Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 97 of 97
  1. #81
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    Kostner stepped out of her triple lutz and still beat Mao who skated cleanly (no downgrades on jumps, etc..). Mao was hurt by alot of low levels by the technical specialist on her non jump elements.
    I guess the only good thing to come out of that is that it forced Mao to hit the levels in her non-jump elements. She rarely misses hitting those levels now in competitions. Still, I think that was a case where little things makes the panel overlook the overall impressions of the program.

  2. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I wonder if either of you actually read the last paragraph of my last post: I said I recognise that Arakawa wasn't really dominant for any significant portion of her career. No need to point that out, that's not disputed, though I can't resist mentioning though that in both of her major win, Arakawa managed to win Free Program. Asada on the other hand camd second in both SP and FS of both 2008 and 2010 Worlds.

    The point I'm making is that the statistics of Asada's events make it difficult to uphold the claim that she was dominant in any period other than 2007/2008. I don't know where you get your definition of dominance, but not winning any major title (i.e. 2006/2007) or losing majority of major events, including the biggest fish of the season (2008/2009, 2009/2010) doesn't count as dominant if you ask me. If you were to say Asada was one of the 2 or 3 (or any other number) top lady skater, I will agree with you, but dominance? I don't think so.

    I will come back in about 18 hours and answer any objections if the conversation hasn't moved along too much. My apologies for not providing immediate answers to your current and any potential counter-arguments.

  3. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sydneyphoenix View Post
    The point I'm making is that the statistics of Asada's events make it difficult to uphold the claim that she was dominant in any period other than 2007/2008. I don't know where you get your definition of dominance, but not winning any major title (i.e. 2006/2007) or losing majority of major events, including the biggest fish of the season (2008/2009, 2009/2010) doesn't count as dominant if you ask me. If you were to say Asada was one of the 2 or 3 (or any other number) top lady skater, I will agree with you, but dominance? I don't think so.

    I will come back in about 18 hours and answer any objections if the conversation hasn't moved along too much. My apologies for not providing immediate answers to your current and any potential counter-arguments.
    Actually, I don't understand the point you're trying to make now. No one was saying Mao was THE dominant one in those years you mentioned. I thought the original discussion was on whether Mao has had a better career than Shizuka did and based on statistics provided by Judy, she clearly does. You yourself agree that she one of the top 2 or 3 ladies throughout her competitive career. I can't say the same for Shizuka. Unless, you're someone who thinks the only two highlights in Shizuka's career including achieving the OGM is enough to elevate a skater about others who has had far more consistent records. If that's the case, then there's nothing left for me to say other than the fact we have Very different opinions on how to evaluate an athlete's career.
    Last edited by miki88; 08-01-2010 at 05:25 PM.

  4. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    Actually, I don't understand the point you're trying to make now. No one was saying Mao was dominant in those years you mentioned. I thought the original discussion was on whether Mao has had a better career than Shizuka did and based on statistics provided by Judy, she clearly does. Unless, you're someone who thinks the only two highlights in Shizuka's career including achieving the OGM is enough to elevate a skater about others who has had far more consistent records. If that's the case, then there's nothing left for me to say other than the fact we have Very different opinions on how to evaluate an athlete's career.

    I just saw it b4 turning computer off, promise this is the last post you will have from me for a few hours. The point is that just as Arakawa can't claim to have been dominant over multiple seasoons, neiter can Asada, except for 2007/2008.

    As for whether I think OGM cover up for lack of consistency-yes, to an extent. I wouldn't presume to speculate on exchange rate, but do believe that OGM is worth more than a world gold medal, and I'm quite sure you would too. Why, Asada allegedly said she considers Olympic Silver to be a better achievement than her World Gold, though I'm not sure if she meant one-to-one, or both of her World Golds. (just have to get the link...).

    I will address some of the points you, Judy (and anyone else who may contribute) have raised in the last few posts when I come back in a few hours.

    P.S. What's the statistics Judy provided that you're referring to?

  5. #85
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,206
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sydneyphoenix View Post
    I wonder if either of you actually read the last paragraph of my last post: I said I recognise that Arakawa wasn't really dominant for any significant portion of her career. No need to point that out, that's not disputed, though I can't resist mentioning though that in both of her major win, Arakawa managed to win Free Program. Asada on the other hand camd second in both SP and FS of both 2008 and 2010 Worlds.

