But I bet there are a lot of female ice dancers who don't have the right height and the right physical attributes to skate with him. If he and Vanessa were so poorly matched for those qualities I doubt they would have been partners for an entire decade.
I read the statement more as that Gillies had the size and attributes that were the best match out of all the possibilities, not that she was a better match than Vanessa had been.
Stale pastry is hollow succour to a man who is bereft of ostrich. - Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory
I didn't read anything negative towards Vanessa in that statement either. Nothing.
Voidy Swan, Dirty Carmen, Perverted Moonlight Sonata. God I love figure skating!
I agree with overedge. To me, it reads like a continuation of the preceding paragraph about tryouts -- that Piper was better-suited, physically, than the other candidates had been. Vanessa's fairly far-removed from the discussion by that point in the piece.
Which isn't to say that on some level there may not, theoretically, be some subtextual dig at Vanessa there, but the structure of the article itself doesn't support it (and I don't, personally, pick up on it).
Paul is cute as puppies with the mop-top curls. And looks much younger. Well, I loved C&P, but I'm very glad that he, at least, has found a promising partner. And can't wait to see what Paul and Piper can accomplish.
I surely hope Emily and Vanessa are as lucky!
But I put the blame entirely on the writer of the article.Though many in the skating fraternity were of the opinion that Crone was not as good as her partner, her excellent physical condition made up for her lack of elegance.
I blame the writer of the article too..the buck stops there.
Unless you're writing an opinion piece , unattributed comments or opinions such as those held by the nebulous "many in the skating fraternity " are at best worthless , at worst , an attempt to plant spin. If it's the writer's opinion ,he should have the guts to say so and let the reader decide whether his opinion is worth the paper it's written on.
If it's not his opinion,but the opinion of someone who doesn't want to be quoted, he should leave it out. I suppose if he wanted to conduct a tough interview he could posit the proposition and ask the interviewee to respond to it...but this was not that kind of piece.
If someone has said to him " this is off the record but.." and he prints it, he's being used.
This was supposed to be an article about the forming of the new team of Gilles and Poirier. Vanessa should not have been mentioned except in passing ..something like, "With his former partner, Paul won this or that medal.." That's all.
But because that blurb about Vanessa was positioned right at the beginning of the piece the rest of the article is seen in light of it, relates back to it ,if only subliminally.
Carol Lane's quote about Piper would be OK ..on it's own. But because the writer ( or whoever) told us at the outset that Vanessa was a lesser skater than Paul, and that she was inelegant,if physically fit ( a left-handed compliment if there ever was one )... every positive comment made about Piper comes in contrast to the negative comments previously made about Vanessa.
And then there was the coy reference to Emily..
I't's at least a shoddy piece of work.And possibly something worse.
I understand what you're saying. But since the negative comments about Vanessa earlier were not about her height or her physical attributes, I don't see a connection there.
And even if she were the wrong height for Paul and that was why the team had split, it wouldn't really be blaming her -- people can't control their height, and no height is negative in and of itself, only when it comes to matching teams.
Now, if the positive comments about Piper had praised her for exactly the qualities Vanessa had been said to lack, and especially if those were qualities accepted to be under one's conscious control, then mentioning them would have been a dig at Vanessa (by the writer at least).
If Lane had said something like "Piper is a very strong skater who will have no trouble keeping up with Paul and will push him to improve even further" that would be hard not to read back to the previous insinuations about Vanessa.
But that's not what she said.
And I understand what you're saying.But I think you're being very kind.
If someone gave me that piece to proof read, the first thing I would have done was draw a big red line through the comments about Vanessa and tell the person it had nothing to do with the rest of the article. My second correction would have been a question mark next to " tested the waters with Emily Samuelson ", with the comment... Did they try out , or not ? Clarify, or leave it out.
Without those two things ,the article tells us all we wanted or needed to know about this new partnership. ..Good she'll have her release .. good, they've got their choreographer.. good, they're working toward making a splash at Canadians.
But intentional or not, if those remarks are left in, the reader is being led , through unkind comments and insinuation. If unintentional, it's pretty poor writing and editing. If intentional , the question is ,what's the point?
The fact that the partner with whom Paul would be trying out has to have the right physical attributes only means that he's not going to try out with everyone, because obviously he needs to find a good size and weight match.
And that's all that was said.
As for Vanessa's lack of elegance, I believe that was the writer's words and of course he was right. You'd have to be blind to notice how shockingly awful her posture was, for a top-level ice dancer. ;P
Ziggy ...The point is , this guy is not, like us , just a commenter on a skating forum , gossiping or discussing what we see as the good and bad points about a given skater.
He's supposed to be a journalist and ought to be held to a professional standard. It would be fair enough if he was writing a a critique of C/P , but he's not. Nor is he writing about the prospects of the 2 skaters together, as opposed to with their former partners... since he mentions nothing about any shortcomings of Piper's previous partners.
But it is true that it sounds like he's with team Paul all the way.
Crone had her shortcomings but still, her skating is at a completely different level than Gilles's.
"When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed." - Russell Brand
this article posted up-thread by marbri, Kaitlyn Weaver was granted an exception the June before the Vancouver Olympics:
If things go well, Gilles/Poirier will have two years of results at the national level, and one year of results at the international level at the end of the season before the Sochi Olympics. It's possible that Gilles would be granted an exception. She already qualifies for permanent residency under the "self-employed" category, and she will have been resident and training in Canada for almost two years before June 2013.The Citizenship Act contains a special provision that allows the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada by issuing a grant of citizenship like Ms. Weaver’s.
The piece is seventy-five minutes long...[l]ong enough for an idea to be developed, but not so long that one starts to measure the number of seats to the exits with desperation if the thing doesn’t work" -- Marina Harss
Oh, Ziggy..I know you love a good discussion, or even debate...Don't we all ? We're here aren't we?
But I don't think anyone is going to buy that the writer's comments about Vanessa were in any way respectful, or highlighted her positives.
What member of the skating fraternity would think that excellent physical condition alone made up for inelegance when talking about ice dance ? You can walk into any corner gym and find a dozen people in excellent physical condition. Could you just throw a costume on them and shove them on the ice ?
In fact this piece gets more suspect on re-reading. It really goes a step further, which I wasn't going to mention..but what the heck... Although it's supposed to be about Paul and Piper the article again asserts that the C/P split had nothing to do with their finish at World's ( ) and goes on to say that neither Paul nor Carol would say what went wrong ( why was he even asking, when the official story has been given ?)... But he already supplied us with a possible reason in his Vanessa comments. So.... He might also be being disrepectful of Carol and Paul , by injecting something that we might possibly think one of them said " off the record " .
A more valid criticism would be about her toe point and matching lines with Paul - that was something that still needed work. (but not a lot). I hope she finds a new partner, she's too good to just fade away...