1994 Olympics in Lillehammer - Controversial Results across the Board!

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Xela M, Mar 31, 2014.

  1. Xela M

    Xela M Active Member

    907
    216
    43
    The 1994 Lillehammer Olympics are my favourite Winter Olympics of all time. There was just something perfect about them. However, the results in all figure skating events gave rise to great controversy. What do you all think of the results?

    Gordeeva & Grinkov v Mishkutenok & Dmitriev

    Alexei Urmanov v Elvis Stojko

    Grishuk & Platov v Usova & Zhulin (and Tovill & Dean)

    Oksana Baiul v Nancy Kerrigan

    At the time, I must say I was ecstatic about all the results and I still wouldn't change them, but having re-watched Gordeeva & Grinkov and Mishkutenok & Dmitriev's performances, I must say that G&G were greatly overmarked. I don't think it was possible to have a better technical performance than M&D showed in both their short and long programmes. They didn't make a single mistake, whereas G&G weren't entirely clean in either programme. Of course G&G skated beautifully and for sentimental reasons I am glad they won the Gold, but really M&D weren't treated fairly by the judges. It's also the sign of champions that after a bad season and disastrous training sessions where she couldn't land a jump and he struggled with lifts, M&D came out onto the Olympic ice and skated perfectly!
     
  2. gk_891

    gk_891 Active Member

    907
    127
    43
    I'm fine with G&G's win. Although M&D had a more interesting program for me artistically, G&G are so far superior technically. They had much more difficult lifts, much bigger throws with more flow, a much better split triple twist, and far superior edging (with M&D, you can really hear them digging into the ice whereas G&G are much quieter).

    I'm also fine with Urmanov's win over Stojko. I really hated Stojko's program and I personally hate his skating in general so I'm clearly biased.

    With the ice dance, I would've been fine with any order of the top 3. I personally had G&P in first for both compulsories and T&D in first for the OD. For the FD, I'm rather indifferent as I didn't like any of the free dances from the top 3 couples.

    As for the ladies competition, Baiul's technical marks were inexcusably high in my opinion. I greatly disliked Kerrigan's bland skating but both her, Lu Chen, and Yuka Sato were all superior to Baiul in the LP.
     
  3. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    Gordeeva & Grinkov v Mishkutenok & Dmitriev

    Alexei Urmanov v Elvis Stojko

    Grishuk & Platov v Usova & Zhulin (and Tovill & Dean)

    Oksana Baiul v Nancy Kerrigan

    G&G were sublime.

    The men were all boring, but not controversial. Great skaters screwed up. Dull skaters didn't.

    Dance was the only one I was upset about at the time. Even though they deserved every thing they won after this, G&P have always bored me to tears.

    At the time I was fine with the ladies result as Nancy was stiff and oksana oozed charisma from every pore. Looking back, it was a con job. Baiul wasn't anywhere near as good as we thought. Like the hot person you take home at 2:00am drunk who somehow gets uglier overnight. :lol:
     
  4. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    13,704
    787
    113
    I agree in the ice dance any order of the 3 medalists would have been fine. They all had their various strengths and weaknesses, and none had one of their stronger ever FDs. I disagree with G&P being 1st in the Waltz CD over Usova & Zhulin though, I felt U&Z were clearly the best in that and should have won it more comfortably than they did. That it was close I already sensed that early the favor of the fed was probably on G&P's side.

    I thought Stojko should have won over Urmanov. Urmanov was just too inferior technically with no triple-triple combo, a stumble out of his triple flip, awful spins, and not much or very good footwork. Stojko also had his best and most artistic ever program that year IMO, while Urmanov's was not exactly one of his better works, so I dont agree with judges giving Stojko 5.6s and 5.7s for presentation and Urmanov a row of 5.9s. That said I could still understand the result, and was not as upset about it as some Canadians were.

