Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by SamuraiK, Jul 13, 2012.
^ No it doesn't.
I actually thought Kim's spirals looked better on tv. Many times tv wouldn't show her full body so you couldn't see how out of line it was and unpointed her foot was.
The thing is that it still gets relatively good GOE's because it ticks off other goe marks
At least now she doesn't have to do four ugly positions or whatever she had to do to get level four in the past. She can just do one.
I guess for me, whenever I watched TV I'd always be thinking about her spiral so when I saw the fancam, I was shocked that it wasn't as bad as I originally thought.
Kim's spirals are ugly. But I have watched a fan cam recording of her performance and from the audience's perspective, you could really understand why it was impressive - it was fast, the edge was steady and it covered so much ice. That's the +2 right there.
Technical Ability: 10/10
Technical Ability :9/10
Technical Ability: 7/10
I know people will agree and disagree, but this is how i see it
That's actually not a bad assessment. My reasoning for giving Michelle a higher technical score wouldn't be based on the difficulty, but on the fact that she executed so many clean back-to-back performances and 6+ triple programs throughout her career. It's a rare thing that we don't really see anymore and she did it so consistently. That has to count for something...
Based on that alone I'd bump her 7 to an 8 at least. Having the ability is very important but figure skating is all about execution and Michelle knew how to execute in the clutch 97% of of the time. That's why she was so successful. There were others who had better jumps and spins but they weren't capable of executing when the time came to lay it on the line.
As you said, I know some will disagree but...
"We are what we repeatedly do, therefore excellence is not an act, but a habit. " _Aristotle
Seven triples programs are so rare in current field that I'm all over again re-appreciating Michelle's ability to have brought them more than enough.
Asada has more artistry than Kim? Certainly not with any of her programs the last 4-5 years, that is for sure. Also how does someone who doesnt do a triple loop in their programs get a perfect 10 in technical ability.
because artistry is subjective
True, but if anyone considers Mao's Tarasova programs of 2009 and 2010 artistic then Mao was a very artistic skater when she first emerged on the senior scene, that I agree with.
I don't personally find either one of them super artistic, but I can see how people argue one over the other.
I think with the correct vehicle Mao can wrap rings around Yu-Na in terms of artistry. With all of her aesthetic qualities (line, posture, grace, flow, etc.) she is capable of creating some really incredible moments on ice. She's had some lovely competition pieces (Nocturne, Claire de Lune, Libestraume) but most of her moments are in her exhibition programs (Jupiter, Ballade). Mao has to learn to bring that level of performance from her exhibitions to competitive programs.
I think Yu-Na has become a better performer during her hiatus from competition mainly b/c the only skating she's been doing is show skating and I think that has helped her presentation skills. I love Yu-Na b/c her programs are always well-choreographed and she really performs. Mao hasn't always performed; back when she was with Tarasova all she did was skate. She was so dead in the face it was disconcerting. I saw more performance from Mao this year b/c I think she was comfortable with both of her programs. I'm hoping she continues to build on her programs from this year...
I thought Mao's pre-triple axel SPs were stunning. So light, effervescent, and flowing. Her SP at 2006 SA would have gotten a 10.0 for interpretation from me. It was even more magical in person than on the TV broadcast. Her LPs have never had that kind of impact for me, but Liebestraum (especially the 2nd time around) was a huge step in the right direction.
I totally agree with you re: Mao's sp at 06 SA..So light, lyrical, and lovely..I was in Hartford, also, and it was indeed magical.
True. What else would account for:
I was in Hartford too, and apparently found said SP completely forgettable! Seriously, if you put a gun to my head, I couldn't tell you what the music was, what color costume she wore, what the choreo was like, what jumps she landed. *poof* it was like 2.5 mins I had to endure and then it was all gone.
But tech is equally subjective, as skating is a totally subjective judged sport. That's why you get different opinions like:
People just fool themselves that they can justify their subjectivity more with the tech. Really, it's no different.
I don't know if Yuna deserves a 10 for technical ability considering she has consistency issues with the 3 loop and that she can't do a triple axel like Mao (or the 5 other skaters who have done it in the past).
Irina's spiral sequence at the 2006 Oly made me cringe.
No, tech is not eqaully subjective. 3Lz-3T is much more difficult than 3T-3T and that's the fact. If you don't believe, go on the ice and try do it with singles jumps and you'll know.
On the other hand, many people love Lu Chen's presentation. I don't personally see anything particularly exceptional about her presentation.
Many people reckon that Michelle's SOTBS from 2001 Worlds is her best performance artistically, the others will say it's Lyra Angelica and there are also some who will say it's Tosca from 2004 Nationals. This is totally subjective, the range of emotions you feel from the skater etc.
