Who is the better skater: Slutskaya or Cohen?

VGThuy

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
41,200
A continuation on the "Who is the better skater: Cohen" series. Remember when Irina responded to journalists who asked her what she thought of Cohen taking ordinals away from her at the 2002 Olympic SP? She said she had "better jumps, better spins" than Cohen. Do you agree?

Or are you more of the opinion of:

I've written in detail how much I think Sokolova/Volchkova/Soldatova/Oblasova/Nelidina's career would have been different if Slutskaya had retired in a timely fashion! Her hanging on like an old vulture stifled many of the ladies IMO! We had quite a few that were great talents and had wonderful potential like Julia Soldatova! I could watch Soldatova and Nelidina all day long; the grace, and as you said "attention to detail" were always evident in their skating! But to beat the Slute, you have to push yourself and their little bodies couldn't take it; esp. Julia's! The same thing is going on in tennis with Roger Federer and Raphael Nadal extending their careers longer than expected! It changes the whole dynamics of the tour by them even walking around with other players in awe of them breathing air! No matter how good you are, if your mindset and confidence aren't there, you'll still fail!
Click to expand...

Discuss.
 
Last edited:
They are hard to compare because they were such different kind of skaters. Cohen had lovely lines and artistry whereas Slutskaya was more of a locomotive type skater but with lots of charm. She seemed to have absolutely no nerves. I don't remember which year or competition but I do remember when she fell at a jump and just laughed at it, got up and kept skating.
 
VIETgrlTerifa said:
She said she had "better jumps, better spins" than Cohen. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

Spins? Probably not.. Irina's always traveled, her combo spin (Biellman on both legs) was never ever centered but traveled a lot. And don't get me wrong I loved her combo spin. Both were very flexible and equally flexible with their backs in the layback. Extra points to Sasha for her free leg position (most of the times.)

Extra points for Sasha's spin position (is it called the I or T) where she held that leg all the way up that Julia Lip would later do.

Now that I think of it, although Irina could do Biellman on both legs Sasha had more flexibility with it.

Irina's jumps had more spring.
 
Such different skaters but lots to admire from both. Irina's jumps were huge and consistent. I loved that about her. And she was spunky and likeable. Sasha's transitions, spirals, spins and performance execution were superior in my opinion, where her jumps were inconsistent. For me personally, Sasha was the better skater.
 
I loved Irina because of her jumps and technical ability.

I also loved Sasha because of her artistry, spins, and spirals. This is one of the few times when Sasha was spot on with it all, and I'm so glad I was able to tape it.

2004 Marshalls World Skating Championships - Swan Lake

Sasha - Kiss & Cry. She received two 6.0's from the judges. I wish she could have kept her concentration with her LP's throughout her years in competition. And this is why to me, Swan Lake will always be my favorite program of hers.
 
Better skater or competitor? Although, i suppose it doesn't matter. Sasha IMO wasn't really strong enough to carry out Tarasova's dream of her. She was at one point a super ambitious jumper, even while working with a conservative coach. I think that Tarasova simplified Sasha's grace and line to allow her to concentrate on more ambitious jump layouts. It's arguable if Tatiana had the patience and true expertise to help her jump well but the technique improved greatly with tat.

Slutskaya at her best captured a pretty balanced skater. She had flexibility, presence, and of course the power and athleticism. Both skaters revamped themselves after being established seniors. Both skaters overcame health issues as well. I suppose, as i write this, they have more in common that I thought. When i saw this thread, i squinted out of disbelief.

One criticism that I have for Sasha which didn't improve under Tat which surprised me was edge quality and difficulty in the steps. Irina's were better. While Tarasova did do things to try and mask Sasha's weakness, Sasha had one of the easiest strait line steps of all time, unlike Irina's ability to do the whole damn thing on one foot lol.

Overall, and i still have Sasha as my knee jerk reaction however, when I think about it and use logic, Irina wins.
 
