Will Asada or Kim match Kwan's record for consecutive world podium finishes?

[RussianWinter]

Fratianne, Poetzsch, and Biellmann were all better in 1980 than any competition Witt had in 1984. Not sure how you can even disagree; just look the Long Programs.

I would disagree about the field in 1984 being weaker than 1980. Sumners was a very capable LP skater....on or above Fratianne's level and, IMO, much better than Poetzsch (I don't include Biellmann because, to me, she was so ahead of her time in terms of LP skill....she was magnificent in that portion of the event). Rosalynn had satisfactory technical skills (for the time) and a lovely style. Poetzsch was pleasant to watch at times, but nothing special in my opinion. Fratianne was a stronger LP skater, but I believe Sumners was better. You also have to factor in Tiffany Chin. She was the surprise of the ladies event in Sarajevo and skated very well. She was strong technically and artisticly and there was a lot of hype surrounding her after the strong Olympic showing (a shame she never really realized this potential).
It is also important to remember that Katarina didn't blow everyone out of the water in Sarajevo. She won the LP and the Gold medal with a 5/4 decision against Sumners. Certianly, Katarina dominated for much of the rest of her career, but Sarajevo wasn't a blowout for her. It wasn't a cakewalk of a competiton. I found it much more exciting and interesting than 1980 (with the exception of Biellmann).

 

[DaveT]

IMHO, to evaluate a skater's legacy we should consider everything, not just who could work the rules the best, etc.

"At the end of the day," which skaters leave behind the most impressive body of work ? (to use Joesitz' phrase :yes: )

Evgeni Plushenko won a lot of prizes. Which performances of his do you keep on tape, to play back over and over, each time with renewed delight?

To answer your question: none. A body of work mention on Kwan:

"Her record speaks for itself, and she's one skater who's body of work will stand the test of time." Brian Boitano

 

[GoldMedalist]

Wow... I gotta ask.... Do you honestly think that Sasha's long program at the 2002 Olympics was deserving of the bronze medal? Over Irina and Maria? Is that in terms of skating or simple desire to see an American sweep? I ask this because that's kinda deep... and something I've never heard nor contemplated...

Maria? How did she suddenly come into this? Sasha was easily better than her.

Judge #5 rated the Long Programs as Sarah #1, Kwan #2, Sasha #3, Irina #4. I agree with that person.

Other then her fall and two footed landing on a later triple, she had very shallow edges, small jumps with weaker technique, simpler choreography with so much plain stroking from element to element

LOL - so what would you classify Irina's program as then? At least Sasha has good line and skated with some energy...perhaps Irina did have stronger edges but edging is just part of the overall presentation - how much you like watching someone stroke around. I'd rather watch Sasha with her more alive, more stretched-out body and presentation.

BTW, Sasha didn't two-foot her second Lutz. The free leg just swung out quickly. With Irina making the mistake on the Flip, she really was really no stronger technically than Sasha when you also consider Sasha's wonderful Spiral positions. So therefore, with Sasha having the stronger artistic mark, she deserved to be placed over Irina.

 

[slutskayafan21]

So therefore, with Sasha having the stronger artistic mark, she deserved to be placed over Irina.

You may feel that way, but I dont, I have not heard a single commentator who mentioned they would have done so, most people I have ever talked to about the event dont, and 8 of the 9 judges did not. Therefore odds are you are probably wrong. :agree: The second mark BTW is "presentation" not "artistic", and the reason they changed the word was there is much more that is supposed to compose the 2nd mark then just how artistic a skater is. In other words there is more to the 2nd mark then just pretty positions and nice toepoint.

 

[slutskayafan21]

She turned out one the all-time best Short Programs and, in terms of artistry, her Long Program was also THE best performance at the Olympics in ANY field.

Your opinion, I happen to disagree, especialy on the second part. There are too many other great artistic skaters in history for a performance with falls to have been the best artistic performance ever.

In fact, I would have only had Arakawa ahead of Cohen by something like .7 with the SP and LP combined.

Again you are entitled your opinion but you are really out to lunch with 99% of the public on this one. I have heard nobody say Cohen should have been closer to winning, the only debate there has ever been was between those defending her silver despite the mistakes due to some of her other strengths, or those who felt her silver was a gift (including Brian Boitano, Elvis Stojko, Barb Underhill, for starters). Arakawa is actually a quite underappreciated skater her whole career. If she won by that margin she sure as heck deserved it as far as I'm concerned, since the judges would never give her anything for free. '

So? You said Slutskaya was the best SP skater of her generation. Slutskaya was competing at the Senior level just like Kwan from 1996 to 1999 and she was inferior all of those years. You need to take EVERYTHING into consideration if you're going to make such a broad statement.

