Page 39 of 44 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 780 of 869
  1. #761
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    30
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I would have probably traded the positions of Witt and Kulovana in the short from 6th to 11th. They had the same simple jumps all totally clean, and Kulovana had better spins, spirals, and a much more artistic and elegant program. If Kulovana was wearing a Witt mask she would be 4th in the short, and Witt wearing a Kulovana mask would be buried in about 16th for her skate.

  2. #762
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by itoaxel View Post
    Yet he uses the judges not being enamored with Sato as some kind of valid reasoning for her ridiculously low marks. We could just as easily say then that the judges were just never enamored with Nancys boring and generic skating like they were with Oksana (with good reason), and that is valid reasoning for Nancy not winning too then, even if Oksana didnt skate her best that competition.
    Yes, one could use that argument.

    There are many who like the judges dont see Kerrigan as the slam dunk or rightful OGM at all.
    I wonder if anyone has ever told Nancy that there were valid arguments for placing at least 2 other skaters ahead of her in the LP? Probably not.

  3. #763
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by itoaxel View Post
    If Kulovana was wearing a Witt mask she would be 4th in the short, and Witt wearing a Kulovana mask would be buried in about 16th for her skate.
    That's the way skating works, ain't it?

  4. #764
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by itoaxel View Post
    That is true. Fenway seems to be a bit Kerrigan fan. Yet he uses the judges not being enamored with Sato as some kind of valid reasoning for her ridiculously low marks. We could just as easily say then that the judges were just never enamored with Nancys boring and generic skating like they were with Oksana (with good reason), and that is valid reasoning for Nancy not winning too then, even if Oksana didnt skate her best that competition.

    It is great to read this thread as it seems Kerrigantards like to comfort themselves that she is the real OGM in Lillehammer since everyone thinks she should have won, but the judges just wouldnt give it to her. This thread proves that is so far from reality. There are many who like the judges dont see Kerrigan as the slam dunk or rightful OGM at all.
    I wouldn't call myself a fan of Kerrigan's skating at all. I found her very amusing off the ice but not for the right reasons. And I never said the judges not liking Sato was justification for her low marks so you might want to drop that accusation as it's only flaunting your inability to read. I'm not going to reiterate what I actually wrote because it'd be in your best interest to read it again as you obviously need to practice your reading skills. I do think Kerrigan should have won in 1994 though with Lu Chen winning the free skate. That doesn't mean I think she was the best skater of the group rather the best skater over two nights. And I believe Kerrigan and Baiul only faced each other twice in Olympic style competition and while Baiul bested her both times, if you break it down it still came to Kerrigan winning the short program both times and Baiul winning the long program both times. That's hardly a strong argument that the judges were that enamored with Baiul, especially when she was topped by Bonaly twice at Europeans and had third place marks for her so-called "magical" free skate in Lillehammer.

    As for your offensive use of a horrific insult toward mentally challenged people, I'm not surprised. Please don't ever have children.

    And Neptune, I heard those rumors too. Hmmm If they are true, he traded down imo.

  5. #765

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,462
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    I guess we need to know exactly what the criteria for presentation were back then.
    At the time, the criteria for the second mark in the free program were
    (a) Harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen;
    (b) Utilization of the area;
    (c) Easy movement and sureness in time to the music;
    (d) Carriage;
    (e) Originality;
    (f) Expression of the character of the music
    (g) Unison (pairs).
    Through 1994, the second mark for the free program was still called Artistic Impression.

    In the technical (short) program it was called Presentation and also included "Difficulty of the connecting steps" and "Speed."

    Starting with 1994-95, the name was changed to Presentation for the free program as well, "Speed" was moved to the first mark, and "Variation of speed" was included in the second.

    Now, how each judge interpreted those criteria and which criteria they thought were most important would vary from judge to judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    Well, I think those rules were messed up then. So if you step out, it's 0.4, but if you go splat, it's only 0.5???
    In 1994, stepping out of a landing was 0.3 and falling was 0.4, in the technical program. No explicit guidelines in the free.

