Retrospective: The 1984 Olympics

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Maofan7, Feb 1, 2012.

  1. TwizzlerS

    TwizzlerS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,484
    I have fond memories of watching the 1984 Olympics. I bought my first VCR in order to record it and then re-watched it many times. In addition to the top performances and the ones already mentioned, I wanted to add that I really enjoyed the free dance of Wilson and McCall.

    Enjoy!
     
  2. taf2002

    taf2002 Texas slumlord

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,133
    But they didn't. The Carruthers rose to the occasion & skated their best. They weren't lucky to get a medal, they earned it. Besides, they were always in the hunt, they didn't come out of nowhere.

    Was Sarah Hughes the best skater at the 02 Olys or did she skate her best when others faltered? The medals aren't supposed to be assigned before they even skate.

    'Nuff said...the fix was in. Do you think V&V at their best were more deserving than U&M at their best? Uh sure..:rolleyes:

    This
     
  3. orbitz

    orbitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    9,899
    The Carruthers and Sarah Hughes both earned their medals because (a) they skated their best AND (b) were lucky because the better skaters unexpectedly faltered.
     
  4. olympic

    olympic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,033
    True, but Roz probably had an edge on everything else. Ivanova's '85 Worlds program was much more cohesive
     
  5. Erin

    Erin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    5,016
    I was re-watching this and I thought Chin should have won the free. Gorgeous program, much nicer than Witt's, with better posture and line, plus Chin had a very decent attempt at the triple flip (with only a step-out) while Witt only had triple toes and sals. Going by the factored placements on Wikipedia, Chin could have had the bronze medal with a win in the free - she had 11.0 compared to Ivanova's 9.2, so moving from 3rd to 1st in the free would give Chin 9.0 and the bronze.

    1984 Olympics was really Chin's last good performance. She abandoned the flip after that and I don't think I ever saw her land more than two triples in any of her future programs. It was really sad to hear Peggy say that we could be watching the 1988 Olympic champ, knowing that Chin wouldn't even make it there.

    Zayak was definitely robbed in the short and I would have had her above Sumners in the free. But even my marks in the short/free wouldn't put her on the podium...Chin winning the free barely gets her on the podium in my scenario and I would have had Zayak behind Chin in both programs.

    Ivanova's loop was seriously underrotated and two-footed though.

    Kondrashova landed two triple toes, she popped the sal and fell on the loop. Vodorezova's full performance wasn't shown on the ABC coverage I have, but she was struggling with the double axel so I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't land any triples.
     
  6. Skate Talker

    Skate Talker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Messages:
    4,863
    I was 4 years behind you - bought my first VCR for 1988 Olympics where Wilson and McCall skated my favourite Free program. Thanks so much for the link. I don't think I have seen that skate since it originally aired. Everytime I see old footage of Tracy I :yikes: at the lack of bottom portion to her costumes. Fortunately by 88 she added several inches.
     
  7. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    12,452
    And me, four years later : I've used my parent's VCR for the first time in 1992 for the Olympics in Albertville !
     
  8. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,113
    I bought my 1st VCR - and case of Memorex videotape - for this Olympics
    I "loaned" the tapes to someone; and never saw them again.

    It took years to replace them!
     
  9. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,577
    No I’m not an Olympic level athlete, do you have to be? My words aren’t harsh they are reality.

    Not a troll and certainly not ignorant, my comment was “Winning is about performing when it counts” no matter what her excuses/explanations were. She was injured; fine either withdrawal or skate the best you can through the pain. “If” it was her boot problem it could have been sorted out long before the short program. I think it was more that she stepped too far to the left with her left foot and her skate went right out from under her and she took her partner down with her. They were skating brilliantly up until then. Their LP was a mess as well for whatever reason, illness, boot trouble…the point is when they needed to rise to the occasion, for whatever their reason, they didn’t.

    So at worlds when injury obviously was standing in their way (or it wasn’t showing) an obvious boot change and they rose to the occasion and won the competition. As it should be.

    You are mixing up competitions; one has nothing to do with the other. They messed up the Olympics (again, for whatever reason, known only to themselves) it’s over, time to move on to the next competition and find ways to improve. Get healthy, find new skates…whatever it takes, they obviously did whatever it took and won. I don’t remember the competition too well, I know Peter and Kitty weren’t there and I don’t remember how V/V skated.

    But they certainly were out skated at the Olympics, it happens; it just wasn’t their day.
     