    The point I'm making is that the statistics of Asada's events make it difficult to uphold the claim that she was dominant in any period other than 2007/2008. I don't know where you get your definition of dominance, but not winning any major title (i.e. 2006/2007) or losing majority of major events, including the biggest fish of the season (2008/2009, 2009/2010) doesn't count as dominant if you ask me. If you were to say Asada was one of the 2 or 3 (or any other number) top lady skater, I will agree with you, but dominance? I don't think so.

    I will come back in about 18 hours and answer any objections if the conversation hasn't moved along too much. My apologies for not providing immediate answers to your current and any potential counter-arguments.


    You just arent getting it. We are not saying Mao was THE dominant skater of her time. If one had to pick one that would be Kim probably, though not completely clear cut mainly due to Mao. We are saying is Mao has been one of the 2 or 3 (usually 2) dominant skaters of the last 5 seasons now though. Meaning she is clearly and far and away one of the best 2 or 3. She almost never is off the podium or even below 2nd in any major event (the only time she was, was a 4th at the 2009 Worlds and a 3rd at the 2009 Four Continents). She wins atleast one major event every season (2006 Grand Prix final, 2008 Worlds, 2009 Grand Prix final, 2010 Worlds).

    And we are contrasting that to Shizuka who except for 2 seasons was not even a top 7 skater for the season. We are saying relatively speaking Mao is a far far more dominant force in her own time than Shizuka, not that she actually is the dominant skater of her time. We are comparing someone who was almost always clearly one of the 2 best to someone who was almost never one of the 7 or 8 best.


    If you want to compare their careers:

    Dominance- Mao by a huge margin
    Consistency- Mao by a huge margin
    # of Titles- Mao by a huge margin
    Medals- Mao by alot
    Worlds success- Mao by a huge margin
    Grand Prix success- Mao by alot
    Nationals success- Mao by alot
    Success vs main rivals- Mao by alot
    Longevity- considering Shizuka's international career was dead in the water for 4 years until 2003, even here Mao already

    Shizuka's one and only edge is the Olympic Gold medal in an Olympics Mao was kept out of due to being underaged in a year she had a 3-0 head to head with Shizuka, and Mao still has an Olympic silver.


    To rank Shizuka over Mao is to overcredit the Olympic Gold on its own to ridiculous proportions.

    I am done with this as I dont want to sound like a Shizuka basher. I actually like her skating quite alot, but Mao has already had the better career hands down. Discussing which one thinks is the better skater might be interesting, but who overall had the more success is a no contest even with Shizuka's Olympic Gold and 1 World title to go with it.

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,206
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sydneyphoenix View Post
    As for whether I think OGM cover up for lack of consistency-yes, to an extent. I wouldn't presume to speculate on exchange rate, but do believe that OGM is worth more than a world gold medal, and I'm quite sure you would too. Why, Asada allegedly said she considers Olympic Silver to be a better achievement than her World Gold, though I'm not sure if she meant one-to-one, or both of her World Golds. (just have to get the link...).
    However an Olympic silver and World gold combined should count for about the same as an Olympic Gold. That is the two next biggest achievements possible combined as opposed to the one biggest achievement on its own. To not consider those two things combined to equal the Olympic Gold on its own is to elevate the Olympic Gold to a place beyond where it should be IMO. To say the next 2 biggest achivements combined equal only 1 Olympic Gold is already giving it huge respect, basically saying it alone is worth double the next biggest achievement already. And of course we can do that and still be left with one remaining World title for Asada (because she has 2 to begin with) to cancel out Shizuka's one World title.

    And then we look at everything else and it is now Mao's world silver, 2 Grand Prix final golds, 2 Grand Prix final silvers, 5 grand prix event wins, Four Continents titles, and all her other achievements vs Shizuka's silver and bronze at the Grand Prix final, lone grand prix event win, 13th place finish at the 98 Olympics, 8th place finish at the 2003 Worlds, well you get the picture.

  7. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I agree with everything you said Judy. But Mao actually won 2005 and 2008 GPF. Now looking at it, 2006-2007 season is the only one she went without earning a major title even though she broke records during that season. This discussion just makes me feel even sadder that Mao wasn't allowed to compete in 2006. Based on her record in the GP series, Mao tied Irina with two wins each with Mao winning the final. If she were allowed to go, she could have been a co-favorite for the gold.