So let me get this straight. You are the one who is basing part of your argument of downgrading Witt's Oly Golds, on your own anointing the 5th place finisher at the 88 Olympics the real "unofficial" gold medalist based on your imagined elimination of figures existing at the time, and your personal placings of her 4th and 3rd place short and long programs in 1st in both segments. Yet with your saying this, you claim for me to have simply looked mainly at a still long period where two skaters were in their primes as showing who was the leading short program skater of that generation as making a "broad" statement? Classic.

I really don't care about "the system in place" one bit. You don't accept something in History as correct just because it happened. I give credence to my own thoughts, not ridiculous judges and a poor judging system. Figures hold absolutely 0 weight in my mind. Aside from just being bad in general, there is no documentation of what happened. I've never seen anyone who has a video of all the skaters going through their full figures runs or a detailed write-up of what every skater did. Judges could mess around with placement a lot in figures. Witt placed 3rd, but who knows if she deserved that. Maybe she should have been in 6th in figures. What I DO know is that Midori Ito absolutely should have been 1st place in both the SP and LP at the 1988 Olympics and the judges placed her 4th and 3rd. Shameful.

So you expect others to accept downgrading of Witt's Oly Golds simply because your own personal choice to eliminate both compulsory figures and the second mark altogether (which is the only way Ito would win since the second mark, or "artistic impression" as it was called then, was on par with a good junior skater).

Fratianne, Poetzsch, and Biellmann were all better in 1980 than any competition Witt had in 1984. Not sure how you can even disagree; just look the Long Programs.

Sumners, Witt, Chin, Zayak, all had free skates which were far superior to Poetzsch, Fratianne, Allen, or Watanabe. Biellmann is the only 1980 skater who could compete with Sumners, Witt, Chin, Zayak in free skating at all. The fact that it was such a huge controversy that Fratianne, a very good but still drab free skater and shaky compulsory figures performer, did not win the gold tells you all you need to know about the 1980 field. Lurz was the 1980 version of Ivanova, the tedious free skater who compulsory figured her way to a bronze medal, so no difference there. The 1980 crowd was the most forgettable womens field since atleast 1964, not a single legend or skater who would be remembered many years later among the medal winners.

Look it has gotten to the point there are few concrete objective things to debate anymore in this discussion. This has reverted to complete subjectivity, and I am afraid I seem to share your views on almost nothing. So lets just leave it at that.

 

[GoldMedalist]

You may feel that way, but I dont, I have not heard a single commentator who mentioned they would have done so

I haven't heard a single commentator say anything about who should have placed where. Except for that Sarah obviously deserved to win the LP. Not that it's really relevant, as I don't feel the need to rely upon the opinions of others to confirm on my OWN opinions on the matter. I'm pretty sure I disagree with a LOT of the things commentators say all of the time.

Your opinion, I happen to disagree, especialy on the second part. There are too many other great artistic skaters in history for a performance with falls to have been the best artistic performance ever.

I said at the 2006 Olympics, not ever.

Again you are entitled your opinion but you are really out to lunch with 99% of the public on this one. I have heard nobody say Cohen should have been closer to winning.

Here are my own protocols for Arakawa and Cohen at the 2006 Olympics; feel free to show me yours too (or to ask questions, since my own CoP is a bit different from the current one...not that it changes the actual result in this case too much):

SP:

Sasha Cohen - 68.01

3Lz** + 2T .......... 5.81
3F .......... 4.4
FSSp4 .......... 3.0 (+ .25)
2A .......... 3.2
SpSq4 .......... 3.5 (+ 2.5)
LSp4 .......... 2.8 (+ .75)
SlSt3 .......... 3.0 (+ 1.5)
CCoSp4 .......... 3.5 (+ 1) .......... Technical Total - 35.21

Program Components - 8.0, 8.0, 8.5, 8.25, 8.25 = 32.8

Shizuka Arakawa - 63.91

3Lz + 2T .......... 6.9
3F* .......... 3.96
FCSp4 .......... 3.0 (+ .5)
SpSq4 .......... 3.5
2A .......... 3.2 (+ .8)
LSp4 .......... 2.8 (+ .5)
SlSt3 .......... 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp4 .......... 3.5 (+ .25) .......... Technical Total - 32.91

Program Components - 8.0, 7.5, 7.75, 7.75, 7.75 = 31.0

LP:

Shizuka Arakawa - 126.45

3Lz + 2Lo .......... 7.5 (+ 1)
3S + 2T .......... 5.64
3F* .......... 3.96 (+ .5)
FCSp4 .......... 3.0 (+ .5)
SpSq4 .......... 3.5 (+ 2)
2A .......... 3.2 (+ .4)
3Lz .......... 5.72x
2Lo .......... 1.87x (+ .6)
CSp3 .......... 2.0 (+ .5)
3S + 2T + 2Lo .......... 9.06xx
CCoSp4 .......... 3.5
SlSt3 .......... 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp4 .......... 3.5 (+ .5) .......... Technical Total - 62.45

Program Components - 8.5, 8.0, 8.0, 7.75, 8.0 = 64.4

Sasha Cohen - 121.71

3Lz** .......... 4.16 (- 3)
3F .......... 4.4 (- 3)
3Lo .......... 4.8
CCoSp4 .......... 3.5 (+ .5)
LSp4 .......... 2.8 (+ .75)
3F + 2T .......... 6.62x
3T + Seq* + 3S .......... 7.36x (- .5)
FSSp4 .......... 3.0 (+ .25)
2A .......... 3.52x
CiSt3 .......... 3.0 (+ 1)
SpSq4 .......... 3.5 (+ 2.5)
3S .......... 5.0xxx (+ 1)
CCoSp4 .......... 3.5 (+ .75) .......... Technical Total - 55.41 (- .5)

Program Components - 8.25, 8.25, 8.25, 8.5, 8.5 = 66.8

OVERALL:

1. Shizuka Arakawa - 190.36
2. Sasha Cohen - 189.72

So let me get this straight. You are the one who is basing part of your argument of downgrading Witt's Oly Golds, on your own anointing the 5th place finisher at the 88 Olympics the real "unofficial" gold medalist based on your imagined elimination of figures existing at the time, and your personal placings of her 4th and 3rd place short and long programs in 1st in both segments. Yet with your saying this, you claim for me to have simply looked mainly at a still long period where two skaters were in their primes as showing who was the leading short program skater of that generation as making a "broad" statement? Classic.

I really don't think you understood what I said. Or the definition of the word "broad"?

As for the segment of what you're talking about that's relevant and not part of some petty argument started by others (I truly don't care much about this whole "Witt vs. Kwan; who has the better record, OMG?!?!?" debate), yes, I think Midori Ito deserve to win the 1988 Olympics. What of it? You're telling me that you've NEVER disagreed with the placement of any skater at any event? Okay then. Obviously nothing will change the fact that figures existed and who got what medal. I'm simply giving my opinion of who deserved what, just as anyone else should. It's part of being a (non-ignorant) human to question, to learn from history, and to challenge ideas you disagree with.

So you expect others to accept downgrading of Witt's Oly Golds simply because your own personal choice to eliminate both compulsory figures and the second mark altogether (which is the only way Ito would win since the second mark, or "artistic impression" as it was called then, was on par with a good junior skater).

Ito's performance had more speed, command, excitement, and confidence than any Junior I've ever seen. But...whatever. Under the 6.0 system, since you're interested, I would have given Ito a 6.0 for technical merit and a 5.7 for presentation. Would have given Witt a 5.6 for technical and 5.9 for presentation. Ito clearly wins. For the short program I would have given Ito 5.9/5.8 and Witt 5.7/5.8. Ito was so far ahead of the field.

Sumners, Witt, Chin, Zayak, all had free skates which were far superior to Poetzsch, Fratianne, Allen, or Watanabe. Biellmann is the only 1980 skater who could compete with Sumners, Witt, Chin, Zayak in free skating at all.

Perhaps my memory is wrong. In 1980 didn't Fratianne and Poetzsch both do 3 Triples and Biellmann 3 + a two-footed Triple Lutz? In 1984 Zayak did 4, Chin did 3 + a Triple Flip that she fell out of, Witt did 3, and Sumners did 2. Not really much stronger in 1984 on the tech side (and I remember Beillmann and Fratianne as having stronger programs than anyone in 1984). I'll have to go find the footage available and look at it all again.

Of course, the entire root of this argument was over Witt's record being stronger than Kwan's with her 2 Gold Medals. What it basically comes down to is that Kwan skated a much better program in 1998 than Witt did in 1984 and Kwan's only technical mistake was a bit of a unsure landing on her Triple Flip, whereas Witt left out a Triple jump. Again, I really don't care about which woman everyone thinks had the "better record", I'm simply questioning the value of Witt's Olympic Gold vs. the value of Kwan's Olympic Silver.

