Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 88
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,423
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91441
    Quote Originally Posted by briancoogaert View Post
    No real point of view, but I'm just sad Brian Orser didn't win. He was clearly the best of the competition, too bad about compulsories.
    The compulsories were eliminated too late for Orser. Without them he could have won the OGM in 1984, and 1988 would have been a non-factor. The disappointment in 1988 was much harsher because he was so close to finally winning the OGM! It was also obvious that it was his last chance.
    Last edited by Vash01; 02-04-2012 at 06:56 AM.

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,188
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by berthesghost View Post
    Im still amazed they won worlds! It's a petty pet peeve I know, but it does irk me how people act like u&m were ogm favs who had bad luck. Yeah, maybe in their dreams! V&v were world champs, and t&b were world camps and multi world medalists who never placed below 5 th in several years, but it wasn't long before that u&m were coming I places like 11th and 7th at worlds yet somehow we were suppose to buy them as ogm contenders. Dark horses at best IMHO. Sorry, but they were no tai and randy
    I agree they werent the OGM favorites, but they were definitely one of the top 3 favorites for sure, threats for gold, and heavy favorites to medal. The Carruthers were not medal favorites. Also what do finishes of U&M as far as back as 1980 and 1981 have to do with their Olympic medal chances.

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    I agree they werent the OGM favorites, but they were definitely one of the top 3 favorites for sure, threats for gold, and heavy favorites to medal. The Carruthers were not medal favorites. Also what do finishes of U&M as far as back as 1980 and 1981 have to do with their Olympic medal chances.
    Not sure why you think U/M would have been in the top 3 for sure but not C/C when Peter and Kitty beat U/M far more than the other way around.

    U/M beat C/C at Skate America in 1981 and Worlds in 1983. C/C beat U/M at the Olympics in 1980, Words in 1980, 1981 and 1982 so if I were placing bets my money would have been on the US team before the Canadians.

  5. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,188
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The Carruthers were ahead of Underhill & Martin early in the quad, but by 84 Underhill & Martina were considered well ahead of the Carruthers in everyones viewpoint. What happened way back in 1980 or early 1981 would be meaningless by 1984. Your post only indicates that since midway through 1981 the only time the Carruthers beat U & M was at the 82 Worlds and that was on a 5-4 split based on a fluke fall by U & M. Underhill & Martina by then were superior in every area to the Carruthers with both teams on a good day. Their pair elements were considered the best in the World, the Carruthers solo elements were even weaker, and artistically U&M were in another league as well.

  6. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    The Carruthers were ahead of Underhill & Martin early in the quad, but by 84 Underhill & Martina were considered well ahead of the Carruthers in everyones viewpoint. What happened way back in 1980 or early 1981 would be meaningless by 1984. Your post only indicates that since midway through 1981 the only time the Carruthers beat U & M was at the 82 Worlds and that was on a 5-4 split based on a fluke fall by U & M. Underhill & Martina by then were superior in every area to the Carruthers with both teams on a good day. Their pair elements were considered the best in the World, the Carruthers solo elements were even weaker, and artistically U&M were in another league as well.
    Obviously you are incorrect about U/M being superior to C/C if they lost to them 5 times out of the 7 times they met in competition. You asked why I went back to 1979-80, because that was first time they met twice in one season. Which incidentally was C/C first year in competition and U/M 3rd so you would think U/M would be much better, they were the Canadian champions.

    1979-80 (met twice)
    World Championships - C/C ahead 7th place to 11th place
    Olympics - C/C ahead 5th place to 9th place

    1980-81 (met once)
    World Championships - C/C ahead 5th place to 7th place

    1981-82 (met twice)
    World Championships - C/C ahead 3rd place to 4th place
    Skate America - U/M ahead 1st place to 2nd place

    1982-83 (met once)
    World Championships - U/M ahead 3rd place to 4th place

    1983-84 (met once)
    Olympics - C/C ahead 2nd place to 7th place


    If their pair elements were the best in the world it (in everyone’s viewpoint) it wouldn't have taken them seven season to finally win worlds, they would have won much sooner; and would have been able to do it with C/C there. They would also have an Olympic medal in the two times they had the opportunity to get one.