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27
    I think Yamaguchi is the same way too. She dominated by being extremely consistent, showing very good overall skating but nothing spectacular, and not missing hardly a thing under pressure.
    Well, one big difference is that Kristi's domination in the amateur ranks was very short--in fact, really only the first part of '92. True, she did win '91 Worlds, but that was her only big win that year. Of course, I have little doubt that Kristi could have dominated for several more years, but we'll never know that for sure.

    Ito and Harding at their best were probably better skaters than her
    Probably??

    but had higher risk moves, and in Harding's case a very sparatic career.
    Almost too high-risk. I think the triple axel was both a blessing and a curse for Tonya. It helped propel her to fame in '91, but then her failure to keep landing it kind of led to her undoing later on. I wonder why Midori was more consistent with it than Tonya? I also wonder if Tonya might not have been better off getting a reliable triple-triple than focusing so hard on the triple axel. Then again, naybe her percentage wouldn't have been much different either way.

    I definitely prefer Kwan as a skater to Kristi as well though, she just has more IT factor and her best performances are more magical than Kristi's best were. She also has bigger jumps than Kristi's little triples.
    Yes, Michelle's jumps were bigger. But to me there were a couple of things that set Kristi apart: 1) Unlike Katarina and Michelle, Kristi never watered down her programs IIRC, not even in the pro ranks. She always seemed to go for everything, even if she sometimes missed. Whether or not one likes her skating, it's hard not to admire her gutsiness. 2) Kristi's artistry, while not particularly profound IMO, never seemed arty or forced to me. It always came across as natural. OTOH, at least in her early years, Michelle's artistry usually seemed rather pretentious and manufactured to me, as if she were consciously thinking every time she stepped onto the ice, "I'm here to make an artistic statement." I suppose part of the reason might be that Kristi was 4 years older (almost 20) when she won her first world title, so she really had no need to try to act matoor. Michelle did have more interesting programs, though--at least early on.

  9. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    If Mao were to say that she would just be going out of her way to be humble. I would be amazed if Mao considers Shizuka's career better than her own at this point. I still say an Olympic silver and 2 World titles combined is fairly equal to an Olympic gold and 1 World title, and the remainder of Mao's career leaves Shizuka's in the dust. Many aspects of Shizuka's career are frankly embarassing for a World Champion, let alone an Olympic winner. I doubt there is hardly anyone who would give up an additional World title, an additional World silver as well, 2 Grand Prix final titles, multiple Four Continents titles, multiple other international wins, medals, National titles, and also now be saddled with so many poor showings as there are on Shizuka's resume just to change what is already still an Olympic silver to a gold. That is what I would call giving the Olympic Gold, despite it being the biggest prize in skating, too much prestige. Not to mention Mao had to miss an Olympics and Worlds she had a good chance of winning due to the age eligibilty rule, probably good luck for Shizuka who was 0-3 vs a 16 year old Mao that year.

    It could be said Shizuka's Olympic Gold and World title combined is enough to raise her career over say Sasha Cohen's (despite that Sasha was beating her 95% of the time, just not the 2 times that mattered so much). And certainly beyond her countrywomen Fumie Suguri who in fact otherwise would have even had a far superior career. To say they elevate her career above say Mao or Slutskaya (who like Mao has 2 World titles but no Olympic Gold) would be far too much though.




    I am not downplaying that the OGM is the biggest achievement in figure skating and no doubt Mao like all great skaters wants it badly. It just isnt the be all and end all which elevates skaters like Shizuka, Hughes, Baiul, or even Lipinski above ones with far more successful overall careers.




    No what I said is she was clearly one of the 2 or 3 dominant skaters for 5 years. In the 2005-2006 season she proved she was clearly one of the best inspite of not competing at the Olympics and Worlds by going a combined 5-1 vs Slutskaya, Cohen, and Arakawa, and by winning the Grand Prix final by easily beating OGM favorite Slutskaya. In the 2006-2007 season Asada, Kim, and Ando all shared dominance to a degree. The 2007-2008 season was all about Mao and Kim. I still say Mao was atleast a top 3 skater of the 2008-2009 season. Miki deservedly medaled at Worlds but had done virtually nothing before that point. Mao was the only one to beat Kim that season and did it to win the Grand Prix final. And the 2009-2010 season was obviously all about Kim and Asada in the end inspite of a slow start for Mao.