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Yay! I missed the memo that said fans could rewrite not only history but also the judging guidelines based on our own opinions and fandom... well in that case...

Kwan is a three peat olympic champion with wins at '98, '02 and '06 games! Why? Because we all know she's better than Tara, Sarah and Diva - so just give it to her... and while we're at it, let's have call in voting like at Marshalls - who needs criteria when you can have popularity? Or... let's just turn skating into one big reality show and last man / woman standing wins and only KW gets to choose the winner... Even better - let's just engrave Michelle Kwan's name on everything because that is who I like best. Why? Because I'm smarter than everyone else and who needs actual factual scores, when you can have the gloriousness of what I think vs. what judges see on the ice... And please note, you can trust me... "we don't need no stinkin' badges"

 

[attyfan]

Yay! I missed the memo that said fans could rewrite not only history but also the judging guidelines based on our own opinions and fandom... well in that case...

Kwan is a three peat olympic champion with wins at '98, '02 and '06 games! Why? Because we all know she's better than Tara, Sarah and Diva ... -

Sorry, but if fans can re-write history, Michelle is a fourpeat Oly champ -- she is also better than Oksana!

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Sorry, but if fans can re-write history, Michelle is a fourpeat Oly champ -- she is also better than Oksana!

And that's why I love you attyfan... let's keep all of our bad re-writing correct and include 94 as well... Oooh! I almost forgot - we gotta add Worlds '04 to Michelle's list of championships - because she did have to skate after the streaker and despite doubling the lutz, she was at her most "I can do this! I'm Michelle Kwan!" best that night... dontcha think?

 

[Mathman]

^

But the real question -- was Michelle better than Maribel Vinson-Owens? If so, then Michelle won a total of eighteen U.S. Championships, plus six U.S. pairs titles. :agree:

 

[attyfan]

And that's why I love you attyfan... let's keep all of our bad re-writing correct and include 94 as well... Oooh! I almost forgot - we gotta add Worlds '04 to Michelle's list of championships - because she did have to skate after the streaker and despite doubling the lutz, she was at her most "I can do this! I'm Michelle Kwan!" best that night... dontcha think?

Love you too --

Seriously, I think that another factor that should be included in determining a skater's body of achievement is the difficulty involved. For example, in the University of California system, there are some campuses (such as UCLA or even Irvine) that have always been more prestigious and more difficult to get into than other campuses (such as Riverside). Also, some years ago (long after I graduated from the UC at Irvine), the entrance requirements were stiffened, adding required classes that I didn't have to take (and probably would not have done well in if I did). It is (IMO) unfair to treat my accomplishment in getting into Irvine over 30 years ago as somehow better than someone getting into Riverside now, without acknowledging the more difficult entrance requirements.

Similarly, it is (IMO) much more difficult to win a lot of medals at Worlds and Olys in "Kwan world" than it was in "Witt world" (let alone "Vincent Owen world" simply because the increased technical demands and workload (tours, cheesefests, etc.) make the chance of injury much, much greater.

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Love you too --

Seriously, I think that another factor that should be included in determining a skater's body of achievement is the difficulty involved. For example, in the University of California system, there are some campuses (such as UCLA or even Irvine) that have always been more prestigious and more difficult to get into than other campuses (such as Riverside). Also, some years ago (long after I graduated from the UC at Irvine), the entrance requirements were stiffened, adding required classes that I didn't have to take (and probably would not have done well in if I did). It is (IMO) unfair to treat my accomplishment in getting into Irvine over 30 years ago as somehow better than someone getting into Riverside now, without acknowledging the more difficult entrance requirements.

Similarly, it is (IMO) much more difficult to win a lot of medals at Worlds and Olys in "Kwan world" than it was in "Witt world" (let alone "Vincent Owen world" simply because the increased technical demands and workload (tours, cheesefests, etc.) make the chance of injury much, much greater.

Be careful now or the Sonia Henie contingent will rise up and smite thou for taking name of the Goddess in vain...

 

[bekalc]

Love you too --

Seriously, I think that another factor that should be included in determining a skater's body of achievement is the difficulty involved. For example, in the University of California system, there are some campuses (such as UCLA or even Irvine) that have always been more prestigious and more difficult to get into than other campuses (such as Riverside). Also, some years ago (long after I graduated from the UC at Irvine), the entrance requirements were stiffened, adding required classes that I didn't have to take (and probably would not have done well in if I did). It is (IMO) unfair to treat my accomplishment in getting into Irvine over 30 years ago as somehow better than someone getting into Riverside now, without acknowledging the more difficult entrance requirements.

