Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 112
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,592
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Well, only evil Russians politick, you should know that*

    *yes, I'm being sarcastic

    It's interesting to see just the effect of good or bad commentary, though. I suspect a good commentator could've explained the result such that the audience would've been, if not enthusiastic, then at least understanding of it.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,398
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    ^^ I suppose it takes a huge dose of impartiality, objectivity, and at the very least better commentating skills than the NBC team has ever shown evidence of possessing.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,719
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11163
    I followed the debates about this competition on the board (FSU's predecessor) very closely and considered all points of view and each and every element for both pair. It was one of the most educational experiences I've had about FS.

    After all of that - and rewatching the two skates innumerable times with an open mind - I maintained my original impression that S&P were the victors because they had the better, more convincing and more confident performance, as well as better elements.

    Plus, I thought that the apparent complexity and sophistication of Mediation was deceptive and based on a superficial sense of sophistication. And as Kwanfan 1818 pointed out, it was essentially a reconstruction of Chaplin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subway View Post
    I've always thought the French judge situation was suspicious. They were looking for something and they found it. I wonder if she was pressured to "confess."
    I believe she gave "too much pressure" as the reason for her confession. But her confession was not fabricated.

    Besides that, the whole thing was railroaded. The U.S. media even more than Canada was railroading the story, influenced by network commentators Scott Hamilton and Sandra Bezic screaming. The American network had taken to calling S&P the "north americans" instead of Canadians, emphasizing the American part because the U.S. had no dog in the pairs fight. It was a way to invest the American television viewer. The evil Russian empire had nephariously controlled the top of the podium in pairs and now these plucky upstart north americans bravely dared to challenge.
    The Russians had dominated the pairs field politically, not only in terms of skating, for a very long time. This time the Olympics were in North American and for the first time ever, there was a North American team with a legitimate shot at Gold. North Americans are entitled to politic just as much as Russians are and the Russian bloc made a big mistake that came back to bite them harshly.

    Plus, there was a gambling allegation about B&S's win and a charge laid against an individual whose names I can't spell, but it was one of those six syllable Russian names. The charge was dropped, but at the time it made perfect sense for me: set S&P up as favourites (i.e. their questionable victory at Worlds in 01) and rake in the proceeds when B&S win.

    If they lost, the Evil Russians must have found a way to cheat.
    Evil or not, 'they' or 'their bloc' was revealed to have cheated. [/QUOTE]

    Put simply, in the case of a close call it was North America's turn. There is nothing new about this scenario in FS, but the again, the Russian bloc made a mistake in trying to fix the competition.

    It was Hamilton, Lori Nichol and Sandra Bezic inciting a know-nothing media looking for a big story.
    Don't forget how the same media presented the big story of the Ukrainian orphan Oksana to the public in '94.

    And you don't think the Russian media goes after big stories?

  4. #64
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,199
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    Quote Originally Posted by Japanfan View Post
    And as Kwanfan 1818 pointed out, it was essentially a reconstruction of Chaplin.
    I don't think it was a reconstruction of Chaplin: I think it had a circus-like lift from Chaplin that was perfect for Chaplin, but did not belong thematically to Meditation. I think Meditation was based on other, earlier programs. That didn't make it less complex: I just don't think it was all that original or ground-breaking.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,491
    vCash
    483
    Rep Power
    0
    I remember that S&P did not take off or land their side by side jumps at the same time. Such synchronization is usually always there at the very top of pairs skating.

    I think that introduction of COP made some people to realise how the programs of B&S were much more difficult and complex than S&P.

  6. #66
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,199
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    I think of the "Transitions" component in CoP as the "Berezhnaia Rule", and it is applied as accurately now under CoP as it was under 6.0 (ex: TR mark for S/S vs. TR mark for V/T).
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sage on a mountaintop
    Posts
    1,167
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2065
    I was live in the arena that night for the pairs final in SLC. As soon as the scores came up for S&P, putting them in second, I immediately said to my friend "That was a judging fix!".