    Shizuka was not even a top 6 or 7 skater in the World any season other than her World title season in 2004 and her Olympic Gold season in 2006. Heck after making an Olympic and World team at 16 she arguably wasnt even a top 20 skater in the World the next 4 seasons aged 17 to 20 as she plodded around the international circuit with no success at all other than a silver behind Jenny Kirk at the depleted Four Continents event in 02, and every single Japanese World or Olympic team often in favor of someone who finished well outside the top 10. And even in those 2 glory years in 2004 Shizuka failed to win any event, including her own Nationals where she was 3rd, until winning Worlds to end the season. And she failed to even qualify for the Grand Prix final (albeit like Mao in 2010) in 2006. And those were here 2 best seasons ever! Even in the year Shizuka won Worlds she began the year finishing behind Jenny Kirk yet again in her first event of the season at Skate America.

    There just is no comparision in their degree of dominance. I didnt imply Mao dominates womens skating like Witt did but the extent she is one of its dominant skaters over the years is on a whole other plane than Shizuka who was in fact a journeywomen almost her whole career.




    Shizuka was 3rd in the short program when she won the Olympics. She was beaten handily in the short program at the Worlds she won by Cohen, and she barely won the long program. Despite the skate of her life with 2 triple-triples Kwan with a doubled triple lutz and no triple-triple tries took 4 of 9 counting judges off her, and a sloppy and off form Cohen took 3 of 9. Shizuka has never won the short program at a major event, just like Mao. And many felt Shizuka was majorly held up in the short program of both the 2004 Worlds and 2006 Olympics, and if she hadnt been scored as closely to the leaders as she was, closer than many felt she deserved, she would have a had a harder time winning. And most people consider it bogus that Mao did not win the short program at the 2008 Worlds and the long program at the 2010 Worlds at the very least, there are some who even felt she deserved to win all 4 programs.
    Okay, I'm back, and I will try to reply to some of the points that you guys raised.

    First of all, we can't go and speculate on whether Asada may or may not have won the Worlds and Olympics in 2006-that leaves too many variables including the facts that she never skated at either events previously and that she ended up not being able to defend her Junior Worlds Title anyway. Worlds and Olympics come with pressure that if you ask me are quite different from Grand Prix Series. As it turned out, Asada didn't win her first Worlds campaign in 2007. I'm not saying she wouldn't have won 2006 titles (no one knows how things might have played out), but to say she had a good chance is nothing more than speculation. Let's not forget that 2005 GPF was held in Asada's homeground too. You can think of whatever excuses that might serve, but I wouldn't call someone who didn't get to EITHER Olympics or Worlds for whatever reason in 2006 dominant or one of the best, or anything...unless you are going to confer equal prestige to GPF that is given to Olympics or Worlds?

    As to the quadrennial that has just ended, I do not know where you get the idea of Asada being dominant (or co-dominant) in 2006/2007. She didn't win any of the major titles (unless you're going to call Grand Prix events as being major titles) and frankly had strings of second finishes. If you are going to call her even co-dominant in that year, why, we can give the similar distinction to Elizabeth Manley regarding 1987/1988 season-she ended up winning silver in both Olympics and Worlds. I think we have to distinguish between being dominant and being one of the top ladies.

    No comment on 2007/2008, other than to say that Asada was quite dominant in terms of statistics in that season, and that probably was her best season thus far. Regarding 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, yes, Asada beat Kim one of three times in both seasons. But she lost the biggest fish in both seasons, lost to Kim with large margins when she lostwhile won by significantly smaller margins when she won. Not to mention that she got thrown off the podium occasionally end failed to qualify for 2009 GPF. In fact, Asada lost not just to Kim but also to Joannie Rochette quite frequently in 2008/2009. With all this in mind, I wonder how you are going to explain that Asada was dominant during the quadrennial-"being at or near the top" sounds more accurate if you ask me. We may have to disagree on this particular point, but in my books, you can only have one dominant person or multiple co-domiant persons, but only if no one has an obvious upper hand. I don't think that's what we can say regarding Asada's career for many of her seasons.

    Also, what you are saying about "many people" thinking Arakawa's placing in 2004 and 2006 bogus and about Asada's failure to win any segments in either of her World Title wins being questionable are nothing more than speculation. If I play devil's advocate along that path, I can also question Asada's 2008 World Free score given that scary fall and the lack of choreography for 15 seconds thereafter, and by extension the world title itself. However, knowing what kind of hell-gate it will open, I won't. I am simply making the point that you can't use use speculation to back up your claim about career statistics-how many Olympic titles do you think will change hands if we leave it to popular vote?

