1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

New Phil Hersh Article

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by missflick, May 10, 2010.

  1. jlai

    jlai Title-less

    Not so long ago, 4CC was the event many top skaters wanna skip. In fact, many Olympic-bound skaters did skip it this year, so whether a 4CC medal is Tier-one worthy to fans varies from year to year depending on who shows.

    Having seen what happened to Czisny and Meissner in the year they made the gpf I can see why GPs matter less. These are cometitions where placments depend on which skaters you compete against. Remember 2006 where Meissner placed like 5th while skating lights out in a gp? And Czisny placing 2nd at Skate Canda this year despite that lp?

    Nagasu looks promising but criteria have long favored winners or at least medalists. Which is fair if you look at USFSA's goals in iternational competitions. Once you take nationals out, the funding for doing well in international comps actually commensurates with the importance of these competitoins in general.

    The only thing in question is favoring their national champions in their tiers. The thing is that nationals is a USFSA tradition, andyou can't change the funding criteria without changing the meaning of nationals.

    As long as nationals is the one big comp where skaters are chosen to goto worlds, I can see why being national champs are a big deal.

    Anyway the difference in Nagasu's tier and Flatt's tier is only a few thousand and both skaters get endorsements.
  2. Marco

    Marco Well-Known Member

    It's so silly to heavily favour Nationals given how ridiculously political the judging has been since 2007.
  3. overedge

    overedge Janny uber

    Competing at Olympics and Worlds and placing in the top 10 at both is going "downhill"? I don't think so.
  4. RD

    RD Well-Known Member

    I think the judging was ok up to 2008. In 2009 things began to get suspect, and this year unfortunately was no different...hmm.

    Possibly the Cop has made things more transparent? Maybe it was always like this.
  5. jlai

    jlai Title-less

    My impression is that's what the athletes want and unless the naysayers become members and start getting active I don't see that changed.
  6. The Fly On The Wall

    The Fly On The Wall Active Member

    Didn't Phil go back & forth with respect/disrespect toward Kwan?
  7. geod2

    geod2 New Member

    Not to belabor the point, but here are actual comments from the 2010 Worlds Ladies LP thread that were made during or right after Rachel's performance:


    "Wow, Flatt actually pops a jump. Shocking."

    "Flatt singled a jump-must be nerves or tired"

    "Flatt is actually appalling!

    "Ur on first flip, single lutz, no 3/3 no speed, no TR's, no charisma....etc etc."

    "What has happened to Rachael's consistency? I really don't see her getting better than she is, and I almost wish she'd just go on to college. She's had a great run at skating. It's not going to be her future and she should move on."

    "WTF? Rachael popped a jump! When has that EVER happened?"

    "I fear this might be the swan song for Flatt. Her skating seems to be on the decline."

    "Rachael seems to have lost her confidence or mojo or something."

    "Oh dear. Rather muted applause. Not what I expected from Flatt."

    "Still can't believe Ms. Consistency's skate. I wonder if she was still bothered about the downgrades from the O's?"

    "Not what was expected from Rachael...too bad."

    Rather than any desire to attack Rachel, Phil's "downhill" comment was based on the evidence (that FSUers saw too) that Rachel peaked at Nationals and to an increasing degree did not quite skate up to her own standards after that....therefore downhill compared to what we saw at Nationals. Protocols would seem to confirm it.
    Maybe the phrase "not as well after she peaked at Nationals" would be less offensive than "downhill'.

    Last edited: May 13, 2010
  8. Jaana

    Jaana Well-Known Member

    Yes, it was downhill, in my opinion. Besides Nagasu got a better result both in Olympics and Worlds.
    geod2 and (deleted member) like this.
  9. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    Let's think about some other situations when you hear something like, "If your international results aren't better next season than they were in 2010, think long and hard about what you might gain and what you may lose by continuing" -- is that what you say to someone who had a really good season this past year? Or is that what you say to someone who actually did badly this year - Ryan Bradley, perhaps, or Sasha Cohen.

    Is that what Phil would have said to Mirai last year after a pretty poor season? How 'bout Zhang? Was there something Rachael could have done to have better results at the Olympics? (Other than be in the skate order after Rochette so that the judges could be sure that Rochette had earned a medal?) Jeremy Abbott has gone to Worlds and had very weak results two years in a row.

