Wachsman - Waggoner

[olympic]

Funny you should mention Watson/Lancon. Their LP in Saravejo is one of my all-time favorite LP's in pairs skating. Loved it. There was a romantic quality to their skating that is absent in almost all other pairs. Technically the program was very easy (the sbs jumps and only 1 throw) but from an artistic and presentation viewpoint I loved it. I was so disappointed that Burt quit after the 84 season. However, I did become a big fan of W/O over the next 4 years. They were a very glamorous couple.

I think the reason I preferred W/L to W/O was the fact that they seemed to gel as a couple more. Perhaps it was the less height difference, but they just seemed to interact better. I loved the innovations, too.

[orbitz]

W/O had the beauty and the big tricks but you're right that they never really gelled as "two people skating as one." The big height difference, the unmatched body lines, and the mirrored jumping were distracting, imo.

[easilydistracte]

Thanks for all the links, y'all!

Here's the music that W&W skated to in that pro comp back in the 1990's: Pie Jesu.

I wish there were video of the actual performance. It was quite lovely. If I remember correctly, Gillian was dressed extremely simply in a plain white dress, white tights and white skates while Todd was in all black. The program flowed beautifully.

[Seerek]

Wachsman and Waggoner probably should have stayed 1 more year because I think the named skater rule would have sent all of them, Yamaguchi/Galindo and Seybold/Seybold to the 1989 World Championships.

I think the key event that kind of skewered the judges favor was probably the 1987 US Nationals LP where Watson/Oppegard skated a great LP and Wachsman/Waggoner kind of made a mess of the LP.

The United States were in retrospect quite fortunate to have 2 top 5 pairs teams at the same time.

[judgejudy27]

W&W would have no problem beating both Y&G and S&S at the 89 Nationals IMO. Especialy the Seybolds who they never had problems beating before and who skated poorly at the 89 Nationals. So how many spots the U.S had for the 89 Worlds would be a moot point for them, they had nothing to worry about. And with how atrocious the field at the 89 Worlds was in pairs they would have won the silver if they just had a decent competition.

[overedge]

W/W were a really inconsistent team. More often than not their performances were disappointing. They pretty much bombed at both 86 and 87 worlds before getting it together and skating well in 88. They should have won US Nationals in 1988. Their win in 86 was a big surprise. They really didn't skate much better than the favorites and defending champions Watson/Oppegard but for some reason, in a time when the favorites always got the benefit from the judges, W/O didn't that day and W/W ended up winning in an upset.

IIRC this win was discussed in a book (I think it's Christine Brennan's first one) as an example of judges "holding up" skaters. I know there are a lot of flaws with this theory and it's pretty subjective, i.e. people tend to think that another skater has been "held up" if their own favourite loses, but in the competition which this book discusses, W/W fell quite a lot and still ended up winning.

I have to say, looking at the videos that have been linked here, that pairs was a lot more impressive to watch when skaters didn't have to go through a gazillion moves in each element to get maximum points. There is something to be said for skaters holding a position long enough so that the viewer can appreciate the beautiful lines and the strength and skill it takes to do such difficult moves well.

[easilydistracte]

Just found this on youtube: W&W's Exhibition at 1987 NHK Trophy. Their pro comp program was very similar to this program. (Some of the commentary is kind of gushy .)

[olympic]

W&W would have no problem beating both Y&G and S&S at the 89 Nationals IMO. Especialy the Seybolds who they never had problems beating before and who skated poorly at the 89 Nationals. So how many spots the U.S had for the 89 Worlds would be a moot point for them, they had nothing to worry about. And with how atrocious the field at the 89 Worlds was in pairs they would have won the silver if they just had a decent competition.

...and who knows how much of an influence that would've had on them to stay until Albertville '92: There was a window of opportunity to be an undisputed top pair w/ Y/G splitting after '90 and the Seybolds disappearing [whatever happened to them]

[Maximillian]

I think that W/W did not get along well personally, which might have contributed to their premature retirement.

[Aussie Willy]

This is a nice thread.

I really like W&W's FS performance at 88 Worlds. I don't think they could have skated it better. And they did a great Malguena.

[reese]

I think that W/W did not get along well personally, which might have contributed to their premature retirement.

Yeah, this was also my impression.

[snoopysnake]

I'd also be interested to know the reason why they retired.

Olympic: they ended up fifth in Calgary. Thanks for posting the video.

I remember how snippy David Santee was to them in the K&C (he was working for ABC interviewing the skaters) when he informed them that they had finished in 5th place.

[orbitz]

I think poor David Santee was really inexperienced as a TV journalist and was thrown into the big time without much of a safety net. He just wasn't very comfortable in front of the camera at that point.

[CaptCrunch]

IIRC this win was discussed in a book (I think it's Christine Brennan's first one) as an example of judges "holding up" skaters. I know there are a lot of flaws with this theory and it's pretty subjective, i.e. people tend to think that another skater has been "held up" if their own favourite loses, but in the competition which this book discusses, W/W fell quite a lot and still ended up winning.

I'm not sure I understand this. True that W/W did not skate all that great at 86 Nationals but W/O were the heavy favorites there. W/O were defending champions and had been 4th in their first worlds the year before. W/W had never even been to worlds before. At 85 Skate America W/O had won while W/W were 3rd. Was Brennan saying that W/W got held up and won?

[blue_idealist]

Wachsman and Waggoner probably should have stayed 1 more year because I think the named skater rule would have sent all of them, Yamaguchi/Galindo and Seybold/Seybold to the 1989 World Championships.

I think the key event that kind of skewered the judges favor was probably the 1987 US Nationals LP where Watson/Oppegard skated a great LP and Wachsman/Waggoner kind of made a mess of the LP.

The United States were in retrospect quite fortunate to have 2 top 5 pairs teams at the same time.

What's the named skater rule?

[shan]

Am I hearing correctly that Gillian is pronounced with a hard "g" as in gorilla?

[essence_of_soy]

Wachsmann and Waggoner make me weep for the current state of U.S. pair skating.

Back in the 1980s, next to the Soviets, U.S. pairs were often the next best in the world.

[judgejudy27]

There is more depth in pairs today than there was in Calgary. Back around then the Soviets were head and shoulders above the rest. Valova & Vassiliev had their worst performance ever and still easily won the silver in Calgary.

The U.S has had several pairs since Calgary that were similar level of conention to W&O and W&W. Meno & Sand, Ina & Dungen, Ina & Zimmerman.

[orbitz]

Back in the 1980s, next to the Soviets, U.S. pairs were often the next best in the world.

Huh? The only American team since the Kennedy brother and sister team won Worlds in the 50 that were considered a gold medal threat to the Soviet was Tai & Randy in 1980. That was a 30 years gap. After Tai & Randy no other American pairs even came close. The Carruthers winning silver in 84 was a total fluke .

[overedge]

There is more depth in pairs today than there was in Calgary.

Oh really?? Since the discipline has changed so much and the judging system is completely different, I don't even know if the two can be compared.