    You think I am over-valuing Olympic gold in the context of achievement. Again we may have to disagree, but that are the names that has any decent chance of being remembered in posterity unless you're particularly a figure skating fan and not general sports fan or disinterested public. Not many (even figure fans) remember likes of Emmerich Danzer or Lily Kronberger despite remembering their contemporaries with Olympic Gold-it's not just about them being from several generations ago, if you ask me. Personally therefore I stick to higher exchange rate of Olympic Gold vs. World Gold, but each to his/her own, and that's not a significant point in discussion.

    Final point in this first series of reply: you seem to be thinking that I think Arakawa had some mythical period of dominance that was longer than Asada. That's not what I'm saying. Arakawa didn't have significant porition of period being THE dominant skater, but Asada doesn't have much to show for it other other than 2007/2008. If you are going to argue that Asada had longer period in which she stayed at or near the top than Arakawa, that's one thing, but saying she was the dominant skater is quite another. Also, many casual fans or vaguely interested members of the public will judge the dominance by who wins the World Championships (Olympics in Olympic years). Of course that's not as simple as that, but that's the impression that most people will have in decades time unless you research individual careers methodically. Does anyone still talk about who won the Skate Canada in 1985, even in FSU forums?
    Last edited by sydneyphoenix; 08-02-2010 at 10:26 AM.

  10. #90
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    You just arent getting it. We are not saying Mao was THE dominant skater of her time. If one had to pick one that would be Kim probably, though not completely clear cut mainly due to Mao. We are saying is Mao has been one of the 2 or 3 (usually 2) dominant skaters of the last 5 seasons now though. Meaning she is clearly and far and away one of the best 2 or 3. She almost never is off the podium or even below 2nd in any major event (the only time she was, was a 4th at the 2009 Worlds and a 3rd at the 2009 Four Continents). She wins atleast one major event every season (2006 Grand Prix final, 2008 Worlds, 2009 Grand Prix final, 2010 Worlds).

    And we are contrasting that to Shizuka who except for 2 seasons was not even a top 7 skater for the season. We are saying relatively speaking Mao is a far far more dominant force in her own time than Shizuka, not that she actually is the dominant skater of her time. We are comparing someone who was almost always clearly one of the 2 best to someone who was almost never one of the 7 or 8 best.


    If you want to compare their careers:

    Dominance- Mao by a huge margin
    Consistency- Mao by a huge margin
    # of Titles- Mao by a huge margin
    Medals- Mao by alot
    Worlds success- Mao by a huge margin
    Grand Prix success- Mao by alot
    Nationals success- Mao by alot
    Success vs main rivals- Mao by alot
    Longevity- considering Shizuka's international career was dead in the water for 4 years until 2003, even here Mao already

    Shizuka's one and only edge is the Olympic Gold medal in an Olympics Mao was kept out of due to being underaged in a year she had a 3-0 head to head with Shizuka, and Mao still has an Olympic silver.


    To rank Shizuka over Mao is to overcredit the Olympic Gold on its own to ridiculous proportions.

    I am done with this as I dont want to sound like a Shizuka basher. I actually like her skating quite alot, but Mao has already had the better career hands down. Discussing which one thinks is the better skater might be interesting, but who overall had the more success is a no contest even with Shizuka's Olympic Gold and 1 World title to go with it.

    I've already discussed in the post I've just put up, but it's simply matter of how much value one assigns to each title and medal. Yes, you might think my view is over-generous on Olympics, but after all, one "reigns" with an Olympic title for 4 years while for one year with a World title.

    Sure, Asada won a major title in each of her season except 2006/2007. That's not the point. The point I'm making is there were always someone with more distinguished records than her in each season other than 2007/2008. I wonder if we're trying to convince other of arguments that are not mutually exclusive.

    I know it's not your main point, but I personally couldn't care less about Nationals results-ISU don't even recognise the scores, and given some-shall we say surprising-scores in the nationals last seasons left right and centre, I have no confidence about whether the scores reflect the achievements. I will have to trust that they've got the placements right at the least.

    P.S. I assume you meant 2005 and 2008 GPF? Also, you've forgotten 2009 Cup of Russia (5th), and coming 3rd in 2009 4CC means she stayed on podium then.

