PDA

View Full Version : New Phil Hersh Article



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

missflick
05-10-2010, 10:17 PM
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/sports_globetrotting/2010/05/nagasu-not-on-par-with-flatt-huh.html

AxelAnnie
05-10-2010, 10:40 PM
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the article.

jlai
05-11-2010, 12:04 AM
While Mirai's tier did make me go hmm for a second or two, I do not agree with Hersh. The criteria for the tiers are published long before the envelopes are announced, and there should be no surprises as to who gets what. All a skater needs to do is meet the criteria and she will get the funding.

Had the criteria not been published months prior there might be a case of unfairness, but since everyone knows how to earn their money months in advance...

Moreover, no matter how the criteria are written, there will be cases of skaters slipping through the cracks because of the way they place.

Or do we want skaters' funding criteria to be changed after the fact to fit a skater's "situation", prompting more cries of unfairness?

Or have funding depend on the coaches' or fans' vague assertions on potential?

barbk
05-11-2010, 12:12 AM
No unfairness. The US has always treated Nationals as a special event, and only in the most recent iteration of tier funding did the national champion not automatically make it into Team A and the highest funding level. I think that the most recent changes could be termed the Czisny/Abbott rule -- I suspect that the powers that be didn't like automatic Team A high level funding for skaters that didn't skate well at Worlds.

And 7th at Worlds is nice but not so stunningly fabulous as to make anyone say that Nagasu automatically should get the higher level of funding.

Besides, I doubt she has any shortage of sponsors at this point. The girl does perky and bubbly to the Nth degree.

And was that a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" to Rachael Flatt? I don't think Phil is a fan.

azskatefan
05-11-2010, 12:14 AM
The guidelines were published a long time ago and according to them, Flatt is eligible for Tier One and Nagasu is not. I'm glad that Nagasu was not bumped up just because she finished higher in two competitions. It's not like Nagasu won those competitions. Not to be rude, seventh in the world isn't that much better than ninth. They fall into the same tier according to ISU (1-3, 4-6, 7-9). Hersh loved Nagasu until she performed poorly. Now that she's back on track, he's back to loving her. Thank God we have some rules instead of letting Phil pick 'em. Flatt came out on top according to the rules. Move on Phil.

Debbie S
05-11-2010, 03:26 AM
While Mirai's tier did make me go hmm for a second or two, I do not agree with Hersh. The criteria for the tiers are published long before the envelopes are announced, and there should be no surprises as to who gets what. All a skater needs to do is meet the criteria and she will get the funding. Exactly. What Hersh should be pointing out, instead of calling the rules "myopic", is that if Mirai had landed a simple (for her) 2axel in her Worlds FS, she would have made Tier 1 (and medaled). Given the criteria, yes, Rachael should be ranked higher than Mirai, b/c Rachael won Nats.

(And if Mirai had fully rotated all of her jumps at Nats, she might have won. :shuffle:)

jlai
05-11-2010, 03:49 AM
I do notice that the only comment approved and posted on the blog is the one that agrees with Hersh. :lol:

RD
05-11-2010, 05:41 AM
And was that a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" to Rachael Flatt? I don't think Phil is a fan.

Yeah, I wasn't quite sure what his point was. I sort of felt like he was trying to push her out. Then at the end he says she actually deserves the A funding but Nagasu does too. Just a bit :confused: by his motive.

That said, I do think Nagasu should have won Nationals this year. Who knows if she would have done as well at OLYs though.

bek
05-11-2010, 06:44 AM
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure what his point was. I sort of felt like he was trying to push her out. Then at the end he says she actually deserves the A funding but Nagasu does too. Just a bit :confused: by his motive.

That said, I do think Nagasu should have won Nationals this year. Who knows if she would have done as well at OLYs though.

Yeah. I can't help thinking that he wouldn't be telling Mirai to retire if she has a lower placed finish at next years worlds. And to be frank the criteria is the criteria, it shouldn't be changed as an afterthought for one skater-I don't care how talented.

IceAlisa
05-11-2010, 07:02 AM
I do agree with Hersh that Rachael would do well to consider Stanford full time should her next season fail to be successful.

bek
05-11-2010, 07:06 AM
I do agree with Hersh that Rachael would do well to consider Stanford full time should her next season fail to be successful.

Its not that I don't agree with him, I just found the tone of his article condescending, especially when he was talking about there being no reason for Rachael to be on a higher tier from Mirai, as if it was some kind of outrage, when the criteria was mentioned well before their main results this season.

IceAlisa
05-11-2010, 07:24 AM
Its not that I don't agree with him, I just found the tone of his article condescending, especially when he was talking about there being no reason for Rachael to be on a higher tier from Mirai, as if it was some kind of outrage, when the criteria was mentioned well before their main results this season.

Well, that's Hersh for you. But he does make a good point occasionally.

geod2
05-11-2010, 08:20 AM
I do notice that the only comment approved and posted on the blog is the one that agrees with Hersh. :lol:


So far...it can take up to 24-48 hours.

I posted a reply that was very critical of him last year, but to his credit it was posted, and I've seen some others that were so inappropriate that I wouldn't post them if I were in Phil's place...but he did.

Like a lot of folks here I agree with him sometimes, and sometimes I disagree, or think he's being a jerk.
But censorship of reader replies has not been among his faults that I can tell.

Marco
05-11-2010, 08:54 AM
My take is Hersh felt Nagasu wuzrobbed of the National title this past season but felt it didn't matter because ultimately she made the Olympic and World team. Little did he know/ realise until now that it was also costing Nagasu one level of funding.

Rules are rules, but when someone beat the reigning US champion and become the top US lady/ new judges' favorite at both the Olympics and Worlds and doesn't receive the same funding as the US champion who clearly fell out of judges' favour, something is wrong with the funding rules. They should look at it again for next year.

jlai
05-11-2010, 11:18 AM
The rules are fine as it is. There's no way to tweak the rules to account for every odd situation that doesn't fit because they would have to write "the highest placing US skater at worlds" or something like that without naming the placement (which would have been an odd way for USFSA to write the criteria).

Nagasu is a rising talent. But if an old hand and a medal favorite ended up with the same placements, no doubt the naysayers would say "she missed the podium at Olympics and worlds again" and advocate for a lower tier funding. So how do we write the rules to match fans' perception of who's deserving? Something like "If you miss the podium the third time you get bumped down?" but "if you get top ten the first try you get bumped up?" LOL

I think going strictly by placement is fine to completely avoid letting fan perception and comparison between skaters dictate this.