Archive for February 2014
NBC’s Christin Cooper Pushes Bode Miller to Tears After Bronze Medal Win
Every time I think I’ve seen it all when it comes to the Sochi Olympic Games, something happens to make me change my mind.
In Sunday’s Super-G Olympic ski race, American Bode Miller won the bronze medal (actually tying with Canadian Jan Hudec) behind fellow American Andrew Weibrecht and gold-medal winning Kjetil Jansrud of Norway. In doing so, the thirty-six-year-old Miller became the oldest Olympic medalist in skiing history, and has now won six Olympic medals — one gold, three silvers, and two bronzes.
However, NBC reporter Christin Cooper, herself a past Olympic medal winner in skiing (silver in 1984 in the Giant Slalom), pushed Miller way too far in an interview aired in prime-time television an hour or so ago. The interview has been transcribed by Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column; here’s Cooper’s first question and Miller’s first answer:
Cooper: Bode, such an extraordinary accomplishment, at your age, after a turbulent year, coming back from knee surgery, to get this medal today, put it in perspective. How much does this mean to you?
Miller: I mean it’s incredible. I always feel like I’m capable of winning medals but as we’ve seen this Olympics it’s not that easy. To be on the podium, this was a really big day for me. Emotionally, I had a lot riding on it. Even though I really didn’t ski my best, I’m just super super happy.
This is a perfectly reasonable question, and a good answer by Miller. No problems here.
Next was Cooper’s second question:
Cooper: For a guy who says that medals don’t really matter, that they aren’t the thing, you’ve amassed quite a collection. What does this one mean to you in terms of all the others.
Miller: This was a little different. You know with my brother passing away, I really wanted to come back here and race the way he sensed it. This one is different.
This, again, is a reasonable question and a good answer by Miller. He was starting to tear up at this point, though, and most interviewers would’ve backed off and thanked him for his time.
For whatever reason, Cooper did not do this.
Here’s Cooper’s third question and Miller’s third answer:
Cooper: Bode, you’re showing so much emotion down here, what’s going through your mind?
Miller: Um, I mean, a lot. Obviously just a long struggle coming in here. It’s just a tough year.
This wasn’t a terrible question, but it wasn’t good because Miller was already in distress. Miller again gave a credible answer, but he teared up and was having a lot of distress in the process.
Again, most interviewers would’ve backed off. But again, Cooper did not do this.
Instead, here was Cooper’s fourth question and Miller’s abortive fourth answer:
Cooper: I know you wanted to be here with Chelly, really experiencing these games. How much does this mean to you to come up with this great performance for him? And was it for him?
Miller: I don’t know if it’s really for him but I wanted to come here and, I dunno, make myself proud, but … (trails off)
Here is when Cooper made a big mistake. She mentioned Chelone Miller, Bode’s brother, by name — Chelone was only 29 when he passed away in 2013 of a seizure, and was considered a possibility to make the Sochi Olympics in snowboarding until the end of his life.
Then Cooper made an even bigger mistake — she asked a fifth and final question:
Cooper: When you’re looking up in the sky at the start, we see you there and it looks like you’re talking to somebody. What’s going on there?
Miller: (breaks down and cries, Cooper puts an arm on him)
Now, this was just way out of line. Miller had answered the question already, as best he could, at least twice, and was obviously emotional. (Cooper even said this, earlier, so she was aware of it.) His brother has been dead for less than a year, for pity’s sake (see this story about Chelone Miller’s passing if you don’t believe me). The wound is still fresh, and Miller was showing the strain after Cooper’s second question.
But she didn’t back off.
As a journalist — no matter how unemployed I may be at the moment — I can tell you right now that Cooper’s behavior was completely wrong. She should’ve backed off after the second question and not asked the third, but once she did ask the third and saw that Miller was so emotional, she should definitely have backed off then.
That she instead chose to ask the fourth and fifth questions after he was already extremely upset for a completely understandable reason made absolutely no sense.
Fortunately, I’m not the only person out there who feels this way, either, as Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column written by Mike Oz (about Olympic events) has also taken Cooper to task. Here’s a bit of that:
Reporters have to ask tough questions. It’s part of being a journalist. One of the hardest parts of the job — and one of the toughest nuances to learn — is knowing when enough is enough in an emotional situation. Cooper, it’s worth nothing, was a skier before getting a TV gig with NBC, not a lifelong journalist
Maybe when she looks back at the tape on this, she’ll realize that one question about Miller’s brother was enough — perhaps two would have been OK. But the third one, the one that broke Miller down into a ball of emotion, came off as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, cheap.
All I can say is, I sincerely hope so.
Because what Christin Cooper did wasn’t just poor journalism and wasn’t just insensitive.
It was plain, flat wrong on every level. Period.
Just Reviewed Four Romances at SBR
Folks, it had been a while since I did a Romance Saturday review over at Shiny Book Review (SBR for short, as always), I thought I’d do more than one.
This time, I reviewed four.
And, because I was feeling a little puckish, I decided to call it a Romance Saturday “Four-Play.” (Pardon the pun. Or don’t. I’m not going to change it, so there. Nyah.)
The best of the lot beyond a shadow of a doubt is Rosemary Edghill’s excellent time-travel romance MET BY MOONLIGHT, recently re-released as an independent e-book. It is outstanding in just about every way there is, but if you are of the pagan persuasion, you probably will like it even better. (Even if you aren’t, though, you should adore this book. Truly.)
I also reviewed a nice debut Regency by Giselle Marks, THE FENCING MASTER’S DAUGHTER. I agonized over this one, as there are some glaring weaknesses mixed in with some strong strengths, but ultimately decided that the couple of big laughs and the excellent historicity was enough to give it a B.
As THE FENCING MASTER’S DAUGHTER would be much better if Ms. Marks had somehow won access to a top-notch editor, I had to say that. (I also said whoever edited for her did a competent job. He or she presented the romance nicely, and it was grammatical and with few typos. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not as much work as most of the really good editors I’ve been around would do if they’d seen a manuscript like this one land on their desks.)
Then I was presented with two romances by Sherry Thomas, one a YA fantasy romance called THE BURNING SKY and the other a 19th Century English historical romance, THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON. I really like Ms. Thomas’s writing style, and think she’s one of the best younger romance novelists around (by “younger” in this context, I mean “under forty”).
I liked THE BURNING SKY, but did not love it. I thought it had some nice touches, believed in the romance between the two principals, and the magical system was acceptable to better. I didn’t find it ground-breaking, though, as some reviews have called it, mostly because Mercedes Lackey has been doing books about Elemental Magic for years — also set in England, many of them set in late 19th Century England at that — and while Lackey’s Elemental mages aren’t exactly like Thomas’s, they’re close enough for government work.
As for THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON . . . how can I say that I was completely underwhelmed without being a complete and utter boor? (Oops, I just said it anyway.)
Look. Ms. Thomas writes well, so even a C-level romance (which is exactly what I adjudged THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON to be) is probably worth your time, especially if you’ve read nothing else by her before.
But considering the level of her other books — her excellent debut, PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS, her excellent war romance, NOT QUITE A HUSBAND, or even the recent TEMPTING THE BRIDE — this just was not up to Ms. Thomas’s standards. At all.
I’ve had to give other writers whose work I generally find to be exceptional C-ratings before, and probably will again. Most of the time, I try not to agonize over this, especially if the novelist in question has put out a number of books (by my count, Ms. Thomas has now put out eight full-length romance novels, one fantasy romance novel, and at least one novella, so she’s put out ten books). I figure that someone with a track record, as Ms. Thomas now has, should have to be held to a higher standard than someone who’s just starting out — because really, don’t you want to top yourself?
That’s why I admire the work of Ms. Edghill so much, and Katharine Eliska Kimbriel, too. Those two writers do not settle, ever. They put out top-notch efforts, their books are memorable and lively, and even something that I don’t find to be quite at an A-minus or better is still well worth my time.
More to the point, I never forget what those two write about. Never.
Whereas with THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON, I put the book down for a week and a half. I forgot everything about it. I had to go back and re-read, then I saw a few really good, sparkling passages that reminded me of how good Ms. Thomas can be when she puts her mind to it — and a bunch of passages where the editing was not there (something rare in a mass-market romance, where the editing is usually outstanding), or the focus was not there, or something just was a bit off.
Worse yet, even in THE BURNING SKY, I put the book down for a week and a half and wasn’t really inclined to finish it excepting I’d already said I’d review the thing. I was pleasantly surprised by it, as it picked up considerably after a very slow start, and I think Ms. Thomas shows promise as a fantasy novelist.
That’s the main reason why the latter book got a B from me, while the first one only received a C. A book that’s uneven, poorly edited, and unfocused — no matter how good the writing is at its best — can only garner a C.
But a book that gets significantly better as time goes on, and holds my interest despite putting it down for a week-plus at a lull, can still get a B or maybe even better, depending.
Look, folks. My own novel isn’t yet out. I know people could be coming after me with pitchforks, for all I know, because I’m willing to tell it like it is when it comes to some of my otherwise-favorite novelists.
I also know that sometimes the demands of contemporary publishing schedules means that the quality of books will sometimes be lacking.
My view is simple: Ms. Thomas can ascend to the same level of storytelling as seen by Ms. Kimbriel and Ms. Edghill, but Ms. Thomas needs to demand more. Whether she needs to get her agent to buy her more time to turn something in so she can polish it up, whether she needs to just write fantasy romances for the time being as that seems to be where her heart is, I don’t know — but whatever it is, she needs to do that.
I don’t care how many places, some of which are very well-known, give these last two books high ratings or say that they’re up to the standards of Ms. Thomas’s other books. The plain and simple fact of the matter is, they aren’t.
Anyway, this is why I wrote these particular reviews — my “after-action report,” as it were. I hope you found it of interest.
Now I’d best get back to editing, as I have an author eagerly awaiting my latest comments . . . and who am I to make him wait?
Story Complete, Sent to Lightspeed’s Special Women Destroy SF Issue
I’m pleased to report that I was able to finish my military science fiction story to my satisfaction, and sent it off earlier this evening to Lightspeed magazine for their “Women Destroy SF” special issue.
The main reason I’m discussing this, other than the fact I mentioned I was writing the story in the first place and wanting to give y’all an update, is because it’s Valentine’s Day.
I know that sounds like a non sequitur, but it isn’t. (Hear me out, OK?)
This particular story is set in my husband’s universe, the same one used in both Joey Maverick stories (available right now at Amazon, here and here). It does not feature Joey Maverick. Instead, it features a doctor, Amanda Hirschbeck, and the choices she must make during a brutal firefight.
I don’t want to give too much away about the plot, partly because I’m hoping that somehow, some way, this story is going to come out and you’ll all be able to read it. But I will say that it deals with loss, redemption, sacrifice, and personal integrity . . . I’m proud to have written it, and I’m even more proud to say this is the first story I’ve written in Michael’s universe that’s entirely mine.
When I started working on Michael’s stories, years ago, I wasn’t sure I could do this. I really didn’t think I’d ever get to the point I could write a decent-to-better story set in a milSF milieu, as that’s not my normal genre — I usually write fantasy, and humorous fantasy at that.
But I’ve had some very good people cheering me on, including the inestimable Katharine Eliska Kimbriel, the incomparable Rosemary Edghill, my first writing mentor (she told me years ago that I needed to make these stories my own, and I wasn’t ready to listen; now, though, I finally am, and I owe it all to her for planting the seed in my mind that I could, indeed, do this), and everyone involved in my writer’s group Barfly_Slush.
Note that the reason I mentioned both Ms. Kimbriel and Ms. Edghill is because they are both outstanding writers and editors. They have many good books out. And as I can’t possibly ever repay either one of them, much less both, for all of their advice and guidance, it seems wise to let you all know about them in the hopes that maybe you’ll go to their respective Amazon Author Pages (Ms. Edghill’s is here, Ms. Kimbriel’s is here) and find a book you like — then buy it.
At any rate, I’m proud that I was able to write a story in my husband’s universe. It’s a good story. I hope it’ll find a home.
But I hope you can excuse me if I think of it as my own, personal Valentine’s Day gift to Michael . . . because without him, and leaving his universe behind for me to play in it as much as I like, this story would not exist.
In Olympic Long Program, U.S. Figure Skater Jeremy Abbott Silences Critics
Yesterday’s blog discussed U.S. figure skater Jeremy Abbott, who took a particularly nasty fall, laying stunned on the ice for nearly twenty seconds due to the pain, but got back up and finished his heart-felt short program to finish fifteenth.
Finishing that far back meant it would be nearly impossible for Abbott to pull up into the top ten. And indeed, he didn’t, finishing twelfth.
But what he did today was still quite impressive, as despite being in obvious pain, Abbott skated a clean long program.
After that, Abbott had a message for his critics, according to Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports:
Asked what he had to say to those who say he chokes, he first exhaled loudly, put his head back and said, “Ahhhh … I would just love…”
He turned to Barb Reichert of U.S. Figure Skating public relations.
“Sorry Barb, you’re going to kill me,” he said.
“No,” she said. “I’m not. Bring it. Bring it.”
Abbott brought it.
“I would just hold my middle finger in the air and say a big ‘F you’ to everyone who has ever said that to me because they have never stood in my shoes,” he said, the kind of direct language not commonly found in the skating hall.
Now, why did Abbott say this? Well, not every commentator is as polite as I am, not by a mile. Twitter yesterday was particularly unforgiving, and half (if not more) of the commentators never once took a look at what Abbott did after he took that hard fall.
Figure skating is one of the most difficult athletic pursuits around. Even though I can’t do it — I don’t have the balance, the strength, or the stamina, and never have — I understand skating and I understand the skater’s mentality, mostly because I’m a musician and I performed at many music competitions. And having to do your best when your reed isn’t working, or your keys are sticking, or you know you’re competing against someone who’s won the competition several times and you’re a newcomer — well, those nerves are hard to deal with.
That’s why I never faulted Abbott for having nerves, or being willing to acknowledge them. But as a commentator — even an armchair one like myself — I have to be honest about what I see.
Yesterday, I said that Abbott’s story of falling hard but getting up and finishing when he could’ve walked away without fault was inspiring. And it was.
Today, going out there when he knew he had no realistic chance for a medal and giving it his all, then skating a clean program despite being in pain from yesterday’s fall, was even more so.
Life is about how hard you try after you’ve been knocked down. It’s all about how you get up, or don’t. And that’s why I’d rather talk about Jeremy Abbott, who’s competed now in two Olympics, finishing ninth and twelfth, than talk about 2014 Olympic champion Yuzuru Hanyu, who’s only nineteen and has not faced significant adversity on the ice as of yet (off the ice, yes, due to the tsunami a few years ago). And I definitely don’t want to talk about Olympic silver medalist Patrick Chan, who apparently felt he deserved the gold medal despite taking three falls, because that young man has way too much publicity already.
For today, this Valentine’s Day, I want you to consider the courage of a young man who’s about to retire from the sport he loves — Jeremy Abbott — at the young age of twenty-eight, because the sport is so difficult, so demanding, requires so much dedication, that his legs and back and body and mind just cannot keep doing it at the high level required to attain the Olympics.
Then consider how difficult it was for him to take that fall — look at the program in context (I’m sure it’s available on YouTube by now, or at NBC.com), and see what Abbott did to get up again, then skate the rest of his program with vigor and panache.
That’s what we all need to do, in this life.
I have a lot of sympathy for Abbott. I had it in 2010 at Vancouver, when he finished ninth by skating a brilliant program to pull way up in the standings. And I have it again today.
Because what makes an Olympic champion is not the medals.
It’s the heart.
That’s why Jeremy Abbott will forever be an Olympic champion.
U.S. Figure Skater Jeremy Abbott Falls Hard, Wins Big (at Life)
Today, I witnessed something I’ve never before seen in my many years of watching figure skating. Reigning United States men’s champion Jeremy Abbott, who’s had his share of troubles in the Olympics already, took a very hard fall in the Olympic men’s short program at Sochi, lay on the ice for nearly twenty seconds . . . then got up and skated the rest of his program cleanly and with energy.
This was a big win for Abbott, even though it wasn’t reflected in the score column overmuch.
You see, Abbott, over the years, has had many problems with his nerves. They are well-documented, they are pervasive, and while they are also completely understandable (I doubt many of us would do well under so much scrutiny), they’ve kept him from attaining his immense potential — at least at the international level.
Martin Rogers of Yahoo Sports quoted Abbott afterward as saying:
“First thing, I was in a lot of pain and I was laying there kind of shocked and I didn’t know what to think,” Abbott said. “I was waiting for the music to stop. The audience was screaming, and I was, like, ‘Forget it all, I am going to finish this program.’
“As much of a disappointment as this is, I am not in the least bit ashamed. I stood up and finished this program, and I am proud of what I did in the circumstances.”
Abbott scored a 72.58, good for fifteenth place out of thirty, but what he achieved goes far beyond any scorecard.
No.
What Abbott achieved was the ultimate triumph of dedication, focus, and persistence. He refused to let a terrible fall — one that could still, potentially, knock him out of the competition — stop him from completing his short program. And in so doing, he won the respect of his competitors and the Russian crowd’s vociferous support, which wasn’t altogether easy as their lone entrant into the men’s program, Evgeny Plushenko, had abruptly retired directly before he was supposed to skate in the short.
I don’t doubt that Plushenko was injured — he clutched his back and looked like he could barely stand upright when he skated over to the judges in order to withdraw — and I also don’t doubt that Plushenko did the right thing in withdrawing, no matter how abrupt it turned out to be.
But what Abbott did in getting up from one of the worst falls I’ve ever seen and skating the rest of his program with vigor, energy, and even brilliance was as inspirational an effort as I’ve ever seen.
As Rogers put it in his headline, “Jeremy Abbott Loses Marks for Ugly Fall, Wins Hearts for Finishing Short Program.”
As I’ve been critical over the years of Abbott — much though I adore his skating — I felt it imperative to point this out: Jeremy Abbott has the heart of a true champion.
Whether he can skate the long program after a night of stiffening up and soreness, and possibly some bone breaks as well (as a hairline fracture can be hard to spot, especially right after an injury due to the inflammation incurred) is immaterial.
What Abbott did today in refusing to give up on himself is far, far more important than any marks could ever be. In or out of the Olympics.
You see, Jeremy Abbott proved today why he’s as big a winner at life as anyone I’ve ever seen.
And that, my friends, is extremely impressive.
NFL Draft Hopeful Michael Sam Comes Out As Gay
Someday soon, folks, I’m not going to have to write about a story like this one. At that time — whether it’s 2016, 2020, whatever — being an openly gay athlete is not going to be big-time news.
But as it’s 2014 and the NFL still doesn’t have an openly gay player (nor does MLB, the NBA, or the NHL), what a young man from Missouri, Michael Sam, has done by announcing that he is openly gay is big news.
On Sunday evening, Missouri’s All-American defensive end Michael Sam came out, officially, as gay during ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” program. Sam is a legitimate NFL prospect, expected to be drafted anywhere from the third to fifth rounds, and is the reigning co-Defensive Player of the Year in the SEC — a very tough football conference where many of its best players often go on to illustrious NFL careers.
So you might be wondering, as I did, why Sam would choose to say this now, before any team gets a chance to draft him. The NFL seems to be homophobic (see my blog about Chris Kluwe’s experiences, and remember that Kluwe is not, himself, gay — he’s just an advocate for LGBT rights), and this may well affect Sam’s chances of getting drafted and/or signed by an NFL team.
Of course, it shouldn’t be this way.
As L.Z. Granderson points out in his article for ESPN.com, there have been gay players in the NFL at least since 1969 — Granderson quoted legendary coach Vince Lombardi as saying this: “”If I hear one of you people make reference to his manhood, you’ll be out of here before your ass hits the ground.” (Note this was referencing a story written in 2013 by Ian O’Connor about Vince Lombardi and being pro-gay rights at a time few were.) There are numerous retired NFL players, including former Packers NT Esera Tuaolo, who was quoted in today’s St. Paul Pioneer Press as saying that while he supports Sam fully, he couldn’t have done what Sam’s doing now back in the 1990s.
Sam’s openness about his sexuality has been acclaimed by former NBA player Jason Collins (who came out last year; see this blog for further details), well-known LGBT advocates and former NFL players Kluwe and Brandon Ayanbadejo, the latter writing this column for Fox Sports with a few words about Sam’s historic importance, and “You Can Play” advocate Wade Davis, himself a retired NFL player who happens to be gay.
But there’s something missing in most of the coverage about Michael Sam.
Simply put — Sam is a football player, plain and simple. More to the point, he’s a very good football player who should be drafted and can help any number of NFL teams, including the Green Bay Packers, as a defensive end — Sam’s on the small side as a DE considering he’s listed at only 255 pounds, but he’s agile, light on his feet, and a hard tackler. He’s twenty-four years of age, meaning he’s mature. He’s lived through a lot of adversity in his life (the OTL piece is a must-see, if you haven’t taken it in already). And he’d be an asset in every possible way.
Yet instead of hearing about how mature Sam is, or about how much he can help a football team, we’re hearing about how historic this achievement is with regards to gay rights. And while I agree with that — it’s obvious — I just wish we were further along in this country.
Think about it, please. Why should it matter in 2014 that Michael Sam is gay if he can play football at a high level?
And why should these various NFL general managers, who are refusing to be quoted by name (such as in this piece by the Christian Science Monitor), be afraid that Michael Sam will somehow contaminate the locker room? Especially considering, as Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC program pointed out last night, that there are guys playing the NFL right now who are wife-beaters, girlfriend-beaters, who don’t pay child support for their children, who have problems with substance abuse . . . why are those players consistently finding work with these very same NFL GMs hardly batting an eye, when Michael Sam being an articulate and open gay man may cost Sam the chance to play in the NFL?
All that being said, of course I applaud Michael Sam for coming out. His stance is principled, honest, and above-board — and I respect it highly.
I just hope that by doing so, Sam hasn’t cost himself any chance at a job due to the intransigence and obduracy of the various, uncredited NFL GMs, who refuse to be quoted directly but have already cast a pall over Sam’s historic announcement.
One final thought: Is it bad of me to admit that I long for the day where a player can say, “I’m gay” and the pro sports league in question says, “So what?” (May that day come soon.)
Shirley Temple Black Dies at 85
Yesterday evening, Shirley Temple Black passed away at 85.
As I don’t normally write about movie stars, you might be wondering why I’m writing about Mrs. Black. I’ve made an exception for her, mostly because of her second career as a diplomat for the United States . . . and partly because she was an extraordinary woman in her own right, someone most people could use as an example to emulate.
This obituary from the New York Times clearly illustrates why Mrs. Black was such an astonishing woman. Here’s a few words from that obit:
Mrs. Black returned to the spotlight in the 1960s in the surprising new role of diplomat, but in the popular imagination she would always be America’s darling of the Depression years, when in 23 motion pictures her sparkling personality and sunny optimism lifted spirits and made her famous. From 1935 to 1939 she was the most popular movie star in America, with Clark Gable a distant second. She received more mail than Greta Garbo and was photographed more often than President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
. . .When she turned from a magical child into a teenager, audience interest slackened, and she retired from the screen at 22. But instead of retreating into nostalgia, she created a successful second career for herself.
After marrying Charles Alden Black in 1950, she became a prominent Republican fund-raiser. She was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Richard M. Nixon in 1969. She went on to win wide respect as the United States ambassador to Ghana from 1974 to 1976, was President Gerald R. Ford’s chief of protocol in 1976 and 1977, and became President George H. W. Bush’s ambassador to Czechoslovakia in 1989, serving there during the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe.
The obituary also discusses Mrs. Black’s public discussion of her own breast cancer — widely credited for popularizing the need for breast cancer care, treatment, and discussion (as it used to be stigmatized, and women often suffered in silence — hard to believe in 2014, but real nonetheless), her divorce (she was married to John Agar, Jr., before marrying Mr. Black at age 21), and how difficult it was initially to come down from the dizzying heights of child stardom to become her practical, level-headed adult self.
Mrs. Black was a Republican at a time when you could be a moderate and still be successful in politics. She was a powerful woman because she was smart — she was well-regarded by Henry Kissinger, who was himself no fool — and because she never stopped trying to improve herself, her mind, and the world around her.
I’ve admired Mrs. Black’s adult career for years, but I admire it even more now that some of the missing pieces (like her early divorce) have been filled in thanks to the excellent obituary at the New York Times.
We have lost an extraordinary woman with the passing of Mrs. Black. She was an American original, and she will be greatly missed.
United States Wins Olympic Bronze Medal in Team Figure Skating
Well, folks, it’s official — the United States won the bronze medal in the inaugural Olympic team figure skating event.
Now that it’s all over, it’s time to reflect on the skaters from the United States, and discuss their overall impact.
Ice dance — Meryl Davis and Charlie White skated two fine routines, winning their segment of the team event handily in both cases. Davis and White are the odds-on favorites to win the gold in the individual ice dance event later this week.
Pairs — Marissa Castelli and Simon Shapnir skated two good performances, coming in fifth in the first segment (with ten teams) and fourth in the second (with five teams). They did as well as could be expected, and nearly landed their signature throw quadruple Salchow.
Men’s — What more can be said about Jeremy Abbott? I’ve watched him skate for years, he’s a great guy and a fine artistic skater who actually has a fairly solid quad, and yet his nerves continue to get the best of him. His dismal performance in the men’s short program (he finished seventh out of ten) was one reason it was iffy until the final performance of Davis and White that the United States would medal at all.
Jason Brown was substituted for Abbott in the long program, and Brown delivered a solid, fun performance of his signature “Riverdance” program. Brown wasn’t quite as good here as he was at the U.S. Nationals a month ago, but he was still good enough to hold onto fourth place and keep the U.S. in medal contention.
Women’s — Ashley Wagner came in fourth during the short program, doing exactly what she needed to do to get the U.S. into the medal round. Gracie Gold was substituted for her and delivered an excellent long program, finishing second out of the remaining five skaters to help the U.S. save their medal chances.
Overall, I liked the team figure skating event. But if I were running the International Olympic Committee or had anything whatsoever to do with figure skating, I’d try to get the scores from the first round thrown out once everyone gets into the medal round.
Why?
Well, what I saw in this team event was two teams — Russia and Canada — racking up so many points in the preliminary round that it was nearly impossible to catch them. That’s not a good thing, not for the fans — who saw excellent skaters like Carolina Kostner of Italy and Mao Asada of Japan substituted for with lesser skaters (presumably to save Kostner and Asada’s legs a bit as both are favorites to medal in the ladies individual figure skating event), not for the teams themselves (Italy and Japan had no chance for any medal except the bronze, and decided early on not to make a serious run at it, while the United States’ only realistic shot was for the bronze rather than the silver, and the gold was completely out of reach; even Canada, which did exceptionally well, didn’t have hardly any chance to catch Russia in the standings for the gold medal), and certainly not for the Olympic spirit of tough but fair competition.
In future Olympics, it would behoove them to be a little more like hockey or soccer, where points are discarded once you get to the medal round, as that would allow all five teams a realistic chance at a team medal rather than only three of them.
At any rate, hats off to Teams USA, Canada, and Russia for their medal-winning efforts . . . it was fun to watch.
United States Team Advances to Team Figure Skating Final
Folks, after a rough skate by United States men’s champion Jeremy Abbott two days ago, it was unclear whether or not the U.S. would advance in the new figure skating team event.
You see, in this event, all four types of figure skating are on display. You must field an ice dance team and a pairs team plus one female skater and one male skater. You get one point for tenth place, ten points for first, and the points aggregate. And you’re allowed two substitutions after the short program.
Anyway, in the first night of the team event, Abbott skated disastrously and landed in seventh place, gaining only four points, while the pairs team of Marissa Castelli and Simon Shapnir came in fifth — about what was expected — gaining six points. Which meant after the first two disciplines skated, the U.S. had only ten points and was tied for fifth place with two other teams.
This may sound good, but as there were only ten entries in this inaugural team event, it’s really not what was expected.
Earlier today, the dance team of Meryl Davis and Charlie White took the ice and delivered an excellent short dance (the dance version of the short program), finishing in first place and gaining all ten points. Which meant that Ashley Wagner, who was next (and last) to skate for the United States, had to finish in the top five or the United States not qualify for the final round.
Fortunately, Ashley Wagner delivered a solid performance and landed in fourth place. This allowed the United States to qualify along with Russia, Japan, Italy, and Canada for the medal round.
What to watch in the finals? Well, the top Russian team of Tatiana Volosozhar and Maxim Trankov have dropped out of the team event, allowing the second Russian pairs team to take over (probably Ksenia Stolbova and Fedor Klimov, the current Russian champions, will be substituted in their place). And Patrick Chan, the reigning World Champion (despite last year’s disastrous free skate), has also dropped out, allowing Kevin Reynolds to skate in his place.
This makes it a little easier for the United States to perhaps move up and take a silver, depending on how well they do from here on out.
A few more things to keep an eye on:
Japan does not have much help coming from their ice dance and pairs skaters, and will no doubt finish fifth in both of those (the pairs team is particularly weak). Their male and female skaters must finish either first or second in order for them to make up for this weakness.
Italy also has a weak pairs team, but a decent-to-better ice dance team that’s actually in contention for a bronze individual medal by most accounts. Their strength is in the women’s competition, where Carolina Kostner has medaled at Worlds several times, winning a gold, two silvers and two bronzes over the years; their male skaters are not among the top twenty in the world, and may not even be in the top fifty.
Canada has an excellent pairs team, an excellent dance team, a decent-to-better female skater in Kaetlyn Osmond and their second-best man, Kevin Reynolds. Hard to say how well they can do overall, but I’d be shocked if they didn’t win a silver.
Russia is the odds-on favorite to win the gold, as they have strong competitors in all four disciplines and a huge lead going into the finals (as the points apparently carry over).
The final round starts off with the pairs again, and will take place later this evening in Sochi. (It may be underway as we speak, in fact.) I plan to come back later and discuss this here at my blog, and give you my own assessment.
All I know right now is this: It’s good the United States made it this far. But the U.S. team had best replace Abbott with Jason Brown — I’ve heard it’s likely they’ll do this (Abbott himself surely seemed to think so, at any rate, from the interviews I’ve seen on NBC and its related networks) — if it wants any chance at a medal.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 