MAXSwagg said:
I thought (and still think) Slutskaya's jumps were pretty darn ugly...
Click to expand...

When I look at Irina's body position, I agree, but, when I look at Irina's boots, blades, and the path of her tracings, I disagree.

I think the exact opposite with Cohen. Sasha had perfect neat and tidy air position and good position and flow when landing, but she was known to do three or four flips in an LP.
 
Last edited:
In term of pure skating, Irina was better. Much more solid, better glide, better edges. Her spins were very good, but I didn't like her jumps. They were powerful, but telegraphed for most of them (Flip and Lutz were the worst and the Lutz was questionnable)
But of course, I found Sasha much more pleasant to watch, and her spins were very good too and nice. The jumps, well...no comment
 
20 years later, I still find it kind of unbelievable Irina didn't get 2nd place in the LP ahead of Tara, which would have given her the bronze medal, and more importantly Kwan the gold. (Which would have been well deserved, Taj Mahal is one of the best 5 women's programs ever, and I'm no Kwan uber).

But Irina didn't even get one second place ordinal, so I must be clueless. :p

To answer the original thread question, I feel like they are equals. Irina was far more stronger in jumps, spins, and skating skills. Cohen was far superior in presentation/PCS. Irina was a better competitor and had a longer career and more medals, so she probably wins out overall.
 
alchemy void said:
20 years later, I still find it kind of unbelievable Irina didn't get 2nd place in the LP ahead of Tara, which would have given her the bronze medal, and more importantly Kwan the gold. (Which would have been well deserved, Taj Mahal is one of the best 5 women's programs ever, and I'm no Kwan uber).

But Irina didn't even get one second place ordinal, so I must be clueless. :p

To answer the original thread question, I feel like they are equals. Irina was far more stronger in jumps, spins, and skating skills. Cohen was far superior in presentation/PCS. Irina was a better competitor and had a longer career and more medals, so she probably wins out overall.
Click to expand...

One day I'm going to look at the actual scores from each judge for the top three in the LP at 1997 Worlds to see if it's true that some of the judges boxed themselves in and could not have put Irina in-between Michelle and Tara. I'm not saying that the judges that did that, if any, wanted to put Irina in second in-between Michelle and Tara but I just want to see the scores to see how many made it impossible to do.
 
VIETgrlTerifa said:
One day I'm going to look at the actual scores from each judge for the top three in the LP at 1997 Worlds to see if it's true that some of the judges boxed themselves in and could not have put Irina in-between Michelle and Tara. I'm not saying that the judges that did that, if any, wanted to put Irina in second in-between Michelle and Tara but I just want to see the scores to see how many made it impossible to do.
Click to expand...

It's a slow end of the day at work - I've just looked up the marks for MK, TL, and IS and I think the judges did box themselves in - IS got three first place ordinals (funnily enough from judges who had room to split between MK and TL).

The other six judges had all boxed themselves in - two of them had them with the exact same score and used the presentation score tie breaker to give MK the ordinal and the other four had them one point apart but without the marks left to fit anything in between it seems. :COP:

Whoever says IJS is hard to interpret needs to do what I've just had to do :lol:
 
antmanb said:
It's a slow end of the day at work - I've just looked up the marks for MK, TL, and IS and I think the judges did box themselves in - IS got three first place ordinals (funnily enough from judges who had room to split between MK and TL).
Click to expand...

Thanks for checking.

So those three judges presumably preferred Slutskaya's strengths over either of the Americans'. (And vice versa for those who intentionally put her third.)

The other six judges had all boxed themselves in - two of them had them with the exact same score and used the presentation score tie breaker to give MK the ordinal
Click to expand...

I usually used "the exact same score" to mean that both the technical merit score and the presentation score were identical so there was no way to break the tie and both skaters ended up with the same ordinal from that judge. Which judges weren't supposed to do, though it did happen occasionally, presumably by accident.

