Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by KimGOAT, Apr 15, 2014.
He/she could be, but not that much in fact
Poetzsch was no where near the best skater across the three phases of the competition, or even two phases. Heck, some even claim her figures was not very good in Lake Placid.
Witt was reliable and nice to watch, but "better" than Zayak in 1984 or Ito (two phases) and Manley (three phases) in 1988 is questionable since Witt never was very good at compulsory figures.
Kerrigan won the SP. Biaul and Kerrigan tied in the freeskate, but Biaul won the competition by a tiebreaker. Technically Kerrigan got 1st and 1st in both phases while Biaul got 2nd and 1st but Biaul won.
My point is claiming that the best in the World usually wins at the Olympics is weak since often not even the best in the competition necessarily wins.
Zayak was never even close to the best skater in the world at the time of any Olympics. If she was ever close to being that it was in 1981-1982 but there were no Olympics that year.
Poetzsch was the best skater of her era due to being by far the best in figures in an era everyone was mediocre and blah in free skating. All of Fratianne, Poetzsch, and Lurz doing a long program would make for a good way to put someone to sleep more easily for a root canal or other major dental operation. So might as well give the titles to the best in figures, as long as she stays upright in free skating.
Yeah Kerrigan probably was better than Baiul in the competition at the 94 Games, but Baiul was the best skater in the world at the time which overruled Kerigan being better in that competition to the judges. Which is my whole point of how the best skater in the world at the time usually wins the Olympics.
Just like Manley was better than Witt at the competition itself at the 88 Games, but since Witt was the best in the world at the time the judges gave her the gold anyway. Since the best skater in the world usually wins the Olympics. So it didnt even matter to the judges Manley was the best over the course of that competition.
2002 was a rare occasion the judges went with who skated the best in that competition despite that she clearly wasnt the best skater in the world. In 2010 they couldnt award the gold medal to the best skater in the world since she wasnt allowed to be there. Given Shizuka's not great winning performances, the occasional overruling of the best skater for best performance on the day, wouldnt have been realistic either. Even on an off day for Mao as Mao would have had the best performance on the day even not skating her best, in addition to being the best skater in the world at the time.
The SP came into existence to balance the competition in 1973, and Poetzsch did not even do a triple in combination with the 2Lp in the SP. It is also convenient you left out Biellman. YouTube Poetzsch and Biellman at Lake Placid.
YouTube Zayak and Witt in Sarajevo, and look at the content.
How can anybody call a competition a "competition" if the performances, in this case over 2 or 3 days, mean nothing? If one's skating is so great, then shouldn't being able to show it be a realistic expectation?
I assume you are a big fan of Elaine Zayak, but you are living in an alterior universe if you think she was by any measure considered best skater in the world at the time of the 84 Olympics. She had done NOTHING since her world title in 82, and had not even won her own Nationals the last 3 years. That year she had been 3rd at Nationals. She was the 3rd best skater in her own country and you are using her as an example of best skater in the world not winning the olympic gold, LOL! As for Sarajevo she was 6th in the short, 4th in the long, and 5th in the combined free skating, so it seems even outside her ghastly figures nobody considered her even close to the best other than possibly you. To her credit she did skate great, the best she had in years, and it was a great climax to her career, but her run as best in the world (if she ever had one) was long in the past by then.
As for content what did Zayak did which Witt didnt other than one small triple loop she barely landed. Well Witt did a double lutz-triple toe combo which is even harder, and could have easily pulled out her triple flip if she thought she needed it.
Of course I left out Biellmann. Everyone knows Biellmann sucked at figures too badly to ever be the best in the world at the time, just as Zayak did. It seems you are creating an imaginary planet where figures dont even exist which is a different topic altogether. Figures were part of skating then so those hopeless at them- Biellmann, Ito, Zayak, were not considered best in the world, even if Biellmann and Ito arguably were in free skating.
The real world is where stuff actually happens. It is a fantasy to not believe one's own eyes and think about what is not there as if it is. For example, Zayak's 3Lp was there in 1984, a reality, while Witt's 3F was not there in 1984, although a very nice fantasy.
I like Colledge, Fratianne, Zayak, Biellman, Manley, Ito, Harding, Chen, Kwan, Slutskaya, Asada, Kim ... I like a lot of skaters ... a lot more than listed.
So Zayak who couldnt do half decent figures anymore, had no real results for over 2 years, and was even 5th in combined free skating skating her best in Sarajevo was best skater in the world at the time just because you say so? OK then, sure. 3rd best in the U.S, but best in the world at the time just because.
True, and Mao lost to Yu-Na Kim by about 25 points at Junior Worlds that year.
She bombed there. On a good day she easily beat Yu Na at that point, this wasnt the Yu Na of 2007-2014, and anyway Yu Na wasnt at the Olympics so she wouldnt have had to worry about her.
Neither was Mao, so she wouldn't have had to worry about any of the skaters who actually were there either. I agree with pollyanna, you're funny!
I am saying an exception should have been made for Mao though. You cant have the unquestioned best skater in the world not at the Olympics, the place where the best skater in the world is supposed to receive a gold medal (and did 8 times out of 10 from 76-2010).
What made Witt the best skater by your measure?
She was best by default since Ito sucked so badly at figures, Manley was splatting 95% of her career away, Thomas was overall a strong competitor and potentially better overall skater but folded under pressure of the big events. Had Thomas not missed her double axel in the short of the 87 worlds, and skated like U.S Nationals and Skate Canada at Olympics and worlds in 88, or had Manley delivered at the 87 worlds (which would have led to her being World Champ and winning 88 Olympics and worlds even with the same skates), history would look alot different.
That's another of your funny ideas. Do you also think that the Olympics is where the best in every athletic event are "supposed to receive a gold medal"? Why bother to even have any of the competitions? Sometimes those who are the "best in their sport" win gold and sometimes they do not. Sometimes they don't even make their country's Olypmic team for a number of reasons. The Olympics aren't some sort of quadrennial "coronation."
And going into the 1984 Olympics?
Well she won the combined free skating at the 82 and 83 worlds, so would have won both events if she didnt suck at figures then. In fall 83 it was evident by all her competitions, especialy Europeans, she now had good figures and would place near the top in Sarajevo. As she was always a better free skater than Sumners, and Sumners was struggling in the 83-84 season and far below her early 83 level which was her peak, the Olympic gold seemed the inevitable result by then.
Sumners btw lost both the short and long programs of 84 Nationals to Chin after being so dominant at the 83 Nationals and 83 worlds. She even fell on a single axel there. She lost to some Serbian skater in 83 even. She was clearly in trouble, and with Witt now good in figures, it would have been a bit of a surprise had world champion Sumners actually been able to pull it off and still win, as opposed to being surprising Witt did.
Saying a skater was suddenly good at figures is like ... saying a skater suddenly deserved 9.5 in skating skills.
Well the judges decided she was suddenly good at figures, and they are the ones who give out the medals. Given that there was barely any coverage of figures I guess that is what we have to go by.
Why didnt the powerful East German skating federation make Witt higher up in figures at the 81, 82, and 83 worlds if they could do that so easily in 84 and beyond. I am sure they wanted her to win those events too. So we have to assume her figures did get alot better. By 88 they may have declined and she was probably protected in them by name, by that point.
The first figure in 1988 was scandalous and skaters did not often decline in figures. It is the jumps that they would lose.
I think we have reached an impasse.
Besides, like all threads on FSU, this thread is really about Michelle Pell.
I was a huge fan of Debi Thomas and I thought she should have won the figures in 88 and Witt should have been lower than 3rd, and Thomas should have been 1st (or at worst 2nd to Ito) in the short, while Witt should have again been only about 5th. Had the figures and short program been judged fairly, Thomas probably would have been relaxed for her long program having the gold already in the bag and done a beautiful skate and won gold in impressive fashion. I am still mad Thomas was not given the lead on Witt she deserved, Witt winning the short over Debi was a farce, and the scoring of the 1st figure with Thomas in 4th was a political joke. With the competition all panned out Manley probably deserved the gold ahead of Witt, but didnt win it due to being too inconsistent the years before Calgary, not being enough of a name, the olympics being pigoned a Witt-Thomas gold battle, and all those other silly skating reasons. Ito outshone Witt in free skating, even if with her figures she had no hope.
So if you are arguing Witt was a weak winner in 88 I wont disagree with that. That just shows how for the longest time they wanted the person perceived as the dominant skater to win the Olympics though. Since best has different meanings to different people, maybe I should change the term I use to dominant. Most times the generally dominant skater of the time wins the Olympics
1980- Poetzsch- won 7 of 9 world, Olympic, or European Championships from 77-80, obviously dominant skater of that quad.
1984 and 1988- Witt- won all world and olympic titles from 84-88 minus the 86 worlds.
1992- Yamaguchi- won practically every big amateur or pro event she was in from 91-95
1994- Baiul- won 93 worlds and 94 Olympics, so was skater to beat of shortened and weak little 2 year period.
1998- Lipinski- won practically every title in 97 and 98
2006- exception due to Mao not being at Games
Poetzsch's record is far less impressive if you eliminate the four European Championships since not every skater at the World and Olympic level was European. Not necessarily in figures, but in the SP and LP the US and Canadians had a lot of depth. Many think Sandy Lenz and Lisa Marie Allen did far better than Poetzch despite what the records say.
Thinking about the original questions more: If Michelle had nailed the SP and LP, she probably would've scored roughly 63 pts. and 120 pts. respectively (I used her '05 Worlds score of 114 pts. and added in points lost from mistakes). I think that would've been just enough to knock Sasha to bronze. But, if Sasha had skated her Nationals LP and Irina had skated her Cup of Russia LP, Kwan would've probably been off the podium
I think it would be more like 63 and 125. I think she would have improved since the 2005 worlds. You must think so too as 63 is more than she got in the short at the 2005 worlds. Still not enough for gold in the end though. Then again scoring in Turin was stingy and much tougher than the 2005 worlds. Real quality elements were getting mostly 0s and the judges were not giving out high 8s and 9s in PCS to even Slutskaya and Cohen like they did in Moscow. So factoring that backwards it might be more like 61 and 120 for Kwan and no medal.
Poetzsch was a terrible skater. I dont know where her medals came from. Her mom must have been a judge or something.
Wait... how do you know this? Did you see all of the figures of the the top six?
Well...that NEVER happens!
Silver is the only logical answer in this poll as the question is stated, so that is what I voted. However in a competition with everyone skating their best at the 2006 Olympics Kwan wouldnt have even medalled. She would have benefited from the subpar performances of Arakawa, Cohen, and Slutskaya in this hypothetical (but still lost to Arakawa anyway). There is also no reason to assume a clean 6 triple LP. She had done that in a long time, and after a year of lost training time due to injury, even if she was healthy for the Games themselves, it was unlikely to happen there. Especialy as she isnt exactly famous for delivering at the Olympics.
Roz wasn't "suddenly" good at figures. She explained in a recent interview that she went to Kathy Casey (I think), specifically because of her expertise as a figures coach. Roz said that Kathy's coaching made all the difference in the quality of her figures, which also explained her improved placements in compulsory figures.
Separate names with a comma.