yet, if I remember correctly, he was fourth in the SP -- while Elvis Stojko went absolutely clean with at least the same-or-better jump content, and finished, what, sixth or seventh? Urmanov had, as I recall, a slight stumble on a footwork sequence, and he, too, was in the 6th-to-10th finish spot. I would say that Browning was "in favor" of the judges that year, while Stojko and Urmanov were still in the up-and-comer it's-not-your-turn-yet category and not "in favor" -- they were certainly willing to nail Urmanov for a very small mistake, and not reward Stojko as much for a clean program as they could have..
I fell that Browning, again as the defending world champ (and a bit of a sentimental favorite), although not the Canadian champ at that time, was still "in favor" of the judges in 1994 and had he only had the fall on the flip, the judges would have been willing to give him marks good enough to keep him, like Davis, in the top six -- which means he'd have had a great chance at a medal, even if the gold may have been hard to come by. Instead, he made a major mistake later (omitting the required double axel because he only did a single) and finished I think 12th in the SP, which put him pretty much out of any kind of medal contention.
And on another subject mentioned here (or is it another thread) -- I am one of those who thought Urmanov won fair and square in 1994. I thought both he and Stojko would have been deserving winners, but to me, Urmanov's program was stronger overall (thought Stojko had too many pauses and stops) so I was in agreement with the judges on that call.