  10. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,891
    Im still amazed they won worlds! It's a petty pet peeve I know, but it does irk me how people act like u&m were ogm favs who had bad luck. Yeah, maybe in their dreams! V&v were world champs, and t&b were world camps and multi world medalists who never placed below 5 th in several years, but it wasn't long before that u&m were coming I places like 11th and 7th at worlds yet somehow we were suppose to buy them as ogm contenders. Dark horses at best IMHO. Sorry, but they were no tai and randy :rolleyes:
     
  11. Seerek

    Seerek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,477
  12. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Sasha

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Messages:
    25,853
    The compulsories were eliminated too late for Orser. Without them he could have won the OGM in 1984, and 1988 would have been a non-factor. The disappointment in 1988 was much harsher because he was so close to finally winning the OGM! It was also obvious that it was his last chance.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2012
  13. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,468
    I agree they werent the OGM favorites, but they were definitely one of the top 3 favorites for sure, threats for gold, and heavy favorites to medal. The Carruthers were not medal favorites. Also what do finishes of U&M as far as back as 1980 and 1981 have to do with their Olympic medal chances.
     
  14. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,577
    Not sure why you think U/M would have been in the top 3 for sure but not C/C when Peter and Kitty beat U/M far more than the other way around.

    U/M beat C/C at Skate America in 1981 and Worlds in 1983. C/C beat U/M at the Olympics in 1980, Words in 1980, 1981 and 1982 so if I were placing bets my money would have been on the US team before the Canadians.
     
  15. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,468
    The Carruthers were ahead of Underhill & Martin early in the quad, but by 84 Underhill & Martina were considered well ahead of the Carruthers in everyones viewpoint. What happened way back in 1980 or early 1981 would be meaningless by 1984. Your post only indicates that since midway through 1981 the only time the Carruthers beat U & M was at the 82 Worlds and that was on a 5-4 split based on a fluke fall by U & M. Underhill & Martina by then were superior in every area to the Carruthers with both teams on a good day. Their pair elements were considered the best in the World, the Carruthers solo elements were even weaker, and artistically U&M were in another league as well.
     
  16. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,577
    Obviously you are incorrect about U/M being superior to C/C if they lost to them 5 times out of the 7 times they met in competition. You asked why I went back to 1979-80, because that was first time they met twice in one season. Which incidentally was C/C first year in competition and U/M 3rd so you would think U/M would be much better, they were the Canadian champions.

    1979-80 (met twice)
    World Championships - C/C ahead 7th place to 11th place
    Olympics - C/C ahead 5th place to 9th place

    1980-81 (met once)
    World Championships - C/C ahead 5th place to 7th place

    1981-82 (met twice)
    World Championships - C/C ahead 3rd place to 4th place
    Skate America - U/M ahead 1st place to 2nd place

    1982-83 (met once)
    World Championships - U/M ahead 3rd place to 4th place

    1983-84 (met once)
    Olympics - C/C ahead 2nd place to 7th place


    If their pair elements were the best in the world it (in everyone’s viewpoint) it wouldn't have taken them seven season to finally win worlds, they would have won much sooner; and would have been able to do it with C/C there. They would also have an Olympic medal in the two times they had the opportunity to get one.

    U/M had a 'fluke' fall at 82 worlds, another 'problem' at the 84 Olympics, when do things stop being flukes and start just being an inferior performance to your competitors?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2012
  17. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,113
    You have no idea how much "politicking" went on back then!
     
    bardtoob and (deleted member) like this.
  18. caseyedwards

    caseyedwards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    6,443
    Sports Illustrated didn't even have Carruthers as darks horses!

    G-V/V USSR
    S -B/T E.G.
    B -U/M Can

    Dark horse - L/S East Germany
     
  19. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,577
    Oh well if Sport Illustrated said so....:shuffle:

    I'm not sure why anyone would have had L/S above C/C, there were teams better than them which is why they probably only finished 5th at the Olympics.

    B/T were much better contenders for a gold; they were World and European championships but only got 4th in both the short and long at the Olympics, it happens.

    C/C just skated better, like it or not.
     
  20. Erin

    Erin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    5,016
    No one said they didn't. They were just explaining why their silver medal was somewhat unexpected. I think that it's pretty clear from the reaction of the commentators on US coverage that the Carrutherses' silver medal was somewhat of a surprise and the result of capitalizing on others' mistakes.
     
  21. orbitz

    orbitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    9,899
    No one's arguing that C/C did not skate better in the SP than U/M simply for the fact on that C/C stayed on their feet. I don't remember how U/M did in the LP. I do know from watching the World Pro competitions that U/M were way ahead of the C/C in term of being a "quality" pair.
     
  22. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,468
    The dark horse should have been S/M instead of L/S. Maybe C/C as a 2nd dark horse. Everyone though knew V/V, B/T, and U/M were by far the top 3 pairs at the time, the only 3 gold medal contenders, and the heavy 3 favorites to medal. Based on politics, momentum, and consistency V/V had the edge at that point, and their win was definitely not a surprise.
     
  23. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,577
    It's the 'somewhat' unexpected that doesn't make sense. The Carruthers were 3rd and 4th in world for two years leading up to the Olympics so it only makes sense they would have a pretty good shot at a medal if they skated well. Especially since they medaled in all but a few competitions since they started.
    U/M didn’t skate well in the long, too make big mistakes, here is how U/M did in the long program. Here is also C/C's long. If just staying on your feet wins you an Olympic medal Kemp and King would have one, you actually do need to have talent.
     
  24. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Sasha

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Messages:
    25,853
    LOL. Going back to the discussion about C&C and U&M, I had heard that C&C were considered bronze medal contenders, if that, while U&M were considered championship contenders who just happened to make a big mistake in their SP and were out of medal contention going into the LP. Based on their records, that did not make much sense. C&C won the silver mainly because other pairs made mistakes- at least that's how it was reported. That may be a little unfair to C&C, since they had as much chance of winning a silver or a bronze as any of the contenders, except V&V who were the reigning world champions. I never could understand the hoopla over U&M at that point. What they became as pros is entirely different. In 1984 they were not the dominant pair.
     
  25. floskate

    floskate Vacant

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Messages:
    8,797
    I think the difference was that U&M were much more consistent in 1983 than they had been in the past. Their elements were better quality than C&C but C&C were much more consistent leading up to the 1983 season. Once U&M got on the podium at Worlds and C&C dropped off it, then the speculation leading up to Sarejevo on possible outcomes obviously was going to favour U&M - especially in the popular press. But any fan with an iota of knowledge about the sport back then would have to surmise that C&C could also be in with a chance. U&M always had that history of skating great apart from one absolutely monumental screw up! Fair play to them, they didn't make mistakes by halves!!
     
  26. Erin

    Erin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    5,016
    Well, regardless of what makes sense, expectations were clearly pretty low for the Carrutherses. Seems like they were thinking "outside shot for bronze" so silver was kind of behind their wildest dreams. Not as crazy as Paul Wylie in Albertville, but certainly beyond their expectation.

    So true! It's kind of funny that Barb falling on a sit spin was such a surprise because every year from 79-82 they had disasterous mistakes on absolutely nothing. 83 was the exception, not the rule, although I guess everyone thought that the pattern had changed and that Barb & Paul had finally learned to compete without those disasters. Plus, I believe it was Paul that usually had the major wipeout pulling Barb down in the process, not the other way around.

    I always have to laugh when Paul Martini is commentating and a skater "pulls a Martini" and Paul gets all lecture-y about how important it is to maintain concentration. I suppose he knows this from experience, but given how hard it was for him to do, you'd think he would be a little bit more sympathetic.
     
  27. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,891
    SI's predictions don't seem unreasonable to me. What got me is how much hype u&m were getting for gold, and as soon as she whipped out on that spin it was like "oh no! There goes the gold!". :lol: Nothing against them as skaters, as they were lovely, but leading up to the games they were no Patrick chan.
     
  28. judgejudy27

    judgejudy27 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    13,468
    I do agree on Baess & Theirbach. Their missing the podium was an even bigger dissapointment then Underhill & Martini when one considers their stellar record the years leading into the Games. They were really the overall top pair of the quad to that point, and most people thought they should have been 2 time World Champions heading into those Games as well. The funny thing is if they had defended their World title in 83 as most thought they should have they probably would have been held up and won silver even with all their mistakes at the Games, but with V&V having taken over as the top team after defeating B/T at the 83 Worlds and 84 Europeans both, they didnt have that protection anymore.

    ABC which covered the Games seemed to think the battle for gold was an even toss up between V/V and B/T, with U/M heavy favorites for bronze, but with an outside shot at gold. C/C were as noted given an outside shot at bronze, along with perhaps the remaining Soviet couples.

    Underhill & Martini went on to become perhaps the best professional team ever, which is what most of their legacy is based upon and not so much their erratic amateur career; Carruthers became a very good one too, while Valova & Vasiliev were a bit of a flop as pros, perhaps waiting too long to go pro in the first place. Baess & Theirbach were never able to have a pro career, they had offers to come to the States I have read but were not allowed to.
     
  29. olympic

    olympic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,033
    What was special about L/S [Lorenz/Schubert - #2 GDR team for those who don't know] that made them a dark horse leading up to Sarajevo? I don't recall their names being among V/V, B/T, U/M, C/C or even S/M in the previous quadrennium ... and then they disappeared. What happened to them?? :confused:
     
  30. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,113