Where judges used tiebreakers to distinguish between two skaters while giving the same total score, I would just say "same total score."

and the other four had them one point apart but without the marks left to fit anything in between it seems. :COP:
Click to expand...

Do you have the actual scores handy?
There is, in fact, no way to fit anyone else in between adjacent tiebroken scores like 5.8/5.8 and 5.7/5.9.

If the totals are different, there are usually other scores available to slot someone in between if that is the intention, although they might not reflect the relative strength of tech merit vs. presentation. E.g., between 5.8/5.8 and 5.8/5.9, it would also be possible to slot in 5.7/5.9, 5.6/6.0, 6.0/5.7, 5.9/5.8, in that order with second mark as the tiebreaker in a freeskate.

Whoever says IJS is hard to interpret needs to do what I've just had to do :lol:
Click to expand...

:D
 
gkelly said:
Do you have the actual scores handy?
There is, in fact, no way to fit anyone else in between adjacent tiebroken scores like 5.8/5.8 and 5.7/5.9.

:D
Click to expand...

You're right. Even if you were to do 5.9/5.7 or even 5.6/6.0 or 6.0/5.6 that skater would still only end up either first or third depending on if we're in the SP or LP, so it makes no difference if they do that or just simply but 5.8/5.9.
 
gkelly said:
I usually used "the exact same score" to mean that both the technical merit score and the presentation score were identical so there was no way to break the tie and both skaters ended up with the same ordinal from that judge. Which judges weren't supposed to do, though it did happen occasionally, presumably by accident.

Where judges used tiebreakers to distinguish between two skaters while giving the same total score, I would just say "same total score."
Click to expand...

Thank you! I'm out of practice of using 6.0 terms but I did mean same total score (rather than exact score) using the presentation as tie breaker.

gkelly said:
Do you have the actual scores handy?
There is, in fact, no way to fit anyone else in between adjacent tiebroken scores like 5.8/5.8 and 5.7/5.9.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find a site with the scores so I wrote them down by hand from the end of the youtube videos :lol:

Formatting always seems to go wrong for me when I try and do things so i'll give it a go - tech marks should be the first row, presentation the second - the order of the marks is by judge: FRA, BUL, POL, AUT, HUN, GER, ITA, JPN, SVK

Lipinski
Tech: 5.9, 5.9, 5.8, 5.9, 5.8, 5.9, 5.8, 5.8, 5.8
Pres: 5.8, 5.8, 5.9, 5.8, 5.7, 5.8, 5.8, 5.8, 5.6
Ord: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kwan
Tech: 5.8, 5.8, 5.9, 5.8, 5.7, 5.8, 5.7, 5.6, 5.7
Pres: 5.8, 5.8, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Ord: 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Slutskaya
Tech: 5.8, 5.8, 5.8, 5.9, 5.9, 5.7, 5.8, 5.7, 5.9
Pres: 5.7, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.9, 5.7, 5.7, 5.7, 5.8
Ord: 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1

ETA: the formatting on the ordinals did go wrong but they're in the right order.
 
The eventual ordinals for them are:

TL: 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 3
MK: 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
IS: 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1

For judges who gave 1st ordinals to IS: #4 was boxed in, giving TL 59/58 and MK 58/59. #5 and #9 had room.

#1, 2 and 8 already gave the nod to TL over MK.

#3, 6 and 7 gave MK1, TL2 and IS3. #6 and 7 were boxed in but #3 could have given 2nd to IS.

So, right after IS skated, there were 3 judges (#3, 5, 9) who had room to place IS second. If they all did exactly that, they would change the 6/3 split between TL and IS in favour of TL to in favour of IS, thereby giving Kwan the win "I think". (is this the right system in 1997 - direct comparison? or is it the majority method? I forget, sorry.)
 
Last edited:
Marco said:
So, right after IS skated, there were 3 judges (#3, 5, 9) who had room to place IS second. If they all did exactly that, they would change the 6/3 split between TL and IS in favour of TL to in favour of IS, thereby giving Kwan the win "I think". (is this the right system in 1997 - direct comparison? or is it the majority method? I forget, sorry.)
Click to expand...

1997 was still the majority system. The impetus for developing and switching to OBO came at 1997 Europeans, so it wouldn't have been in place by Worlds that year. I think OBO started with the 98-99 season. However I don't think it makes a difference in this case.

If the final ordinals had been
TL: 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 3
MK: 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1
IS: 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 2
then the results would have remained as they were in real life.

That gives two of IS's 1s to MK, but since those judges already had IS ahead of TL, it didn't help her pull ahead. Only one judge switching from TL2/IS3 to IS2/TL3 changes the 6-3 split to a 5-4 split, but it's still in Lipinski's favor. Slutskaya would have needed to get at least five 1s and 2s and only four 3s to move ahead. And it looks like too many of those who ultimately had her 3rd were already boxed in.

What they could have done, if they really thought she was second best in the freeskate and didn't want to put her third, what judges #6 and #7 could have done was given her the exact same marks (;)) as Lipinski so they would both have 2nd-place ordinals from that judge. Based on the numbers above, if judge #6 thought TL deserved 5.9/5.8 and IS only 5.7/5.7, that judge probably honestly thought Lipinski was better and wouldn't have switched or tied them. For judge #7 with 5.8/5.8 vs. 5.8/5.7, the numbers were closer so tying the skater on that judge's card might make more sense. But who knows for sure what they were really thinking?

If IS had taken both judge #3 and judge #7 away from TL, that would have given IS the 5/4 split for 2nd in her favor.


Incidentally (just as a numerical curiosity, not related to this specific competition), if the ordinals were something like
2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 3
1 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 1
3 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 2
so that three different skaters each have three 1s and three 2s and three 3s, guess what?, they all win the freeskate! :D
And then the short program standings would determine the medals.
 
Thanks gkelly.

Another interesting discussion is of course the short program. Should Vanessa have been ahead of Tara (it was a 4-5 split in Tara's favour). Should Michelle have been ahead of Butyrskaya based on the strength of the program? This is discussed once every one or two off seasons, but I digress. :P
 
Areski said:
Irina - better athlete & with stronger mentality
Sasha - better artist


For me their relative strengths & weaknesses balance each other out so in my book they're equal.
Click to expand...

Irina was a better competitor and has a better competitive record. She was also a better jumper in terms of height and power (but Sasha's jumps were prettier). So my head goes with Irina but my heart goes with Sasha.
 
Irina is a way better jumper which is still the main competitive core of the sport. She also was better in terms of basic skating strength, speed, power, ice coverage, which is the main core of ice skating. Both were very strong spinners, and regardless which is better both were superior to all the other top skaters of the time. Sasha's artistry was more pleasing to the eye, but she was a weaker competitor, although Irina isnt the best competitor either. Overall Irina better.
 
arakwafan2006 said:
While Tarasova did do things to try and mask Sasha's weakness, Sasha had one of the easiest strait line steps of all time, unlike Irina's ability to do the whole damn thing on one foot lol.
Click to expand...

How hard was Irina's one foot sequence actually? It always looked a bit empty and not the deepest pattern, though just great speed and even some acceleration in it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Missing women at the Olympics since 1984
Replies
23
Views
7K
Seerek
S
T
Who are some skaters who tended to excel much more at the Grand Prix final than at Olympics/Worlds
Replies
27
Views
5K
trainingdogs82
T
TAHbKA
Khodorovski's interview with Zhanna Gromova
Replies
1
Views
2K
Bouffantrex
Bouffantrex
TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Pluschenko
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
Amantide
Amantide
TAHbKA
Interview with Kurakova
Replies
6
Views
4K
zigzig
zigzig
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information