  11. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    I agree with everything you said Judy. But Mao actually won 2005 and 2008 GPF. Now looking at it, 2006-2007 season is the only one she went without earning a major title even though she broke records during that season. This discussion just makes me feel even sadder that Mao wasn't allowed to compete in 2006. Based on her record in the GP series, Mao tied Irina with two wins each with Mao winning the final. If she were allowed to go, she could have been a co-favorite for the gold.
    Co-favourite with how many people, based on how much statistics? Remember that she didn't sweep the 2005/2006 GP series (lost Cup of China to Irina Slutskaya, so their score is 1-1 that season) and when she went to Junior Worlds instead of Olympics and Worlds, she ended up losing her title from 2005. No one knows how Asada might have gone had she went to Turin, but one thing I know for sure is that it is nothing more than speculation.

  12. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Syndey

    What exactly IS your point?

    You continuously evaluate Mao's record while ignoring Shizuka's own record other than her big wins. How then can you say Shizuka had a better career? What stats do you have to prove that Shizuka was one of the top skaters for most of her career? Her records shows that she wasn't even close to being the top 3 in the world most of the time.

    Then you start talking about people remembering OGM more than non-OGM. What about Janet Lynn? What about Kurt Browning? (he didn't even win a Olympic medal). They are remembered far more than some OGM winners. IMO. As for Mao, I can safely say that she is already more memorable than Shizuka in skating circles and among casual fans where skating is popular now (Asia). As for places where skating isn't so popular like the U.S., I don't think people who tune in only during the Olympics would remember even the names of athletes years from now. Heck. I saw a jeopardy clip where a guy was asked about the nationality of Kim and he said Japan! lol.
    Last edited by miki88; 08-02-2010 at 01:00 PM.

  13. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Entre Pinto y Valdemoro
    Posts
    705
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    wow, I didn't think a thread about the best ever would end up talking about Asada vs. Arakawa...
    For me it's ok, as they both are superlative skaters and even if they don't end up having the resume of witt, kwan or slutskaya are much better skaters imo
    I think in terms of edging, at least in the modern era, I can only think of Sato and arakawa as the true queens. Perhaps Lynn, and other former greats were better but I don't know much about that era
    asada has a lightness that I can't think of anybody else in my head right now. She's the epitome of soft and elegant skating

  14. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    Syndey

    What exactly IS your point?

    You continuously evaluate Mao's record while ignoring Shizuka's own record other than her big wins. How then can you say Shizuka had a better career? What stats do you have to prove that Shizuka was one of the top skaters for most of her career? Her records shows that she wasn't even close to being the top 3 in the world most of the time.

    Then you start talking about people remembering OGM more than non-OGM. What about Janet Lynn? What about Kurt Browning? (he didn't even win a Olympic medal). They are remembered far more than some OGM winners. IMO. As for Mao, I can safely say that she is already more memorable than Shizuka in skating circles and among casual fans where skating is popular now (Asia). As for places where skating isn't so popular like the U.S., I don't think people who tune in only during the Olympics would remember even the names of athletes years from now. Heck. I saw a jeopardy clip where a guy was asked about the nationality of Kim and he said Japan! lol.

    I know I raised a lot of points during our discussion, but it all comes back to one thesis: even though Arakawa didn't have much of a dominant period during her career, Asada-as yet-hasn't had much of it either herself. That is what I've maintained since we started to have a debate over whether Asada is at present the most successful Japanese lady figure skater. If you ask me, the statistics of competitive records show that neither Arakawa nor Asada (as yet) has met the criterion of having one's own period of dominance (i.e. at the summit, not "at or near the top"), thugh I suppose that you will disagree. If you want to say Asada from her achievements thus far have more of a dominant legacy than Arakawa given her consistency, you are welcome to it, but to show that she actually had a period that she can call her own-like Katarina Witt or Michelle Kwan-will be more difficult. Other points I've raised like worth of OGM came as corollaries, as one will always have to address the relative worth of OGM compared to other titles and medals when comparing these two careers.

    I find myself keep repeating over Arakawa-I'm not the one debating about her specific career statistics. I didn't claim that she had strong consistency during her career, or that she was dominant over a single or multiple season(s). I wonder where you've got the idea from, so you can stop the histology session of Arakawa's career.