    He could have just focused on the argument that Mirai deserves top level funding, and I'd agree with him. His reply on his column seems to indicate that this is what he was trying to say, but the reference to Flatt is an unfair swipe at a skater who had a really strong season. Abbott, who finished 9th at the Olympics, and 6th at a Worlds with a much depleted entry field, following two other years when he hasn't had stellar Worlds results might have been someone to point the finger at when asking why Nagasu didn't get the highest level funding; Flatt wasn't.
  10. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    Agree with everything, including the last sentence. :p
  11. jlai

    jlai Title-less

    The "Look at what other skaters got" argument is what I have an issue with Hersh about.

    He said he has an issue with criteria--fine. Then tell us what is wrong with them--which criterion is wrong and how wrong it is? Then he can cite examples. Is it that nationals was weighed too heavily, or that the highest-ranked skater at worlds should get top tier funding? He never addressed any of this.

    Instead he wrapped his argument around the "why didn't Mirai get more funding than Skater x-y-z" line of reasoning, which is weak and doesn't translate into solid arguments against any criterion. Nor did it help fix what he thinks needs fixing.
  12. tarotx

    tarotx Well-Known Member

    If USFSA wants to do all their funding by National results that is their prerogative. They choose a little of it and a lot about major international competition. Which ended by being not as good for Phill Hersh's (and my) top lady. I personally think Mirai and Rachael had a very similar season and should be in the same tier but pre year rules state otherwise. Rather we think Rachael should be national champion or not she is. The USFSA was harsh on Mirai's triples at nationals and I think that's a good thing because she has the potential to be a great so force to her to be. The Olympics was a fluke event concerning downgrade calls.

    The USFSA could say the top 2 or 3 at nationals are in the top tier of funding (which would have placed Mirai in the top tier) but what if all 3 national medalist are too young for Worlds and the 4th or 5th US lady ends up winning worlds? I personally think they should just say the top 2 or 3 at nationals are in the top tier without qualifiers. They could say anyone top 3 at nationals, worlds and Olympics are top tier. There has to be some cutting off point because money is not unlimited. If someone bombs at nationals but was great at last years nationals or won the GPF or medaled at 4cc's then the lower tiers can be from that plus national results. But the rules are the rules set before the season.

    Rachael shouldn't have been bought into this conversation. If this was any previous season the national champion automatically got top funding because they won nationals. It was the top US Event and was place as a priority. It still should be in my book because this is USFSA funding after all.

    I do think Sasha shouldn't have funding because she didn't have any other national or international event this quad.
  13. Dilng

    Dilng Well-Known Member

    :lol: :lol: The judging has always been ridiculously political!!
  14. overedge

    overedge Janny uber

    Not to belabor the point further, but I really don't care what FSU's opinion was. We're talking about Hersh's comments and opinions.
    If Rachael didn't skate up to her own standards, I'd like to hear Rachael say that.
  15. Iceman

    Iceman Well-Known Member

    Well, Phil, if you feel so strongly about it, why not make up the difference?---it's only a few thousand dollars. lol
  16. museksk8r

    museksk8r Holding an edge and looking dangerously sexy

    You think Rachael and her under-rotated jumps were better than Joannie? REALLY??? :confused: x a million
    If anything, Flatt was over-marked in the Olympic SP and should never have been in that final LP group, IMO.

    Also, what do Rachael's results have to do with how Jeremy performed at Olympics and Worlds? :confused: x a million
    You say he wasn't taking any kind of course load as if he had no obstacles to deal with this season, but I'd say switching to a brand new coach, using a new choreographer for both his SP and LP, and moving out on his own for the first time in a new, big city that is about 1160 miles from home to be a challenge in itself. Flatt's results certainly aren't any better than Abbott's this season. Sure, they both would have liked to have done better at Olympics and Worlds, but their seasons weren't a complete bust.
    Last edited: May 14, 2010
    flutzilla1 and (deleted member) like this.
  17. flutzilla1

    flutzilla1 Forever Ogling Ingo

    PeterG and (deleted member) like this.
  18. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    That's not what I said. Joannie has tremendous jumps, and there are quite often several where I wish she'd get +2s.. But there was a whole lot of sympathy for what she was going through at the Olympics, and I happen to believe that Rachael suddenly getting underrotation calls in the LP had more to do with sympathy for Joannie than Rachael's skating that night. Rochette still delivered enough to solidly win the bronze medal, but since Rachael skated before Joannie the caller couldn't know that. As it was, Joannie's LP was marred by several landing issues. I think that there was a real attempt to ensure that even if she took a tumble that she'd still leave with a medal.

