Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Vash01, Jan 13, 2013.
I found her as dull and robotic on the ice as she was off the ice.
I did not find her elegant at all. She always looked stiff/wooden, and not in a particularly attractive position. No lines. If she was a total package, it was a package of mediocrity, IMO. I did not dislike her, but did not particularly like her either.
Could've Chin really have won 85 Worlds with a clean LP? Chin skated better than Witt in the SP, IMO, and was still judged only 2nd. Tiffany's LP only had three triples planned - two toes and a sal. Even with better style and a clean skate, I don't think it would've been enough for the judges not to favor Witt. Tiffany really needed to include the 3 flip to put her over the top.
aside: Tiffany's 85 LP has always bothered me in its construction. The last music cut didn't seem to go with the slow piece preceding it at all, and the only jump planned at the end was a 2A-2t, whereas Witt had a 3t and then a 2A to finish. The second half of Tiffany's LP always felt empty to me somehow, especially coming after her beautifully constructed 84 LP.
Who knows for sure, she might not have won, but it was her best ever chance IMO, unless one thinks 1986 was a better one but she would have had to beat Witt's LP there too (if she only beat Thomas but not Witt, it actually would have made Witt the new winner), and Witt's 86 LP was stronger than 85 and Chin was no longer U.S Champion. I think she might have only since Witt's marks werent as high as would be expected for her skate, indicating they were saving room, and Chin's marks at the 85 Worlds were very generous for two enormous errors. I wouldnt read anything into the short program result, Witt always won the short program from 84-88 if she skated cleanly.
I agree. She is also the opposite of some of the others, someone who seems MUCH more appreciated decades later than she actually was when she skated.
I think that Elaine Zayak's appeal is kind of dated. Her personality is wonderful both today and then, but who wants to see five hundred triple toe loops? She was a great skater, but I think her programs stand up to time better from her comeback in 1994.
Elaine Zayak 1994 US Nationals SP
Nancy was wonderful, and so far in this thread her detractors have not made a case. She was a lazy and sometimes lousy pro skater, but her competitive programs had eye catching qualities. I believe it takes a sense of ladies skating history to appreciate it, but her skating was interesting and her body was in excellent shape in 94, allowing her to achieve a triple lutz that, were it performed today, the other ladies might envy.
Kerrigan's triple lutz in the LP at Lillehammer was actually small and not that strong compared to both Baiul and Harding, one of the few valid justifications judges at that event had for giving Bauil higher technical marks which led to her controversial win.
The lutz is just one jump in a 4 minutes program. Besides, even if Nancy's 3lutz was judged as small-ish, it was done around the 3 minutes mark. Coupled the lateness of the lutz with the 3t-3t and 3s-2t, Nancy should've had the technical edge over Baiul.
I wonder how long it will be until there is another LP at US Nationals with both a 3A and a 3/3 . . .
You can't forget what Zayak brought to ladies skating (or may be YOU can)- athleticism which was seriously lacking. By your logic, all the skaters of the past, including Ito, Button, Salchow, et al. will have no appeal at all just because everyone is doing what they did in the past (Ito somewhat of an exception in the 3A).
About Nancy, why can't you accept that people have different tastes when it comes to liking/not liking skaters? There is no need to be condescending. Many of us here are very familiar with FS over the years, so you are not the only one that knows the history of ladies skating, and skating in general.
I have seen plenty of posts that stated specifically what they did not like about Nancy's skating. You are only reading what you want to read.
Regarding Nancy at Lillihammer: I thought the obvious reason to mark her down on the technical mark was the 2flip. The lutz was fine, beautiful position, correct edge , nice flow, performed toward the end of the program, I didn't find it particularily small. Deserving of +1 or +2 under COP IMO. It would be much easier to knock Oksana on any of : 3Flip (2footed), 2Toe (intended to be 3Toe), 2A-2T (her only combination and a too easy one, yet it was messy ). I would have totally given Nancy the technical mark, though I do think Oksana deserved higher
on Artistic Impression.
Right! Not to mention Tonya had all the triples, Lutz and Flip on correct/deep edges , and pretty much every jump entered and exited with great speed/flow, and monstrously big. She skated with abandon, flew with great speed down the ice and had powerful spins too.
Exactly. Because of her doing all those triples the ISU had to demand no more than 2 of any type of triple which led to many women doing 5 or even 6 different type of triples in less than a decade from then. This wouldnt have ever happened as fast without her. For all the flak she gets for all her triple toes, she could also do 3 different type of triples and was very consistent landing all of them, which was rare back then. Her much maligned artistry, which was indeed quite wretched when she debuted in 80 and 81, had also improved greatly by the time of the 84 Olympics, she had a beautiful layback, some nice musical sense, but the judges and USFSA had already dumped her down the drain by then so it didnt matter.
Plus the better spins for Kerrigan, plus the better steps and connecting elements. Yes, technically, Nancy Kerrigan was better than Oksana Baiul.
I thought that is what happened, Nancy had the higher technical marks and Oksana had the higher artistic marks, but the total score was a tie, and Oksana ultimately won by tie-breaker, which was the higher artistic marks for the freeskate.
No, Oksana had better technical marks...Almost 20 years later, I can't understand ! lol
Durrrrrrrrr . . . thanks for the link . . . Darn, my explanation made me feel better about the literal placement of the skaters at that competition.
The judges from the Czech Republic, Ukraine, and China gave Baiul higher technical marks than Kerrigan. The British, Canadian, and German judges gave higher marks to Kerrigan, while the Polish, American, and Japanese judges awarded both skaters the same mark.
3 judges had Oksana higher (each by 0.1), 3 judges had them tied, and 3 judges had Nancy higher (one by 0.1 ane two by 0.2), so Nancy's technical marks were a tiny bit higher overall. The artistic impression marks were an exact tie, with 3 judges having Oksana 1st by 0.1, 3 judges having them tied, and 3 judges having Nancy 1st by 0.1. In terms of total marks, 4 had Oksana higher by 0.1, 4 had Nancy higher (3 by 0.1 and one by 0.3), and one had them tied, with it coming down to the 2nd mark tiebreaker for that judge.
Baiul had better spins than anyone else- better positions, creativity, centering, musicality. I don't know where you saw the better spins for Kerrigan. nancy's spins were just OK. Oksana's spins were highlights.
How did we go from US national champions to Baiul vs. Kerrigan?
I honestly think Nancy in 94 was much more pleasing to watch than Oksana. I know it's unpopular, but Oksana's program seemed so sloppy to me. Nancy seemed very much in control and well-trained while Oksana was so haphazard but obviously skated from the heart. I guess it is all a matter of opinion as far as presentation, but there is no way Oksana was better technically that night as Nancy had such a strong jumping technique when she was on. I voted for Kristi, but I truly think Nancy's skating holds up in this day and age. She is certainly a 6.0 skater, but she holds up much better than Jill Trenary or Roz Sumners. I think Jill Trenary is someone who would have done quite well under COP, though if that makes any sense. She had some unique combos and was great at figures so I think she would have been quite good with footwork and transitions if that is what she needed to do. As it stands though, her programs are just so eighties and dated. Talk about a skater who got out just in time. She would never have been a factor by 92.
Kristi has been such a great spokesperson for the sport for so many years and I really admire how she maintained her technical ability as a pro. But I've always had a soft spot for Debi Thomas and really admire her accomplishments both on and off the ice.
And I'm so happy for Nicole that she seems to be rebuilding her life and I hope she'll be a future role model for overcoming addiction and making positive change in your life.
Because focusing on the 1994 Olympics allows for a smooth segue to the real subject of every thread, the top official finisher of the 1994 US Nationals
I liked several of the skaters in the poll like Nancy, Kristi and Roslyn, but I chose Debi Thomas. To me, she was very unique with her own style and very original.
which should have never happened. Kerrigan should have had a higher or atleast equal technical mark from every judge. Had Bauil won strictly by artistic marks her win could have been justified, and would have gotten less controversy, but that 3 judges tied them artistically and gave Bauil the win by virtue of her technical mark is why her win is considered such a farce to this day.
I am sorry but you have to be kidding. In her LP she barely did any spins at all. She had no combination spin, no layback spin, no scratch spin. What she had was a camel catchfoot which was nice, a really ugly and weak death drop, another camel variation which was nice but almost the exact same spin as her first one, and a short side spin just after it. Not that Kerrigan is an exceptional spinner but atleast she displayed more of the basic types of spins as a LP should, and a couple of good sit spins and a scratch spin.
Yeah, thanks for the correction ... I mistakenly transposed the first initial of Caryn's first name in spelling her last name.
Re Kerrigan -- I didn't say I thought she was "artistic," I said she was a very athletic skater who looked beautiful on the ice, so yes, her strong suit was technical and athletic abilities, but also her physical beauty on the ice is something that made her stand out. She was not just a pretty princess though -- I think she was probably tomboyish growing up with two brothers. The one thing that hampered Kerrigan's career was her inconsistency (a tendency to get tight under pressure I think). Ironically, she overcame those nerves under the intense '94 Olympic spotlight that ensued re increased media coverage post "knee-whacking" scandal.
Re Oksana, as I said: "precocious artistry." However, Oksana lacked technical consistency. Even though Oksana looked absolutely beautiful in the air on her jumps, she often landed them doublefooted, and she had trouble doing jump combinations. She simply needed help in further developing her technique on jumps, IMHO. But she was rewarded with the Olympic medal for her precocious artistry and decided to retire too soon. I think Oksana had a very overly emotional diva-esque personality and she lacked psychological maturity, but yes her expressiveness and gorgeous line, movement qualities and aesthetically-pleasing positions on the ice were beyond her years.
Separate names with a comma.