Michelle Kwan- no Olympic Gold means she shouldnt even be a contender for best ever.
Janet Lynn- amazing skater whose worth goes far beyond medals but still a skater who didnt even win a World title cant be best ever.
Midori Ito- same as above, except she did win a World title, but still nowhere near the credentials needed for best ever.
Katarina Witt- just not a good enough skater, titles aside.
Sonja Henie- same as above.
Kristi Yamaguchi, Peggy Fleming- umm just no.
Kim seems the obvious choice for best ever already. There isnt even really another one worthy of the title. Another Olympic Gold just distances her even more.
Michelle should still be considered greatest without why
1 had to 6-7 jumps cleanly steadlt w oi th showkng edge takevoff flowing out,of jumps, not,flat of blade takeoff with little edge showing no flow out of landing stop jumps at end.
2 centering ofspins, not like spin where no,centering moves of count of 4 where no pyblic can count and state no change postion of spin you are done woth your four no centering of course.
Yuna won both gold medals in canada,wanted to help brian orser as much as u.s. wanted to help frank carrl.
3. When you fell in program affected your position under 6.0 in short
4 short program Was Required elements where yoy mess up,you mess up chance at title or medal
Where you skated in reference to,free had impact on scores.
Irina I would also considerwd but less worldvtitles.
I dont know what this forum thinks but in the real World 90% of skating fans would consider her best ever if she wins in Sochi. Already today more than half do I think. As dorianhotel said also who else can legitimately even be considered. Before Kim it was almost a vacant title with nobody worthy.
1. No aspect of Kwan's "jumps" are better than Kim's. Kim does not lack flow out of her jumps, and Kim does not flutz.
2. Kwan's spins suck apart from the pretty good centreing and nice sit spin positions.
3. Kim would have won all the gold medals she won easily at any venue the way she skated and the way her competitors did. Also one of Kim's World titles was the U.S, and all her many Grand Prix final titles were on foreign territory.
4. Kwan is the one who won 4 of her 5 Worlds titles on North American soil. When she went to Europe she was generally much less dominant and successful, and her only World title won in Europe required the skate of her life and 2 others messing up their free skates.
1) Kim was obviously a much better jumper overall, but she also had weaknesses. Kwan's loop and salchow are better. As is her consistency. I know people will excuse Yuna's consistency compared to Kwan by pointing to her 3-3's and IJS' much harder programs but this is moot. Every era gets increasingly more difficult (in general, with a few exceptions). Skaters should be considered within their own eras rather than by later eras' standards.
3 & 4) Sorry, but to to me this kind of wild speculation is so useless and yet you speak as if it were gospel. You're transposing certain performances that happened at one event onto theoretical competitions on another continent. Yuna likewise was the strong favorite to win at least 2-3 more worlds, but she didn't. Life isn't predictable. You also imply Kwan won most of her big titles due to political posturing when we know this wasn't the case. It's nice to note that a skater won many of their big titles on another continent, but we can't start measuring titles in general differently based on where they were won.
Everyone mentions Yuna's "never having finished off the podium" record her entire career, but if we compare so far: Kwan never placed off the podium for 9 years. Kim so far has 6, so she has yet to match that.
People point to Kwan's 1 grand prix final win vs Kim's 3, but it's funny how their standards change to fit the situation. These same people downplay Kwan's 5 world titles because of her lack of an Olympic gold (Oly gold obviously > World Championship). In that same vein, World championship > Grand Prix Final. Yuna repeatedly dominated at the Grand Prix Final for 3 years in a row, but obviously peaked at the wrong time because in every year she won the Grand Prix Final, she also lost the world championship.
Looking at their program statistics (available on their respective fansites), Michelle had 23 falls out of 82 competitions. That's a phenomenally low rate of falls for such a long career. Yuna had 13 falls out of 32 competitions, a much higher rate. About half of these falls were from her loop and salchow. (These statistics are for lp's only)
Last edited by maladiegrande; 05-06-2013 at 12:48 AM.
It's so funny to me, when it comes to recent skaters people will sit and dissect their competition records to death, but suddenly with older skaters people just dismiss superior Olympic and World resumes based on the fact that they don't measure up to modern skating standards. Going by this interesting "logic", the title of "greatest skater ever" would change every 5-10 years to the next Olympic champion who both pushes the current envelope technically and has decent artistry, regardless of how their resume compares to past Olympic champions. After all, those past champions couldn't measure up technically!
And let's not even get into the problem with how people are already acting as if Kim's coronation at Sochi has already happened...
Just because Yuna is the "greatest" by some account doesn't mean those past champions are any less great. Why do some people seem to think that they have to disparage other great skaters who "threaten" their fave's status? To say Yuna is "the greatest" in no way diminishes Michelle Kwan's achievements and legacy. Why can't people see this? It's like there can only be ONE great skater in their eyes and if others don't see that then they must be dumb and biased.
Well, it's no less certain than Chan's pre-ordained coronation at Sochi, that's for sure.And let's not even get into the problem with how people are already acting as if Kim's coronation at Sochi has already happened...
Whoa whoa whoa, I never even said I considered Kwan the greatest, in fact I conceded with that poster that Kwan probably can't be considered the all-time greatest because of a lack of Olympic gold. I wouldn't have even bothered posting in this thread (I'm not really vested in determining who was the all-time greatest) had that other poster not basically dismissed 3 Olympic champions' accomplishments because their skating doesn't measure up to modern standards.Just because Yuna is the "greatest" by some account doesn't mean those past champions are any less great. Why do some people seem to think that they have to disparage other great skaters who "threaten" their fave's status? To say Yuna is "the greatest" in no way diminishes Michelle Kwan's achievements and legacy. Why can't people see this? It's like there can only be ONE great skater in their eyes and if others don't see that then they must be dumb and biased.
And by the way?
Kim is obviously a WAYYY better jumper than Kwan overall, my points made above were to counter the claim that Kim was superior to Kwan in every aspect of jumping, since Kim herself has weaknesses in that area.
Last edited by maladiegrande; 05-05-2013 at 09:42 PM.
I leave out the ones with figures because judges cod mark skaters as low or high with regard to each figure and have them win despite placinglow invfree on top of that. the length of free program was,about as long or bit longer than short program noweasier to do jumps ,because focus on figuees.
Stating that the skaters who did figure are more pure or right in their technique in take off, landing edge , flow. it is easier to accomplish all double &tripke jumls in 2-3.50 minutes in free than,the 4 minutes
Also people forget than in 2002- 2007 the qualifying round counted ad part of okacement.
Michelle would have wkn bronze medal in 2005,if didnt coynt qualfying score.
her,first and only time.
Mixhelle came with qualying rounds counting in.
2 5 michelke came in 3rd in short and free.
To be picky when yuna lost she only had a one,two Piunt lead in shorg.
When she won she had, had at least a 3 point lead.
Eadier to skatw to win,when you know skaters have to gainbpounts on you , you know whay yoy need to di, how farto stay on feet,for points. In other words you kniw whay yoh need to win hiw much you can mess up and still win despite how well competitors skate.
Unlike evsn though first in short you still have to skate,clean and win long to win, knowing any fall kittle mistake wilk cost yoy gokd medal.
In,other words from 1990-2004 you had to be invtop 3 to eve. have a shot you haf to skate clean no mistakes,twjn. unlike now being first invthe short meant not was,no lead you still had tovwin lkng. Win,short& long to win
Undet ijs you dont have to ein frer have big enough svofre in,short, hugh oc despite mistake fall to 5th a mn d still win.
Have no required elendnts.in short where yoy dont get kocked downvto5.1 for failing to do a triple, combo, jyst donr countpoints but stikk keep pc at 8.0 or 9.0 because of who you are, look fulky roated,jumled high kcant see why ,understand why felk or mess uo. Sorry you did somethjng wrong with tschnique why screwed uo, rushed, hesitated, short, over rotated,leaned, jump to soon, rushed landibg, didnt check ouy.
The judges are stating skaters are jumoing fron fkat and not gioing by edges the wau use toi.
They getbloints taken off for too much edge the wsy oldet skayers and michelle use.
Why little or no flow out. Points taken kff.
Yuna wikk,be consider great not greatest due too
Too many varisble, figure, qualifying round, type of lead in shory vs no lead, 6.0 vs ijs vs figured vs figures,figure, freeprogram, vs figure short free program, vs short free program, not to mention difference un length of free and short program, and dingle, double, triple jumpd.
Different ruled each quadriannal prevents that.
Uoy cant dont knoe hoe each skatet will respond.
Michelle, irina, ages pmlay.
Janet fall in 73 due to never had to skate to something required before where affected pkaments.
Short now nothing required sure lose pojnts make up with oc, doesnt affect your overall placjng unless,totallu bomb program &still win , unlike under 6.0 michelle fall, trip placed het in 4th evdn thougj wkn,free still needed help tovein. Someone elsr had to beat leader
Most jmporyant no clear cut,rules,on falks, trip, giming dtc .hiw big dsductions some went to a 5.2 other a 5.6 made big difference in pkacments ,lower,rmm. Couldnt win despite great skates .yhna came,from 6 to place 2nd wouldnt hapoeb under,6.0the 5,.0 lead in,shory tokd her could afford one fslk kn
fall at olymics and still win
Easier to skate and win knowing have leads and csn screw up and still win
Rsther than,first in short andhave to win long because coming in ssecond wont.cut it if the 2nd , 3place,skater win free. Even,in 4th has to hopr domeome beats out keader to ein. Just,ask sarah, allowed simeine to beat her out so,sarah,ciyld win
Yuna in,fact came in 3rd and stukk eon.
Or skaters,come in 2nd,3rd and win.
Didnt happen under 6.0
Too many errors. Glaring or otherwise not e.ough deductions or helf up with pc
6.0 too many mistaes affected artistry unlke now.
Alissa still got in 6 to 7with her skate at the 2012worlds in lc should have been 4-6
Debateable. Kim has never had meltdowns on par with Kwan's 97 Nationals and 97 GPF competitions even at her worst. Kwan was inconsistent enough that in the heart of her prime (2000-2002) she lost most of her encounters with Slutskaya, an unartistic skater who isnt even consistent at triple-triples who could only beat Kwan when she made numerous mistakes, which she obviously did often.As is her consistency.
Anyway even if you were right your basis is solely based around Kim's misses on the triple loop (and to a much lesser degree triple sal) over the years, as you point out later in your post, so you are basically making one point (your first one above) and trying to make it into two.
Hardly moot. Skating today is way harder and more demanding, needing to do high level elements on all things and not just jumps, and lots of transitions between those all as well, and you see alot fewer clean performances than ever before. To deny this as a factor is to not see the forest around the trees.I know people will excuse Yuna's consistency compared to Kwan by pointing to her 3-3's and IJS' much harder programs but this is moot.
I was only responding in parallel to someone whose ridiculous implication was that Kim could only win big titles in North America, which is far more ridiculous than my point. Anyone with a brain knows Kim would have easily won the 09 Worlds, 2010 Olympics, and 2013 Worlds anywhere else. Why dont you respond to that comment instead when it was far more inaccurate and slanted against reality than mine. I did not state Kwan won her titles since they were in North America, however her winning 4 of her 5 World titles in North America is far more noteable than Kim winning 2 of her 3 World or Olympics (but 0 of her 3 Grand Prix final titles) in Canada if you want to go there, which is where the OP went and the only reason I even brought that up. Made even more stupid by that it is not even her own country but just her coaches Canada, oh yeah one of those years after she had dumped the coach leaving only 1, hahaha.You also imply Kwan won most of her big titles due to political posturing when we know this wasn't the case.
Ultimately though it is far more likely Worlds being in NA helped Kwan win a close decision with Chen in 96, and even a close decision with Slutskaya in 2001, and make 2003 a coronation, than any of Kim's lopsided wins nowhere near Korea being helped by location of any sort were. Also if you dont think it is easier being a top American skater in a sport where U.S skaters have huge reputation over the years, and that Michelle Kwan didnt benefit in judging in general from being Michelle Kwan the legend with past American icons and a strong federation who held her as their #1 always supporting her, than just the first top Korean skater, than you need to wake up.
How about look at it this way. Kim is way better in the biggest event, and the third biggest event. Kwan only in the second biggest event, and nowhere else. Kim also competes and wins at Four Continents, unlike Kwan, and is more dominant in the general grand prix as well. Basically Kwan is behind everywhere but Worlds, and that alone is not enough, when Kim herself is a multi World Champion who has medalled in all 6 of her Worlds.People point to Kwan's 1 grand prix final win vs Kim's 3, but it's funny how their standards change to fit the situation. These same people downplay Kwan's 5 world titles because of her lack of an Olympic gold (Oly gold obviously > World Championship). In that same vein, World championship > Grand Prix Final. Yuna repeatedly dominated at the Grand Prix Final for 3 years in a row, but obviously peaked at the wrong time because in every year she won the Grand Prix Final, she also lost the world championship.
Last edited by mustafinabars; 05-06-2013 at 01:18 AM.
Last edited by johnny158; 05-06-2013 at 03:32 AM.
the jumps have stayed,the same the rules regarding them havent. They have changed every 4 years.
Tne great skaters are skaters who adjust to or try to the new rules, not the skaters who have rules work around them or in their favor do they dobt need yo afjust.
Like michelle, irina,shizuka .
On fact they and othets had to adjust ti three different ttypes of scoring sydtem, thd 60.,interim and the ijs.
Yuna only haf ijs shr and other youngster got head start invjunioes.
Not a bad thing , head start knew what to expect and go uy ngbaboutbtovfix , getbpoinrs.
Yuna is great in her time under the ijs. She knows what to ecpect and afjyst ruled forvherborvin her fabor likebothers.
Shevis great , greatest harf to comparervwithbdifferent rules, times etc.
Y po u cant unless eachskater skates under same ruled, vinditions as each previous skater did before them
First I want to clarify that I don't think Kwan is the greatest skater, nor do I think she should be placed above Kim, my comments were replies to very specific statements
Uhh..I just checked both their fansites and Kim has 4 lp's with only 3 clean triples (what you would call a "meltdown"), the same as Kwan, despite Kim having a much shorter career. Kim has had 5 clean lp's in her career, compared to Kwan's 25. Even if you multiply Kim's number by 2 (although the length of Kim's career is much more than half of Kwan's), the difference is still stark. During their senior careers, Kwan had 11 competitions where she had both a clean sp and lp, while Yuna only managed that twice. And again, 9 years never off the podium vs Kim's 6. We'll see if Kim can keep her podium record.Debateable. Kim has never had meltdowns on par with Kwan's 97 Nationals and 97 GPF competitions even at her worst. Kwan was inconsistent enough that in the heart of her prime (2000-2002) she lost most of her encounters with Slutskaya, an unartistic skater who isnt even consistent at triple-triples who could only beat Kwan when she made numerous mistakes, which she obviously did often.
If you make the argument that Kim had much harder programs, someone could counter with the argument that Kwan could have sacrificed consistency for the sake of landing harder and more triple triples. Or that Kim's consistency would be lower had she been forced to include the loop in her entire career (important to have 5 during 6.0), compared to the few times she actually attempted it.
I've watched a lot older skating competitions in the past year, and what I've found is that skaters struggled with consistency even when doubles were the norm. People dismiss Kwan's consistency due to her "easy" programs, yet skaters rarely had her consistency even when all top ladies performed doubles and only the rare triple.
It's funny how you pretend as if IJS was the first time skating progressed. Skating (and in particular short and free skating) has always progressed dramatically with each decade. If you look at someone like Katarina Witt and the best performance of her career in the late 80's, that still only amounted to 5 triples: 2 salchows, 2 toes and 1 loop! That's only 3 types of triples and they're the 3 easiest! Only a decade later skaters were expected to have at least 5 different types of triples to medal, and often a 3-3 and 6-7 triples landed to win. And it wasn't just the jumps, elements across the board improved and became more complex including spins, spirals, footwork, choreography and transitions. Dorothy Hamill won the Olympics without a single triple. Janet Lynn was famed for her artistry yet choreography during her time rarely amounted to more than waving your arms.Hardly moot. Skating today is way harder and more demanding, needing to do high level elements on all things and not just jumps, and lots of transitions between those all as well, and you see alot fewer clean performances than ever before. To deny this as a factor is to not see the forest around the trees.
Yes, there were rare technical phenoms like Ito and Harding in the 80's, but how consistent and commonplace were they? Yamaguchi landed an excellent 3 lutz 3 toe, which was ahead of its time, but only managed 4 clean triples overall with a fall and another major mistake, yet she won the freaking Olympics with that!
You can make the argument that the rise in difficulty since IJS has been more dramatic than with other eras and in a shorter span of time, and in that regard I may agree, but then, you would be the one "missing the forest for the trees". After all, it's one thing to compare the difficulty of two consecutive eras like Kwan and Kim's, how the hell are you going to use those same standards to compare eras much further removed? Basically, if you make the mistake of judging one era by another's technical standards, you risk going on a slippery slope. How do you even begin to fairly compare Kim to someone like Heiss, much less Henie?
That's nice. I wasn't paying attention to the person you were quoting.I was only responding in parallel to someone whose ridiculous implication was that Kim could only win big titles in North America, which is far more ridiculous than my point.....
First I want to say that I like to debate based on facts, not based on both speculation and visions of the future, which is why in my world Kim still only has one Olympic gold, not 2.How about look at it this way. Kim is way better in the biggest event, and the third biggest event. Kwan only in the second biggest event, and nowhere else. Kim also competes and wins at Four Continents, unlike Kwan, and is more dominant in the general grand prix as well. Basically Kwan is behind everywhere but Worlds, and that alone is not enough, when Kim herself is a multi World Champion who has medalled in all 6 of her Worlds.
So, Olympics-wise, Kim bests Kwan with her Olympic title, although it's a bit strange that you're treating 2 Olympic medals as if they're last place. The way you categorize things into "3 biggest events" does make Kim more dominant, but that's all relative. When did the GPF begin? 1996?? You could just as well paint it as Kim consistently peaking at the wrong time and losing the big prize of the year (Worlds) to a recently created championship. Just as Kim medaled in every worlds despite not dominating that event, likewise Kwan medaled in every grand prix final she competed in.
Yes, Kim competed in and won 4 continents....once. Kwan also competed in and won the World Pro Championships (with a 7 triple performance) against past Olympic champions, not to mention endless cheesefests that saturated the airwaves during that era of skating, and I normally wouldn't even mention that if not for the fact that she competed against a ton of elite top 5 skaters at these events.
Also, Kwan's national titles meant FAR more than any of Kim's national titles and she faced enormous pressure going into those competitions (during the last 3 years they had all but pegged Sasha to win). Kwan tied an all time record in a country with one of the greatest skating legacies in history. Her national competitors included 7 world medalists (4 of which went on to be Olympic medalists).
The ratio of their grand prix victories (not counting final) is pretty close in my opinion, with the caveat that Kwan competed in twice as many Grand Prix events.
I'm going to end this by saying that I feel awkward because I'm not actually arguing that Kwan was a greater skater than Kim. At All. Just addressing specific claims that I think are arguable.
Last edited by maladiegrande; 05-06-2013 at 08:14 AM.
Although it's true that Kwan never won the Olympic gold, one could argue that 1998 was not really due to any fault of her own (other than maybe not planning a 3/3) but due to not getting 2 more judges on her side in 1998. It's not as if she had a performance like 2002 where she fell on a major element. Now, you can argue that clearly shows Kwan's best was not good enough to win the Olympics, but you can counter that with saying that there isn't a clear consensus that she should have loss as people still debate about it.
As for Kwan not winning much outside of North America, a lot of it was due to her not competing much outside of North America after the 1998-1999 season. Who knows if she could have won a few of the European GP events had she been there. She had dominated the European GPs she competed in before the 1997-1998 season.
Granted, she lost at Worlds in Europe 4 times in career since becoming a top skater: 1997 in Lausanne (though she had won the LP in the same split that she lost the Olympics to Tara), 1999 in Helsinki, 2004 in Dortmund (though garnering the most 6.0s in the LP but I guess the judges felt sorry for her), and 2005 in Moscow. But her record of winning Worlds 50% of the time since she became World Champion is a pretty great record no matter where she competed. Yu Na Kim in comparison, has won 2 Worlds out of 6 attempts, although I don't think measuring number of titles is the only way to measure one's legacy or should be taken by itself without considering many other factors.
Anyway, these types of quantifications are difficult and don't make much sense anyway.