    You brought up the subject of past atheletes who are now hailed as greats of the sports despite not winning OGM. I have to say I do not have a structured opinion about Janet Lynn's legacy. I simply do not know enough about achievements of Lynn (tangible and intangible) to comment on it. As for Kurt Browning...has it occurred to you that he won four World Titles (including 3 in a row) AND he's the first man to have landed a quadruple jump? I would say winning three Worlds in a row and not finishing off the podium from 1988/1989 season onwards except 2 Olympic appearance demonstrates his dominance in 1988/1989 to at least 1991. I'm quite sure you will not dispute that point. As you will probably know, there were no other major titles like GPF or 4CC in those days. So what kind of analogy about Asada are you trying to draw from Browning? If you meant her Olympic Silver...how many World titles will you make up with that, not to mention the historical first quad of Browning?

    I am well aware that Asada is more talked about in figure skating scene at the moment; she is, after all, one of the highest ranked lady figure skater. But I'm approaching the whole matter from the perspective of history-who will people (not just figure enthusiasts) remember decades from now? As I said before, few other than figure skating fans (and not even some figure fans) will bother to research careers that deeply. All that many casual observers flicking through the history book will know is that Arakawa won an OGM and a World title in a separate year while Asada (using hypothetical of frozen career as of now, since we can't speculate on future other than as hopes) won Olympic silver and 2 Worlds, one of which was in the Olympic year. I can't predict for how long any generation of skaters will be discussed (given availability of videos, etc., it will be longer than in the past), but I'm quite sure it is the list of Olympic champions that will stand the test of time for longer than the list of World champions. For one thing...it's must shorter a list! And why do competitors and public take Olympics so seriously if it's just another competition that is held less frequently but not different from others in any other way?

    I will raise a less significant point. You say that Figure Skating is big thing in Asia. I beg to differ-I think it is big deal in three countries: China, Japan and Korea. The rest of Asia-Pacific doesn't care for it so much-which star do they have to cheer for? It certainly is not so popular in Australia. I understand that in USA, the interest in figure skating has been waning since the departure of Kwan. So one guy interviewed on American TV don't know where Yu-Na Kim is from. I hope you're not trying to tell me he/she is the representative sample in America about the knowledge of figure skating. That's not the point-what I'm saying here is that winning Olympic Gold provides possibly the best chance of having your name remembered in figure skating history (and depending on the performance, potentially even Olympic history, given figure skating's status as the original and marque Winter Olympic sport). Alternatives are having a significant period of dominance with large number of World titles and/or (preferrably AND) becoming a first competitor to perform an easily recognisable technique.


    P.S. Just in case we come back to the point again, I'm not claiming that Arakawa was dominant for significant portion of her career, but that Asada hasn't been either (except 2007/2008) in career placings, and that there's not much to separate the two on that point.

  15. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sydneyphoenix View Post
    I find myself keep repeating over Arakawa-I'm not the one debating about her specific career statistics. I didn't claim that she had strong consistency during her career, or that she was dominant over a single or multiple season(s). I wonder where you've got the idea from, so you can stop the histology session of Arakawa's career
    You're the one who started talking about this concept of dominance. I think you misinterpreted what Judy and I said before. (I still think you are misunderstanding). FYI, I never said Mao had a period of dominance similar to Witt and Kwan and I never argued for it. All I said was that I think she had a better career compared to Arakawa. That does not mean I think she was dominant during her career. I don't know why you keep on emphasizing this one thing I never even said in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by sydneyphoenix View Post
    You brought up the subject of past atheletes who are now hailed as greats of the sports despite not winning OGM. I have to say I do not have a structured opinion about Janet Lynn's legacy. I simply do not know enough about achievements of Lynn (tangible and intangible) to comment on it. As for Kurt Browning...has it occurred to you that he won four World Titles (including 3 in a row) AND he's the first man to have landed a quadruple jump? I would say winning three Worlds in a row and not finishing off the podium from 1988/1989 season onwards except 2 Olympic appearance demonstrates his dominance in 1988/1989 to at least 1991. I'm quite sure you will not dispute that point. As you will probably know, there were no other major titles like GPF or 4CC in those days. So what kind of analogy about Asada are you trying to draw from Browning? If you meant her Olympic Silver...how many World titles will you make up with that, not to mention the historical first quad of Browning?
    Again, you're the one who said that OGM winners are more likely to remembered than non-OGM winners. I just mentioned some exceptions; not trying to draw any comparisons. But what I do find interesting is the fact that in your criteria, for someone like Browning to be remembered, he really needs those mutiple world championships. On the other hand, the two highlights of Shizuka's career is enough to cover her very spotty career.
    I feel I have partook in this discussion far longer than I intended so this will be my last reply on this topic. I may be more interested if you want to discuss who is actually a better skater. One last thing I will say that is regardless of how you analyze the stats, Mao will still be the more memorable one in years ahead. That's something I'm willing to bet on. Her influence in Japan is only second to Midori and that's the case even after Shizuka's historical win for Japan. That really speaks for itself.

