?? re: New Longevity (Kwan, Eldredge etc.)

[loveskating]

The new longevity is taken as a good in and of itself by some, but I'm wondering if they have thought it through beyond a fan perspective? I'm not so sure its good for skating, irrespective of the personalities.

Stipulating that, of course, everyone has the right to do what the law and rules will allow, but at the same time noting that people's actions do have consequences nevertheless (in fact, most of the decisions of consequence we make are NOT governed by rules or laws), and since I was neutral on the Pro Ams issue, and now see that they have done a lot of harm to professional skating, and I don't much enjoy them in the first place with watered down versions of LPs I've seen skated in the GP series, I'm not so ready to just accept this new longevity, I don't care WHO is personnifying it at any given time!

Some of my questions include:

1. Do DOMINANT skaters who stay in beyond their ability to improve technically significantly risk anything or tarnish their former glory? In other arenas of performance, the latter is certainly the case, at least for a few years in association with the decline...the critics turn on them, the praise becomes very sharp criticism, and quite brutal...its not the way I wanted to see, for instance, Luciano Pavarotti, go out!

2. What effect does longevity have on the generation of skaters coming behind someone like Eldredge? Does the current rather unhappy state of men's skating in America, for instance, have ANYTHING to do with Todd staying in for so long and under such favorable conditions (indulgences are always bound to cause resentment) or are the problems more deeply rooted (like the problems getting ANY boys to skate, combined with the rising cost of skating)?

3. Another question: its one thing to dominate skating for say 6-7 years; its quite another to be "merely" the competition for a significant length of time...my bet is that no one will put up with it for long, and in America especially, where there are far greater opportunities for kids rich enough to skate here in the first place!

4. If there are few new professional skaters due to lack of opportunity, if skaters have to stay amateur to make the big bucks, what will happen to pro skating:

a. Will COI become only amateurs, for instance, and will shows like SOI contain all the pro skaters, thus reducing the number of pro skaters? For insance, Kulik is already gone from SOI, and he is one of the truly great skaters!

b. Under these conditions, where there are few professional opportunities, will we be able to see amateurs who are not gold medalists at all or will SOI have to expand its skater list (of course not, because there is only so much time in one evening for a show) or will more shows be developed and can the market stand that, assuming we ever get out of this current economic mess we are in?

c. Will amateur skating evolve into more of a seasoned, pro standard of presentation, where the technical matters about as much as it did with Candeloro, thus basically ending the technical advance, OR will the longevity folks themselves have to rise to the technical level that ALL kids coming behind anyone manage to achieve (look at all the 3 axels, quads etc. now appearing?)

These are some of the questions I have, for I love pro skating, precisely because it is NOT governed by rules of 7 triples, spin and spiral blah blah...I adore that for amateurs, but for pros, I prefer the exploration of the details, and innovation, like Browning and Kulik have done so well, or just a purely emotional, expressive skating like Witte, Katia and Kristi do so well.

Everything is just not reducible to the "evil" fans of one skater vs. the "evil" fans of another skater...

[Impromptu]

Originally posted by loveskating
The new longevity is taken as a good in and of itself by some, but I'm wondering if they have thought it through beyond a fan perspective? I'm not so sure its good for skating, irrespective of the personalities.

1. Do DOMINANT skaters who stay in beyond their ability to improve technically significantly risk anything or tarnish their former glory? In other arenas of performance, the latter is certainly the case, at least for a few years in association with the decline...the critics turn on them, the praise becomes very sharp criticism, and quite brutal...its not the way I wanted to see, for instance, Luciano Pavarotti, go out!

If a person doesn't care what a critic has to about them, then why should anyone else?

Isn't it rather age-ist to assume that because someone has not got the ability to improve technically, they have nothing to contribute at all? I didn't think Katarina Witt's return to eligible competition, when she had only two triple jumps, for example, tarnished her image at all. In fact, I thought it enhanced it. Most people were saying, "good for her," and her salute to Sarajevo had an emotional maturity that more technical skaters could not match.

2. What effect does longevity have on the generation of skaters coming behind someone like Eldredge? Does the current rather unhappy state of men's skating in America, for instance, have ANYTHING to do with Todd staying in for so long and under such favorable conditions (indulgences are always bound to cause resentment) or are the problems more deeply rooted (like the problems getting ANY boys to skate, combined with the rising cost of skating)?

I think the problems in mens skating are more to do with the fact that the current group of guys being unable to land their jumps when it counts. Last night, at SOI, Todd Eldredge landed three triple axels. . . more than the entire mens podium at US Nationals. Someone ought to be begging him to come back.

There is a lot of talent in the US in mens skating. I've seen men trying triple axels, quads, triple-triple-triple jumps at regionals and sectionals (and landing them in practice sessions and in warm-ups). These skaters exist. They didn't pack up their toys and go off to college in despair because Todd was still skating. But if they can't land the jumps when it counts, then it doesn't really matter who is at the top and how long they've been there. I skate at the same rink as an elite senior man. He doesn't worry about being protocol judged at Nationals . . . he just wants to skate clean programs and show everyone what he can do.

3. Another question: its one thing to dominate skating for say 6-7 years; its quite another to be "merely" the competition for a significant length of time...my bet is that no one will put up with it for long, and in America especially, where there are far greater opportunities for kids rich enough to skate here in the first place!

Which pretty much contradicts your overall point, doesn't it? If one doesn't want to put up with being the competition, then one works harder. In "America especially" with the vaunted work ethic. If someone just wants to have a victory handed to them with no work whatsoever, that can't possibly be good for skating.

4. If there are few new professional skaters due to lack of opportunity, if skaters have to stay amateur to make the big bucks, what will happen to pro skating:

a. Will COI become only amateurs, for instance, and will shows like SOI contain all the pro skaters, thus reducing the number of pro skaters? For insance, Kulik is already gone from SOI, and he is one of the truly great skaters!

At the moment, COI has a fairly large percentage of pro skaters. Galindo, Punsalin & Swallow, Kazakova & Dmitriev, Hamill, Hollander, the Russian acrobats, Bonaly, Bobek, Irina Gregorian, for example. I'd certainly like to see MORE eligible skaters on the COI tour.

I'm not sure how your Kulik example relates to your point. He's not skating on SOI. If there were such a shortage of pro-skaters, then wouldn't he be a valuable addition to the cast? If there were even more skaters leaving the eligible ranks for SOI, then Kulik would be even less likely to be part of it.


b. Under these conditions, where there are few professional opportunities, will we be able to see amateurs who are not gold medalists at all or will SOI have to expand its skater list (of course not, because there is only so much time in one evening for a show) or will more shows be developed and can the market stand that, assuming we ever get out of this current economic mess we are in?

Um, not sure I understand what you are asking here. Might want to cut out some of the extraneous rhetoric for clarity.


c. Will amateur skating evolve into more of a seasoned, pro standard of presentation, where the technical matters about as much as it did with Candeloro, thus basically ending the technical advance, OR will the longevity folks themselves have to rise to the technical level that ALL kids coming behind anyone manage to achieve (look at all the 3 axels, quads etc. now appearing?)

People will do what they have to do in order to win, if winning is their goal, or to improve their skating to meet whatever personal goals they have. Check out the jumps that the ladies completed at the European Championships, in their attempts to unseat Slutskaya (aged 23, first World medal 1996, 7 years ago), as compared to the jumps completed at Euros last year.

If Yamaguchi (landing 3z-3t combos) and Ito had stayed eligible after 1992 (landing 3xs), wouldn't skaters had to meet those standards in order to beat them? Instead, there appeared to be no more incentive to push the technical envelope, when the skaters who were doing those elements weren't around.


These are some of the questions I have, for I love pro skating, precisely because it is NOT governed by rules of 7 triples, spin and spiral blah blah...I adore that for amateurs, but for pros, I prefer the exploration of the details, and innovation, like Browning and Kulik have done so well, or just a purely emotional, expressive skating like Witte, Katia and Kristi do so well.


The problem with pro skating is a completely different issue. Post-whack, Professional events flooded the market, until they became to commonplace to be interesting. If Professional competitions are to be taken seriously again, there needs to be clear rules and guidelines, across all professional events in order to make winning such events worthwhile, and watching such events interesting.

If you love pro skating for details and innovation, try supporting the Ice Theater of New York, The Next Ice Age, and other ice ballets, which are starving not because of lack of skaters to fill the casts, but a lack of audience to fill the seats.

[spiralsrfun]

Brilliant post Impromptu. :)

[Luenatic]

Impromptu, are you the captain of your highschool debate team? I'm totally convinced by everything you said.

And I'd love to go see the Ice Theater of New York, The Next Ice Age, and other ice ballets that you mentioned. I heard they're very innovative.

Great post.

[loveskating]

Hmmmm.

Originally posted by loveskating
The new longevity is taken as a good in and of itself by some, but I'm wondering if they have thought it through beyond a fan perspective? I'm not so sure its good for skating, irrespective of the personalities.

1. Do DOMINANT skaters who stay in beyond their ability to improve technically significantly risk anything or tarnish their former glory? In other arenas of performance, the latter is certainly the case, at least for a few years in association with the decline...the critics turn on them, the praise becomes very sharp criticism, and quite brutal...its not the way I wanted to see, for instance, Luciano Pavarotti, go out!

Impromptu"Isn't it rather age-ist to assume that because someone has not got the ability to improve technically, they have nothing to contribute at all? I didn't think Katarina Witt's return to eligible competition, when she had only two triple jumps, for example, tarnished her image at all. In fact, I thought it enhanced it. Most people were saying, "good for her," and her salute to Sarajevo had an emotional maturity that more technical skaters could not match."

Not the same thing...more analogous would be claiming that Dorothy Hamil, who still has a great deal to contribute, IMHO, can compete as an amateur...obviously, she cannot. My concerns, which may or may not be correct, have precisely to do with whether people like her CAN be seen and enjoyed...longevity means PRECISELY longevity as an AMATEUR, does it not, ergo if the "longevity is an innately good value" were applied across the board, then Hamil should still be an amateur! The amateur ranks will increase, while the pro ranks will decrease IF the high profile skaters stay in (or are you all just advocating that ONE skater stay in for a long time)?

I somehow don't think that would be good for Dorothy, and would detract considerably from what she STILL has to offer...since I would neither like to see amateur skating reduced to 2 jumps, nor to see so great a skater as Dorothy out there trying to do 3 jumps...and that goes for Witte too...personally, I've enjoyed her a lot more since she stopped TRYING to land the 3 jumps!

Likewise, despite the pro ams, in a REAL amateur competition, Kurt Browing would not be anywhere near the podium, not without a 3 axel and a 3 lutz.

I don't think the reinstatement issue applies at all except in the negative...that was advertized as a once in a lifetime thing, a completely unique occurrence...and if reinstatement had been presented as normal, if one could go in and out as they pleased, it would be opposed by most skaters!

About U.S. Nationals, the men, well, the guys couldn't land their jumps, we know that, but the question I asked was why...and if this new longevity value had anything to do with it?

As for the work ethic, well, Americans are not stupid...they want to work, but not for nothing...and since the kind of longevity we are seeing in the "amateur" ranks now is rather unprecedented... we shall see I guess whether amateur skaters will be willing to bang their heads against a brick wall for 8-10 years, now that we all know what the phoenomenon is about...

P.S. I've seen the Ice Theater of NY many times...they are not marketed well, IMHO...hardly anyone knows about them, and they are great...do they still have Saturday mornings at Chelsea Piers?

[olivia]

There is no way Hamill could have been on the podium at U.S. Nationals this year, but had Eldredge still been competing, he very well may have won. Nothing to do with longevity, everything to do with capability. If a skater still has the goods and can lay them down in competition, they should continue to compete if they desire.

As for hurting eligible skating, I just don't buy it. It is the very rare skater indeed who can remain healthy enough and competitive enough to stay in the mix (and on the podium) for 8 to 10 years. I see Eldredge as an anomaly, not the norm. By all means, I want to see these skaters stay. Makes for better competition and far more drama.

What would the U.S. Open (2002) and the Australian Open (2003) have been without the "old" guys? I found it beyond thrilling to see both Sampras and Agassi show, yet again, that they can "do it."

O-
Edited to add that there is a very good chance Hamil never would have made it through Regionals/Sections to compete at U.S. Nationals this year. ;)

[Ellyn]

Originally posted by loveskating
more analogous would be claiming that Dorothy Hamil, who still has a great deal to contribute, IMHO, can compete as an amateur...obviously, she cannot.

Well, Hamill turned pro in 1976. If there had been money available for eligible skating back then (in which case we wouldn't have called it amateur) and more prestige to longevity in sport than to fetishizing Olympic gold, might she have continued to compete after winning the Olympics? Maybe, maybe not. Aside from the money issue, many skaters at the time looked forward to turning pro as an opportunity to get away from the tedium of school figures; Hamill in particular would have had to face the pressure to do triples the same as Eldredge felt pressure to do quads; and she had already won the highest prize so she might have felt that she had met all her competitive goals and that it was time to move on. Or she might have loved competition for its own sake and chosen to continue for as long as she remained competitive. Would have been her choice -- in fact, it was her choice at the time anyway, but I'm sure the $$ difference between a lucrative Ice Capades contract vs. strict amateurism played a big part in her decision.

But would she have remained competitive for 25 years? Surely not -- the sport changed too much, and everybody's body changes in that time also. But as long as she could stay competitive enough to meet her own goals, why shouldn't she, *if* she wanted to?

My concerns, which may or may not be correct, have precisely to do with whether people like her CAN be seen and enjoyed...
longevity means PRECISELY longevity as an AMATEUR, does it not, ergo if the "longevity is an innately good value" were applied across the board, then Hamil should still be an amateur!

How about free choice as an innately good value? Those who want to keep competing are free to do so, those who want to turn pro are free to do so, and if they end up disappointed with their choice in the long run, that's their problem, not ours, and not their competitors'. Skaters don't decide whether to compete or turn pro on the basis of the fans' enjoyment, but rather on the basis of their own goals. Of course, if their goals include applause and adulation, then they'll migrate to the venue where they can best that.

Personally, I may get bored with specific individual skaters who don't grow much during their careers, but I can still admire their ability to maintain high standards over an extended period of time, and in general I prefer to watch more mature skaters who have stabilized their technique and started to experiment stylistically and to watch the maturation of the young up-and-comers. If elite skating were only an infinitely replaceable stream of teenagers who disappear after 1-4 years at the top, in most cases before they can do anything artistic, I would have far less interest.

Skating is a tough sport to stay competitive in year after year, hard on the body and hard on the bank account (except for the tiny handful of skaters who are able to earn big bucks once they reach the top). I don't expect many skaters to remain competitive for 10 years or more, and often my favorites will disappear before they ever realize their potential. Which is what makes it all the more special when a rare skater is able to achieve that.

The amateur ranks will increase, while the pro ranks will decrease IF the high profile skaters stay in

Why is this a problem? A large field of accomplished skaters is a competitive field, which brings more excitement to competitive skating.

(or are you all just advocating that ONE skater stay in for a long time)?

Could you be advocating that ONE skater go away and don't really care about the principle?

I somehow don't think that would be good for Dorothy, and would detract considerably from what she STILL has to offer...

Well, eligibility/ineligibility were no longer an issue and she *wanted* to enter competition 25-30 years after her prime just to see how she would stack up, why shouldn't she? There's no way she would have remained in the top ranks for 30 years, but if by some miracle she should manage to qualify for sectionals or nationals in her mid-40s, wouldn't that be an impressive feat in itself?

Likewise, despite the pro ams, in a REAL amateur competition, Kurt Browing would not be anywhere near the podium, not without a 3 axel and a 3 lutz.

And if he got tired of placing lower than he had been used to in his prime, he could retire. If he enjoyed competing even without medals, he could continue to do so. His choice, not yours.

About U.S. Nationals, the men, well, the guys couldn't land their jumps, we know that, but the question I asked was why...and if this new longevity value had anything to do with it?

And the answer you got was, probably not. If you come up with an off-the-wall speculation, don't expect everyone to agree with it automatically.

As for the work ethic, well, Americans are not stupid...they want to work, but not for nothing...and since the kind of longevity we are seeing in the "amateur" ranks now is rather unprecedented... we shall see I guess whether amateur skaters will be willing to bang their heads against a brick wall for 8-10 years, now that we all know what the phoenomenon is about...

Look, most skaters are just trying to get *to* Nationals, those who do aim to place high enough to get some international assignments, then to get a national or international medal, to get to Worlds, to win a world medal . . . there are thousands of skaters working as hard as they can to beat the other skaters at their level. Once you get to the rarefied few for whom that level includes the real possibility of national titles, world medals, even world titles . . . well, the brick wall is actually thinner at that point, because there are so few skaters *at* that level, relatively speaking. But is the only thing that would give their efforts value a gold medal, and then they should get out as fast as possible to give the next hopeful a chance? Or should the almost-top skaters also enjoy longevity and years of GP medals, television appearances and tours with the income and fame that those bring, and the possibility for a breakout performance that will take them to the very highest level? As Peter put it so tongue-in-cheek in another post, do we really want to see senior-level careers that last only one or two years?

[adrianchew]

Ellyn - well said and great points.

All I have to add is basically that while short-lived senior-level careers may not be a good thing, long-lived (anything more than 2 Olympic cycles) senior-level careers doesn't necessarily bring better results in the later years of those senior-level careers. There are always exceptions to the norm though, but those are few and far in between.

I'm trying to think how many skaters have succeeded at the level of say Katarina Witt winning 2 Olympic gold medals and Worlds a number of times in between, or perhaps one of the greatest senior-level atheletes pair of all time - Gordeeva/Grinkov... who succeeded and won two Olympics in a row and came back to win a third.

Another example I can think of is Torville/Dean - ok, so a bronze in Lillehammer isn't the best, but that was 10 years after their win in Saravejo... which given all the time that passed, is quite an accomplishment.

I'm harder pressed to think of singles skaters who've achieved this kind of success though - especially internationally at Worlds and Olympics.

[Spinner]

Originally posted by adrianchew
Gordeeva/Grinkov... who succeeded and won two Olympics in a row and came back to win a third.

Just to clarify, G&G only won 2 Oly's. In '84 Valova/Vasiliev won, then G/G in '88, then Mishkutienok/Dmitriev in '92, then G/G again in '94. ;)

[adrianchew]

Thanks - hehe - my skating history still needs a lot of work! :oops:

[michele]

G&G also won two World titles in a row (86 and 88), lost in 88 to Valova and Vassiliev (Katia was sick at the time after Calgary) and came back to win again in 89 and 90. :) One can only assume they'd have won 94 Worlds as well, especially without M&D...

[Rachel]

Originally posted by loveskating

1. Do DOMINANT skaters who stay in beyond their ability to improve technically significantly risk anything or tarnish their former glory? In other arenas of performance, the latter is certainly the case, at least for a few years in association with the decline...the critics turn on them, the praise becomes very sharp criticism, and quite brutal...its not the way I wanted to see, for instance, Luciano Pavarotti, go out!

But how did Pavarotti want to go out? He is the one who has to live with the consequences and I am sure that he, and anyone else in a similar position, is well aware of the risks.

It's very kind of you to be so concerned about how DOMINANT skaters will be treated by their critics, although one would hope that most of the critics would have the maturity and grace to recognize that the choice belongs to the skater and not to the critics. One might also wish that the critics would have the maturity to be kind, to be considerate, and to be grateful that one is not in the position to be criticized for what appears to me to be a very common, human decision. When it comes time for me to decide whether or not I should retire, I certainly hope people will be kind to me about it. There seems to be a deep need in some people, however, to park the old folks on an ice floe and push them out to sea as soon as possible.

Originally posted by loveskating
2. What effect does longevity have on the generation of skaters coming behind someone like Eldredge? Does the current rather unhappy state of men's skating in America, for instance, have ANYTHING to do with Todd staying in for so long and under such favorable conditions (indulgences are always bound to cause resentment) or are the problems more deeply rooted (like the problems getting ANY boys to skate, combined with the rising cost of skating)?

No, it does not, and yes, they are.

Originally posted by loveskating
3. Another question: its one thing to dominate skating for say 6-7 years; its quite another to be "merely" the competition for a significant length of time...my bet is that no one will put up with it for long, and in America especially, where there are far greater opportunities for kids rich enough to skate here in the first place!

Speaking of US Nationals, how long has Shepherd Clark been around? Amber Corwin? Why DID Elaine Zayak make that comeback and does Patricia Mansfield realize that she is 30 years old and will never, ever make the top ten?

Some people skate because the love to skate. Some people compete because they love to compete. They, like everyone else, are entitled to create their own goals and their own version of success.

Originally posted by loveskating
4. If there are few new professional skaters due to lack of opportunity, if skaters have to stay amateur to make the big bucks, what will happen to pro skating

a. Will COI become only amateurs, for instance, and will shows like SOI contain all the pro skaters, thus reducing the number of pro skaters? For insance, Kulik is already gone from SOI, and he is one of the truly great skaters!

I believe he quit, did he not? He and Katia did not want to be on the road touring so long. Again, a personal choice, having to do with personal goals.

Originally posted by loveskating
b. Under these conditions, where there are few professional opportunities, will we be able to see amateurs who are not gold medalists at all or will SOI have to expand its skater list (of course not, because there is only so much time in one evening for a show) or will more shows be developed and can the market stand that, assuming we ever get out of this current economic mess we are in?

I would think that would depend very much on the public demand for skating shows. If people want to see a lot of skating, there will be plenty of opportunities. If they don't, there won't be professional opportunities regardless of how long the eligibles hang in there.

Originally posted by loveskating
c. Will amateur skating evolve into more of a seasoned, pro standard of presentation, where the technical matters about as much as it did with Candeloro, thus basically ending the technical advance, OR will the longevity folks themselves have to rise to the technical level that ALL kids coming behind anyone manage to achieve (look at all the 3 axels, quads etc. now appearing?)

Seems to me that it will work both ways. The technical skaters will be forced to improve their presentation skills in order to be competitive and the skaters who aren't as technically skilled will have to push themselves to up the ante in order to be competitive--sort of the way it's always been, only perhaps to a greater degree as there are more disparate extremes. It's win-win situation for skating fans.

There seems to be an underlying assumption here, however, that the judges favor presentation over technical ability. I don't believe that is so. I think they look for the combination of both, as both are part of the judging criteria.

Originally posted by loveskating
These are some of the questions I have, for I love pro skating, precisely because it is NOT governed by rules of 7 triples, spin and spiral blah blah...I adore that for amateurs, but for pros, I prefer the exploration of the details, and innovation, like Browning and Kulik have done so well, or just a purely emotional, expressive skating like Witte, Katia and Kristi do so well.

I can't really address this because, with few exceptions, I find pro skating tedious, but I will say that there is no rule that says eligible skaters have to do seven triples. And a good thing it is, too, or there would be virtually no one to make it out of qualifying in most competitions.

Originally posted by loveskating
Everything is just not reducible to the "evil" fans of one skater vs. the "evil" fans of another skater...

Hmmm. No. But some things are. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

[pattern99]

:roll: Seriously, some people need to chill out... like...DUH!! As long as skaters are around and are HAPPY, LOVE what they do and are having fun, why SHOULD they move on?? Is this MORE boo-hooing over the fact that Michelle has been on top for so long (and still continues to dominate) so therefor Sasha and Sarah can't really break through?? Well, if sasha is the great skater that people SWEAR she is, then she should be able to beat Kwan in a heartbeat. She hasn't, has she.. ouch. Yes, the truth hurts. Until Sasha can ACTUALLY deliver the goods, her fans need to tone it down a bit. As for longevity... two thumbs up to the older skaters. I don't see any of you out there, busting your arse on triples day after day. It's not a pretty sight. But since this is RATIONAL thought...may the backlash start. Next please.
*patt99*

(Edited to add)

As for the fan vs. fan bit... it's getting old. So sue me. I like Michelle but I wouldn't die for her or anything. I respect ALL skaters for getting out there and trying. And if certain people think this is bashing... cry me a river, kiddo.

[what?meworry?]

i don't doubt that i'm oversimplifying this, but if the judges judge what is skated, and the skaters skate because they want to but recognize that if they've performed a quality skate or less than they are able, then it all sorts itself out.

you're looking at skaters recognizing and accepting the quality of their skate relative to the field and the judges honestly scoring it.

goebel didn't skate well, he knew it. wiess did, but not in previous years. kwan was brilliant and relaxed, but sasha let the desire to win overtake her and knew she wouldn't win after sarah and kwan.

the judges could easily have manipulatedthe results, but why? each skater has many more years of up and down performances, hopefully resulting in more consistent "up" skating.

and yes, in some years previous, "star" skaters were held up even with a rotten performance. but currently there are more top level skaters, and it is not an issue of a bad skate for the top guy vs. one good skate for less consitent skaters.

[nymkfan51]

Ellyn said ... " Personally, I may get bored with specific individual skaters who don't grow much during their careers, but I can still admire their ability to maintain high standards over an extended period of time, and in general I prefer to watch more mature skaters who have stabilized their technique and started to experiment stylistically and to watch the maturation of the young up-and-comers. If elite skating were only an infinitely replaceable stream of teenagers who disappear after 1-4 years at the top, in most cases before they can do anything artistic, I would have far less interest. "

Excellent points Ellyn! ITA

For me, it's very simple. If a skater wants to remain eligible and compete ... then that is what they should do. They alone will have to live with the results. It would be my personal preference not to see my favorite skaters "stay in" if they had no chance of being on the podium. So far that has not happened.
I get a little tired lately of all the talk about skaters who stay eligible for a long time taking away opportunities from other skaters. The one way to force these "old-timers" out is to beat them in competition. WOW ... what a novel idea!

[loveskating]

Thanks everyone for a serious, great discussion and for bringing up lots of different POVs on longevity. Now I have some things to think about on the issue outside what my own brain comes up with, and I hope others do as well.

At this point, overall I'd sum up that longevity really does come down to what the specific skater wants and is entitled to...but its also everyone else's right to respond to what that skater wants...according to their own POV!

Did want to answer one post..."What did Pavarotti think of the criticism?"

I think Luciano Pavarotti was deeply hurt by the brutality of the criticism...(he was well used to criticism in general), his fans were deeply offended, and I was one of them, but then sooner or later, I myself could no longer go to the Met to see him sing, because I SO MUCH MISSED him when I did. He was just no longer himself, the one we had seen for over 30 years (talk about longevity).

His last performance at the Met should have been a celebtation, a known thing. People would have come with candles to burn who could not get tickets, just to honor him! He might have come out to see the candles burning, there might have been film of it for opera fans forever! Instead, it was bitter, and he just disappeared from the Met!!!! How AWFUL!

But I still miss him...whenever I see anyone sing a role he defined, I miss him terribly. I LONG for someone else to come along and be as good, or even better, than him...that would be lovely.

[Rachel]

Originally posted by loveskating
Did want to answer one post..."What did Pavarotti think of the criticism?"

That's not actually what I asked--what I asked was how did he want to go out? No one enjoys criticism, so I assumed that he didn't like it. I'm sure he wanted to end his career on a high note (ha ha), but I'm equally sure that it is very difficult for ANYONE to say, "That's it, I'm done, I've hit my peak and it will all be downhill from here, so I should get out now while I'm still on top." And being on top is not the most important thing for everyone.

Michael Jordan can't seem to stop playing basketball. Pete Sampras can't seem to stop playing tennis. Jerry Rice can't seem to stop playing football. Even though they are past their prime, all three still have something to contribute and all three continue to have moments of brilliance. If they want to play and are willing to stand up to the consequences, both physical and emotional, then more power to them.

I find it a bit disturbing that so many people seem to think that these people owe it to us to always be superhuman. To be gifted is not to be perfect; to be talented is not to be flawless. No one is forever young except the dead.

[HotIce]

Rachel
That last statement is great!
I would like to use that for a sig line if you wouldn't mind.

[Rachel]

Seems a bit morbid to me, but help yourself.

[hiliairyh]

I don't know much about operas and opera singers longevity. Intuitively, an artists life and longevity is very different from an athlete's longevity. If the Michelles and Todds want to skate in the amateur arena they should be able to, they are judged by the same rules.

Athletes who are able to maintain a high level of performance over time are champions, I do not know what motivates them, but I admire them whether they are my personal favorites or not.

I think they do not have to worry about critics, I assume you mean the professional sport writer critics. Hopefully these people are fans of the sport and are able to appreciate the contributions of skaters with longevity.

[dbell]

Very interesting discussion with lots of wonderful points being raised.

1. Do DOMINANT skaters who stay in beyond their ability to improve technically significantly risk anything or tarnish their former glory?

A. I'll use Michelle winning at Nationals for my reply. Although she didn't do a 3/3 combo, I saw improvement, especially in the NM footwork sequence. I thought this year's Michelle was better than the '98 version. So - when technique goes south (i.e. jumps), they can always improve something else. Favorite examples: Tara and Kat Witt. Should follow the ladies examples - Lulu the vamp and Phillipe the stripper.


2. What effect does longevity have on the generation of skaters coming behind someone like Eldredge?

A. Well it would be nice if the men could land jumps. I see a dismal Worlds this year (but hope Mike does something spectacular and lands on the podium). For years Todd didn't have any serious competition. Mike was erratic, Rudy won and went pro and Tim was working on artistic. Todd was the complete package (without a quad, unfortunately).

As far as young boys taking up the sport, my son won't - too expensive for this mom! He's happier in baseball.


3. Another question: its one thing to dominate skating for say 6-7 years; its quite another to be "merely" the competition for a significant length of time...

A. If people qualify for Nationals - let them skate. I'm sure they are well aware of the comments made, but have the class to ignore them. I went back to college at 35. Felt like the 'grandmom' in some classes, but I'm still hanging in and going for the degree. Hope to get it before I need a walker!


4. If there are few new professional skaters due to lack of opportunity, if skaters have to stay amateur to make the big bucks, what will happen to pro skating:

A. There will always be show tours since someone's gotta pay for those sequins ;) . I think the pro shows should soon realize that people don't want to pay upwards of $80 for a ticket. Might explain some of those empty seats we're hearing about on the COI & SOI tours this year.

I think the pro comps. should be stopped for a while until we have competitive pro skaters out there. Having to watch Phillipe last year and his 'Castaway' & 'George of the Jungle' numbers, well, let's just say he should have done "Jaws" and jumped the shark. 8O

As far as TV vanity specials go - well, I'm expecting the "Generic Insurance Company Skating Salute to Elevator Muzak" to come on any day now!

[bleu]

if we compare programs developement in pro vis a vis with amateur, I would give higher presentation marks to the pro over the amateurs.

- For me the amateurs are nowhere close to the pros. They(competitive skaters) are doing someone else work. There is very little input from the skater. It doesn't matter if they have been skating for years.

-yes the amateurs have the technical edge but if someone put pressure on Kurt, I think he can do a quad. He just does not do it normally. If you try to pressure an amatuer skater to do a program as close to the professional types(sans the props and sleaziness) or even better, s/he can't do it unless the choreographer does it. You all know how rare it is to find that one special magical choreographer in the amateur....

- pro skaters are on their own most of the time whereas the amatuers have the experts.

So, I doubt that the amateurs skaters have the edge....

[Chico]

Hmmm........ A skating pal and I disagree on this issue, and we have been able to share our points of view without having fits at each other. And I guess this is the issue. There is no right or wrong on this topic just different views. Personally I feel that as long as a skater wants to compete and is competitive this is their choice. We get to enjoy the skaters but this is their opportunity in the sport. If an up-coming skater wants to be the "next" winner they need to beat the skater that currently holds that positiion. To me, how wonderful is it to be the winner when the "leader" quits before this? As in the case of Michelle vs. Sasha, I would think she would desire to beat her not win because she's gone. Both of these gals are competitive and talented, let the best skates win whatever comp.

Chico