Tara Lipinksi's op-ed piece in NYT

J

just tuned in

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,261
Tara Lipinski: It’s Time to Take Risks in the Rink Again https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/opinion/tara-lipinski-risks-figure-skating.html

With her op-ed, Tara joins the chorus of ex-skaters forced out of the sport due to overuse injuries that insist that the “technically difficulty” constantly needs to be upped. Also, it seems that she is taking credit for skaters doing triple-triples, which to me looks petty.

The comments are the best part of the article -- an opportunity for fans of beautiful skating (as opposed to artificially high scores derived from technical calculus) to publicly inform Tara that they prefer Michelle. As a Michelle-uber, I am relishing this.
 
She does have a good point - she and her coach figured that the only way to beat Kwan was to up the technical ante. In any sport the same is true - look at who is winning then figure out how to beat them. The top athletes will always push the limits. I don't know if that means "artificially high scores", because if you can follow the rules and get top scores then go for it.
I do think that top athletes need to begin with better training - Chen and Brown commented they were much stronger after their serious injuries and rehab/training at the Olympic Training Center. That kind of training should come early.
But, most athletes will suffer some kind of injury and some of those are career-ending. You probably know at least one example of a high school athlete who is an example. I don't know the fix for this.
 
I think Kristi Yamaguchi should run seminars for skaters on how to remain injury-free. She skated both pairs and singles, pushing the envelope at the time technically, and never had a serious injury (to my knowledge). She was definitely ahead of her time by doing significant weight training.
 
just tuned in said:
Also, it seems that she is taking credit for skaters doing triple-triples, which to me looks petty.

The comments are the best part of the article -- an opportunity for fans of beautiful skating (as opposed to artificially high scores derived from technical calculus) to publicly inform Tara that they prefer Michelle.
Click to expand...

Talk about petty.
 
flyingsit said:
I think Kristi Yamaguchi should run seminars for skaters on how to remain injury-free. She skated both pairs and singles, pushing the envelope at the time technically, and never had a serious injury (to my knowledge). She was definitely ahead of her time by doing significant weight training.
Click to expand...
They all do weight training. If you go on the USFS web site you will see suggested physical program and a photo of Nathan on the cable machine. I think Kristi was very fortunate that she remained relatively injury free and able to maintain high technical level. Some skaters seem more prone to injury than others.
 
Have you ever published an article in a well-known publication and had a bunch of commenters attack you personally instead of engaging your argument? I have. It hurts. It really, really hurts.

But if you're the kind of person who gets their jollies from seeing people get their feelings hurt in a very public way, then congratulations, I guess.
 
Wyliefan said:
Have you ever published an article in a well-known publication and had a bunch of commenters attack you personally instead of engaging your argument? I have. It hurts. It really, really hurts.
Click to expand...

The commenters in the NYT are engaging her argument and most are doing so respectfully. Her argument is that skaters should take more risks. Can't say I agree.
 
Is Tara still skating? Johnny still stakes in shows. I thought Tara's hip injury ended her skating at a very young age.
 
Whether you like Tara or not, Michelle losing gold is her own fault (or her obsessive father’s fault), and at the end of the day Tara gets the last laugh at the haters because she has the gold medal.
 
Tara won Olympic gold but had serious injury while Michelle won two medals in the Olympics but had a slew of national and world titles without many triple/triples. She had artistry and longevity in the sport. I think I'd rather see more artistry, less risk and less injury.

....also I would have enjoyed seeing both Tara and Sarah in the competitive ranks for a few more years.....I understand why they left but that does not mean I liked their decisions.
 
Last edited:
just tuned in said:
Also, it seems that she is taking credit for skaters doing triple-triples, which to me looks petty.
Click to expand...
:lol: Hardly. A triple-double was just fine in ladies competitions for many years. It wasn't until the Russian wunderkinds Lipnitskaia, Radionova, Pogorilaya circa 2013/4 started doing 3-3s that they became necessary.
 
vesperholly said:
:lol: Hardly. A triple-double was just fine in ladies competitions for many years. It wasn't until the Russian wunderkinds Lipnitskaia, Radionova, Pogorilaya circa 2013/4 started doing 3-3s that they became necessary.
Click to expand...
And now the programs are back-loaded....I think the ladies might be my least favorite discipline this cycle. I will forever want two categories 18 and younger, 19 and older so the youth can back-load their programs and do a lot of spins during the first few minutes knowing that we might get mature, more artistic programs from the older skaters simply because they have experience and a real feel for their programs. argh!
 
I commend Tara for speaking out about how she feels. Perhaps she is attempting to show more gravitas and an understanding of figure skating history, as she and Johnny have been criticized on FSU in the Figure Skating Commentators thread and by TSL (of all critics :drama:) for approaching covering the sport as if they were hosting a video game.

It's smart to write an OpEd when there is more focus on the sport due to the Olympics. I think Tara makes a few good points, but overall it's a simplistic and self-focused argument that does not take into account other complex factors. It is true that USFS shot themselves in the foot by not understanding how the sport was changing under the new judging system. But other factors are involved as well, including the sport's antiquated competitive structure, old-fashioned organization & lame leadership, loss of popular interest in the U.S., which in turn can be attributed to a variety of factors (including loss of ISU television contracts and resuting downsizing of television coverage). Figure skating is much more popular in Asia (Japan in particular) than it is in the U.S., which has shifted the balance of power and country political clout. I think it's largely the overemphasis on country politics and the poor leadership among ISU and feds that is stunting the sport's growth overall.

Decrease in the sport's popularity in the U.S. and the waning competitiveness of U.S. skaters is not due to one set of circumstances, but to a variety of inter-related developments. It's also important to look at all the new choices and options available to young athletes. In both Europe and the U.S., young athletes are simply not entering the sport of figure skating in large numbers. And seriously, why should they? The sport needs to do a lot of soul-searching IMHO, some reassessment, reorganizing, cleaning house, and bringing in people with more vision and fresh thinking, as well as big-pocketed investors who are eager to help grow the sport. And those types of investors won't be interested unless and until they understand the dynamic history of figure skating and what makes the sport special and worth investing in.
 
Cachoo said:
I will forever want two categories 18 and younger, 19 and older so the youth can back-load their programs and do a lot of spins during the first few minutes knowing that we might get mature, more artistic programs from the older skaters simply because they have experience and a real feel for their programs. argh!
Click to expand...

The ISU has adopted the standard "15 by July 1 of the previous year" senior definition in short track and long track speed skating as well as synchronized. Any kind of change with respect to age limits would likely have to be applied to all the disciplines under the responsibility of the ISU.
 
Wyliefan said:
Have you ever published an article in a well-known publication and had a bunch of commenters attack you personally instead of engaging your argument? I have. It hurts. It really, really hurts.

But if you're the kind of person who gets their jollies from seeing people get their feelings hurt in a very public way, then congratulations, I guess.
Click to expand...

I read the article, and while I didn't read all 204 comments, I did read a lot of them. I honestly didn't think they "attacked" Tara personally and I only saw a very few that were at all snarky. Yes, there were some who once again compared her to Michelle with their Olympic skates, but the vast majority of the conversation was respectful and frankly, insightful. The majority also did not agree with Tara, and several posters pointed out the injuries she suffered from repetitive jumping. These were not attacks; just honestly pointing out that she is essentially advocating for young skaters to do more and more difficult jumps. In fact, I though her attitude in the article did at least somewhat come off as "it worked for me, it should work for them." However, she didn't mention the injuries all this overuse caused, and that's frankly more than a bit deceptive on her part IMO. If you're going to advocate for the way you won, then you should also point out what that winning led to later to be completely honest. Her injuries shortened her skating career.

The majority of those who commented seem to lean toward less emphasis on jumping, and especially not giving out big scores to difficult jumps that are not landed. Overall it was a good discussion, and really nothing resembling an attack or trolling on the part of the vast majority of those who commented.
 
Yazmeen said:
In fact, I though her attitude in the article did at least somewhat come off as "it worked for me, it should work for them." However, she didn't mention the injuries all this overuse caused, and that's frankly more than a bit deceptive on her part IMO. If you're going to advocate for the way you won, then you should also point out what that winning led to later to be completely honest. Her injuries shortened her skating career.

The majority of those who commented seem to lean toward less emphasis on jumping, and especially not giving out big scores to difficult jumps that are not landed. Overall it was a good discussion, and really nothing resembling an attack or trolling on the part of the vast majority of those who commented.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Yazmeen said:
I read the article, and while I didn't read all 204 comments, I did read a lot of them. I honestly didn't think they "attacked" Tara personally and I only saw a very few that were at all snarky. Yes, there were some who once again compared her to Michelle with their Olympic skates, but the vast majority of the conversation was respectful and frankly, insightful. The majority also did not agree with Tara, and several posters pointed out the injuries she suffered from repetitive jumping. These were not attacks; just honestly pointing out that she is essentially advocating for young skaters to do more and more difficult jumps. In fact, I though her attitude in the article did at least somewhat come off as "it worked for me, it should work for them." However, she didn't mention the injuries all this overuse caused, and that's frankly more than a bit deceptive on her part IMO. If you're going to advocate for the way you won, then you should also point out what that winning led to later to be completely honest. Her injuries shortened her skating career.

The majority of those who commented seem to lean toward less emphasis on jumping, and especially not giving out big scores to difficult jumps that are not landed. Overall it was a good discussion, and really nothing resembling an attack or trolling on the part of the vast majority of those who commented.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm not able to access the article right now (getting that "you've used up all your articles for the month" message) and I got a very different impression of the comments from what @just tuned in said about it. If I was wrong and that's not what's happening, I'm glad.
 
For better or for worse, USFS has in fact introduced rules to encourage risk taking at juvenile through novice levels with bonuses for double axels, triples, and triple-triples at those levels as long as the jump is not downgraded, regardless of outcome.

But there isn't a comparable bonus at junior and senior levels. I recall that there used to be bonuses at Russian Nationals (and other domestic competitions in Russia) for triple-triples and triple axels, and quads for men. Is that still the case?

Should USFS do something similar at the higher levels?

ISU rules don't include those bonuses. So allowing them to determine results at domestic US events would mean that skaters who can do harder jump content would win more often within the US but wouldn't be doubly rewarded for that harder competition internationally. It would mean that the US ladies who go up against the top international ladies would more often be the skaters with the hardest jumps.

But already we're seeing that in this year's Olympic team.

Will that become even more true as more novices who got bonuses for triple-triples bring those combos in to US senior competition?
 
soogar said:
They all do weight training. If you go on the USFS web site you will see suggested physical program and a photo of Nathan on the cable machine. .
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Nathan didn't really do it until he started to get plagued with injuries. Hanyu was lacking in that department pre-Orser, and commented about how it changed how he felt on ice. There are MANY who I have interviewed in the past who talked about how they learned about off-ice training and how it was a revelation for them. I think that it's getting better, but I would say that it's not a given that all skaters do weight training... or any off-ice at all.
 
I understand Tara’s point but I feel like using herself as an example is not a good example. She had a career ending injury due to the 3/3 Loop at 15. Yes it paid off in the end but that’s not going to happen for everyone. If Michelle had skated like she did at Nationals, she would have won the long program hands down. Tara would have never made it to 2002.
 
I thought Tara's article was well written and she made some good points, especially in regard to US ladies' skating.

But, wow, she sure does have some haters, even after all these years. :(

As for Tara's career ending injury, well... Michelle had one, too. Injuries are part of sports, and, in skating, nasty ones can happen doing doubles or having a freak fall out of a flying camel.
 
just tuned in said:
Tara Lipinski: It’s Time to Take Risks in the Rink Again https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/opinion/tara-lipinski-risks-figure-skating.html

With her op-ed, Tara joins the chorus of ex-skaters forced out of the sport due to overuse injuries that insist that the “technically difficulty” constantly needs to be upped. Also, it seems that she is taking credit for skaters doing triple-triples, which to me looks petty.

The comments are the best part of the article -- an opportunity for fans of beautiful skating (as opposed to artificially high scores derived from technical calculus) to publicly inform Tara that they prefer Michelle. As a Michelle-uber, I am relishing this.
Click to expand...

Does anyone see the irony that if Lipinski were to compete under the current rules, many of her jumps would be called for underrotation and she would likely not be in the mix for a medal? I'm not saying that Michelle, Irina, Chen Lu, and other skaters of that era landed perfect rotated jumps all the time, but Lipinski's were consistently short. (And don't get me started on her wonky double axle.)
 
I think Tara is a little late to the party in pointing this out. If the article had been written by anyone else I doubt the NYT would have decided to publish it.
 
Tara is the best! She just got finished listing all of the mistakes in some poor lady’s sp only to finish it off without missing a beat with “but overall, good for her” :lol: that’s some level 4 snark right there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information