Valova & Vasiliev- underrated or not?

[julieann]

I don't think V/V are underrated just under acknowledged.

[lulu]

I don't think V/V are underrated just under acknowledged.

That's probably more accurate.

V&V had some really excellent programs, besides their Olympic season programs, I also enjoy their 1987 LP, 1985 LP (from the excerpts that I've seen on youtube), and this beautiful program-their very last performance together from 1994: http://youtu.be/WhCG3MoIuxA

[TheresMaude]

V&V did a twist lift that wasn't the same as everyone else. It's been a lo-o-o-ng time since I've seen any of their programs, but IIRC it had a forward entrance, like an axel. Anyone remember/know?

[orbitz]

^^ Was it this ?

[TheresMaude]

^^ Was it this ?

Yes, that's the move I remember. Thanks, orbitz! Is that considered a twist lift, like the triple (and occasionally quad) twist we're used to seeing now that has, IIUC, a lutz takeoff?

[bardtoob]

I always really enjoy this program.

Valova & Vasiliev (URS) - 1984 Sarajevo, Pairs' Short Program

[floskate]

Yes, that's the move I remember. Thanks, orbitz! Is that considered a twist lift, like the triple (and occasionally quad) twist we're used to seeing now that has, IIUC, a lutz takeoff?

IIRC when this move came about in the 1970's it was thought of as a throw double axel catch but became known as a twist lift from an axel entrance. Rodnina did it in the early 1970's but dropped the move after 1975 as she had the triple twist by then. Cherkasova/Shakhrai and Pestova/Leonovich took the move a stage further and did triple axel twists.

[lulu]

Thanks for the info, and video clip floskate.

[Vash01]

IIRC when this move came about in the 1970's it was thought of as a throw double axel catch but became known as a twist lift from an axel entrance. Rodnina did it in the early 1970's but dropped the move after 1975 as she had the triple twist by then. Cherkasova/Shakhrai and Pestova/Leonovich took the move a stage further and did triple axel twists.

I remember seeing those on tapes. It looked a little like a throw 3A, but not quite (a throw).

[Belinda]

I like them better than G&G and I always will.

Cherub721 may be a rarity.
But I am just as rare as she/he is:
I actually stopped watching pairs once G/G started winning competition after competition. I got so tired of watching one and a quarter people dominating the scene. It was years before I resumed watching pairs.

[lulu]

I do enjoy a lot of G&G's professional programs, and Moonlight Sonata as well. In fact their pro routines such as Vocalise, Requiem, OOT, Medi and Scharenzade (too lazy to look up the spelling ) are among my all time favorite pair programs. But, yeah, head to head G&G vs. V&V-I much prefer V&V.

[orbitz]

It was difficult for anyone to outshine G&G in the LP in Calgary. They were sublime (even with the big fake flowers on one side of their costume, LOL).

[lulu]

It was difficult for anyone to outshine G&G in the LP in Calgary. They were sublime (even with the big fake flowers on one side of their costume, LOL).

G&G, IMO, absolutely deserved to win the OGM in Calgary, no question. Their LP performance was one of best Olympic performances in skating, and Katia Gordeeva was absolutely adorable. But, for me, as far as program content & choreography is concerned, I much prefer V&V's programs that year, and in 1987 as well (I haven't seen V&V's programs from 1986 yet, but from the programs I did see from 86 Worlds, my favorite was Selezneva & Makarov's.)

Also, Elena Valova not only skated in Calgary with a hole in her foot, she also rocked out in a headband years before La Navka.

[escaflowne9282]

Cherub721 may be a rarity.
But I am just as rare as she/he is:
I actually stopped watching pairs once G/G started winning competition after competition. I got so tired of watching one and a quarter people dominating the scene. It was years before I resumed watching pairs.

I am also a rarity if that is the case. I have always found G&G dull as hell, and I found their pre-professional choreography to be non-existent. Give me a Moskvina pair anyday

[bardtoob]

G&G's strength was their consistency and clean performances, which were way more rewarded under the 6.0 system than the IJS ... and I like clean performances.