However, you can clearly evaluate the technical content of those programs and it's not subjective at all that SOTBS is the most difficult (it has a triple-triple).
You pick one tiny detail on tech, and then compare it to a grand sweeping gesture in presentation and you actually believe you are comparing apples to apples.
Just flip thru this tread and see sweeping generalizations in tech like, the 3t/3t is easier, but she did it way more often so she's not weaker, tara's jumps were low vs. Tara had the most difficult jumps, etc...
Can you remember back to the Irina spiral wars? Irina's is more difficult because she on a proper deep edge. Sasha's is more difficult because she in such an extreme split position. yada yada yada. Or look up a thread on who had the best layback.
And people definitely nit pick on presentation too... ie Yuna's infamous non pointed toes in her spirals, or Kimmie's airplane arms,. It's not just all sweeping "I like it" vs "I don't like it". And if landing the hardest jump was accepted as the end of the story for tech, then Mao would still be on the list, not Irina.
Individual details like jump combination difficulty is not subjective; however, the overall view of technical proficiency is, as it requires you to prioritize what aspects of jumping makes one skater more proficient than another. For example, some aspects of jumping are as follows (and in no particular order):
A. Combination difficulty
Kim is obviously stronger than Michelle in A and D. Kwan is stronger than Kim in B and C. The subjective aspect is what constitutes greater technical proficiency, and how much greater that proficiency is based off the differing variables.
Kim does not do the loop. But she has more difficult combinations. Which one is more important? Does not focusing on the loop afford Kim the ability to have more difficult combinations due to narrowing her technique to mastering fewer triples? What is more difficult to do, 7 tripes of 5 differing styles or 6 triples of 4 differing styles but in harder combinations? A more extreme example would be who is technically more proficient, Yamaguchi or Harding? Yamaguchi completed far more difficult triple-triple combinations than Harding; however, Harding had every single triple.
Saying that skater A is more technically proficient than skater B because they can land a more difficult jump combination is like saying the Redwood forrest in Northern California is a greater forrest than the Amazon rain forrest in Brazil because it has taller trees; you can't judge an entire concept on just one aspect.
Well if you really want to get that technical, every element can analyzed in many aspects.
position (including change of position)
change of foot/edge
And each aspect itself can be looked from many different perspectives.
And then of course the combination and arrangement of the elements--i.e. their layout in a program--also affect difficulty. As do the transitions and choreography in between...
Shall we evaluation Kim and Kwan's technical skills like this?
You can't really compare Kwan vs. Kim literally program vs. program because let's be honest here. Most 6.0 programs are very empty in terms of transitions and complex choreography and they only had to do basic positions in spins, no change of edge or random contortions for points. Therefore, it would be a 100% victory for Kim simply because Kwan did not need transitions, complex choreo, a change of edge, a Biellmann, or even a triple-triple to win under the 6.0 system (although in Kwan's case it was more about the amount of triples as opposed to quality).
My heart broke when you wrote that...
Technical ability is subjective to a large extent as well. Whether difficult triple-triples or 7 triples is more important, how important a 2nd triple lutz is, how important a triple axel is especialy when all the other triples arent there with it (eg- Asada), the exact quality of jumps, all that is subjective. About the only thing that isnt is that a triple axel is harder than a triple lutz, triple lutz harder than a triple flip, triple is better than double and so on; and the height and distance of jumps, but unless there is an exact measuring device people will disagree within reason to even that, especialy when who is your rooting interest colors your views subconsciously ever so slightly. Then how important spins, footwork, and other technical elements are, and the varying degrees on their quality skater to skater.
And we also know that technical ability means nothing if the skater can't execute. Not that these ladies have too big of issues with that, but a lot of skaters do.
Kim does have difficulty with that at Worlds, skating her best. Not at the GP final or Olympics, but the GP final isnt as big as Worlds, and Olympics is only once every 4 years. Slutskaya also has difficulty skating her best at Worlds or Olympics, she lost 2000 Worlds, 2001 Worlds, 2002 Olympics, 2006 Olympics as the favorite, and did not skate her best in any of them. Yet another area queen Kwan tops all.
Obviously Michelle Kwan will (and should) win the whole thing, unless the people who are voting out Irina switch to voting her out but I can't see them all doing that.
Well, to be fair, Kwan lost 1997 Worlds, 1998 Olympics, 1999 Worlds, 2002 Olympics, 2002 Worlds and 2004 Worlds--where she was the favorite at all of them--so I'm not so sure it's correct to say "queen Kwan tops all."
My thought too.
I have always thought Lu's artistry was a little overrated.