    I was not in the least influenced by Hamilton and Bezic because live in the arena of course you cannot hear TV commentary. I have attended numerous World, national and ISU championship events since the mid- 1990's and I have never heard such a loud, spontaneous negative outcry and reaction by a crowd at a major figure skating event ever. The booing was so loud it was ear splitting and sustained...again not fueled in the least by Hamilton and Bezic commentary.

    I arrived back to my friend's house after the event boiling mad that I had spent $350.00 for a ticket to a fixed event. I remember saying "I hope the media is all over this.". Much to my surprise the media actually did do its job which is to investigate corruption and fixing when evidence is presented. Justice was at least served in the end. It pains me no end those who vilify such a wonderful human being as Scott Hamilton as if he has that much power to influence the media. Most of the media were live in the arena like I was and they could smell a rat too.

    There was absolutely no question which team put down the gold medal winning skate that night. Both teams were so evenly matched as superb pairs teams and one delivered an somewhat uninspiring, cautious skate with a visible error and one team was completely on with not a foot wrong.

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    601
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Subway View Post
    I disagree that's what we had here. B&S were much stronger - a much more difficult program skated with a higher level of quality.Thank you though, for the lecture and letting me know that your opinion settles the debate.
    '
    I assume the debate you are talking about is regarding the judging scandal? Because no where in my post did I indicate any opinion about the judging scandal, what I gave were facts.

    I think you also misunderstand what I mean by under 6.0, a slightly less difficult program skated clean and better should win over a slightly more difficult program with mistakes. That was my response to you saying this: "It's so ironic that 2002 helped promote such a simplistic view of skating so an easy program should win over a difficult, complex one if the easy one is clean and the complex one has a small error."

    Because in 2002, they were using the 6.0 system, and the 6.0 system IN GENERAL (not specific to 2002), is based on that very fact that you called ironic! This is once again, not an opinion, it is how the 6.0 system was supposed to work in any competition.

    In my response to your post, nowhere did I even state an opinion, so i am a bit puzzled by what you mean that my opinion settles the debate. Which in itself is a preposterous suggestion , no opinion ever settles a debate, because without opinions, there wouldn't be a debate!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash01 View Post
    I am hypothesize here, and there is no way to prove it, but it is possible that happened, because based on the performances and a close result why would anyone say to her- how could you possibly place the Russians higher than the Canadians? Four other judges did, but they were not pressured.
    O perhaps, but I highly doubt this, of course there is no way of knowing... I believe we know probably less than 10% of what really went on backstage that the media did not tell us. I suspect much more of whatever was going on was covered up and the little we saw was only the tip of the iceberg. It is not that nothing more happened, it is that we do not know any more than what the media will tell us (or found out).

    Bringing the discussion back to the topic of talking just about the programs, B&S meditation was really not that difficult, when people talk about transitions, have you really looked closely at their program? There was one... the position before the death spiral. The spiral that was before a throw triple loop didn't really make it more difficult if you look at how it was done. But even if you count both, that is a grand total of 2 instances. S/Z's spread eagles in and out of the double axels were more difficult than that!

    The sbs 3T that everyone said were very in synch, they were not, she took off and landed earlier than him, I was actually shocked when I realized this because I started to believe what so many people were saying on here, and when I took another look at it I couldn't believe I distinctly heard the blades come down at different times.

    The really funny part of this whole discussion about S&P skating an easier program to skate it clean is that both B&S and S&P had the WEAKEST technical difficulty planned and done compared to most of the other teams that night. Ina & Zimmerman & S/Z who had two 2A & 3T, Petrova & Tikhinov who had 2 3T, and 2A, Totmianina & Marinin 2 different sets of sbs triples (sal & toe), the ther Chinese teams, and the list goes on and on. (I think even Langlois & Archetto who finished 12th had harder jump content albeit they didn't skate it clean).