However, I can now, with IJS hindsight, appreciate and DESCRIBE the innovative and intricate choreography of V&V and see how they could have thrived as competitors with S&S rather than G&G, and the failing of the 6.0 system to reward programs in a similar way that it failed to reward difficult programs in other disciplines. Although the 6.0 system did not fail V&V as much as, let us say, Midori Ito but more like Brian Orser.

[lulu]

I am also a rarity if that is the case. I have always found G&G dull as hell, and I found their pre-professional choreography to be non-existent. Give me a Moskvina pair anyday

Moskvina in a genius. Even her "2nd tier" teams, like Bechke & guy-she-skated-with-before-Petrov had really interesting moves in their programs. V&V had wonderful qualities to their skating, I'm watching their 1987 LP and they appear to have great speed and a smoothness to their skating.

Did Moskvina continue to choreograph for V&V as pros?


I think the early G&G programs had a very "paint by number" quality to them. I did like their 1987 SP, and they had superb unison, skating skills and pair skills and all that, but I found their early programs to all be pretty much interchangeable with each other. I'm getting a bit off topic here (poor, V&V, overshadowed by G&G, even in their own thread! ), but I think going to Tarasova early in their pro career was a great decision by G&G, and if Requiem was any indication, I think they were really moving in a whole new direction artistically before Sergei's death.

[bardtoob]

"Paint by number" ...

1. Short Programs, which originated in pairs competition, have always been paint by number.
2. Carefully calculating how to win is hardly shameful when the goal is to win.

[lulu]

"Paint by number" ...

1. Short Programs, which originated in pairs competition, have always been paint by number.
2. Carefully calculating how to win is hardly shameful when the goal is to win.

I don't think calculating the best way to win is shameful at all, it's smart; but I still found their early programs dull from a choreography standpoint.

ETA: Did Moskvina choreograph all of V&V's programs, or did she seek outside help? I know with B&S, M&D, and K&D and of course her later teams she worked with other choreographers such as Aleksander Matveev, etc.

[bardtoob]

^Dull ... fair enough. Circa 1988, I don't even think G&G had the maturity to pull off the choreography of a Moskovina pair. Instead of intricate, it would have looked busy.

[Vash01]

^Dull ... fair enough. Circa 1988, I don't even think G&G had the maturity to pull off the choreography of a Moskovina pair. Instead of intricate, it would have looked busy.

I think they could have pulled it off, but there was a big difference between the Moscow school and the St.Petersburg school of figure skating. The latter was always more innovative than the Moscow one. G&G's strength was in their perfect technique, and their consistency. With their strong basics, they could have mastered different moves, had they been required in order to win. The 6.0 system was structured differently from IJS, with each system having its own positives and short comings. I complain about the IJS taking away the simplicity and musical expression. The 6.0 system had those positives. Now it's hard to see a perfectly done move (e.g. a simple camel spin or a simple spiral). G&G thrived under the 6.0 system, but there is no reason to believe they would not have succeeded in the IJS. As pros they experimented more, and developed more as a result. I never found them boring as eligible skaters because I appreciated their great basics.

OTOH, I always enjoyed the creativity of the St. Petersburg pairs, and particularly Moskvina's pairs. Even Bechke & Petrov who were a notch below G&G and M&D at that time, were a very good pair. M&D and B&S were the best pairs she coached and they both thrived with her creativity, regardless of who the actual choreographer was (Matveev or Bobrin or Tamara herself). In 1988 I found V&V's choreography more interesting, but their technique was not as perfect as G&G's and they were not as pretty to look at as G&G. I was happy that they won the 1988 world title, and that the judges did not deny them in that competition. because they clearly skated better than G&G. I do believe that V&V laid the foundation for future St. Petersburg pairs to become strong both technically and artistically.