PDA

View Full Version : Value of an Olympic/World title



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

spikydurian
06-23-2012, 11:11 PM
I don't believe that the Olympics is over-hyped. I do believe if one is an athlete and elite competitor, on OGM would be the icing on the cake. The fact that Olympics happened only once every four years, make that gold more elusive and hard to win for the elite athletes as during the four years gap, anything can happen.
Even the academia will consider winning the Nobel Prize the ultimate recognition of one's work by one's peers. And similarly there were many who have missed out but nevertheless still as brilliant as the winners. It is also a judged prize, and there can only be one winner each time in each discipline.

duane
06-24-2012, 01:15 AM
And at the age of 15, Tara had not fully developed as a skater or a person.
Neither had the 15 year old Michelle Kwan at 96 Worlds (even with all the make-up to appear older), but she received extremely high technical/presentation marks to beat the mature, more developed Chen Lu.

Tho not fully developed as skaters, both the 15 year old Tara and the 15 year old Michelle were very expressive, artistic skaters, and showed a maturity beyond their young age. This was shown by Michelle at 96 Worlds and Tara at 98 Olympics.

aftershocks
06-24-2012, 01:48 AM
Ummm, sure spikydurian, I agree re your first paragraph, except I disagree with the first sentence. For the athletes in terms of their dreams and hard work, the Olympics may not be over-hyped, but in terms of the broadcast networks, and advertising by corporate sponsors there is and has increasingly been over-commercialization and an over-focus IMO on winning the gold and on which countries win how many and what color medals, which in the long run doesn't mean much. I also think the politics (i.e., country vs country aspect) is over-emphasized and outdated in today's more globally-connected world.

The ideal behind the Olympics and the striving of the athletes I don't dismiss as hype, but it too often is presented as such in our fame-centric and money-centric, "winning is everything" society.

To me, winning the Nobel Prize is not equivalent to winning an OGM. Persons who win Nobel Prizes (although some may covet and/ or hope to achieve such an honor), they are not specifically focused on competing every 4 years against their peers to do so. Nobel Prizes have nothing to do with competitive sports -- they are related to extraordinary accomplishments in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. There are no silver and bronze medals awarded either (only gold medals, diplomas and money are awarded to those selected by the committee). So what that a committee of judges make the selections. That seems somewhat closer to winning an Academy Award than it does to winning an OGM in figure skating (and most other sports aside from gymnastics and diving are based on who finishes first, leaps highest, runs fastest, etc.) Although the Nobel administrators do international marketing related to the prizes, there is (at least for the moment) seemingly no hint of commercialization and/ or hyping to taint the noble [pun unavoidable] ideal behind the prizes.

OT: Quite interesting tho' how the Nobel Prizes were founded, and also the fact that the Nobel Foundation is similar to "an investment company, which invests money to create a solid funding base for the prizes..." Re the founding: "Alfred Nobel amassed great wealth due to his 355 inventions, of which dynamite is the most famous. In 1888, Alfred was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The Merchant of Death is Dead." It was Alfred's brother who had died (Alfred died eight years later). Meanwhile, the premature obit "disconcerted Alfred and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered [which] inspired him to change his will. Alfred's last will specified that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes for those who confer the greatest benefit to mankind" ... in the previously specified fields.

aftershocks
06-24-2012, 02:12 AM
Neither had the 15 year old Michelle Kwan at 96 Worlds (even with all the make-up to appear older), but she received extremely high technical/presentation marks to beat the mature, more developed Chen Lu.

Tho not fully developed as skaters, both the 15 year old Tara and the 15 year old Michelle were very expressive, artistic skaters, and showed a maturity beyond their young age. This was shown by Michelle at 96 Worlds and Tara at 98 Olympics.

:lol: I knew this might be a comeback response. Come on, please. Lu Chen "mature, and more developed." For goodness sake, that's sounds very "odd." You make it sound like Lu Chen was pushing thirty and Kwan was just out of diapers. :rofl: Obviously, there isn't even that great a difference between Kwan's and Lipinski's ages, but there was a huge difference between Kwan's and Lipinski's artistic skills and musical interpretation.

Go back and look at the performances and the marks of Chen and Kwan. Better yet look at the competition results for that entire season for both Kwan and Chen. I believe they were overall on very equal footing as competitors, but that (ironically) the "youthful" Kwan had the edge all season technically over Lu Chen. When it came down to it at Worlds, Lu Chen displayed bravura artistry, musical interpretation, and lovely jumps -- she was absolutely exquisite and received some 6.0s for presentation. However, although it was extremely close, Kwan had the technical edge re the jumps, plus Kwan displayed mature artistry and musical interpretation beyond her years -- a complete turnaround from the previous season. Kwan had the advantage of and the daunting challenge of skating right after Lu Chen's luminous and seemingly unbeatable performance.