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,592
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kosjenka View Post
    I remember that S&P did not take off or land their side by side jumps at the same time. Such synchronization is usually always there at the very top of pairs skating.

    I think that introduction of COP made some people to realise how the programs of B&S were much more difficult and complex than S&P.
    Yep. I can say pretty comfortably that if COP wasn't around, I'd still think of this as a tragedy.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91872
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnskater View Post
    I was live in the arena that night for the pairs final in SLC. As soon as the scores came up for S&P, putting them in second, I immediately said to my friend "That was a judging fix!".

    There was absolutely no question which team put down the gold medal winning skate that night. Both teams were so evenly matched as superb pairs teams and one delivered an somewhat uninspiring, cautious skate with a visible error and one team was completely on with not a foot wrong.
    I too was in the arena that night, and when the scores came up, I said to the person next to me: B&S had the more difficult program so they won. My thinking was that it was a very close competition and either pair could have won. When I got back to my hotel room and turned on the TV, I was shocked to see/hear what Hamilton & Bezic (one of THE most biased commentator) were saying about the results. It seems the fix was from the N.American side. It seemed like they had prepared their speeches for 'A North American pair dethrones the evil Russians'- that kind of hoopla was started on NBC right from the start of the Olympics.

    I don't see how you can say a clean performance must beat one with one visible error (and it was a minor one, regardless of the media outcry) can take a pair out of GM. There are dozens of examples of a superior program with a mistake (or even two) winning over a clean performance. If your argument is correct, P&T, I&Z should also have beaten not only B&S but S&Z also (and S&Z had a major mistake- a fall on a throw). M&D should have handily beaten the flawed performance of G&G in 94, and should have lost to Bechke & Petrov in 1992 since M&D had two mistakes and B&P none, using your logic. That clean vs mistake argument is so old!

  11. #71
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,199
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    Quote Originally Posted by ltnskater View Post
    Because in 2002, they were using the 6.0 system, and the 6.0 system IN GENERAL (not specific to 2002), is based on that very fact that you called ironic! This is once again, not an opinion, it is how the 6.0 system was supposed to work in any competition.
    Except that's not the way 6.0 was supposed to work. In the short program, there were deductions for specific errors, and each judge was supposed to calculate a base mark and deduct from it. (We can see how well that worked when a skater received a technical mark of 5.5 after a .5 required deduction, which would mean a 6.0 base score that the skater never received when every element was excellent.)

    In the free skate, skaters were supposed to get credit for what they did. That should mean that skaters who had more an/dor harder elements should have gotten credit for them cumulatively, and a harder element done imperfectly could receive the same credit as an easier element done very well, the concept on which CoP is based.

    For example, In the 1994 Pairs FS, Gordeeva/Grinkov had lower difficulty in some elements -- M/D did SBS 3T's, for example -- but G/G had more elements, including two death spirals vs. one, and an extra lift, as well as more positions in their SBS spins and a three jump sequence. Just on that alone, some judges, who were adding up base value, might have had G/G ahead technically; others might have weighted the hardest elements more, in which M/D would have been ahead, since lifts, spins, and death spirals often got little respect. Also, G/G had errors on two double jump elements, where he singled, but M/D were far from perfect: two of their jump elements were out-of-synch on the take-off, there was that mess of a start of the footwork, where he tried to flip her over him, and he was out-of-synch in the middle of the sequence. Some judges might have ticked off the "harder jumps" and ignored the synch issues; others might have been harder on them.

    One big problem with 6.0 is that you couldn't tell from competition to competition what would be credited and debited. Whether clean and simple over difficult with flaws seemed to depend on the field as well as the judging panel.

