- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
Yes, I agree. I stopped caring about the flawed scoring system for a long time now already. I just like to see beautiful performances from her.
Will Mao Asada Make It to the 2018 Games?
- Thread starter andyjo24
- Start date
Yes, I agree. I stopped caring about the flawed scoring system for a long time now already. I just like to see beautiful performances from her.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
So the Korean Federation didn't really do a good job writing those ISU rules since they failed to see that Yuna tended to go on the wrong edge on her flip as well, right?Man, come to think of it their bribery could have actually done the opposite of helping Yuna if she wasn't able to master that 3Lz-3T or allowed the edge calls to shake her confidence. Doing a great 3Lz is one thing but to actually change your 3-3 combo in the Olympic season with all the pressure on you as reigning World Champion could have been a disaster.
Yuna was very good for the sport of figure skating. It brought in a lot of fans from her country. I think the ISU definitely recognized that. I am aware a lot of people disagree. But why are people getting so upset about there being politics existing in the sport? Does anyone remember the salt lake 2002 pairs scandal? Or how sasha cohen won silver in Turin despite falling down twice in her lp? Politics is a big factor in this sport and no one can convince me it's not.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2014
My best case scenario is for Mao's experience and maturity propelling her finally to an Olympic gold. I think as long as Mao is not injured and places top 5 at Japanese Nationals (very doable) that she should be going to the Olympics if Japan has 3 spots. I guess it gets dicey if they only have two since they have to think about the future. But what Mao has done for not only Japanese figure skating but the sport as a whole should be strongly considered especially if she continues with a competitive technical layout. No matter what happens at the Olympics, I will be happy to see Mao get that opportunity to try for the gold again because I think she will retire knowing she has done everything she could for the sport and for herself.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I think everyone knows politics is a big factor in the sport. I can't say definitively that Yuna did or didn't get good marks in certain events because of politics, but certainly there weren't any rule changes that benefitted only her. In fact, limiting the number of 2As and reducing the GOE amount hurt her since she didn't do a 3Lo and got high GOE on her jumps usually.
I think you'll understand more if you read the post I was replying to. Here is the original post by nolangoh
and my reply
I'm all for giving combination bonuses, but it has to factor in the difficulty of the first jump as well because otherwise, 3T-3T after half point + the bonus that nolangoh described is equal to 11.11 without GOE. Compared that to 3S+3Lo (which is harder than 3T-3T) which is 12.65 without GOE. Only a 1.54 difference for a harder combination. No ones gonna go for any 3Lo jumps even with bonuses implemented if the previous jump is not factored in.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2014
If you said that Yuna getting a world record and over 200 points at Worlds 2009 with a popped Salchow and invalidated spin because ISU recognized that she was generating a lot of buzz especially in an emerging economically prosperous country in Asia with little figure skating history, thus creating excitement going into an Olympic season, I would say you have a point (although there will be other who would strongly disagree with this). But to say that ISU would change the rules to favor an incredibly talented but still untested (in the senior ranks) 16 year old Korean girl I have an issue with. Yuna battled injuries during her first two years in seniors and could only get bronze at her first two Worlds. Mao was considered the next big thing in figure skating even before she was eligible for senior Worlds and she actually won before Yuna did. Mao was considered the better skater while Yuna was sort of the novelty, "can you believe a Korean girl is this talented?". Why would ISU favor a novelty from a country where you are not sure has the talent to sustain long term interest in the sport over a skater who is actually doing something historic (triple axel) from a proven powerhouse country?
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
I don't disagree Yuna is not talented. She is very talented or else she wouldn't have gotten two olympic medals and world medals. I have learned to appreciate her skating, especially her edging and speed, which imo, always was a notch better than Maos. My issue is not with her.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
Wad of OT reply... feel free to skip
Sometimes? There are tons of faults many have been discussed over the years like undervalue of difficult triple-triples, zayaking rules, but are deliberately neglected, instead, they make strange 'updates' like adding scale value to the easiest 3t continuously, make it easier to get GOEs by adding a Tano, and make it less harsh to punish imperfect techniques. With each panel of technical judges being strict and lenient among specific strategic competitions, it seems they can't even agree among themselves make the whole "consistently high-quality standard of judging" a joke. In any case, that is rather a lazy way of thinking. Otherwise, you are saying text book can never be wrong and the status of the world can't innovate and improve. As a long term observer the sport, how can one not begin to see it as a self-serving exercise among the few power federations to swap medals with everyone else just to make up the numbers. The are very rare genuinely honest rule changes I have seen about improving the sport, including reward where reward should be given, and not taken for granted or conviniently neglected.