As far as Lipinski, she was a very talented and graceful athlete and skater and she rose well to the occasion, but "artistry and maturity beyond her age." That is truly laughable. Lipinski's artistic moves were very studied and did not flow naturally. Her music, choreography and performance were juniorish and the music and choreo were forgettable. The performance is only remembered because of the stage, the judges' error in giving Tara the win over the now legendary Kwan, and the scream that shattered ear drums. To be honest, IMO, Lipinski will be remembered more for having beaten Kwan at the '98 Olympics than she will be for the actual content of her performance, her age or her famous 3-loop/ 3-loop, the over-practising of which contributed to the shortening of her already shortened skating career.

duane
06-24-2012, 02:59 AM
Lu Chen "mature, and more developed." For goodness sake, that's sounds very "odd." You make it sound like Lu Chen was pushing thirty and Kwan was just out of diapers. :rofl: Obviously, there isn't even that great a difference between Kwan's and Lipinski's ages, but there was a huge difference between Kwan's and Lipinski's artistic skills and musical interpretation.
That your Michelle Kwan biased opinion, so there's no use in even arguing the point. In regards to Chen Lu/Michelle Kwan circa 1996, one can say that Lulu was old and Michelle was out of diapers. 1996 was Michelle's true breakout season--the beginning of her dominance of the sport--while it was practically the beginning of the end of Lulu's amateur career.

aftershocks
06-24-2012, 03:18 AM
That your Michelle Kwan biased opinion, so there's no use in even arguing the point. In regards to Chen Lu/Michelle Kwan circa 1996, one can say that Lulu was old and Michelle was out of diapers. 1996 was Michelle's true breakout season--the beginning of her dominance of the sport--while it was practically the beginning of the end of Lulu's amateur career.

Yep "one can" say anything. If you say that "Lulu was old and Michelle was out of diapers," there definitely is "no use in even arguing the point." *

Please point out any "opinions" especially from fs fans that are "unbiased." Even the majority of fs judges decisions are biased.

In regard to actual performances, programs and choreography, in spite of any subjective and political biases, I betcha Kwan's Lyra Angelica music, choreo and performance will be remembered far longer than Lipinski's juniorish music (the title and tune of which even now I can't recall) which Bezic had unsuccessfully advised Tara against using. Of course "the scream" will surely be remembered. Who could forget that unabashed and unexpected ear drum shattering screech.

ETA: * Factually Lulu was 19 and Kween was 15 during Worlds 1996

julieann
06-24-2012, 07:55 AM
I don't believe that the Olympics is over-hyped.

:eek:

They've been hyping the Olympics for the better part of 6 months and it's still a month away. Olympics are a money maker (except for some of the athletes.)

When someone says they are an Olympic champion, people automatically assume they are the best skating has to offer when in reality they just had the best two programs, nothing more. But since some people only watch every four years, they don't know enough about the athletes or the sport in general to know otherwise.

briancoogaert
06-24-2012, 10:17 AM
I will never understand Tara's presentation marks in Nagano, particularly since she received higher presentation marks than Chen Lu. Something is seriously wrong with that, IMO. :confused:
Under 6.0, marks were used to rank skaters. So, if judges thought Tara should ba ranked higher than Lu Chen, they had to give Tara better marks. ;)

aftershocks
06-24-2012, 04:25 PM
:lol: Awright, 'cause at least Tara stood up and peaked at the Olympics instead of at Nationals, to the relief of ISU judges:

Whew, that helps us prove that Tara's 1997 Worlds win over Kwan was not a fluke -- we were just so happy to give Tara the Worlds win and the new youngest ever record when Kwan showed by botching one jump in sp that she just might not be the dominant force we feared. And plus Kwan was so surprisingly human at her Nationals in 1997. She fell 3 times. So what that Kwan was inhuman at 1998 U.S. Nationals -- such perfection means very little if she couldn't skate exactly that same way at the Olympics. Kwan had more to prove than the reigning World champ, Tara!

Yep, we just 'had to give Tara better marks!' Such a cute little young lady with such forgettable, treacly music and an awkward 2-axel but landed, yes landed. And wow, how she jumped up and down and smiled at the end (instead of bawling like Kwan--which made us forget how well Kwan actually skated-- we were just so nonplussed about her bawling). Naw, spark-like smiling and jumping up and down suits the Olympics much better.

Yep, the world might have come to an end if we didn't get to hear that ear-splitting screech. Plus the media would have gone ballistic if 'American Tara' did not win over Kwan (oh, oops sorry, we forgot Kwan was born in the USA too).

judgejudy27
06-24-2012, 04:50 PM
No FSU thread is complete without an over the top and somewhat delusional Kwan uber. Good to see this is no exception. :lol:

aftershocks
06-24-2012, 05:42 PM
To put it mildly, "delusional" non-Kwan fans/ Tara fans and "delusional" Kwan fans just go together so well. Helps keep threads rollin' ... OR NOT!

Yep, and what would FSU do without you too, judgejudy?! I shudder to think. Oh, but well, nothing lasts forever. Hmmm, but perhaps there's an alternate universe where some of us don't and never will exist, and in which perhaps the screech heard 'round the world never happened after all.

