PDA

View Full Version : Rachael Flatt's New Coaches



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26

nylynnr
10-07-2011, 01:11 AM
And everyone who criticizes anyone's skating in any way should post a youtube video of themselves skating, preferably executing the same element, for critique for the rest of us. Thanks in advance!

While I don't really care for either Rachael's body type or the extensive discussions of it, I feel that the "have you looked at yourself in the mirror" argument doesn't work on FSU.

I don't think endless, repetitive critiques of a skater's appearance -- including whether she is smooshy, how round/big her butt is, whether her face looks as if it is 40, etc. -- can be equated to discussion of that skater's triple-triple combination, elements, programs, technique, etc.

It's a bit disheartening that decades after Title XI was strengthened, and 20 years after it was begun to be taken seriously, folks are still having these highly critical and often irrelevant discussions of a female athlete's appearance. In my day, the fear of being made fun of, of being criticized for being too heavy or too tall, of not fitting the mold, made many girls reluctant to take part in sports. I guess, from the tone and drift this thread has taken, those fears still have merit.

No one has to read this thread. But it's title is "Rachael Flatt's New Coaches" so I guess it is a person's perogative to comment on how far it has gone afield, and in what direction.

IceAlisa
10-07-2011, 01:19 AM
I don't think endless, repetitive critiques of a skater's appearance -- including whether she is smooshy, how round/big her butt is, whether her face looks as if it is 40, etc. -- can be equated to discussion of that skater's triple-triple combination, elements, programs, technique, etc. Why not? Both are highly personal and potentially extremely offensive. Say, an ugly layback can be just as hurtful as an ugly fill-in-body-part.



No one has to read this thread. But it's title is "Rachael Flatt's New Coaches" so I guess it is a person's perogative to comment on how far it has gone afield, and in what direction.

It's not uncommon for a thread to drift although I do think that this particular drift isn't exactly original. It seems you've been around FSU for a few years, surely you've seen things get a lot more heated and personal.

kwanfan1818
10-07-2011, 01:22 AM
It's a bit disheartening that decades after Title XI was strengthened, and 20 years after it was begun to be taken seriously, folks are still having these highly critical and often irrelevant discussions of a female athlete's appearance. In my day, the fear of being made fun of, of being criticized for being too heavy or too tall, of not fitting the mold, made many girls reluctant to take part in sports. I guess, from the tone and drift this thread has taken, those fears still have merit.

If a female soccer player, sprinter, swimmer, or female athlete in any other sport that is based on highest amount scored or the fastest time looks like a sumo wrestler, the only thing that matters is the amount scored or her time. It's these sports that are mostly covered by Title XI.

In skating, as in synchronized swimming and gymnastics, there's an artistic element in it, and body type, body line, and faces are judged by the judges, not just by the crowd.

gkelly
10-07-2011, 01:48 AM
In skating, as in synchronized swimming and gymnastics, there's an artistic element in it, and body type, body line, and faces are judged by the judges, not just by the crowd.

Body line is judged by the judges.

Body type and faces may affect the way the judges perceive many of the PCS criteria, or the positions on spins and spirals that affect the GOE, so in that sense, de facto they do affect the scores. But they are not official themselves criteria that are intended to be judged.

kwanfan1818
10-07-2011, 02:46 AM
Body line is judged by the judges.

Body type and faces may affect the way the judges perceive many of the PCS criteria, or the positions on spins and spirals that affect the GOE, so in that sense, de facto they do affect the scores. But they are not official themselves criteria that are intended to be judged.
Sure, officially no. But there's a reason why judges put out the word that skaters should lose weight, and why there are very few average-looking men at the top levels of figure skating and even fewer average-looking women. We might argue over which skater is most handsome, cute, attractive, etc., but in almost every case, it's a matter of taste. In this, figure skating is like ballet.

The way the criteria are written, in the ISU documentation on their website, body line isn't even explicitly called out in PCS. "Carriage" is the closest (in PE), but a skater might have beautiful carriage and poor extension and leg line.

In Communication 1611 (Pairs and Singles):


Jumps: "5) good extension on landing / creative exit"
Spins: "5) good position(s) (including height and air position in flying spins)"
Spiral sequences: "3) good body line and full extension"
Lifts: "2) correct and aesthetically pleasing air positions" ("Pleasing" is subjective, as opposed to objective criteria, like "straight legs in the star position" or "pointed toes")
Throw jumps: "2) good position of man at release", 3) good air position of lady, 4) good extension on landing / creative exit". (Item 2 is questionably applied to those men who use the Chinese throw technique.)
Pairs spins: "5) good positions by both partners"
Death spirals: "3) good quality of positions of both partners"


While body line and body type are not entirely tied at the hip, I believe "good" without specific criteria for "good" -- extension, toe point, stretch, carriage, tight legs in rotation, maintenance of line while lowering the leg, etc. -- allows for body type to come into the picture. (I've seen plenty of modern dancers that would be considered skater fat, but who have wonderful line and extension that I think would go unrewarded in skating.)

Mandatory deductions:

-1 to -3, GOE not restricted:


Spins: Poor/awkward position(s), slow, traveling
Steps: Poor quality of steps, turns, positions
Spirals: Poor positions
Lifts: Poor positions in the air or on landing
Twist Lifts: Weak landing (poor speed, bad positions,awkward catch)
Throw Jumps: Poor speed, height, distance, air position
Death Spirals**: Poor position of the lady (too high etc.)


**Even though both partners are listed in good GOE criteria, there's no required deduction for the man being in bad position.

I think that if a skater doesn't achieve and maintain a good position in the element, that GOE should not be positive, regardless of the number of bullet points they check, but that's my aesthetic speaking.

mysticchic
10-07-2011, 04:44 AM
IceAlisa your location says it all vanity is a bitch! Your nothing but a bully. Talk about her skating, leave her looks alone!

Jenna
10-07-2011, 04:56 AM
Why not? Both are highly personal and potentially extremely offensive. Say, an ugly layback can be just as hurtful as an ugly fill-in-body-part.


That is so false, it isn't even funny.

Stop. Really, just stop.

RD
10-07-2011, 05:30 AM
I'm amazed this thread is still going...

IceAlisa
10-08-2011, 04:06 AM
Again, no need to come here if the thread offends. I was not talking about Rachael's appearance, rather speaking in general terms. However, a few posters have developed a paranoia, seeing offense to Rachael where there isn't one.

WRT my location: it's very tongue-in-cheek, more of a private joke that most of you are not privy to. So do not make assumptions.

And again, why do you come here, to police for potential insults to Rachael? To be offended when in certain cases there is no offense? Really, if you want to talk about her, do.

If you really paid attention, I spoke of Rachael's skating and decision making. And have not made a single critical remark about her body, other than disagreeing that she is gorgeous. If believing that someone is less than gorgeous is unacceptable to some and elicits derision, then who really is the bully?

UMBS Go Blue
10-08-2011, 09:43 AM
Wow, just waded into this thread. :yikes:

I'll say a few nice things about Rachael.

First, I appreciate the fact that she manages to be both a student of the highest caliber and a skater at the highest level. :cheer2:

Also, I appreciate that her skating is more pleasing than that of, say... Jenna McCorkell (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z-eYRIyTo08/Sc4M38hFUPI/AAAAAAAAgQ8/I1C7Bh_uRaA/s400/xin_35203062814235933178061.jpg). :shuffle:

IceAlisa
10-08-2011, 04:54 PM
I think it's nothing short of heroic, to be a full-time chemical engineering major at Stanford AND to prepare for GP. :eek:

Louise
10-08-2011, 05:32 PM
The only things I wish for Rachael this year are a 4.0, and better skating skills. I don't care if she gains weight, just MOVE on the ice, find yourself artistically and own the ice. Too many times I've watched her and it is Rachael and her triples versus the ice. I've learned through my Patrick Chan fandom that a skater can fall all the time yet remain compelling. I haven't really noticed 'trolls' calling her fat or whatever, but I wish she would improve her skating so that it doesn't matter. And hopefully these new coaches will do that with her. I'd rather see a Rachael with 5 triples and excellent skating skills than what we've seen from her. Good skating is the goal. Kwan in her later years never added on a 3toe, which I thought was strange, giving her only 6 triples, but her skating was wonderful to watch. Eventually you become your vision on the ice, I'm just not sure Rachael has that vision.

IceAlisa
10-08-2011, 07:07 PM
It would certainly be interesting to see if and how the new coaches improve her style. In the past she has been packaged with, lets just say, suboptimal results. I am not familiar with her new coaches and am wondering if they are known for their stylistic influence. Or are they more jump/tech oriented?

IMO Rachael would benefit from working with a ballet instructor, preferably of the Russian school.
And Louise, I hear you about Chan. I went through a similar experience as a fan of Cohen.

aemeraldrainc
10-08-2011, 07:15 PM
Also, I appreciate that her skating is more pleasing than that of, say... Jenna McCorkell (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z-eYRIyTo08/Sc4M38hFUPI/AAAAAAAAgQ8/I1C7Bh_uRaA/s400/xin_35203062814235933178061.jpg). :shuffle:

Wow. That's pretty bad. :eek: :yikes:
It's not polite to :rofl: so I won't. :)

mysticchic
10-09-2011, 02:24 AM
Again, no need to come here if the thread offends. I was not talking about Rachael's appearance, rather speaking in general terms. However, a few posters have developed a paranoia, seeing offense to Rachael where there isn't one.

WRT my location: it's very tongue-in-cheek, more of a private joke that most of you are not privy to. So do not make assumptions.

And again, why do you come here, to police for potential insults to Rachael? To be offended when in certain cases there is no offense? Really, if you want to talk about her, do.

If you really paid attention, I spoke of Rachael's skating and decision making. And have not made a single critical remark about her body, other than disagreeing that she is gorgeous. If believing that someone is less than gorgeous is unacceptable to some and elicits derision, then who really is the bully?


if you don't like her don't watch her...nuff said! If you don't like it, don't visit the thread" is the weakest argument I've ever heard. It's nice you and your friends have your own inside jokes, but AFAIK this is an open discussion board. There are lots of reasons to visit threads on Rachael and if we come across snotty, poorly reasoned posts, we just may comment.

You are the weakest link good bye! Your my first ever block!