You read my post wrong. It is not about +6, but about the range of scoring -6,-5,-4 all the way to +4, +5, +6. It is not about sizes, but a degree of quality relative to the rest of the competition and their personal milestone. Is it not true that out of all bullet points, jump higher and further requires the highest form of athleticism that brings legitimacy this sport as an Olympic standard sport (See their motto) as it requires the greatest exertion of risks and effort (See Anna's falls). I believe Anna's 3lz3t for example should score higher than Gracie's 3lz3t at WC in this regard, a matter of +5 vs +4. +6 should be exceptional, rare if any. While Satoko's should earn -3 or -4 for hers (smallest in history). - 5, -6 is for UR, and falls. If Satoko manages to jump higher and bigger in the next event, then she should also be rewarded vs previous efforts, which is minimum height just to tick a box, play safe, consistent etc. No different than what Zhenya is doing for example. If they reward higher for jumps, i bet we will see a different effort from her in jumps.
It is about the rewarding effort where it is due with great clarity and accountability. Instead of going oh... that is sort of a +2. When one's +2 and another's +2 are clearly not equal consider one clearly requires more risks, difficulty and effort than the other, and one is advantaged by their petite frame that has more to do nature than nurture in a performance sport.
That is not possible under COP, where absolutes numbers place a limit on how exceptional skaters can be rewarded in PCS and GOEs. So you agree asking 8 separate judges to look for 8 bullet points is not only impractical but unreliable. Where -2 and -1 are rarely used, so the range of value is, even more, smaller. My view is each judge can actually be trained in specialisation in at least 2 or 3 bullet points, and they share the burden for all 8 bullet points for the whole panel, looking at no more than 2 bullet points each. No judges know what the other judges are marking, so it makes collusion even harder. Then the totality of quality in its various degrees is tallied and factored according to the difficulty of the jump. Harder combos should be rewarded better in GOEs than easiest combos because it requires more effort and risks. Each should be proportionally rewarded.
Yes abolish anonymous judging is great, but under Speedy and Lakernik, I'd be very surprised to see that happen. They only want to do it now, because they are worried Russia will no longer benefit from it and could be a victim of it, so I have no sympathy at all. In anycase, the continuous undermark of Asian's young skater's PCS is so artificially contained vs the European counterparts, it is hard not to notice and be puzzled by them.
Yet some people have no problem with giving extra points for Mao doing her 3As? Make your mind up
Whether you disagree with it or, it is the way the judges have always reward the progress of the sport, it is precisely of 4lz, his reputation has improved over time, and Adam is adamant (yeah for puns!) about laying one down in all his recent fs. It is also the primary reason to justify Plushy's legendary status.
Ashley's 3/3 reward is about personal breakthroughs IMO. It should be rewarded, however, minuscules it is, even in the form of +1 or -1. Just as if Mao managed to correct her technique on the lz. Otherwise, what is the point for training for it, and work so hard on it? What does progress mean exactly?
OT but relavent. Satoko shouldn't be with 2.5 points close to Anna or Gracie with her 3lz3 but she is. The separation from them says quality of jumps are no longer important, and it is no more than tick box system. Here are some points variances.
WC2016 SP
Satoko's 3lz3t 11 points
Anna's 11.7
Elena's 11.5
Gracie's 11.6 (FS)
Just for fun
Yuna's WC 2013 3lz3t 11.50
Mao's ... nvm
Sometimes? There are tons of faults many have been discussed over the years like undervalue of difficult triple-triples, zayaking rules, but are deliberately neglected, instead, they make strange 'updates' like adding scale value to the easiest 3t continuously, make it easier to get GOEs by adding a Tano, and make it less harsh to punish imperfect techniques. With each panel of technical judges being strict and lenient among specific strategic competitions, it seems they can't even agree among themselves make the whole "consistently high-quality standard of judging" a joke. In any case, that is rather a lazy way of thinking. Otherwise, you are saying text book can never be wrong and the status of the world can't innovate and improve. As a long term observer the sport, how can one not begin to see it as a self-serving exercise among the few power federations to swap medals with everyone else just to make up the numbers. The are very rare genuinely honest rule changes I have seen about improving the sport, including reward where reward should be given, and not taken for granted or conviniently neglected.
