Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by jlai, Mar 27, 2010.
Good suggestion. She might be allergic to bees, hence the spastic arms and hands.
^....and she is probably slightly hunched over in her effort to make herself smaller and thus skate UNDER the swarm! Totally makes sense now.
That was really helpful -- but it reminded me of why I HATE the new definition for what constitutes a step sequence. For the most part, they've lost all the passion and excitement that a great step sequence could add to a program. I can see why Flatt's was the best -- but why did Hecken and Makarova earn the same score? I thought Ksenia's moved a lot better than Sarah's did.
(And boy do I miss some of the powerful step sequences from women in the past, where you'd hear the crowd roar as one would finish.)
For me, the thing that destroys new ones is that skaters get points for hunching over, leaning, and other strange body positions. The 6.0 ones were spectacular when they built speed across the ice. Slute's one foot full length sequences come to mind. Can't do that today as it would leave too many points on the table.
Interesting question (but nothing to do with Rachael's plans, oh well)
Both earned level 3.
Makarova got eight +1s for her step sequence and one +2.
Hecken got eight +1s and one 0.
After trimming the high and low scores, they each end up with all 1s.
Two judges thought there was enough of a difference in Makarova's favor to give a higher GOE for that element (2 vs. 1 or 1 vs. 0). The rest may or may not have seen a difference, but with only a narrow range of GOEs to use for most of the good but not exceptional step sequences, there wasn't much room to reflect that difference. Or did you think either of those sequences should have earned lower than 0 or higher than +2?
But there's another place where moving across the ice well can be rewarded.
Makarova did earn considerably higher component marks. My guess is that the skating skills demonstrated in the step sequence contributed especially to the Skating Skills component. Ditto, perhaps, for the Interpretation.
A point in Hecken's favor that might have helped her earn all those +1s: She put the one-foot section at the end of the sequence. Unlike most skaters who use the one-foot option, she couldn't use speed from preceding power stroking to carry her through the one-foot section. What speed she had there, and it was actually better than the more complicated earlier steps, was all generated by steps within the sequence and by the edge changes and turns within the one-foot section.
The technical demands limit the performative aspect of step sequences.
But it's not like "in the good old days," it was much different.
The majority were nothing special, the minority were outstanding. That is the way things go and that is still so today.
If they were all outstanding, they wouldn't stand out.
Pardon me if I missed the explanation in this thread, but is it true Rachael's whole family is moving to CA with her?
If true, this makes me think she and her forminable mother are quite serious about sticking it out.
Yes, they are moving with her. My understanding is that they are originally from that area of southern California.
Stanford is in NorCal though.
Rachael's parents are moving back to Del Mar (near San Diego) where they used to live many years ago. Rachel will be attending Stanford University (San Francisco area), about 500 miles away. They are hardly "moving together" - they are moving at roughly the same time and will be a 10-hr drive away from each other. Rachel's dad is a high-level manager with a scientific company and is able to live anywhere in the U.S. and fly where he needs to be for work. There is no particular reason for the Flatts to stay in Colorado Springs.
Ok, I didn't know they were moving to different places in California. My knowledge on the geography of California is sorely lacking. I thought Stanford was in southern California. BTW, I was in no way being critical or judging what the Flatts were doing and was just responding to the question posed by TheIronLady.
Don't worry, you aren't the only one. When I moved to California, my mom would call me, worried, every time she heard about anything bad happening anywhere in the entire state! Eventually she learned to distinguish SoCal from NorCal but even then there were a few phone calls that I had me
My younger brother and sister are out in California and every time there's a tremor or heaven forbid an earthquake the whole family calls them to make sure they're okay. And my brother insists he and his wife live no where near a fault line.
Glad stanford doesn't start classes until late September. Gives Rachael a lot of time to get ready for next season.
Does anyone know what the minimum credit load for full time is at Stanford? My school and most of my friends' schools have a 12 credit hour minimum and classes are usually worth 4 credits. Planning a training regime around 3 or even 4 classes doesn't seem an insurmountable challenge.
Depends on the classes. If she pursues chemical engineering and lots of classes with labs, that's one thing. If she does rhetoric and communications, that's another.
Ok, at my school, we have a 12 unit minimum requirement to be considered "full-time," but my advisor insisted that everyone take 16 units (even if there were special circumstances).
My best friend is a ChemE major, and she has 18 units this fall! She has class every day of the week...but most of her time isn't filled with lectures, it's filled with labs. I just counted the total number of hours per week during which she has a class/lab: 23.5. Obviously, that doesn't include things like studying or work, and Stanford is on the quarter system, which is even FASTER than the semester system my friend and I are on.
Stanford requires 180 units to graduate, and since 12 quarters=4 years, she would need to have 5 classes/quarter if each class is worth 3 units, or 3 classes/quarter if each is worth 5 units.
Just looking at my friend's schedule alone (since I'm not a hard science major, mine is no comparison. I actually have a pretty awesome schedule), Rachael's got her work cut out for her.
I think students who are athletes do very well with busy schedules. My daughter had learned how to handle being busy by being an international test medalist in skating while still doing 3 varsity school sports and 7 APs. She stopped skating, but went on to do a double major in Economics and French at a top tier school and played a varsity sport for four years, four hours per day plus travel for matches, which fortunately were usually on weekends. She also had a lovely social life with both girlfriends and boys. She also tutored inner city kids and football players. The most challenging year was senior, doing job interviewing in the fall semester, where she was being flown or taking the train here and there and missing classes. I almost had a nervous breakdown for her. But she not only handled all this, she got offers as well, and she had a very nice resume, employers love kids who can handle busy lives. And it is all about the end result, doing well in life, isn't it?
For Rachael, a further complication might be international travel, but she is mature enough to discuss same with her professors and to rearrange tests or paper deadlines if needed.
Debbie Thomas went all the way through college (with all of those science labs) and (immediately?) off to med school while still competing at the highest levels. Now that's a student. Or maybe she took a year off to cram for the med boards, some do.
We have yet to see if Rachael will compete this or any of the next four years (or five or six if she waters down her schedule, there's no penalty in that). She might even go to school in summer to fit in labs, that's common, and she could still skate then too. Hopefully, she will also be able to fit in summer employment. Or maybe she will get to school and say about skating, I have done enough, I have done my best, and she might quit and become the best engineer or doctor. I think a lot of what will happen will be off the cuff, not planned. And lucky her for having the skills and brains to figure it all out.
I am sure Rachael will be fine.
Thank you Lacey.
But will we be fine?
Debbie took a brief respite from her studies at Stanford in 1988 to prepare for the Olympics and graduated from Stanford with a degree in engineering in 1991.