Similarly, it is (IMO) much more difficult to win a lot of medals at Worlds and Olys in "Kwan world" than it was in "Witt world" (let alone "Vincent Owen world" simply because the increased technical demands and workload (tours, cheesefests, etc.) make the chance of injury much, much greater.

But it's also unfair to hold older skaters to Michelle Kwan's standards. What I mean by this is that the tougher triples in general are done much more and there are knowledgable coaches that know how to train their younger students to handle these tougher jumps. Michelle started practicing the triple loop at a much younger age than Katerina Witt did. Whose to say that If Witt had access to the same amounts of jumps that Michelle had, that Katerina wouldn't have been able to surpass Michelle. Yes, Katerina doubled a jump, but it's not like she fell in the Olympic games..Witt skated well, and stood up to the pressure. While Michelle was very good in Nagano, she was not so good in Salt Lake.

Besides, the youngsters are already surprassing Michelle. They are doing much more difficult triple/triples than Michelle ever did in competition.

 

[slutskayafan21]

Yay! I missed the memo that said fans could rewrite not only history but also the judging guidelines based on our own opinions and fandom... well in that case...

Kwan is a three peat olympic champion with wins at '98, '02 and '06 games! Why? Because we all know she's better than Tara, Sarah and Diva - so just give it to her... and while we're at it, let's have call in voting like at Marshalls - who needs criteria when you can have popularity? Or... let's just turn skating into one big reality show and last man / woman standing wins and only KW gets to choose the winner... Even better - let's just engrave Michelle Kwan's name on everything because that is who I like best. Why? Because I'm smarter than everyone else and who needs actual factual scores, when you can have the gloriousness of what I think vs. what judges see on the ice... And please note, you can trust me... "we don't need no stinkin' badges"

 

[attyfan]

But it's also unfair to hold older skaters to Michelle Kwan's standards. What I mean by this is that the tougher triples in general are done much more and there are knowledgable coaches that know how to train their younger students to handle these tougher jumps. Michelle started practicing the triple loop at a much younger age than Katerina Witt did. Whose to say that If Witt had access to the same amounts of jumps that Michelle had, that Katerina wouldn't have been able to surpass Michelle. Yes, Katerina doubled a jump, but it's not like she fell in the Olympic games..Witt skated well, and stood up to the pressure. While Michelle was very good in Nagano, she was not so good in Salt Lake.

Besides, the youngsters are already surprassing Michelle. They are doing much more difficult triple/triples than Michelle ever did in competition.

You still don't get it. Yes, "if Witt had access to the same amount of jumps that Michelle had, Witt might have been able to surpass Michelle" (emphasis added), but it is equally likely that if Witt had to live up to the physical demands that Michelle had to meet, Witt wouldn't have her competitive record because injury might have forced her out too early. That current youngsters are surpassing Michelle by doing more difficult jumps than Michelle ever did may make it even more likely that they do not surpass Michelle's 9-year streak -- again because of injury.

My point is that you cannot just cannot compare competitive results as completely determinative --- because the bare results are only part of the picture. That Witt was a strong minded competitor doesn't alter the fact that Michelle's longevity is a medical miracle.

 

[slutskayafan21]

Sorry, but if fans can re-write history, Michelle is a fourpeat Oly champ -- she is also better than Oksana!

We in fairness she wasnt better then her yet in 94.

 

[GoldMedalist]

Yay! I missed the memo that said fans could rewrite not only history but also the judging guidelines based on our own opinions and fandom... well in that case...

I have no fandom in my judging; I'm objective.

What happened is what happened. Often times, the wrong thing happens. We can not re-write History, we can only talk about WHY something was wrong and/or use affirmative action as a solution when necessary. In the case of Figure Skating and other sports, affirmative action simply isn't viable most of the time. The wrong person getting the Gold Medal is annoying, but it's not Slavery and it's not a big corporation shipping out a dangerous product that needs to be recalled.

Corrective action has happened a few times in figure skating, though, and such measures need to happen quickly because the window of opportunity for these things isn't large. Salle and Pelletier were given Gold medals, but if that hadn't happened, nobody would have been pressuring the ISU to reverse the decision a year later. The time would have been past.

Harding was stripped of her 1994 National Title but that wouldn't have happened if, for some reason, the identity of Nancy's attacker wasn't discovered until 5 years later.

At 2005 Japanese Nationals, Nobunari Oda won the title over Takahashi and therefore a trip to the Olympics. It was later discovered, however, that a judging mistake had happened. The medals were reversed and Takahashi become the Japanese Champion and got the trip to the Olympics. If this scoring error hadn't been found out until yesterday, for example, Oda would still be the Japanese Champion of that competition. Nobody would be saying "wow, we need to change that" at this point. The time would have already been too far gone. The point I'm trying to make is that the difference is SOLELY what is written in the history book. If that corrective action hadn't happened, it would be very easy to argue that Takahashi SHOULD have been Champion. He wouldn't ever be 2005 Japanese Champion in the books but, in time, it would become accepted as the norm by those who are knowledgeable about the matter.

It is actually extremely natural to look back in History and say "this is what SHOULD have happened" (Midori Ito should have won the 1988 Olympics; Citizen Kane should not have lost the Oscar to How Green Was My Valley) or to "adjust the value" of something which happened historically (for example, Titanic holds the Title of the #1 grossing film of all time but, if you adjust for inflation, it's actually not). The titles that certain Olympic decathlon athletes hold can not be taken away but, as the decathlon point system has changed over the years, you can go back using the "better" judging system and say "Well, this is how many points XXX person SHOULD have had". It's no different with Figure Skating.

Apparently, I'm just one of the very few who is actually questioning at this kind of Meta-level rather than merely accepting. ------ That, of course, is not true at all. You're all doing it in some kind of varying amount but simply not recognizing the process. ANY time you say "XXX should have been the result, given what happened", you've engaged into this level of thought. It's quite different from fandom, Kwanford. Wanting someone to win is one thing (I "wanted" Cohen to win 2006 Worlds, for example); using objective thought to analyze the result is another (Cohen should have been 4th at 2006 Worlds). And, no, not everything in Figure Skating is objective. But that's part of what makes it fun to talk about and watch.

 

[attyfan]

...

Corrective action has happened a few times in figure skating, though, and such measures need to happen quickly because the window of opportunity for these things isn't large. Salle and Pelletier were given Gold medals, but if that hadn't happened, nobody would have been pressuring the ISU to reverse the decision a year later. The time would have been past.

Harding was stripped of her 1994 National Title but that wouldn't have happened if, for some reason, the identity of Nancy's attacker wasn't discovered until 5 years later.

At 2005 Japanese Nationals, Nobunari Oda won the title over Takahashi and therefore a trip to the Olympics. It was later discovered, however, that a judging mistake had happened. The medals were reversed and Takahashi become the Japanese Champion and got the trip to the Olympics. f this scoring error hadn't been found out until yesterday, for example, Oda would still be the Japanese Champion of that competition. ...

IIRC, Marion Jones was stripped of her Oly medals, and the records are being re-adjusted as we post. So, at least as to Harding, skating shouldn't be any different. As far S/P are concerned -- were there any readjustments made to the games that were refereed by the guy who was found to be gambling on them?

 

[slutskayafan21]

I thought Cohen's bronze at the 2006 Worlds made sense. She deserved to lose the LP to Sokolova, and she did, but she had enough of a lead in the other programs. Her score was too high for that performance, which was much worse then her Olympic one, but her cushion going into the LP was still sufficient IMO. Anyway Sokolova's PCS was kind of generous too considering the program had almost no choreography at all.

 

[blue dog]

Well, if we're going to compare the value of Olympic gold vs Olympic silver...let's look at the medals themselves.

An Olympic gold medal is basically an Olympic silver medal with a gold plate.

Chapter5, Rule 70, paragraph 2 of the Charter, which is entitled "Medals and Diplomas" states:

2.1 For the individual events, the first prize shall be a silver gilt medal and a diploma, the second prize a silver medal and a diploma, and the third prize a bronze medal and a diploma ... etc

2.2 The medals shall be at least 60mm in diameter and 3 mm thick. The medals for first and second places shall be of silver of at least 925-1000 grade; the medal for first place shall be gilded with at least 6 g of pure gold.

2.4 For team sports, and for team events in other sports, each member of the winning team having taken part in at least one match or competition during the Olympic Games is entitled to a silver gilt medal and a diploma, ...etc.

The only figure skater with a pure gold medal is Irina Slutskaya, since Russia felt sorry for her after the 2002 Olympics that they copied one of the gold medals, but made it out of pure gold instead of having it be a gold-plated silver.

So, in essence, all the gold medalists are silver medalists as well =P