You read my post wrong. It is not about +6, but about the range of scoring -6,-5,-4 all the way to +4, +5, +6. It is not about sizes, but a degree of quality relative to the rest of the competition and their personal milestone. Is it not true that out of all bullet points, jump higher and further requires the highest form of athleticism that brings legitimacy this sport as an Olympic standard sport (See their motto) as it requires the greatest exertion of risks and effort (See Anna's falls). I believe Anna's 3lz3t for example should score higher than Gracie's 3lz3t at WC in this regard, a matter of +5 vs +4. +6 should be exceptional, rare if any. While Satoko's should earn -3 or -4 for hers (smallest in history). - 5, -6 is for UR, and falls. If Satoko manages to jump higher and bigger in the next event, then she should also be rewarded vs previous efforts, which is minimum height just to tick a box, play safe, consistent etc. No different than what Zhenya is doing for example. If they reward higher for jumps, i bet we will see a different effort from her in jumps.
It is about the rewarding effort where it is due with great clarity and accountability. Instead of going oh... that is sort of a +2. When one's +2 and another's +2 are clearly not equal consider one clearly requires more risks, difficulty and effort than the other, and one is advantaged by their petite frame that has more to do nature than nurture in a performance sport.
That is not possible under COP, where absolutes numbers place a limit on how exceptional skaters can be rewarded in PCS and GOEs. So you agree asking 8 separate judges to look for 8 bullet points is not only impractical but unreliable. Where -2 and -1 are rarely used, so the range of value is, even more, smaller. My view is each judge can actually be trained in specialisation in at least 2 or 3 bullet points, and they share the burden for all 8 bullet points for the whole panel, looking at no more than 2 bullet points each. No judges know what the other judges are marking, so it makes collusion even harder. Then the totality of quality in its various degrees is tallied and factored according to the difficulty of the jump. Harder combos should be rewarded better in GOEs than easiest combos because it requires more effort and risks. Each should be proportionally rewarded.
Yes abolish anonymous judging is great, but under Speedy and Lakernik, I'd be very surprised to see that happen. They only want to do it now, because they are worried Russia will no longer benefit from it and could be a victim of it, so I have no sympathy at all. In anycase, the continuous undermark of Asian's young skater's PCS is so artificially contained vs the European counterparts, it is hard not to notice and be puzzled by them.
Yet some people have no problem with giving extra points for Mao doing her 3As? Make your mind up
Whether you disagree with it or, it is the way the judges have always reward the progress of the sport, it is precisely of 4lz, his reputation has improved over time, and Adam is adamant (yeah for puns!) about laying one down in all his recent fs. It is also the primary reason to justify Plushy's legendary status.
Ashley's 3/3 reward is about personal breakthroughs IMO. It should be rewarded, however, minuscules it is, even in the form of +1 or -1. Just as if Mao managed to correct her technique on the lz. Otherwise, what is the point for training for it, and work so hard on it? What does progress mean exactly?
OT but relavent. Satoko shouldn't be with 2.5 points close to Anna or Gracie with her 3lz3 but she is. The separation from them says quality of jumps are no longer important, and it is no more than tick box system. Here are some points variances.
WC2016 SP
Satoko's 3lz3t 11 points
Anna's 11.7
Elena's 11.5
Gracie's 11.6 (FS)
Just for fun
Yuna's WC 2013 3lz3t 11.50
Mao's ... nvm
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
I am not saying that, what I'm saying is that everyone has different ideas on how to improve the system but at the end of the day the real, existing judging system is the one that counts.
All jumps require risks, whether they are bigger or smaller. It depends on the body and the muscle power of the skater. The risks are individual. Anna's falls aren't a good example. I've rarely (if ever) seen those kind of falls from "big jumpers", it's a matter of learning how to fall in order to minimize the disruption in the program. At the same time I could always tell Anna was going to fall just by looking at her take-off (telegraphed, speed slowing down, wrong position). Falls are already bound to happen when you miss the right timing or you jump from a flawed position (most visible when the axis is off in the air, which I've often seen from Anna). It's been said before, faulty take-offs are the reason why falls happen, not the amount of height or distance.
I'm not one of those people, so I'm not the one who should make up my mind.
That is equal to giving skaters bonus for being consistent. People think it shouldn't weigh in the scoring of a skater but "rewards for personal breakthroughs" should?
To keep up with the rest of the field. To compete with everyone else. Everyone is doing 3-3, some are raising the bar, but when Ashley does it she should get preferential treatment because it's a personal breakthrough? Isn't that as faulty as the current rules of the judging system I wonder.
Height and distance are not the only characteristics that bring quality to the jump. If a skater jumps high with scratchy landings or minimal flow in and out, is that still considered quality jump? Gracie's 3Lz-3T combo isn't as high as it used to be and it's been an endangered species lately. I wouldn't use her combo when talking about quality combinations.
The real fault I see here is Elena scoring 11.5 with those low, scratchy landings and minimal flow rather than Satoko's small but otherwise neatly executed combo. Elena is right behind Anna and Gracie's better executed combos while Satoko is within 0.7 points distance.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
Mao started getting dings for her 3F+3Lo in the 2007-08 season, but her success rate with the combo was still very high during that season. When she rotated it, she got credit for it. In the following season she started struggling with her jumps in various ways. She may still have looked petite and thin and fit, but her body was going through subtle changes that were throwing her off. Her technique was failing her (as was her coach) and it was not the fault of the judging system or the technical panel.
In my post a few pages back - (Mao Asada - the complete triple-triples, 2006 to 2009)
- you can see that the one in 2009 Worlds Clair de Lune program was rotated and got +0.80 GOE. But that was the only one she pulled off all season. The other ones just weren't good. She knew she was losing her jumps (“The silver medal was nice, but my jumps were falling apart.") I don't think she thought she was rotating her jumps but not getting credit for them. When she hit the lowest point she decided to attack the problem head-on with all the determination and perseverance in the world, to do whatever it took to bounce back. She did not blame the system or feel sorry for herself. And as her fan I don't see a need to do that for her either. I actually don't mind the scrutiny she gets for her jumps and the high standard she is held to technically, perhaps because I have so much faith in her that I believe she can win even with this type of treatment. And when she does win, no one will be able nitpick and say she gets a pass from xxx because xxx (well I guess people will say it anyway... but I'll have the comfort of knowing it's b*** c***.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
Very OT, but I do have to really commend Mao, Yuna, and Carolina for their professionalism in the sport. None of them ever blamed the system. It must be crazy for any of the skaters to suddenly see e and < marks in 2007+ when they may be thinking "Well, I've always done a flip or lutz like that....?" To be a guinea pig for a brand new scoring system must have been very frustrating.
I hope Mao uses the COP to her advantage. I know she loves to go for the 3A but I hope her team maximizes her scoring potential. Placing the ChSq in the middle in her Madame Butterfly was a smart move that not only gave her one extra jumping pass in the second half, but also probably gave her legs some rest. She hasn't hit a 3-2-2 combo like that for a while!
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
Mao started getting dings for her 3F+3Lo in the 2007-08 season, but her success rate with the combo was still very high during that season. When she rotated it, she got credit for it. In the following season she started struggling with her jumps in various ways. She may still have looked petite and thin and fit, but her body was going through subtle changes that were throwing her off. Her technique was failing her (as was her coach) and it was not the fault of the judging system or the technical panel.
In my post a few pages back - (Mao Asada - the complete triple-triples, 2006 to 2009)
She knew she was losing her jumps (“The silver medal was nice, but my jumps were falling apart.") I don't think she thought she was rotating her jumps but not getting credit for them. When she hit the lowest point she decided to attack the problem head-on with all the determination and perseverance in the world, to do whatever it took to bounce back. She did not blame the system or feel sorry for herself. And as her fan I don't see a need to do that for her either. I actually don't mind the scrutiny she gets for her jumps and the high standard she is held to technically, perhaps because I have so much faith in her that I believe she can win even with this type of treatment. And when she does win, no one will be able nitpick and say she gets a pass from xxx because xxx (well I guess people will say it anyway... but I'll have the comfort of knowing it's b*** c***.
So was she referring to her silver medal in Vancouver? I recall she did a very good short program, she landed all her jumps, yet Kim was still way ahead of her by 5 or 10 points, can't remember exactly the point difference anymore, leading up to the long program. In her long program, I recall she messed up on her triple flip double loop combo and maybe another single jumps towards the end of her program. Maybe she was referring to that. I'm talking about her being called for under-rotations early on in her career.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
Mao started getting dings for her 3F+3Lo in the 2007-08 season, but her success rate with the combo was still very high during that season. When she rotated it, she got credit for it. In the following season she started struggling with her jumps in various ways. She may still have looked petite and thin and fit, but her body was going through subtle changes that were throwing her off. Her technique was failing her (as was her coach) and it was not the fault of the judging system or the technical panel.
In my post a few pages back - (Mao Asada - the complete triple-triples, 2006 to 2009)
She knew she was losing her jumps (“The silver medal was nice, but my jumps were falling apart.") I don't think she thought she was rotating her jumps but not getting credit for them. When she hit the lowest point she decided to attack the problem head-on with all the determination and perseverance in the world, to do whatever it took to bounce back. She did not blame the system or feel sorry for herself. And as her fan I don't see a need to do that for her either. I actually don't mind the scrutiny she gets for her jumps and the high standard she is held to technically, perhaps because I have so much faith in her that I believe she can win even with this type of treatment. And when she does win, no one will be able nitpick and say she gets a pass from xxx because xxx (well I guess people will say it anyway... but I'll have the comfort of knowing it's b*** c***.
I don't think we recall the same thing, then. Agree to disagree. I only remember one instance where she got full credit for the 3flip3loop. All her jumps were looked at carefully after she started getting calls for under-rotations, much like what Polina Edmunds is experiencing right now. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I've followed Mao's career closely up until after Vancouver. I may not remember some stuff, but I do remember the unfair judging of Mao, and you can disagree and that's ok.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
I listed out every single triple triple Mao did during that season right here... As you can see, in international competitions she got 5 3F+3Lo combos ratified, versus 4 downgraded. She got +1.57 GOE for it at Worlds and +1.20 at GPF. In addition, she also got great marks for the 3F+3Lo at the Japanese Nationals in both SP and FS. I also went back to look at the videos of all those skates where her combo got dinged, and in my view the calls weren't wrong.I definitely agree with you that Mao gets extra scrutiny and literally no benefit of a doubt from the tech panel. It's like everything's under review every single time
while Ashley Wagner's 3Lo+1Lo+3S wasn't even marked for review and got away with +1.20 GOE. It is unfair treatment sometimes. But at the same time (it absolutely pains me to say this) she did "earn" this treatment through a tendency and track record to underrotate jumps. If this is the judging system she is competing under, she just has to deal with it. Personally I would be more proud to see her win a silver or bronze with correctly called <s than to see her win a gold with URs that were overlooked. 
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
I definitely agree with you that Mao gets extra scrutiny and literally no benefit of a doubt from the tech panel. It's like everything's under review every single time
Some of this information is repeated, but I will only do it with what I feel is needed. I have compared instant replays and seen calls made against Mao when other skaters rotated no more and even less and got away with it quite often all the way back to 2007. I won't mention names to avoid arguments. So, do the ones who get away with it earn the right not to be examined under a microscope in perpetuity? And do the ones who have been analyzed under a microscope from the very beginning, like Mao, who happened to have the harsh ur and edge penalties coincidentally instituted as soon as she became a professional, somehow deserve intensive scrutiny for their every move in perpetuity? If so, the system is unjust. But, it is unjust to anyone who undergoes such treatment. There was never a time when Mao was not examined extra closely. I am not saying that Mao doesn't have urs, as most all skaters do, and she does have issues with the triple lutz but in my opinion the criticism is out of proportion because some chosen other skaters urs and edge calls are let off the hook, since they are not inspected closely. The thing that isn't included in the discussion is the extra harsh scrutiny under the PCS criteria and GOE which shows a consistent deflation across all scoring categories for Mao. Is there a reasonable and just explanation besides the bogus skating order argument for how a 14 and 8 point PCS advantage for Mao compared to Evgenia and Ashley respectively in the LP, turns into over a 3 to almost 5 point respective disadvantage in one season? This is especially contradictory since Mao has by far the most viewed performance of any skater in any category at Worlds, not to mention 3 and what would be 4 world championships if the triple axel had the same value in 2007 that it has now, so it does not make any sense and seems to be a case of scoring inversion, even more so since this jewel of a performance was buried deep in 7th place.
In regards to your earlier comments, Mao has not complained about her scores and I am glad she says she plans to continue working on her jumps, as all skaters should. But, Mao's comments suggest that like most of the public she is much more pleased with her Madame Butterfly performance than the judges are. She said that she skated very well and was very happy and that she didn't really care about her scores. I also think that scoring has become preoccupied with the minutiae of observing slow motion replays on jumps, while ignoring excessive pre-rotation and not counting 2 1/4 rotations or more in the air as good for a triple anywhere along the circumference of a circle, which Mao does even on most of her called urs, such as the triple toe in the Worlds 2016 LP, which doesn't have massive pre-rotation and looks good to me. You may disagree, but that is what my eyes see, especially when looking at the massive pre-rotation in toe loops that are still called good. This doesn't include Mao's triple axel which almost everyone is calling rotated based on its diagonal take off at less than 180 degrees, or Mao's harsh calls on her double lutz which should have been a ! at most especially when Evgenia and Satoko were let off the hook for their triple lutz and triple flip respectively in the LP. I think all this contradictory scoring has allowed murky, inconsistent, and often invisible in real time tech calls to take precedence over smooth flow in and out of a jump, symmetrical air rotation, erect posture, musicality and expressive movement, which are much more visible and aesthetically pleasing and what I think Mao excels in, especially when she skates really well as she did in the Worlds LP. As much as Mao's jumps are ridiculed, I know that for myself and the friends I have shown Mao's performances too, we think her jumps are some of the most beautiful we have ever seen. Prima ballerina movements through and in between jumps are heavily short changed in COP.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
I definitely agree with you that Mao gets extra scrutiny and literally no benefit of a doubt from the tech panel. It's like everything's under review every single time
I looked at your list and it's crammed up, but if you look, in her second year of seniors (that was when Yuna I believe entered senior ranks), her combo scores went down compared to first year and they even started giving her hell on her triple axels, and I don't ever recall it was because she had trouble with them, it was because judges decided they were just going to heavily scrutinize her on it. I don't have the patience to dig through all her videos and post it, but that's what I recall and again you can disagree
They picked on her for everything just like they are doing to POlina Edmunds right now. Judges can and do determine a skater's career success. I'm always going to believe that and of course, many will disagree. The judging is what I hate about figure skating. It's corrupt to the core. I stopped watching it after Vancouver. I only recently started watching again because of Yuzuru Hanyu, and a few months ago, I thought he was the best figure skater I have ever seen, until I saw Javier Fernandez give the skate of his life to Frank Sinatra's music in Boston, and I became a very big fan of him now, lol - Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
Thank you so much for your articulate comments regarding the intense scrutiny of the scoring of Mao. I'm glad someone sees eye to eye with me. I've followed her career close when she was from juniors to at her prime and I know what I saw, disgusting judging. Many people don't understand how much power judges have in this sport in influencing a skater's career success or failure, or they want to turn a blind eye. This is very obvious, right? Thank you for commenting on pre-rotations which, in my opinion, should be examined more carefully. Excellent post!
Sometimes I'm just happy that skaters like Mao really seem to not give a flying **** what people think, least of all the judges, who are clearly sleeping and currently succumbing to the allure of the young. The fact that Mao Asada is still landing 3F-3Ls is a big *** ***** to the judges and 'critics' (ha!) who constantly try to ruin the party. She's already decided that if she can continue she will try and compete for 2018. Haters to the left. Mao is an institution in FS, and she doesn't have to retire to be referred to as a legend of the sport. I've made peace with the fact that she has accomplished SO MUCH (some record that will stand for a good while), it is time for new records to be made. However, if the girl wants to keep chasing the dream, seriously people just shut up and enjoy the show.
As for people who still bring up Kim to the discussion- JUST STOP MAKING FETCH HAPPEN. It's ancient history. If those two couldn't care less about each other, I swear fans get their panties in a rut for no reason at all. All the arguments have been made, and quite frankly, even though I respect these individuals and their opinions- it's redundant and a waste of online forum space. It's Britney and Christina all over again, and it's BORING.
As for people who still bring up Kim to the discussion- JUST STOP MAKING FETCH HAPPEN. It's ancient history. If those two couldn't care less about each other, I swear fans get their panties in a rut for no reason at all. All the arguments have been made, and quite frankly, even though I respect these individuals and their opinions- it's redundant and a waste of online forum space. It's Britney and Christina all over again, and it's BORING.
Last edited by a moderator:
