Are Virtue & Moir now the ice dancing GOATs?

[savchenkoboss]

I just want to say that Michelle Kwan in Nagano held it together better than some Olympic Champions that came before her.

Which ones? I can only think of Poetzch maybe since she blew the short and was lucky she wasn't even more harshly hit for it. Witt and Bauil pretty much skated their own best skates to win their golds whether you think they deserved them over their top rival or not. Neither have the technical difficulty of Kwan but I look at how they skated relative to what they could do and in that they aced it. Kristi had 1 small mistake (hand down on triple loop) but did her hardest triple-triple which she rarely pulled out, and skated with so much speed and attack of her difficult program that night, so I probably wouldn't say her. Hamill also skated her best ever short and longs to win.

 

[MAXSwagg]

I just want to say that Michelle Kwan in Nagano held it together better than some Olympic Champions that came before her or even in the same Olympics or some after in different disciplines with IJS allowing some champs to gain a big lead after the SP so they could afford to lose the LP and still win gold. To me saying Kwan didn't hold it together in Nagano is like saying Kim didn't hold it together in Sochi.

It does not matter what she did there compared to others before and after her. She held it together, yes, but was comfortable enough to not think she could lose when Tara was doing TWO triple-triple combinations, including an extraordinarily difficult 3Lo+3Lo. Why she did not do 3T+3T is beyond me and it is her fault she lost (even though I maybe would have had her winning, barely).

 

[VGThuy]

Holding it together means doing what you planned to do and performing cleanly. It's not the same as skating well enough to not be outperformed once. Like I said, if two judges went her way, then nobody would say she didn't hold it together. Had V/M lost Pyeongchang by tenths or hundredths of a point (which almost happened) how can we say they didn't hold it together since they performed those programs as well as they could. How can you say Arakawa held it together when she did not perform up to her own standards but was able to win gold anyway? Yuzu fell twice in Sochi and lost the LP in Pyeongchang by about nine points, but you use those performances as examples of holding it together. The only difference is that they won gold. But the actual performance determines if a skater actually held it together v. doing enough to secure gold based on how everyone else skated.

 

[savchenkoboss]

It does not matter what she did there compared to others before and after her. She held it together, yes, but was comfortable enough to not think she could lose when Tara was doing TWO triple-triple combinations, including an extraordinarily difficult 3Lo+3Lo. Why she did not do 3T+3T is beyond me and it is her fault she lost (even though I maybe would have had her winning, barely).

She could not do the triple toe-triple toe due to her toe injury. She was fully planning to otherwise. What hurt her I think was skating much slower than Nationals and Skate America and with less overall, abandon. Much less hard jump combinations than Tara hurt her too but I think she could still have won if she attacked like normal.

 

[Icetigger]

I get the holding it together under that pressure argument, but it can also be used oppositionally- that the Os were all V/M really cared about or they needed the Os to skate their best; and that their skating lacked natural innate enjoyment, and needed the context of what they perceive to be the highest level of competition. and was always just a means to an end. The fact that one way that evidence can be used is being considered but its oppositional use is not is to me just part of the hype of the Olympics, where people are justifying a held belief by not considering the other side of the coin.

 

[MsZem]

I get the holding it together under that pressure argument, but it can also be used oppositionally- that the Os were all V/M really cared about or they needed the Os to skate their best; and that their skating lacked natural innate enjoyment, and needed the context of what they perceive to be the highest level of competition. and was always just a means to an end.

I saw V/M live only once, at 2009 TEB. Their skating did not lack innate enjoyment, they weren't just going through the motions. They were really, really good and clearly into the performance.

As I wrote earlier, I find the GOAT concept silly and wouldn't apply it to V/M, and I think some of their fans go too far. But there's no reason to take a devil's advocate argument this far, either.

 

[savchenkoboss]

I do think the Olympics are most important and they probably were the most successful in them. Still V&M being less successful than other greats at both the 2nd and 3rd biggest events (Worlds and GPF) weighs against them for me. For me personally it is hard for me to call a team with less GPF titles than Weaver/Poje, 1/5 the GPF titles of Davis/White AND never defended a world title successfully even though they managed a good 3 total as the GOAT. You could even add the 4th biggest in 4CCs/Europeans as a place they fall well down from some of the other best in history considering that not even competing annually they lost to D&W atleast a couple times there in their primes.

They were also far from the most dominant, winning nothing the 2007-2010 quad until the final year, losing most of their meetings to D&W in the 2011-2014, and being most dominant but still having a losing record in the free dance portion to P&C in the 40% of the 2015-2018 quad they did. This even in an era that is generaly considered one of the weakest and least competitive in history with by far the weakest ever ex Soviet teams, and little depth or few truly strong teams from Europe overall, although stronger than ever U.S competition.

Given all that the highest I could put them personally is 3rd behind T&D and atleast 1 of the Soviet greats. Although I respect those who feel differently.

 

[Deleted member 74551]

Is it possible to claim that a team that came back after having already won two individual Olympic medals and taken a two year hiatus might not have a natural innate joy of skating just because they perform their best on the biggest stage? It’s a criticism of them I can understand in 2014, when I often felt they got too in their heads about defending and the D/W rivalry, but less so after their decision to do it all again. They seemed thrilled to be back training before they’d even won Autumn Classic. It seems to me that it’s an argument that’s hard to defend because we’re not in their heads, and whether you find their skating enjoyable is different to whether they got enjoyment from what they do.

 

[briancoogaert]

It does not matter what she did there compared to others before and after her. She held it together, yes, but was comfortable enough to not think she could lose when Tara was doing TWO triple-triple combinations, including an extraordinarily difficult 3Lo+3Lo. Why she did not do 3T+3T is beyond me and it is her fault she lost (even though I maybe would have had her winning, barely).

Michelle was injured prior to Nationals (a stress fracture on a leg). So she was in pain with the 3Toe. That's why she changed her first 3T into a 3Loop in the LP.
In the end, she had the exact same set of jumps as Tara : two Lutzes, two Loops, and one Flip, Toe, Salchow.

 

[Icetigger]

Is it possible to claim that a team that came back after having already won two individual Olympic medals and taken a two year hiatus might not have a natural innate joy of skating just because they perform their best on the biggest stage? It’s a criticism of them I can understand in 2014, when I often felt they got too in their heads about defending and the D/W rivalry, but less so after their decision to do it all again. They seemed thrilled to be back training before they’d even won Autumn Classic. It seems to me that it’s an argument that’s hard to defend because we’re not in their heads, and whether you find their skating enjoyable is different to whether they got enjoyment from what they do.

The point would remain however that they they brought their best at the Olympics and not at other events- that it was a particular competitive environment that brought out the best in them, and that skating without that environment didn't bring out their best; and that skating for them was a means to an end rather than a end in itself (which is something that is backed up by a lot of material from their interviews). Besides which, I'm not really using this point (among others) to argue against them being G.O.A.T, just to illustrate the point that they held it together at the Olympics can be used both for and against being the G..O.A.T, and that fact people are using it for, but not considering the against version is bias.

 

[Twilight1]

I just don't get this. If a bus comes along once an hour rather than once every quarter of an hour is it a magic bus? It's just a world field senior competition. That the Olympics are this magical competition is a load of hype not based on any objective criteria; and promulgated by people like Phil Hersh and Christine Brennan and the whole Olympic industry to justify a three week long jolly and related business opportunities.

The Olympic gold medal is what people aspire to. It comes once every 4 years. Talk to any athlete and they speak about how magical it is to be there.

They do compilation of greatest programs more often FROM the Olympics.

It really is not hard to grasp why it is is a super big deal IMO and frankly given the tidal wave this board gets every 4 years... surprised you even asked...

 

[Icetigger]

I saw V/M live only once, at 2009 TEB. Their skating did not lack innate enjoyment, they weren't just going through the motions. They were really, really good and clearly into the performance.

As I wrote earlier, I find the GOAT concept silly and wouldn't apply it to V/M, and I think some of their fans go too far. But there's no reason to take a devil's advocate argument this far, either.

This isn't a devil's advocate argument: it's showing that an oppositional argument can be taken based on the same evidence if one so chooses (and neither the original or the oppositional point is particularly valid). A point is actually being made about the already made point by presenting an oppositional point, whereas devil's advocacy is where oppositional points are made just for the sake of debate (or to exhaust opposition, in order to re-inforce belief in the original point)

Also 2009 is a long long time ago.

 

[MsZem]

This isn't a devil's advocate argument: it's showing that an oppositional argument can be taken based on the same evidence if one so chooses. A point is actually being made about the already made by presenting an oppositional point, whereas devil's advocacy is where oppositional points are made just for the sake of debate.

Also 2009 is a long long time ago.

I can hardly tell if you seriously believe that V/M needed the Olympics to perform their best or whether you're arguing for the sake of debate. Either way, I strongly disagree with this suggestion, and disagree that only recent observations can refute it. Unless you want to amend your oppositional point and qualify that it only applies since they made their comeback or whatever.

Being able to hold it under pressure does not imply that not being able to do so unless there is pressure.

 

[Icetigger]

I can hardly tell if you seriously believe that V/M needed the Olympics to perform their best or whether you're arguing for the sake of debate. Either way, I strongly disagree with this suggestion, and disagree that only recent observations can refute it. Unless you want to amend your oppositional point and qualify that it only applies since they made their comeback or whatever.

Being able to hold it under pressure does not imply that not being able to do so unless there is pressure.

You are not of a level to understand the point that I am making; and I can't be bothered having to explain it to you again.

 

[skategal]

I can hardly tell if you seriously believe that V/M needed the Olympics to perform their best or whether you're arguing for the sake of debate. Either way, I strongly disagree with this suggestion, and disagree that only recent observations can refute it. Unless you want to amend your oppositional point and qualify that it only applies since they made their comeback or whatever.

Being able to hold it under pressure does not imply that not being able to do so unless there is pressure.

Yes besides the obvious point that a skater can hold things together just fine in competition and still be outskated for the gold. We have seen this many times.

Under that poster's logic, P/C didn't hold it together in PyongChang. I think we would all argue otherwise.

 

[MsZem]

Oh no, someone has blocked me. How will I go on?

Yes besides the obvious point that a skater can hold things together just fine in competition and still be outskated for the gold. We have seen this many times.

Under that poster's logic, P/C didn't hold it together in PyongChang. I think we would all argue otherwise.

And of course, sometimes nobody skates well, and the least train-wreckish performance wins. Like the men's event in Sochi, where I'm not sure anyone deserved a medal and I'd much rather have given extra ones to the ladies (and one to Mao Asada for being amazing).

 

[Icetigger]

Yes besides the obvious point that a skater can hold things together just fine in competition and still be outskated for the gold. We have seen this many times.

Under that poster's logic, P/C didn't hold it together in PyongChang. I think we would all argue otherwise.

Can't be bothered...........

 

[VGThuy]

Who said V/M didn't bring their best in other events? Every team who is up for GOAT has had bad performances with the great. Torvill/Dean obviously always brought it during 1981-1984, but ice dance was different then and they did a lot less competitions and their schedules weren't as jam-packed as it is now. Different era to make comparisons difficult.

 

[Icetigger]

Who said V/M didn't bring their best in other events? Every team who is up for GOAT has had bad performances with the great. Torvill/Dean obviously always brought it during 1981-1984, but ice dance was different then and they did a lot less competitions and their schedules weren't as jam-packed as it is now. Different era to make comparisons difficult.

I'm not following you down a rabbit hole either.

 

[VGThuy]

I'm not following you down a rabbit hole either.

I'm not understanding what your argument is really about but I was able to ascertain that you were saying a team can't be considered GOAT if they only brought their best at the Olympics with pressure and that they don't skate as well without that said pressure. I have a feeling the posters who had responded to you previously were also trying to understand the point you were making or were making counter arguments from what they thought they understood. I was merely arguing that nobody said V/M only brought their best at the Olympics, which is what your whole argument seems to be based.

 

[Icetigger]

I'm not understanding what your argument is really about but I was able to ascertain that you were saying a team can't be considered GOAT if they only brought their best at the Olympics with pressure and that they don't skate as well without that said pressure. I have a feeling the posters who had responded to you previously were also trying to understand the point you were making or were making counter arguments from what they thought they understood. I was merely arguing that nobody said V/M only brought their best at the Olympics, which is what your whole argument seems to be based.

no, none of this was the point I was making. I wasn't making any point with regard to V/M or they're being considered G.O.A.T's. I was making a point that an argument that a win at the Olympics (any win) was worth more than win against the same field elsewhere because of the additional pressure, without considering reasons why a win at the Olympic under additional pressure might not have that additional gravitas, was an instance of unconscious bias (by which I mean bias in terms of their thinking about the Olympics). I then used V/M as an example as to what that argument might be, but certainly wasn't personally using that example to make a point regarding them as G.O.A.T.

I then explained this twice

I'm not really using this point (among others) to argue against them being G.O.A.T, just to illustrate the point that they held it together at the Olympics can be used both for and against being the G..O.A.T, and that fact people using it for, but not considering the against version is bias.

This isn't a devil's advocate argument: it's showing that an oppositional argument can be taken based on the same evidence if one so chooses (and neither the original or the oppositional point is particularly valid)

I'm not going to explain myself a third time to people who can only think in term of "this team is better than that team"; and don't understand that circumstantialist evidence in the case of any team (whether V/M or T/D) that can be used to bolster both for and against arguments is not something that is valid. There's no point.

 

[skategal]

My point is that V/M gave some outstanding "balls-to-the-walls" performances and still got nipped at the wire for the Gold by D/W.

GPF 2013 comes to mind and does Sochi 2014. That's the way sport is.

The only performances I can even remember at Worlds from V/M that wasn't "balls-to-the walls" was the year they skated the "Pink Floyd" LP and were hampered by Tessa's injury.

 

[VGThuy]

no, none of this was the point I was making. I wasn't making any point with regard to V/M or they're being considered G.O.A.T's. I was making a point that an argument that a win at the Olympics (any win) was worth more than win against the same field elsewhere because of the additional pressure, without considering reasons why a win at the Olympic under additional pressure might not have that additional gravitas, was an instance of unconscious bias (by which I mean bias in terms of their thinking about the Olympics). I then used V/M as an example as to what that argument might be, but certainly wasn't personally using that example to make a point regarding them as G.O.A.T.

I then explained this twice




I'm not going to explain myself a third time to people who can only think in term of "this team is better than that team"; and don't understand that circumstantialist evidence in the case of any team (whether V/M or T/D) that can be used to bolster both for and against arguments is not something that is valid. There's no point.

After re-reading your posts, the problem is that your first post didn't directly quote the posters who were saying the Olympics mattered more than any other competition because "handling the pressure" was an important consideration to determine whether a competition is important. So people didn't quite follow what you were following. Then you decided to use V/M as an example to make your point. People didn't know you just used them hypothetically and didn't intend to actually intend to use V/M as an actual example. However, examples only work if they make sense so people thought you were saying V/M didn't have inherent joy or whatever and only performed well under Olympic pressure. You then double-downed on that by talking about V/M some more.

Here:

The point would remain however that they they brought their best at the Olympics and not at other events- that it was a particular competitive environment that brought out the best in them, and that skating without that environment didn't bring out their best; and that skating for them was a means to an end rather than a end in itself (which is something that is backed up by a lot of material from their interviews).

and

Also 2009 is a long long time ago.

I think the confusion from multiple posters is understandable because of the way the whole conversation started.

So now that you explained yourself a bit more, you're just saying that one can take the whole Olympic pressure thing and turn it around to argue that some skaters needed that Olympic pressure to perform well and with that extra gravitas...so them being able to "handle the pressure" isn't really a feat since it may have actually given them an advantage and energized them and gave them that extra push and focus to skate in a way they would not have been able to skate otherwise...so it was like an extra tool that they got so it should not be considered some sort of real achievement.

 

[sap5]

For me, V/M belong in the class of GOATs because of their sustained excellence over time, and as the sport changed. They won everything as both juniors and seniors; they won in both the CD/OD/FD format and the SD/FD formats; they won at their first Olympics against veterans, and they won at their last Olympics as the veterans. They won when the Canton style was in vogue, and they won when the Gadbois style was in vogue. To win in all of these circumstances requires a level of mental and physical adaptability that is really remarkable.

So now that you explained yourself a bit more, you're just saying that one can take the whole Olympic pressure thing and turn it around to argue that some skaters needed that Olympic pressure to perform well and with that extra gravitas...so them being able to "handle the pressure" isn't really a feat since it may have actually given them an advantage and energized them and gave them that extra push and focus to skate in a way they would not have been able to skate otherwise...so it was like an extra tool that they got so it should not be considered some sort of real achievement.

If that's the argument, it's certainly a unique one.

 

[Icetigger]

After re-reading your posts, the problem is that your first post didn't directly quote the posters who were saying the Olympics mattered more than any other competition because "handling the pressure" was an important consideration to determine whether a competition is important. So people didn't quite follow what you were following. Then you decided to use V/M as an example to make your point. People didn't know you just used them hypothetically and didn't intend to actually intend to use V/M as an actual example. However, examples only work if they make sense so people thought you were saying V/M didn't have inherent joy or whatever and only performed well under Olympic pressure. You then double-downed on that by talking about V/M some more.

Here:



and




I think the confusion from multiple posters is understandable because of the way the whole conversation started.

So now that you explained yourself a bit more, you're just saying that one can take the whole Olympic pressure thing and turn it around to argue that some skaters needed that Olympic pressure to perform well and with that extra gravitas...so them being able to "handle the pressure" isn't really a feat since it may have actually given them an advantage and energized them and gave them that extra push and focus to skate in a way they would not have been able to skate otherwise...so it was like an extra tool that they got so it should not be considered some sort of real achievement.

From the start i made clear it as a response to a previous argument; and that I was responding with an argument that could be made........

I get the holding it together under that pressure argument, but it can also be used oppositionally

I then clarified this twice.

The point isn't really about ice skating or anyone that figure skates. It's that if you can take a piece of evidence and argue a case both for and against from just that piece of evidence, and you are only highlighting one, that's likely because of unconscious bias; and that if you consider both the for and against case, you'll most likely come to the conclusion that neither really holds any weight because, with both, the opposite is as equally valid/invalid (if you look at them both without bias or agenda). It's more a statement about dialectics than figure skating....

Going down either rabbit hole to discuss with the case for or against in this case is a fool's errand. But no doubt the poster next to post after me will be happy to go that way......

 

[skategal]

If that's the argument, it's certainly a unique one.

Yeah, under that criteria it would be impossible to determine who a GOAT would be.

This would be the only sport in history to not count achievements in Olympics and/or under pressure as counting towards greatness.

 

[dramagrrl]

You are not of a level to understand the point that I am making; and I can't be bothered having to explain it to you again.

(yet again at the hilarity of some posters and the stretch of their "arguments").

I have a feeling that if P/C win the Olympics in four years, suddenly the importance of the Olympics in determining GOAT status will increase significantly in some posters' opinions.

 

[skategal]

(yet again at the hilarity of some posters and the stretch of their "arguments").

I have a feeling that if P/C win the Olympics in four years, suddenly the importance of the Olympics in determining GOAT status will increase significantly in some posters' opinions.

Especially if they win in 2022 and 2026.

 

[sap5]

I suppose someone could argue that, say, a tennis player is not a GOAT if they only win Grand Slam tournaments but not lesser ones, but I'd be interested to see how many people would actually be persuaded by this argument.

 

[savchenkoboss]

I suppose someone could argue that, say, a tennis player is not a GOAT if they only win Grand Slam tournaments but not lesser ones, but I'd be interested to see how many people would actually be persuaded by this argument.

I think if a player never wins the WTF for instance (the next biggest tournament after slams) it would be hard to argue them as GOAT. For instance I am not sure Nadal will be rated GOAT over Federer even if he catches him at 20 slams or passes him with 21, if he doesn't win the WTF (still elusive) atleast once. The Worlds would be like the WTF of figure skating, the GPF something like the Miami tournament or Olympics in tennis.

For that matter Nadal has never won Miami, the biggest Masters, another reason it would be hard for him to be fully recognized as GOAT over Fed even with 20 or 21 majors. V&M have of course won the GPF (Miami figure skating equivalent) but only a mere once, which is also a point against them.