I don't particularly see her own interpretation from her Rach LP etc.
Maturity, (oriental or innate) calm ≠ artistry. The same as beautiful line, posture etc. ≠ artistry in itself.
Anyways, Bezic was brilliant as a choreographer.
Was Kwan really favourite to win in 1997? She was the current world champ, but hadn't had a good season all year. I don't remember though. I also don't think she was a favourite in 1999 having sat the entire season out except for nationals and worlds.
This is probably more for the next round, but I don't think you can really compare the technical skills of Kwan and Kim because they competed under different systems. Kwan nearly always had 8 jumping passes in her programmes which Kim couldn't do. Kwan competed under 6.0 where a full set of triples were valued by the judges and no limit on jumping passes meant you could throw that extra triple in somewhere. If she was limited to 7 jumping passes would kwan have done as many 7 and 6 tiple programmes as she did? I don't know. If Kim would have competed under 6.0 would she have worked harder to maintain the loop? Given the different scoring systems its hard to compare.
definitely 97 up u til nats. Despite her issues with the loop she won both her GPs and was being heavily hyped in the press as in a class of her own. If she was having a rough season, then irina was too and lulu was really having it rough. No one was really paying Tara much attention until she forced them to stand up and take notice at nats. Still,Kwan at her worst was good enough for silver at nats and gpf, so she was at least a fav for gold in lausanneshould Tara feel pressure (As if! )
99 she didn't skate much but when she did she tore it up, so right up until she blew her sp, she was being hyped as the fav for gold. After Maria won SA and vowed to win worlds, the us press at her, but even she admitted "umm... Michelle Kwan.... Problem for me. But I think I can do it."
04 is the only one I question. She lost her season opening cheese feast to Cohen, who under was skating her best and was at her most hyped. She was still skipping the gp and getting more criticism than ever for it. Her tech was at her weakest and even her impressive 5th WC relied on delivery, not the most dependable strategy. At this point the press werent favoring her, but were saying things like "don't count her out". She'd gone from invincible to dark horse at this point.
I really hope that most of the people who voted Irina, cast their vote to Michelle for next round. Kim deserves to win IMO
ITA. 1999 title was litterally for her to take with Tara and Chen retired, Slutskaya having the worst season of her career and Hughes not being a factor yet.
Kwan stumbled under pressure at probably the most important event of her life - 2002 Olympics. She deseprately wanted that gold as she knew it might have been her last chance ever and it would have been a wonderful end to her already accomplished career. Slutskaya also stumbled but not it wasn't as bad as in Michelle's case and she had the best short program but was unfairly put in second. Had she been correctly placed ahead of Kwan (who should be behind Cohen after SP to be fair) she would've won OMG.
Any reason why Bezic doesn't choreograph anymore?
While the sp was a 5-4 split in placements, I was always perplexed as to how/why three judges actually placed Sasha ahead of Irina in the sp.
I'd have to give 1st place to Kim, because she was, at her peak, the best all-around (technical and artistic) skater ever so far in women's figure skating IMHO. On the other hand, Michelle is also in a class of her own in terms quality+longevity is concerned, she is rightfully a legend. It is really not fair to compare the two, since each in their own way is without equal. I guess in quasi royalty terms, Michelle would be the "Empress" and Kim the "Crown Princess". Michelle's legacy may be more long lasting (unless Yuna wins another Olympic Gold) because it will be very hard to duplicate her quality+longevity achievements.
If Kim comes back and wins the Olympic Gold in Sochi, I think that might cement her legacy as the best champion among these women. But what if she comes back and isn't even a Gold medal contender? Would it tarnish her legacy? Right now she's clearly top two (with Kwan), but if she should come back as a lesser skater, would then Irina's longevity be seen as some as superior to Kim?
Kim's already hinting that she just wants to win qualification spots for Korea, not so much contend for Gold. I don't think Sarah did herself any favors by coming back after SLC as a non-contender. Katerina was seen in a different light, she was much older and out of competition in Lillehammer. But if people see Kim come back , she'll be expected to challenge for Gold, and will feel let down if she doesn't even contend.
I don't think you can be sure that Irina would have won the OGM in 2002 if she had been placed first after the SP. Since Michelle's best FS often came when she was behind after the SP, I don't think we can be sure that the FS would have turned out the same way if the SP had been scored differently.
Also, while Michelle lost worlds that she should have won, I think it also significant that, until the end when her body was giving out, a "bad year" for Michelle meant a silver medal. This compares very favorably to what happens to other skaters in their bad years --- not medaling (Irina, '97; Maria, often); not qualifying for the FS (Chen Lu, '97) or not making the World team (Irina, '99)
Separate names with a comma.