    I thought Miskutienok & Dmitriev should have won the pairs gold over Gordeeva & Grinkov. Gordeeva & Grinkov had 4 small mistakes- going out of unision on their spins, him stumbling out of a double flip and being off unision for the next few movements after, singling a salchow at the end of a sequence of jumps, and her pitching forward on her throw double axel landing. Very unusual and uncharacteristic mistakes from them. Nothing too major and still an excellent skate, but M&D skated too well and with too much passion and power to lose to G&G with those kind of mistakes that night. Like the mens though I could have accepted the result all the same. The biggest problem just like the mens, was that M&D (like Stojko) wasnt even close to winning. Only 1 judge had them ahead (just like only 1 had Stojko above Urmanov) which in both cases I found ridiculous. M&D even had 2 judges put them behind Brasseur & Eisler.

    I have defended Baiul and her ablities on this forum, but I agree that Kerrigan, Sato, and Chen were all better than her in the LP, and her technical marks were unquestionably wrong. Presentation scores are obviously more subjective, there would have been less to complain about if she had atleast won through presentation scores, her strength, but she in fact had equal or higher technical marks than Kerrigan and won 3 of her 5 judges strictly on the technical mark. Overall the judging of this event was probably the worst of all the disciplines.
     
  5. gk_891

    gk_891 Active Member

    907
    127
    43
    Under the 6.0 system, I perhaps would've had M&D ahead of G&G because of the latter's unusual errors. But I believe Natalia 2-footed her double axel, Artur has a tendency to travel on the side by side spins (I can't recall if he did or not in that performance though), and Artur also had a trip in the straight line footwork sequence. But yes, that program was magnificent and exceptional.

    I recently watched U&Z's starlight waltz again and it wasn't as strong as I remembered it. It looked a little soft in terms of their form, especially hers and not soft in a good way. Grishuk & Platov's waltz wasn't as waltzy as it could've been as it's ill-suited to Oksana but I loved their amazing flow, posture, and free leg extension, more so than Usova & Zhulin's.

    And like I said, I really dislike Stojko's skating so I can't possibly be objective. :)
     
  6. moviechicko_o

    moviechicko_o New Member

    582
    29
    0
    This was the first Olympics I remember watching (I was like 7). Looking back, I'm fine with the results except in ladies - I'm not a fan of Kerrigan but Bauil's LP was just not good.
     
  7. Sylvia

    Sylvia On to Nationals!

    32,467
    4,846
    113
  8. gk_891

    gk_891 Active Member

    907
    127
    43
    Thanks. Artur didn't travel on his side by side spin but that's probably because they did a very very simple side by side spin.
     
  9. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    13,704
    787
    113
    Natalia didnt two foot the double axel IMO as well. I had never noticed the footwork trip by Artur before. I guess it was performed with such wild abandon it seemed to fit right in. The funny thing is under COP Shishkova & Naumov would probably have beaten both teams easily on the TES in the LP, and B&E probably would have had the 2nd highest TES in the LP. Granted all the teams would have trained differently for COP.

    One thing we all seem to agree on was the ladies event though. That said I am relieved (for a host of reasons) that Nancy Kerrigan was never crowned the Olympic Champion. Sato or Chen would have made a great Olympic Champion that year, too bad both messed up the short program and didnt have the clout of Kerrigan, Bonaly, and Baiul.
     
  10. gk_891

    gk_891 Active Member

    907
    127
    43
    If it was too close to tell (Natalia's double axel), I guess she should get the benefit of the doubt. And yes, I'm also relieved Kerrigan wasn't crowned Olympic champion (even though she probably should've been - I still cannot stand that long program of hers, especially when she starts hopping around the ice).
     
  11. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    13,704
    787
    113
    The Scotvolds were smoking some strong stuff when they thoguht that was an OGM program (despite that it almost was and probably should have been). Then again Nancy used to go out planning 7 triple programs with much better choreography and never ever coming close. So maybe they decided to just give her a crappy program with no choreography, so she could focus entirely on jumps, while now only attempting 5 or 6, and hope by setting the bar so much lower this led to clean performances at last.

    Anyway I can only imagine the hype machine on Kerrigan had she won. It was already nauseating enough into her first few years of pro skating as it was. I remember the beginning of ice wars and Boitano and Yamaguchi were payed these puny (relatively) little salaries compared to the monstrous once the queen Nancy was payed.
     