    I was suggesting that if Hersh has a bone to pick with someone whose results ought to cause a skater to reconsider continuing on after next year that Abbott was a more appropriate target than Flatt. He's the two-time US champion who still hasn't managed to bring it to either Worlds or the Olympics, overshadowed both times by stellar performances from the skater who didn't win a Nationals. But you don't see Hersh using Abbott in the comparison -- instead he picks on Flatt, who has been the most consistent ladies skater the US has had in the past three years.

    Personally I'm not a fan of suggesting that any skater should leave -- as long as they want to skate, skate. But the comment was one Phil made, and that's what I was responding to.
  19. jlai

    jlai Title-less

    :confused: Rachael got a little lucky with the short, despite slightly underrotating. I actually thought the judges "made it up" by dinging her in the free.

    Joannie rocked the short on home ice and at that point, it was her medal to lose.

    Because he's already picked on Abbott recently and it's now Rachael's turn?
    Last edited: May 14, 2010
  20. museksk8r

    museksk8r Holding an edge and looking dangerously sexy

    Still :confused:. For me, comparing Joannie and Rachael, every aspect of Rochette's skating is better to me than Flatt's skating, so yes, to me and I believe to the judges as well, JoRo would have to skate a meltdown to lose to Rachael. On the contrary, Rochette skated the SP of her life at the Olympics only rivaled IMO by her SP at the 2008 4CC where she landed the 3flip+3toe, which was DG'ed by the tech panel. Flatt, on the other hand, was clearly struggling to land her jumps in the Olympic SP. The tech panel was VERY generous to not DG her 3Lutz attempt. Let's not forget, Rochette rotated 7 triples in her LP, and the only mistakes were a step-out of her 3flip and a slight turn-out of her 2Axel. She skated a GREAT LP considering all the pressure she was under!
  21. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    Didn't Phil go back and forth, respecting/disrespecting Sasha, also? As a matter of fact, are there any skaters who Phil has not gone back and forth, respecting and disrespecting?
  22. bek

    bek Guest

    The thing is that in the end the USFSA really has to set a criteria before the season starts and sticks with it. Because if everything is "case by case" basis that can really open up a huge can of worms. If an exception is made for Mirai, what about Evora and her partner who beat Denny/Barrett at the Olympics (and finished pretty close to them at worlds even if behind. Can we truly say Denny/Barrett are really on "another tier")
  23. The Fly On The Wall

    The Fly On The Wall Active Member

    So why are we all getting so worked up about this article then? If Mirai loses a competition or two next year, he'll be right back to telling her to move on.
  24. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    I think Phil understands very well what attracts readership and that's controversy. He knew Kwan had a loyal fan base and anything he said about her, especially anything negative would attract attention and bring on those clicks on his article. Same goes for Cohen.

    It is now the off season and quiet but he still manages to stir things up and get us to read. Kudos, I guess.

    Anyway, I happen to agree with him on occasion and this is one of them, at least partially.
  25. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    Both of Flatt's flips were downgraded; the judges gave her +.60 GOE on the 3/3 and -.06 GOE on the 3/2/2. They gave her 0 on the 3Lz and Change Foot Upright Spin, and +GOE on the other eight elements. I don't see much Rachael hate from the judges.

    I just watched the iTunes/NBC coverage of the Ladies FS today for the first time. (Karademir, Pfaneuf, Lee, Gedevanishvili, and the final group.) Bezic and Hamilton noted how strict the caller was before the final group began. After Flatt's performance, they also called her Olympic FS the best performance of her season and the skate of a lifetime at the Olympics. I know this was Bezic and Hamilton, but even taking it down about three notches, she looked better to me here as she had at Nationals, but I rarely see under-rotations real-time.

    It came down to the technical team for Flatt: Technical Specialist, Myriam Loriol-Oberwiler (Switzerland), Technical Controller Alexander Lakernik (Russia), and Assistant Technical Specialist Zuzana Zackova (Slovakia).

    According to the rules and the judgment of the technical panel, Flatt finished behind Nagasu. But it wasn't as if she went out and bombed at the Olympics, and she didn't fall out of top 10 in the FS after being in medal contention at Worlds.