Beam me up, Scotty. :lol:

skateboy
06-25-2012, 06:01 AM
I think the poster was talking about devaluing the medal/title itself, not the winner. In those cases I think the tone was that the OGM is the biggest prize in skating but that those skaters didn't deserve it. In the case of Kwan the attitude from some of her fans was not so much that Kwan wuzrobbed (certainly not in 2002), but that the OGM is just one competition and not more important than Worlds.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant, thank you. :)

leafygreens
06-25-2012, 10:23 PM
4CCs didn't exist until something like '99; IMO, it doesn't have the history or prestige of Europeans because it is so recent.

I think this is true though to an extent because I remember in the beginning of this competition, the lower-tier skaters (like Amber Corwin, Jenny Kirk) being sent to 4CC's, and now it's become as prestigious as Euros with top skaters attending like D/W & V/M, every year.


I am not sure all medals are the same. They should be. But, isn't a World title a little diminished in the year after the OLYS when so many of the winners don't skate. That year, the World title is not a picture of who was outstanding that year, but rather a picture of who was left standing.

This I never understood - wouldn't the Olympic winner want to continue on, just one more month, and add another very prestigious title to their collection? Yes I'm sure they are "tired" but it just seems like an easy win, why not go for it? I don't know how much truth there is to the OGM winner "tarnishing" their win by possibly losing worlds. If it was me, I would go for it.


1996 was Michelle's third world championships having come 4th in Birmingham in 1995, and 8th in 1994. 2006 Worlds was Kimmie's first world championships, though she obvioulsy competed in the Olympics a few weeks before.

Kimmie was eligible the year before but couldn't go because of her age!


It's like when a NASCAR driver who is in 8th and 7 cars ahead of him happen to crash and the one is 8th place wins. Is it a win? Sure, how meaningful is it, to me not very.

That's true BUT you still have to have the skill and desire to fight, to take advantage of that situation, which is what Sarah did. She could very well have been the "8th car to crash" so to speak, but she pulled it out. She lucked out with the way everyone else performed, but not with her own skating. Her skating was spectacular on that night. That being said she is definitely a one-hit wonder. And did not take advantage of her OGM rep after that. Being out of shape, etc.


Neither had the 15 year old Michelle Kwan at 96 Worlds (even with all the make-up to appear older), but she received extremely high technical/presentation marks to beat the mature, more developed Chen Lu.

Tho not fully developed as skaters, both the 15 year old Tara and the 15 year old Michelle were very expressive, artistic skaters, and showed a maturity beyond their young age. This was shown by Michelle at 96 Worlds and Tara at 98 Olympics.

Sorry but this is laughable. There's no way you can compare the artistry of Michelle at age 15 to Tara at age 15! At 15 Michelle no longer looked like a junior but Tara did. There's really no point where Tara ever looked like a senior skater, except maybe late in her professional career. Never as good as Kwan though. Tara always looked like a little girl trying on her mom's heels and dresses and everything was too big for her.

duane
06-25-2012, 11:31 PM
Sorry but this is laughable. There's no way you can compare the artistry of Michelle at age 15 to Tara at age 15! At 15 Michelle no longer looked like a junior but Tara did. There's really no point where Tara ever looked like a senior skater, except maybe late in her professional career. Never as good as Kwan though. Tara always looked like a little girl trying on her mom's heels and dresses and everything was too big for her.
That's your opinion (which emphasizes looks rather than skating ability). And regardless of it, little-girl-looking Tara Lipinski beat a clean Michelle Kwan at the 98 Olympics. Four of the judges gave her marks of 5.9 in presentation (same as Michelle), and the other 5 gave her just 1 percentage point lower (5.8). If the artistry of 15 year old Tara was able to compete so closely with the artistry of 17 year old Michelle, it's laughable to say that the artistry of Tara and Michelle at 15 can't be compared.

aftershocks
06-25-2012, 11:47 PM
...That's your opinion (which emphasizes looks rather than skating ability). And regardless of it, little-girl-looking Tara Lipinski beat a clean Michelle Kwan at the 98 Olympics. Four of the judges gave her marks of 5.9 in presentation (same as Michelle), and the other 5 gave her just 1 percentage point lower (5.8). If the artistry of 15 year old Tara was able to compete so closely with the artistry of 17 year old Michelle, it's laughable to say that the artistry of Tara and Michelle at 15 can't be compared.

You love Tara's "artistry" duane, no denying. Despite the fact the judges in Nagano IMO overscored Tara and underscored Kwan doesn't mean that "Tara was able to compete so closely with Kwan's artistry." It simply means that those panel of judges gave Tara the win. IMO, it was certainly not because Tara's "artistry" was comparable to or even competitive with Kwan's. Tara was a graceful skater and fun to watch, but she had miles to go in developing her artistry. Her movements were much more studied rather than flowing naturally. Sure, Tara skated some lovely programs, but her fp in Nagano was not one of them, again IMO.