    U/M had a 'fluke' fall at 82 worlds, another 'problem' at the 84 Olympics, when do things stop being flukes and start just being an inferior performance to your competitors?
    Last edited by julieann; 02-05-2012 at 11:04 AM.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    13,493
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    42165
    You have no idea how much "politicking" went on back then!

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Quadland
    Posts
    6,274
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3052
    Sports Illustrated didn't even have Carruthers as darks horses!

    G-V/V USSR
    S -B/T E.G.
    B -U/M Can

    Dark horse - L/S East Germany

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by caseyedwards View Post
    Sports Illustrated didn't even have Carruthers as darks horses!

    G-V/V USSR
    S -B/T E.G.
    B -U/M Can

    Dark horse - L/S East Germany
    Oh well if Sport Illustrated said so....

    I'm not sure why anyone would have had L/S above C/C, there were teams better than them which is why they probably only finished 5th at the Olympics.

    B/T were much better contenders for a gold; they were World and European championships but only got 4th in both the short and long at the Olympics, it happens.

    C/C just skated better, like it or not.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,866
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4947
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    C/C just skated better, like it or not.
    No one said they didn't. They were just explaining why their silver medal was somewhat unexpected. I think that it's pretty clear from the reaction of the commentators on US coverage that the Carrutherses' silver medal was somewhat of a surprise and the result of capitalizing on others' mistakes.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,802
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    No one's arguing that C/C did not skate better in the SP than U/M simply for the fact on that C/C stayed on their feet. I don't remember how U/M did in the LP. I do know from watching the World Pro competitions that U/M were way ahead of the C/C in term of being a "quality" pair.

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,188
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by caseyedwards View Post
    Sports Illustrated didn't even have Carruthers as darks horses!

    G-V/V USSR
    S -B/T E.G.
    B -U/M Can

    Dark horse - L/S East Germany
    The dark horse should have been S/M instead of L/S. Maybe C/C as a 2nd dark horse. Everyone though knew V/V, B/T, and U/M were by far the top 3 pairs at the time, the only 3 gold medal contenders, and the heavy 3 favorites to medal. Based on politics, momentum, and consistency V/V had the edge at that point, and their win was definitely not a surprise.

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Erin View Post
    No one said they didn't. They were just explaining why their silver medal was somewhat unexpected. I think that it's pretty clear from the reaction of the commentators on US coverage that the Carrutherses' silver medal was somewhat of a surprise and the result of capitalizing on others' mistakes.
    It's the 'somewhat' unexpected that doesn't make sense. The Carruthers were 3rd and 4th in world for two years leading up to the Olympics so it only makes sense they would have a pretty good shot at a medal if they skated well. Especially since they medaled in all but a few competitions since they started.
    Quote Originally Posted by orbitz View Post
    No one's arguing that C/C did not skate better in the SP than U/M simply for the fact on that C/C stayed on their feet. I don't remember how U/M did in the LP. I do know from watching the World Pro competitions that U/M were way ahead of the C/C in term of being a "quality" pair.
    U/M didn’t skate well in the long, too make big mistakes, here is how U/M did in the long program. Here is also C/C's long. If just staying on your feet wins you an Olympic medal Kemp and King would have one, you actually do need to have talent.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91441
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    . If just staying on your feet wins you an Olympic medal Kemp and King would have one, you actually do need to have talent.
    LOL. Going back to the discussion about C&C and U&M, I had heard that C&C were considered bronze medal contenders, if that, while U&M were considered championship contenders who just happened to make a big mistake in their SP and were out of medal contention going into the LP. Based on their records, that did not make much sense. C&C won the silver mainly because other pairs made mistakes- at least that's how it was reported. That may be a little unfair to C&C, since they had as much chance of winning a silver or a bronze as any of the contenders, except V&V who were the reigning world champions. I never could understand the hoopla over U&M at that point. What they became as pros is entirely different. In 1984 they were not the dominant pair.

  15. #55
    Vacant
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Here and there
    Age
    40
    Posts
    8,761
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7828
    I think the difference was that U&M were much more consistent in 1983 than they had been in the past. Their elements were better quality than C&C but C&C were much more consistent leading up to the 1983 season. Once U&M got on the podium at Worlds and C&C dropped off it, then the speculation leading up to Sarejevo on possible outcomes obviously was going to favour U&M - especially in the popular press. But any fan with an iota of knowledge about the sport back then would have to surmise that C&C could also be in with a chance. U&M always had that history of skating great apart from one absolutely monumental screw up! Fair play to them, they didn't make mistakes by halves!!

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,866
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4947
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    It's the 'somewhat' unexpected that doesn't make sense. The Carruthers were 3rd and 4th in world for two years leading up to the Olympics so it only makes sense they would have a pretty good shot at a medal if they skated well. Especially since they medaled in all but a few competitions since they started.
    Well, regardless of what makes sense, expectations were clearly pretty low for the Carrutherses. Seems like they were thinking "outside shot for bronze" so silver was kind of behind their wildest dreams. Not as crazy as Paul Wylie in Albertville, but certainly beyond their expectation.

    Quote Originally Posted by floskate View Post
    U&M always had that history of skating great apart from one absolutely monumental screw up! Fair play to them, they didn't make mistakes by halves!!
    So true! It's kind of funny that Barb falling on a sit spin was such a surprise because every year from 79-82 they had disasterous mistakes on absolutely nothing. 83 was the exception, not the rule, although I guess everyone thought that the pattern had changed and that Barb & Paul had finally learned to compete without those disasters. Plus, I believe it was Paul that usually had the major wipeout pulling Barb down in the process, not the other way around.

    I always have to laugh when Paul Martini is commentating and a skater "pulls a Martini" and Paul gets all lecture-y about how important it is to maintain concentration. I suppose he knows this from experience, but given how hard it was for him to do, you'd think he would be a little bit more sympathetic.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,890
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    SI's predictions don't seem unreasonable to me. What got me is how much hype u&m were getting for gold, and as soon as she whipped out on that spin it was like "oh no! There goes the gold!". Nothing against them as skaters, as they were lovely, but leading up to the games they were no Patrick chan.

  18. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,188
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I do agree on Baess & Theirbach. Their missing the podium was an even bigger dissapointment then Underhill & Martini when one considers their stellar record the years leading into the Games. They were really the overall top pair of the quad to that point, and most people thought they should have been 2 time World Champions heading into those Games as well. The funny thing is if they had defended their World title in 83 as most thought they should have they probably would have been held up and won silver even with all their mistakes at the Games, but with V&V having taken over as the top team after defeating B/T at the 83 Worlds and 84 Europeans both, they didnt have that protection anymore.

    ABC which covered the Games seemed to think the battle for gold was an even toss up between V/V and B/T, with U/M heavy favorites for bronze, but with an outside shot at gold. C/C were as noted given an outside shot at bronze, along with perhaps the remaining Soviet couples.

    Underhill & Martini went on to become perhaps the best professional team ever, which is what most of their legacy is based upon and not so much their erratic amateur career; Carruthers became a very good one too, while Valova & Vasiliev were a bit of a flop as pros, perhaps waiting too long to go pro in the first place. Baess & Theirbach were never able to have a pro career, they had offers to come to the States I have read but were not allowed to.

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Miami, FL, USA
    Posts
    6,930
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    What was special about L/S [Lorenz/Schubert - #2 GDR team for those who don't know] that made them a dark horse leading up to Sarajevo? I don't recall their names being among V/V, B/T, U/M, C/C or even S/M in the previous quadrennium ... and then they disappeared. What happened to them??

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    13,493
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    42165
    Here are their programs:

    Lorenz & Schubert (GDR) - 1984 Sarajevo, Pairs' Short Program
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS27otImFi8

    Lorenz & Schubert (GDR) - 1984 Sarajevo, Pairs' Long Program
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCC_UxJoHw

    They had some early success, and the East German "machine" was "promoting/pushing" them.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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