  6. #766
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest." - Ottavio Cinquanta
    Posts
    1,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    In 1994, stepping out of a landing was 0.3 and falling was 0.4, in the technical program. No explicit guidelines in the free.
    Wasn't 6.0 as a system merely a "guideline"? Judges never "had" to take off for anything.

  7. #767
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    692
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Nancy was not the kind of skater anyone wanted to see as an Olympic Champion. What is interesting is the same is probably true of Hughes and she became one anyway. The difference is Kerrigan didnt blow away her competitors in the long program the way Hughes in 2002 did. They had to give Hughes the gold (or atleast the long program win which in this case translated to gold). They did not have to give Kerrigan the gold, she did not skate that much better than the others to force that out of them, and that is the only way she was going to win as she just isnt the kind of skater, like Hughes, that you want winning that kind of a title.

  8. #768
    Mad for mangelwurzels
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    جوجه تیغی خجالتی می داند زیبایی از گلبرگ
    Posts
    10,593
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    122817
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    Wasn't 6.0 as a system merely a "guideline"? Judges never "had" to take off for anything.
    They did in the short (i.e. technical programme). gkelly knows her stuff better than almost everyone else here.

    Quote Originally Posted by KimGOAT View Post
    Nancy was not the kind of skater anyone wanted to see as an Olympic Champion
    Well, I expect some people did.

    Quote Originally Posted by KimGOAT View Post
    .......... she just isnt the kind of skater, like Hughes, that you want winning that kind of a title.
    What do you mean? To whom are you speaking when you say "you"? Don't you really mean yourself?

  9. #769
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fenway2 View Post
    And Neptune, I heard those rumors too. Hmmm If they are true, he traded down imo.
    Well, if someone cheats with you, they will also cheat on you.

  10. #770
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    At the time, the criteria for the second mark in the free program were
    Cool--someone knows the answer! Thank you.

    Through 1994, the second mark for the free program was still called Artistic Impression.
    In the technical (short) program it was called Presentation and also included "Difficulty of the connecting steps" and "Speed."
    Starting with 1994-95, the name was changed to Presentation for the free program as well, "Speed" was moved to the first mark, and "Variation of speed" was included in the second.
    Interesting.

    In 1994, stepping out of a landing was 0.3 and falling was 0.4, in the technical program. No explicit guidelines in the free.
    So, the message being conveyed was either "falls aren't so bad" or "step-outs are terrible!"

    (a) Harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen;
    (b) Utilization of the area;
    (c) Easy movement and sureness in time to the music;
    (d) Carriage;
    (e) Originality;
    (f) Expression of the character of the music
    Just curious--were these exhaustive?

    Let's see, for Oksana, I would give (on a scale of 1 to 5):

    a) 3
    b) not sure
    c) 5
    d) 5
    e) 3
    f) 5

    For Nancy:
    a) 2
    b) not sure
    c) 4
    d) 5
    e) 1
    f) 3.5

    So, for me, Oksana would definitely trump Nancy with these criteria. But Chen and Sato would fare far better than both, so I would have no problems giving the former two 5.9s for artistic impression. (No, wait--wouldn't touching the ice with a hand warrant a 0.1 deduction?) Oksana probably didn't deserve higher than 5.8 then. Yes, she was artistic, but the program wasn't that strong or original, so she loses points for that.

    Was charisma per se not supposed to matter in the second mark? And was complexity of choreography rewarded in the first mark?
    Last edited by neptune; 05-20-2014 at 07:06 AM.

  11. #771
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by orientalplane View Post
    They did in the short (i.e. technical programme). gkelly knows her stuff better than almost everyone else here.
    I guess what leafygreens means is that there wasn't really any accountability--the judges didn't exactly have to document their calculations.

  12. #772
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by KimGOAT View Post
    The difference is Kerrigan didnt blow away her competitors in the long program the way Hughes in 2002 did.
    Another big difference is that Hughes was an excellent competitor--rarely did she make a lot of mistakes. Excellent focus and nerves. So she could be considered a worthy champion in that sense. As for Nancy, before Lillehammer, when was the last time that she had ever skated 2 clean programs?

  13. #773
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    Well, if someone cheats with you, they will also cheat on you.
    So true. Someone tell that to Tori Spelling who never got the memo.

  14. #774
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    Another big difference is that Hughes was an excellent competitor--rarely did she make a lot of mistakes. Excellent focus and nerves. So she could be considered a worthy champion in that sense. As for Nancy, before Lillehammer, when was the last time that she had ever skated 2 clean programs?
    I don't know about her earlier competitions but I don't recall her ever being clean in competition and I'm not sure I'd include Lillehammer since she doubled that flip. If we counted doubled jumps as clean then Angela Nikodinov might be considered the woman to skate more clean programs than any other woman in history.

  15. #775
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fenway2 View Post
    So true. Someone tell that to Tori Spelling who never got the memo.
    Oh, did that happen with her? It strange how so many people just don't get that concept. Nancy obviously didn't, or else she would've never married Jerry Opportunist. I suspect the only reason he hasn't cheated on Nancy (that we know of) is that he can't find anyone younger and richer who would have him.

  16. #776
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fenway2 View Post
    I don't know about her earlier competitions but I don't recall her ever being clean in competition
    Oops, I thought you were talking about Hughes.

    and I'm not sure I'd include Lillehammer since she doubled that flip.
    So was Lillehammer the first time she never made any obvious mistakes (other than doubling a jump) in a competition?

    If we counted doubled jumps as clean then Angela Nikodinov might be considered the woman to skate more clean programs than any other woman in history.

  17. #777
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    Oh, did that happen with her? It strange how so many people just don't get that concept. Nancy obviously didn't, or else she would've never married Jerry Opportunist. I suspect the only reason he hasn't cheated on Nancy (that we know of) is that he can't find anyone younger and richer who would have him.
    Yeah, Tori Spelling and her current husband were both married to other people when they left their spouses for one another. Now he has cheated on her and she is shocked. And if Solomon has cheated on Kerrigan, I doubt anyone would even care enough about either of them to report it. Sorry for bringing Tori Spelling into a skating thread. Let me try to connect her to figure skating. Tori was on 90210 and there was a storyline where Brandon dated an ice skater. Dick Button had a cameo on the show as a reporter at sectionals because sectionals is apparently broadcast on national television in the US. Okay, carry on.
    Last edited by fenway2; 05-20-2014 at 07:24 AM.

  18. #778
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    Oops, I thought you were talking about Hughes.



    So was Lillehammer the first time she never made any obvious mistakes (other than doubling a jump) in a competition?



    Nah, as you know, Hughes was a rock. I'd put her in the top 5 of best American competitors of all time. That girl was so dependable. You can't teach that ability to handle nerves like she had.

    I think Lillehammer may have been the closest Kerrigan ever got to two clean performances. If she had an absolutely perfect competition previously, it certainly didn't happen on television.

  19. #779

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,462
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    (No, wait--wouldn't touching the ice with a hand warrant a 0.1 deduction?)
    Only in short programs.

    In free skates the only deductions were for rule violations (Zayak violation, going over or under the time limit, etc.).

    If you were judging that free program, you should reflect the hand down in the technical merit mark, but the effect on the actual score might be less than 0.1 worth, because the marks were just in comparison to the other skaters in the event. They didn't have absolute meaning.

  20. #780
    Mad for mangelwurzels
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    جوجه تیغی خجالتی می داند زیبایی از گلبرگ
    Posts
    10,593
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    122817
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Only in short programs.

    In free skates the only deductions were for rule violations (Zayak violation, going over or under the time limit, etc.).
    gkelly, would it be simplistic to say that back in the days of 6.0, the skaters would start the technical or short programme with 6.0 and then get deductions for mistakes, but in many cases also for the simplicity of the elements and the lack of presentation skills, while in the free skate they started with zero and built up marks with their elements and presentation, with no actual deductions other than the ones quoted above?
    Last edited by orientalplane; 05-20-2014 at 12:13 PM.

Page 39 of 44 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... 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
  •