  12. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    Oh, forgot to add: I would have given the bronze to S&N over B&E.
     
  13. gk_891

    gk_891 Active Member

    907
    127
    43
    Out of curiosity, I just watched Kerrigan's program again as I hadn't seen it in years. And it honestly seems like 3 or 4 random programs put together into one! It's actually somewhat comical to watch.
     
  14. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    Eh. I mean, we're gonna trash LPs for being cheesy mish-mashes with no content at an event where Baiul won with that train wreck!? Seriously? :lol:
     
  15. gk_891

    gk_891 Active Member

    907
    127
    43
    Oh I didn't mean to imply that Baiuls' program was any better. That LP was also a train wreck. But her it quality helped her carry it through it somewhat (and I stress somewhat!). I would never choose to watch either skater's programs at that competition. I much preferred Lu Chen and Yuka Sato's long programs.
     
  16. fenway2

    fenway2 Well-Known Member

    1,583
    201
    63
    I could never get past Sato's ugly boy hair or her Fantastic Sam's haircut in general. And her costumes looked like something off a JCPenney Outlet store clearance rack. Oh if she had only had decent packaging....
     
  17. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    13,704
    787
    113
    Her long program costume made her look so fat too. Absolutely horrible choice.
     
  18. Xela M

    Xela M Active Member

    907
    216
    43
    Wow, thank you! That's amazing. I didn't realise someone was as interested in the '94 Olympics as me. Those documentaries are brilliant and all my three favourite men of skating (Urmanov, Platov and Dmitriev) were in top form back then :swoon:

    I'm in a great minority I know, but I loved the beauty on ice that was Oksana Baiul and thought she rightfully won over colourless Nancy Kerrigan, although she should have won with higher presentation marks - not technical marks. Baiul's long programme might have been cheesy, but her short programme was a work of art!
     
  19. all_empty

    all_empty Well-Known Member

    1,254
    185
    63
    I'm DYING from this :rofl:
     
  20. escaflowne9282

    escaflowne9282 Well-Known Member

    2,941
    579
    113
    Me too! :D

    It was a pretty bad outfit. She's actually very petite in person. While I wasn't her biggest fan, looking at her pre-HFOS professional programs, it's funny how something as simple as a longer hairstyle and a well tailored costume can completely change your bodyline and overall effect on the ice. She actually looked so much more polished and well put together after 1994.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2014
  21. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    25,887
    5,306
    113
    As much as I like Stojko, I found him artless compared to the florid but effective Urmanov. It's a draw - I guess you could have given it to him on the technical score, but other than the jumps, there was no "there" there.

    No one will ever make me believe Oksana outskated anyone that night. Nancy skated a clean program, Oksana didn't. She was sloppy from beginning to end. I've never really cared for Oksana, not really. She does make a great train wreck, however.
     
    kwanette and (deleted member) like this.
  22. ohashibiles

    ohashibiles Active Member

    102
    27
    28
    Stojko had much better spins and footwork than Urmanov too. A local skater can do better spins than Urmanov.
     
  23. all_empty

    all_empty Well-Known Member

    1,254
    185
    63
    I was waiting for escaflowne to chime in!

    Sato's programs in 1994 weren't super sophisticated, particularly the short. But neither were Baiul or Kerrigan's free skates.

    Her skating skills (zing!) were as good, if not better, than Baiul's and Kerrigan's (neither of whom were slouches in edging or speed).

    She really blossomed as a pro. And I agree the longer hair and dresses helped her immensely.

    Even here, her hair is short and the costume is boxy, but the bun softens her and the bodice elongates her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hhB0QbQt5g (it's also my favorite program of hers).

    Had Sato not popped the 3z in the short, she could've medaled for sure.
     
  24. Xela M

    Xela M Active Member

    907
    216
    43
    I'm not a technical expert, so could those who say that Oksana Baiul's win was completely undeserved explain to me why Nancy was better? I seem to recall Oksana did 5 different triple jumps and a triple/double combination. I know Nancy did a triple/triple, so I get why she should have had higher technical marks, but Oksana was almost equal to her on jumps and her artistry was CLEARLY superior by far.
     
  25. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    10,269
    2,188
    113
    Oksana did 4 clean triples (although one was really close to being two-footed but after double-checking I think it was clean) with none of them in combination. She added a double axel/double toe at the very end and that was landed roughly (though she sold it well). Nancy did five triples with a 3/3. Her Triple Lutz after the second half of her LP. Oksana did hers in the beginning. Nancy had a 3/3 and a true spin combination and a footwork section. Oksana didn't have any of those, though she did prance around and I guess that could be counted as footwork. Nancy had a nice transition into her Triple Loop. I don't remember any real transitions into Oksana's jumps.

    Oksana performed her routine better, but Nancy had a real skating routine where she actually skated. I think don't know if there should have been more to the "artistic impression" mark than performance, but I think there should have been. Anyway, I don't think Oksana performing aimlessly to bad renditions of Broadway show tunes with no rhyme and reason should outweigh any of the technical deficiencies she had against Nancy, Lu Chen, and Yuka Sato. Especially Lu Chen who had a complex routine and six triples.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2014
  26. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    25,887
    5,306
    113
    Come to think of it, Oksana was quite florid herself, but her errors made it look worse. And I guess I never really developed Nancyhate (TM) like a lot of skating fans did, and felt for her.
     
  27. Xela M

    Xela M Active Member

    907
    216
    43
    I won't argue with the more knowledgeable figure skating experts, but I'm still very happy Oksana Baiul won :p I have never seen a more artistic skater and Nancy was insufferable (in my opinion).

    Back to the pairs... I read a recent interview with Artur Dmitriev in which he very graciously said that the right pair won in 1994. The more shocking bit was that it was suggested he should team up with Katia Gordeeva after Mishkutenov announced that she wanted to retire. Thankfully, he refused to even try out with Katia. I absolutely love Artur and he was in my opinion the best male pairs skater of all time, but that would not have been a good match.
     
  28. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    Iirc Nancy also did a 3s/2t so. She had two planned combos, a 3/3 and a 3/2 and 6 planned triples. After she doubled the 3f she stuck to her plan firming up the idea of her being a well prepared professional.

    Iirc Oksana had 5 planned triples and no planned combos. None. Yes, she showed up to win the Olympics with no combo jumps planned. After she doubled a jump, she threw in an improved 3t which threw the whole program a little off. She then threw in an unplanned 2x/2t which was wonky. Clearly half the judges had no problem with her making sit-up on the fly, and being "plucky" is definitely part of her charm, so in this case being amateurish paid off.
     
  29. fenway2

    fenway2 Well-Known Member

    1,583
    201
    63
    In addition, Oksana also wrestled the sympathy vote away from Nancy with her practice collision with Tanja Szewczenko earlier that day. Oksana was quite skilled at turning up the theatrics and hysteria so it benefited her.
     
  30. Susan M

    Susan M Well-Known Member

    1,542
    213
    63
    How many times have we been told that under 6.0, there is no such thing as "unquestionably wrong" marks because the individual marks themselves had no absolute meaning. Their only real purpose was as a means for producing ordinals. That, together with the rule about not giving two skaters the same marks, sometimes meant judges had to give one mark higher than they might otherwise have done in order to rank the skaters in the order they felt they deserved. I remember one event where a judge gave some middling skater a mark like 5.9 5.4 that raised some eyebrows. The judge explained that she had already used the numbers she wanted to give and if she just added or subtracted a point, those scores either had also been used or would place the skater behind a second skater the judge felt she beat or ahead of a third skater the judge though she should not beat. So, she came up with this whacky combination in order that this skater would have enough points to place ahead of the second skater but the third skater would get the better ordinal on the presentation tiebreaker.

    I think the three judges who gave Baiul the higher tech mark may have been in a similar predicament. If they had given Baiul the same tech mark as Kerrigan, they would have tied them. They needed either to give an extra .1 on the tech mark or give her 6.0 on the presentation mark.

    The bottom line is that if those five judges thought Baiul should get their first place ordinal, the marks they used to get there don't really matter.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
    gkelly and (deleted member) like this.