    Another big problem with 6.0 was that, if you belonged to the Bianchetti school of judging, that if a judge felt "IT", the "IT" made the difference. I've never heard anyone in the arena post that B/S had "IT" that night, and many posted that S/P did. (I suspect, mostly the people who didn't at the "Love Story" program.) There's been a lot of and over how CoP has made the "IT" impossible, so be careful for what you wish for: the complexity of a B/S program skated to a high, but not the highest level, goes out the window when programs are evaluated by "IT".
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,945
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I was able to see only my local broadcast in 2002 so I had no idea what fuss happened in pairs, next days are commentator said there was double ceremony because of a judge problem and that was all.
    But now in my videos, I have at least a whole bunch of shows and videos from the next day after Lp, 3 of them are S/P interviews , talking about their perfect skate, saying nothing of course of wuzrobbed feelings but all the commentators are doing the work fine, with Hamilton, Bezic and some host in the studio, they are having side by side videos of the mistakes of B/S contrary to the S/P perfect landings while Hamilton is talking with another man I dont know, the top cherry is a poll they had by 200.000+ viewers, who you think should have won, with 96% in favor of S/P.
    I feel sorry for B/S if no media went to them after the Lp, that was a bitter win.

  13. #73
    Resident Rude Brazilian
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    In a million depressions over the end of the World Cup
    Posts
    3,229
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    15463
    Love to see how people can't seem be over beating a dead horse... not!

    Because discussing this 10 years later is really going to make a difference...
    Dá-lhe, Isadora!!
    Lead me not into temptation. I can find it, and eat it, all by myself.

  14. #74
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,199
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    And there's a reason you're in this thread, when it's specifically about the dead horse, and not a divergent path in a thread on another topic?
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  15. #75
    Resident Rude Brazilian
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    In a million depressions over the end of the World Cup
    Posts
    3,229
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    15463
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    And there's a reason you're in this thread, when it's specifically about the dead horse, and not a divergent path in a thread on another topic?
    To watch the circus burn

    The reason I posted is because I just can't believe that there is still something new to be said on the topic.

    I generally just don't get why to discuss old results over and over and over again when you just know it's probably going to be the same usual discussion/arguments.

    I shall come back to my coccon now
    Dá-lhe, Isadora!!
    Lead me not into temptation. I can find it, and eat it, all by myself.

  16. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by beepbeep View Post
    I generally just don't get why to discuss old results over and over and over again when you just know it's probably going to be the same usual discussion/arguments.
    Hardcore fans of a sport tend to discuss close competitions (esp when controversy is involved) a lot. They seldom find new ground to cover but the process is still enjoyable for its own sake.

  17. #77

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    785
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3147
    Grown men in my state still cry over a football game from 1969--this is nothing.

  18. #78

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,719
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11163
    Quote Originally Posted by senorita View Post
    But now in my videos, I have at least a whole bunch of shows and videos from the next day after Lp, 3 of them are S/P interviews , talking about their perfect skate, saying nothing of course of wuzrobbed feelings but all the commentators are doing the work fine, with Hamilton, Bezic and some host in the studio, they are having side by side videos of the mistakes of B/S contrary to the S/P perfect landings while Hamilton is talking with another man I dont know, the top cherry is a poll they had by 200.000+ viewers, who you think should have won, with 96% in favor of S/P.
    I feel sorry for B/S if no media went to them after the Lp, that was a bitter win.
    I'm sure the Russian media interviewed B/S and spun the story in their favour.

  19. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CassAgain View Post
    Grown men in my state still cry over a football game from 1969--this is nothing.
    hahhaa. so true.

    But at the end of the day, Scott H, the North America Media and S&P had nothing to do with the dual gold medal.

    If the French judge had not decided before the competition to cheat, this would have been a non issue. She should have just been an honest person. If she had, no matter what the outcome, there would not have been dual gold medals.

    If someone admits cheating and their decision skews the results, why is it wrong to make it right?

  20. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    601
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    Except that's not the way 6.0 was supposed to work. In the short program, there were deductions for specific errors, and each judge was supposed to calculate a base mark and deduct from it. (We can see how well that worked when a skater received a technical mark of 5.5 after a .5 required deduction, which would mean a 6.0 base score that the skater never received when every element was excellent.)

    In the free skate, skaters were supposed to get credit for what they did. That should mean that skaters who had more an/dor harder elements should have gotten credit for them cumulatively, and a harder element done imperfectly could receive the same credit as an easier element done very well, the concept on which CoP is based.

    For example, In the 1994 Pairs FS, Gordeeva/Grinkov had lower difficulty in some elements -- M/D did SBS 3T's, for example -- but G/G had more elements, including two death spirals vs. one, and an extra lift, as well as more positions in their SBS spins and a three jump sequence. Just on that alone, some judges, who were adding up base value, might have had G/G ahead technically; others might have weighted the hardest elements more, in which M/D would have been ahead, since lifts, spins, and death spirals often got little respect. Also, G/G had errors on two double jump elements, where he singled, but M/D were far from perfect: two of their jump elements were out-of-synch on the take-off, there was that mess of a start of the footwork, where he tried to flip her over him, and he was out-of-synch in the middle of the sequence. Some judges might have ticked off the "harder jumps" and ignored the synch issues; others might have been harder on them.

    One big problem with 6.0 is that you couldn't tell from competition to competition what would be credited and debited. Whether clean and simple over difficult with flaws seemed to depend on the field as well as the judging panel.
    I agree with you, and yes, that is how 6.0 is supposed to work. The way I worded it sounds more like how you describe the short program, but what I said about the 6.0 system where a slightly less difficult program skated clean beating a slightly more difficult program with mistakes is valid.

    The key is slightly (which is why I included this in both my posts actually, slightly meaning if both elements for example, were done just as well as the other, the harder element should get more credit, but even if there was a minor mistake/imperfection on the harder element, the easier element should get more credit), when you say a harder element done imperfectly could receive the same credit as an easier element done very well, that is very much true, but only one scenario, because that really depends on:

    - the degree to which the harder element was harder than the easier element
    - how big of a mistake/imperfection was on the harder element
    And this is the center of the debate. To apply this to 2002, was B&S's program really that much more difficult and complex than S&P's to warrant them winning even with their mistakes and subpar performance that evening?

    We have heard both sides, both with very valid opinions, because I would argue that B&S's program was only slightly more difficult than S&P's (and even that opinion may have been affected by people saying it was harder, because I really don't see it being more difficult as I have stated concrete examples in my earlier posts, but I do see how some people would say it is more difficult so I will take that stance), but not difficult enough to win when looking at their performance as a whole on top of the shaky elements. Some people agree with me, others don't (those thinking that B&S's program was so much more difficult and complex than S&P's, that even with the mistakes they made and that performance, it deserved to win), and that is where the debate lies.

    Let me give you an example, I would argue a team who does sbs triple flips where one of the partner is leaning a lot in the air but just manages to save the landing with a small touch down with the free leg on the landing should get same if not a little more credit for that element, than another team who does nice, clean sbs triple sals. (this would be the case of the harder element done imperfectly being credited the same/a little more than the cleaner element)

    On the other hand, sbs triple flips with one partner 2-footing and the other stepping out, compared to clean sbs triple sals, I would argue the team that did the clean triple sals should garner more credit for that element than the team who did the flips.

    Which, of course, you mentioned in your post, what do judges really consider more difficult? What should get more credit/less credit? etc. and more often than not, 6.0 system was never used the say it should have been anyways because it was used more or less just to prop up the judges' favorites.

    Quote Originally Posted by beepbeep View Post
    Love to see how people can't seem be over beating a dead horse... not!

    Because discussing this 10 years later is really going to make a difference...
    I'm glad you asked... here is why...
    Because this is page 4, and it is very surprising that no one has mentioned... we all know who... I will bring her into the thread now... it is past her due time:

    MICHELLE KWAN!

    So to answer your question, it is so that there is another thread made for the Kween to invade and conquer!!
    Last edited by ltnskater; 02-27-2012 at 03:18 AM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •