Page 44 of 44 FirstFirst ... 34424344
Results 861 to 869 of 869
  1. #861
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    36
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    Oksana's max 5 triples (with one Lutz) would not have been competitive with Kwan and Lipinski in their young primes who were able to do 7 triples (Tara a 3/3 and a 3/.5/3) by 1998. Not to mention Kwan and Lipinski were capable of doing spins with a variety of positions and change-of-foot. I don't know where the idea that Oksana had better spirals than Tara came from either. Tara was able to do a serpentine sequence with a good free leg (first one was held but still higher than Oksana's free leg), speed, and ice coverage.
    I think the incredible quality of her jumps (when landed cleanly on one foot, and remember she didnt normally two foot alot of jumps like Lillehammer) would have compensated for the deficit in difficulty. I also cant imagine she wasnt capable of more jump content. If Tara who has tiny jumps, with bad technique on some of them (lutz, double axel) can do 7 triple programs with 2 lutzes, and the hardest triple-triples, it is hard to imagine Baiul with huge beautiful jumps, with great technique, and great flow out, couldnt have mastered something more than just 5 triples. It would make no sense if she couldnt.

    Remember too the judges adored Baiul to death and I dont think this would have changed. Many felt she didnt deserve her wins at the 93 worlds and 94 Olympics, especialy the 94 Olympics. Some even had her 4th or 5th there. Yet she won, so what does that tell you. The judges loved Baiul, and this would not have made it easy for Michelle, Tara, or anyone in the future facing her provided she mantained a somewhat high standard of skating and jumping.

  2. #862
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    36
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fenway2 View Post
    I think most are annoyed that Oksana won with a flawed short program and only three really clean triples in that terrible long program. It has little to do with who she beat but that she won with horrible technical content. But as usual, those arguing Oksana's win in 94 have to resort to character bashing of her rival because they can't point out anything Oksana as a decent argument for her win.
    And her jumps would have stood out next to Kwan and Lipinski's all right. They would have been finally dinged for all the two-footing that accompanied them. Oksana was smart to get out when she did. She could get away with the two-footing for about the 13 months her amateur career lasted. Had she stayed in another 4 years, the judges would have finally put a stop to awarding her flawed jump landings.
    A butthurt Nancy fan I see. Yep am used to those.

    There are many decent arguments to Oksana's win or atleast her beating overrated Nancy. WAY better artistry, better choreography, bigger jumps with more flow out, landing all 5 type of triples which Nancy couldnt do (the one that was two footed is the one Nancy could only do a double on), the same number of triples landed as Nancy even if 1 wasnt totally clean and an extra double axel, better spins, better basic skating. There are many arguments for others in that event- Sato and Chen for instance, to have beaten possibly not only Oksana, but definitely Nancy as well.

    It is Nancy fans who are so delusional they think everyone but the judges coronates her the clear cut winner of those Games, but sadly for them that is very far from reality. They want to invent a fantasy she is the Yu Na Kim like peoples and everyone victim of those Games, but she isnt. Speaking of gifts, no skater got more monster gifts in their skating career than Nancy- her 92 Olympic bronze and 92 world silvers were both

  3. #863
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,467
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VolosozharGOAT View Post
    A butthurt Nancy fan I see. Yep am used to those.

    There are many decent arguments to Oksana's win or at least her beating overrated Nancy. WAY better artistry, better choreography, bigger jumps with more flow out, landing all 5 type of triples which Nancy couldnt do (the one that was two footed is the one Nancy could only do a double on), the same number of triples landed as Nancy even if 1 wasnt totally clean and an extra double axel, better spins, better basic skating. There are many arguments for others in that event- Sato and Chen for instance, to have beaten possibly not only Oksana, but definitely Nancy as well.

    It is Nancy fans who are so delusional they think everyone but the judges coronates her the clear cut winner of those Games, but sadly for them that is very far from reality. They want to invent a fantasy she is the Yu Na Kim like peoples and everyone victim of those Games, but she isnt. Speaking of gifts, no skater got more monster gifts in their skating career than Nancy- her 92 Olympic bronze and 92 world silvers were both
    Ignoring all your crap about Kerrigan fans because you're the delusional one accusing people of being or saying things they never did.

    I'm not getting into the entire Kerrigan/Baiul argument against. It's been pointed out repeatedly why Oksana's win was such a joke but I take particular objection to the remark that Baiul had better choreography. Not even close. Even with Nancy's lame ass bunny hops, her program was a million times better constructed than that improvised mess Oksana threw out. And Oksana did not land all five triples, please. She two-footed two triples and only landed three clean triples in the long and none in the short. That last double axel in her long was two-footed as well which was pointed out by the UK and US broadcasts. Better basic skating? Are you for real? Where did she show better basic skating? In her footwork sequence? Oh wait, she didn't have one. At best, I'd maybe give Oksana the edge on spins but that's it, and I'm not even sure about that. While Oksana is a superior spinner overall, I don't think she demonstrated that in the long program. I think Nancy even had more variety of spins in the long program too but I'm too lazy to rewatch. Oksana's program was a hot mess. The ISU revamped their entire judging system and used Oksana's program as an example of a weak program to make sure a win like that never happened again, but sure, she deserved to win the gold medal.

    And who gives a flip if Kerrigan was gifted medals in the past. Although I agree with your examples, they should have no bearing on the judging in Lillehammer. None. Yet again, you're using examples that have nothing to do with what happened on the ice in Lillehammer because you have little else to support your argument that Oksana deserved to win.

    Just say that you disliked Nancy as a skater and a person and found Oksana more watchable. Don't try to make an argument for her win because you will fail miserably at it.
    Last edited by fenway2; 06-16-2014 at 09:05 AM.

  4. #864
    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
    Even with Nancy's lame ass bunny hops
    Maybe she was hoping for a reward of 24 carrots??

  5. #865

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,472
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by VolosozharGOAT View Post
    If Tara who has tiny jumps, with bad technique on some of them (lutz, double axel) can do 7 triple programs with 2 lutzes, and the hardest triple-triples, it is hard to imagine Baiul with huge beautiful jumps, with great technique, and great flow out, couldnt have mastered something more than just 5 triples. It would make no sense if she couldnt.
    Actually it would make a lot of sense. Bigger jumps take more energy (meaning the skater may be more tired by the end of the program, all else being equal) and also have more potential for going wrong if off axis in the air.

    The main risk with smaller jumps is not getting the rotation, which could lead to falls and/or to judges (or tech panels in IJS era) not giving full credit for the attempt. But as the skater can rotate the jump and land on one foot, the skater with smaller jumps is likely to be more consistent at landing them.

    Lipinski had great flow on her double axel landing, and really all her jumps at Nagano except the 3Lo+3Lo, which by the nature of loop jumps in combination tend to be curly for everyone who attempts them, no matter how high they jump.

    If anything changing edge on the lutz takeoff tends to make it easier for the skater to rotate and land the jump. There are various possible approaches to penalizing that error through the rules. Unlike underrotation, it doesn't have its own built-in penalty of more likely falls or two-foots.

  6. #866
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    745
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    Maybe she was hoping for a reward of 24 carrots??
    That moment when she starts hopping around the ice was so odd. But strangely it was probably the most memorable part of the program since the rest of it was bland and non-descript.

  7. #867
    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
    Actually it would make a lot of sense. Bigger jumps take more energy (meaning the skater may be more tired by the end of the program, all else being equal) and also have more potential for going wrong if off axis in the air.

    The main risk with smaller jumps is not getting the rotation, which could lead to falls and/or to judges (or tech panels in IJS era) not giving full credit for the attempt. But as the skater can rotate the jump and land on one foot, the skater with smaller jumps is likely to be more consistent at landing them.
    That's very interesting. I think Yamaguchi had two big things going for her: 1) body type and 2) stamina. She said one time a doctor told her that she could have probably been a marathon runner. (Of course, that's not to minimize her superior work ethic.) If Kristi had had Nancy's body type, would she have been as consistent? Or if Nancy had had Kristi's body type, would she have been more consistent?

    Since skaters are different in so many ways, ultimately I think it makes more sense to compare athletes not with other athletes but with themselves. IOW, did they realize their potential? In general, what does success look like--for an athlete or anyone? I think it's more about effort and responsibility than achievement. (The Olympic creed says as much: The most important thing...in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.) You can't necessarily control final outcomes, but you can control what you put into the process. For instance, in terms of their skating careers, who should be considered a greater success: 1) Tonia Kwiatkowski or 2) Christopher Bowman? Conventional wisdom says that success = victory, which I disagree with. So, using a broader definition of success, I would say Tonia Kwiatkowski. Why? Did she win more titles than Bowman? Nope. It's because I think she realized her potential. She worked diligently, seemed to have respect for others, and her coach appeared to really enjoy working with her. What else could she have achieved that she didn't? Not much IMO. I don't think she should look back on her career with too many regrets. OTOH, Bowman had a ridiculous amount of talent, and while he did win some titles, if he had worked diligently, there's no telling what he could have done. He was difficult to coach as well. Anyway, I think the world of sports is far too much about victories, medals, etc.: you win a title = you're great; you fail to win a title = you're a loser/choker. I would imagine that the happiest athletes and sports fans alike are those who don't care so much about winning/losing but focus more on the overall process and/or the gifts each athlete brings to the sport.

    Anyway, that's interesting about body types and consistency. I wonder if mental toughness is indirectly related to body type as well? IOW, if you're thinking, "I always nail this jump in practice," wouldn't it be easier to be "mentally tough" about landing the jump than if your "batting average" in practices isn't so hot? The less you have to worry about in general, the less difficult it would be to be mentally tough, I would wager.

  8. #868
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gk_891 View Post
    That moment when she starts hopping around the ice was so odd. But strangely it was probably the most memorable part of the program since the rest of it was bland and non-descript.
    Here comes Nancy Cottontail....

    I wonder why she didn't save the rest of the program for reuse at Blandover?

  9. #869
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    91
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by neptune View Post
    That's very interesting. I think Yamaguchi had two big things going for her: 1) body type and 2) stamina. She said one time a doctor told her that she could have probably been a marathon runner. (Of course, that's not to minimize her superior work ethic.) If Kristi had had Nancy's body type, would she have been as consistent? Or if Nancy had had Kristi's body type, would she have been more consistent?

    Since skaters are different in so many ways, ultimately I think it makes more sense to compare athletes not with other athletes but with themselves. IOW, did they realize their potential? In general, what does success look like--for an athlete or anyone? I think it's more about effort and responsibility than achievement. (The Olympic creed says as much: The most important thing...in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.) You can't necessarily control final outcomes, but you can control what you put into the process. For instance, in terms of their skating careers, who should be considered a greater success: 1) Tonia Kwiatkowski or 2) Christopher Bowman? Conventional wisdom says that success = victory, which I disagree with. So, using a broader definition of success, I would say Tonia Kwiatkowski. Why? Did she win more titles than Bowman? Nope. It's because I think she realized her potential. She worked diligently, seemed to have respect for others, and her coach appeared to really enjoy working with her. What else could she have achieved that she didn't? Not much IMO. I don't think she should look back on her career with too many regrets. OTOH, Bowman had a ridiculous amount of talent, and while he did win some titles, if he had worked diligently, there's no telling what he could have done. He was difficult to coach as well. Anyway, I think the world of sports is far too much about victories, medals, etc.: you win a title = you're great; you fail to win a title = you're a loser/choker. I would imagine that the happiest athletes and sports fans alike are those who don't care so much about winning/losing but focus more on the overall process and/or the gifts each athlete brings to the sport.

    Anyway, that's interesting about body types and consistency. I wonder if mental toughness is indirectly related to body type as well? IOW, if you're thinking, "I always nail this jump in practice," wouldn't it be easier to be "mentally tough" about landing the jump than if your "batting average" in practices isn't so hot? The less you have to worry about in general, the less difficult it would be to be mentally tough, I would wager.
    I agree with all that and especialy the Tonia and Christopher comparision. I agree Tonya had the more successful career. Christopher won 2 world medals and 2 U.S titles, neither which Tonia did. Given his talent and potential though, and the way he approached his career Chris comes off looking worse of the two for me. I guess you could argue Tonia might have achieved more if she had focused more on skating as opposed to school when she was younger rather than waiting until she was already 25, but I dont think she was ever going to be a world beater regardless, and she probably is a happier all around person doing it the way she did anyway, even if she had possibly qualified for the 92 or 94 Olympics otherwise.

Page 44 of 44 FirstFirst ... 34424344

Posting Permissions

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