  16. #96
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,004
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Only skating fans remember World titles, but everybody remembers who won the OGM. Arakawa was not the most memorable champion, but she did what she needed to do and her achievement should be respected.
    Also, Arakawa had a memorable program in her 04 Worlds Turandot. It was her only one, but far better than any programs that Asada has shown thus far.
    This IMO, should be the main criteria in evaluating career achievements rather than counting medals.

  17. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    You're the one who started talking about this concept of dominance. I think you misinterpreted what Judy and I said before. (I still think you are misunderstanding). FYI, I never said Mao had a period of dominance similar to Witt and Kwan and I never argued for it. All I said was that I think she had a better career compared to Arakawa. That does not mean I think she was dominant during her career. I don't know why you keep on emphasizing this one thing I never even said in the first place.
    I'm not the one who brought forth this concept about the dominant skater. Judgejudy said something to the effect of "Asada has been one of the two dominant ladies for the past four or five years", and my response to that observation grew into snowball. I did use the term "dominant" before others in the short-now apparently finished-discussion about Evan Lysacek's place in the recent USFA poll, but even then museksk8er said something to the effect of "one great year shouldn't qualify you for the poll" before I used the word, I think the topic of dominance regarding Lysacek was already thrown off in the air.

    You are not the one who brought this subject about dominance to discussion, but I was addressing both you and judgejudy, as well as anyone else that may be following this thread. I don't think I am misunderstanding things-I know what you are saying about Asada having better career, etc. It all comes down to how much value one accords to OGM, since that's the only thing that is separating Arakawa and Asada at the moment-and of course you're free to disagree with importance I place on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    Again, you're the one who said that OGM winners are more likely to remembered than non-OGM winners. I just mentioned some exceptions; not trying to draw any comparisons. But what I do find interesting is the fact that in your criteria, for someone like Browning to be remembered, he really needs those mutiple world championships. On the other hand, the two highlights of Shizuka's career is enough to cover her very spotty career.
    I feel I have partook in this discussion far longer than I intended so this will be my last reply on this topic. I may be more interested if you want to discuss who is actually a better skater. One last thing I will say that is regardless of how you analyze the stats, Mao will still be the more memorable one in years ahead. That's something I'm willing to bet on. Her influence in Japan is only second to Midori and that's the case even after Shizuka's historical win for Japan. That really speaks for itself.
    Sure, I did say it, and that's almost necessary corollary that must be discussed (in favour of or against) when discussing Arakawa and Asada. I did start the topic, but it didn't come out of the blue. As for Browning, objectively speaking about his career, his status as the World's first quadruple jumper helped great deal in sealing his legacy in the sport. However, winning 4 Worlds certainly didn't hurt, and I'm not sure his legacy would have been as strong if he didn't win any-Vern Taylor landed the first 3A, but he's hardly a household name in figure skating, is he? I would say that given his mileston quadruple, he didn't really need all four of his Worlds title to be remembered (in my personal opinion, two or three titles did it in combination with the first quad) for years to come-but any additional title helps. But without such milestone achievement that can be recognised objectively, yes, I would say most athletes without OGM need to rake in a lot of other titles to have a chance of lasting legacy in history. I know there is anomaly of Janet Lynn...but I don't presume to know enough about her achievements to render a comment.

    There's a reason I refrained from discussing which of two skaters up for discussion-Arakawa or Asada-are better skater, in terms of program, memorable performances, techniques, etc. Such discussion is inherently biased and subjective, and has a significant possibility of descending down to a wasteful argument that I've observed in the forum time and time again. That's why I focused on only relatively objective measures (I say relative, because there's obviously disputes over worth of each achievement), namely titles, placing, margin of scores, etc.

    I will leave your confident prediction about Asada's legacy in Japan in years to come to the judgement of the history. I simply gave prediction about Arakawa and Asada's potential place in history of International Figure Skating that I think is plausible (though I won't guarantee its accuracy) given historical precedents and how much stock athletes and public place on certain achievements. Hopefully you have got something out of discussion-I certainly did. Feel free to leave any other comment related to this subject-and that invitation is for everyone!

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •