Ashley Wagner dis-owned her parents, or something to that effect...WTF?

Anonymous wrote:Ashley Wagner comes across as a bit mental.

She just doesn't have "it"...an individual doesn't watch her skate and get that ewww..ahhh feeling. ..it's just flat. However, her attitude really needs work. Pick some classier music...smile more...and work on grace and highlight your abilities. ..not your faults. Also the red lips...too red.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that the standards are different these days. I would argue that even based on that big long list of what that part of the score is made up of, the choreography and composition sections were lacking in the Russian performance. She isn't an "artist" - Kim is. This is why the new scoring system has made the sport less fun to watch over the past 10 years. I'm not going to argue the numbers because I do GET where they came from, I just think the sport has lost something through this new system. The beauty, grace and elegance has taken a hit.

Although I guess this system would have given us Gold Medalist Surya Bonaly and her crazy-ass bird music?

Actually, it would not, Bonaly kept doing forbidden elements (backflip) despite multiple ISU warnings and she got dinged for it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that artistically, Kim is vastly more pleasant to watch vs. Sotnikova. Not too many people would pay to watch Adelina. The issue you raise goes to the existential question of figure skating, and that question is: what does it mean to be a good skater? There is no one answer to this question. The skating establishment is continually evolving their definition of "good skating", and the athletes follow the rules to achieve the highest score, because they want to win. They may want to create beauty on ice for sure, but most of all, they want to win.

You may have your own answer to this question. I may have my own. But there is no one answer other than what ISU decides they want to reward.

The new system has its critics, for sure, but remember how it came about. It was instituted in response to the scandal and decades of confusion about what sort of skating deserves a 5.9, and what deserves a 5.4. There were no hard-and-fast rules. Skaters were ranked in relation to each other. For those who say anonymous judging creates corruption, I say to you that the judges' marks have been tied to identifiable judges for decades leading to 2002, and that did absolutely nothing to eradicate corruption. Wherever you have people, you will have human vices.

So in response to this groundswell of not understanding the marks, ISU said: OK, skating public. You don't like 5.9? You don't like seeing scores you don't understand? Very well. I will break down skating to bits and pieces and assign numerical value to each piece. Now you will see exactly how these scores come about. The athletes, predictably, responded by constructing programs that maximized the point value and neglected the "artistic impression." Some of the highest-scoring elements are the ugliest to watch. But should viewer enjoyment mean more than technical difficulty? You might find the "orbiting uranus" spin ugly to watch but it doesn't change the fact it's a lot harder to do than a standard upright spin. Should the skaters not be rewarded for achieving higher technical difficulty? Or are we forever deadlocking them to the "must look beautiful" handcuff?

Funny, I think we'd actually get along in person. I have watched this sport for years and I STILL enjoy it, I just miss the days when a beautiful program meant something and it wasn't all about racking up points. I think I said earlier in the thread, I have found the same thing watching gymnastics. Something is now missing with the new scoring systems, even though I understand how we got to this point.

I know Surya would do the backflips and get dinged, although I think she wouldn't have done them under this system and just would have thrown in every single jump possible because she COULD jump like crazy. She was really just one jump to another on ice. Don't get me wrong - the backflips were AWESOME. But, she was just not a aesthetically pleasing skater and when she TRIED to be artistic, you'd get...birds. BLECH.

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that the standards are different these days. I would argue that even based on that big long list of what that part of the score is made up of, the choreography and composition sections were lacking in the Russian performance. She isn't an "artist" - Kim is. This is why the new scoring system has made the sport less fun to watch over the past 10 years. I'm not going to argue the numbers because I do GET where they came from, I just think the sport has lost something through this new system. The beauty, grace and elegance has taken a hit.

Although I guess this system would have given us Gold Medalist Surya Bonaly and her crazy-ass bird music?

Actually, it would not, Bonaly kept doing forbidden elements (backflip) despite multiple ISU warnings and she got dinged for it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that artistically, Kim is vastly more pleasant to watch vs. Sotnikova. Not too many people would pay to watch Adelina. The issue you raise goes to the existential question of figure skating, and that question is: what does it mean to be a good skater? There is no one answer to this question. The skating establishment is continually evolving their definition of "good skating", and the athletes follow the rules to achieve the highest score, because they want to win. They may want to create beauty on ice for sure, but most of all, they want to win.

You may have your own answer to this question. I may have my own. But there is no one answer other than what ISU decides they want to reward.

The new system has its critics, for sure, but remember how it came about. It was instituted in response to the scandal and decades of confusion about what sort of skating deserves a 5.9, and what deserves a 5.4. There were no hard-and-fast rules. Skaters were ranked in relation to each other. For those who say anonymous judging creates corruption, I say to you that the judges' marks have been tied to identifiable judges for decades leading to 2002, and that did absolutely nothing to eradicate corruption. Wherever you have people, you will have human vices.

So in response to this groundswell of not understanding the marks, ISU said: OK, skating public. You don't like 5.9? You don't like seeing scores you don't understand? Very well. I will break down skating to bits and pieces and assign numerical value to each piece. Now you will see exactly how these scores come about. The athletes, predictably, responded by constructing programs that maximized the point value and neglected the "artistic impression." Some of the highest-scoring elements are the ugliest to watch. But should viewer enjoyment mean more than technical difficulty? You might find the "orbiting uranus" spin ugly to watch but it doesn't change the fact it's a lot harder to do than a standard upright spin. Should the skaters not be rewarded for achieving higher technical difficulty? Or are we forever deadlocking them to the "must look beautiful" handcuff?

Good comparison with Tonya Harding!

She really does not endear herself to the public which is dumb of her because if she wants to pick up endorsements she needs to be seen as likeable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her skating is so boring and she gets almost no height on her jumps. I remember all those great skaters from Olympics past and her skating is no comparison. A travesty that she was sent despite her performance at the US championships.

I'd like to see you on skates.

Probably a fat suburban woman who can barely get off the couch and she's criticizing an Olympic athlete!

Look, I get that the standards are different these days. I would argue that even based on that big long list of what that part of the score is made up of, the choreography and composition sections were lacking in the Russian performance. She isn't an "artist" - Kim is. This is why the new scoring system has made the sport less fun to watch over the past 10 years. I'm not going to argue the numbers because I do GET where they came from, I just think the sport has lost something through this new system. The beauty, grace and elegance has taken a hit.

Although I guess this system would have given us Gold Medalist Surya Bonaly and her crazy-ass bird music?

I agree with those who say AW radiates a sense of entitlement. It is not attractive either on or off the ice. I wonder what it's like to be her team-mate....

Anonymous wrote:T&J were wowed by the Russian's technical moves. And obviously, the technical side is where she outdid Kim. I think most, even T&J, still would argue the artistry was lacking in the winning program.

Artistry in figure skating doesn't mean what you think it means. There is no score assigned for "enjoyment of viewers." Here is the PCS explication:

Skating Skills
Definition: Overall skating quality: edge control and flow over the ice surface demonstrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns, etc.), the clarity of technique and use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed.

Criteria:

Balance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement
Flow and effortless glide
Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, turns
Power/energy and acceleration
Mastery of multi-directional skating
Mastery of one-foot skating
Equal mastery of technique by both partners shown in unison (pairs and ice dancing)
Balance in skating ability of individual skaters (synchronized)


Transitions/Linking Footwork & Movement
Definition: The varied and/or intricate footwork, positions, movements and holds that link all elements. In singles, pairs and synchronized skating, this also includes the entrances and exits of technical elements.

Criteria:

Variety
Difficulty
Intricacy
Quality (including unison in pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)
Balance of workload between partners (pairs and ice dancing)
Variety of holds (not excessive side by side and hand in hand in ice dancing)
Variation of speed and linking steps (synchronized)
Variation of changes of direction and hold (synchronized)
Difficulty and variety of entrances/exits from elements/preparation phase (synchronized)


Performance/Execution
Definition: Performance is the involvement of the skater/couple/teams physically, emotionally and intellectually as they translate the intent of the music and choreography. Execution is the quality of movement and precision in delivery. This includes harmony of movement in pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating.

Criteria:

Physical, emotional and intellectual involvement
Carriage (and body alignment - synchronized)
Style and individuality/personality
Clarity of movement
Variety and contrast
Projection
Unison and "oneness" (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)
Balance in performance (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)
Spatial awareness between partners - management of the distance between partners and management of changes of hold (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)


Choreography/Composition
Definition: An intentional, developed and/or original arrangement of all types of movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure and phrasing.

Criteria:

Purpose (idea, concept, vision)
Proportion (equal weight of parts)
Unity (purposeful threading)
Utilization of personal and public space
Pattern and ice coverage
Phrasing and form (movements and parts structured to match the phrasing of the music)
Originality of purpose, movement and design
Shared responsibility in achieving purpose (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)


Interpretation
Definition: The personal and creative translation of the music to movement on ice.

Criteria:

Effortless movement in time to the music
Expression of the music's style, character, rhythm
Use of finesse* to reflect the nuances of the music
Relationship between the partners reflecting the character of the music (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)
Appropriateness of music in ice dancing, short dance and free dance


*Finesse is the skater's/team's refined, artful manipulation of nuances. Nuances are the personal artistic ways of bringing variations to the intensity, tempo and dynamics of the music made by the composer and/or musicians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AW got ripped off last night. I can't believe Yulia, the 15 year old Russian, that fell twice outscored AW. Ashley was powerful, graceful and only bobbled one teensy bit on a landing. Otherwise she was flawless last night.
Glad the Italian girl got bronze, she deserved it.

I'm a skating fan but "graceful" did not come to mind when I watched AW's performance. Tara and Johnny were much more unfiltered with their comments (versus the "never stir the teensiest of controversy" primetime announcers). T&J thought the judges got the rankings right (I'm setting aside the issue of the huge points gap between gold and silver).

Agreed. She reminds me of Tonya Harding. Beefy, brash, the opposite of graceful.

Ashley Wagner comes across as a bit mental.

There is only one exception to the rule that the athlete must never challenge the results of the judged competition: if that athlete was head and shoulders above the rest. Otherwise there is no way for this to NOT be perceived as self-interested sour grapes.

AW was this way even in juniors. Arrogant, entirely too sure of herself and smacking of entitlement.

T&J were wowed by the Russian's technical moves. And obviously, the technical side is where she outdid Kim. I think most, even T&J, still would argue the artistry was lacking in the winning program.

Anonymous wrote:AW got ripped off last night. I can't believe Yulia, the 15 year old Russian, that fell twice outscored AW. Ashley was powerful, graceful and only bobbled one teensy bit on a landing. Otherwise she was flawless last night.
Glad the Italian girl got bronze, she deserved it.

I'm a skating fan but "graceful" did not come to mind when I watched AW's performance. Tara and Johnny were much more unfiltered with their comments (versus the "never stir the teensiest of controversy" primetime announcers). T&J thought the judges got the rankings right (I'm setting aside the issue of the huge points gap between gold and silver).

AW is also obtuse.

She said her way of dealing with negative social media was to just insulate herself from it. Has it dawned on her that perhaps one should change one's approach if there is so much antagonism to her because of the way she behaves?