Michelle Kwan vs. the 2004 Worlds

I know this topic has probably been hashed and rehashed, but it still baffles me to this day. How weird was the 2004 worlds for Michelle Kwan?
The 2004 Worlds was a very bizarre event for Michele. She was penalized for going 3 seconds over in her music, which most every skater has done at some point in their competitive careers and have not been penalized at all. Then the truly bizarre incident with the man running out onto the ice and stripping right before Michelle's LP.

What is your opinion? Was someone out to destroy Michelle's chances of winning? To rattle her and break her concentration?
The two events happening at the same worlds is strange to say the least.

No, I don't think there was any big conspiracy going on. The streaker was there to advertise a gambling web site. IIRC he had "appeared" at other sporting events that year for the same purpose, having nothing to do with figure skating. He chose Michelle's performance for his act because he figurered that's when the most people would be watching.

The time thing, well, she was over the time. In fact, they changed the rule the next year to extend the length of the short program because of it. It is possible that the referee or time-keeper paid especial attention to Michelle because she was the highest-profile competitor. I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that some competitor's camp had noticed that she went over the time limit at U.S. Nationals, so they alerted the officials to watch out for it. I don't know.

The problem with that Temptation Begins music is that it falls away to a whisper at the end, so in the arena you can't really tell if the music has stopped or not. If the skater continues with movement after the music appears to have stopped -- well, the time is supposed to measured by movement, not the music, but still it gives the illusion of finishing behind the music which could call attention to the time.

So what was the actual penalty given for going over 3 seconds (Wikipedia says it was 2 seconds)?

TwinnerA said:

So what was the actual penalty given for going over 3 seconds (Wikipedia says it was 2 seconds)?

Click to expand...

Each judge is supposed to subtract .1 from both the first mark and the second. Under the 6.0 system it was sometimes hard to tell whether the judges applied required deductions strictly according to the rules or not.

Would she have even won nationals that year if the penalty had been properly imposed at that competition? Uncharacteristic of Michelle to claim she hadn't made a mistake (video) when she had.

I think Kwan got enough benefits of the doubt in her career, especially at USN. It's hard for the referee to not notice she's over the time limit when the clock is RIGHT THERE for everyone to see. No I don't think it was a conspiracy. It was amazing how she brushed off that streaker and kept her composure. Dorothy Hamill would have run off the ice in tears and stopped the competition until she could go back on the ice. But it WAS Kwan's 11th Worlds, so she had the experience to handle it.

Icey said:

Would she have even won nationals that year if the penalty had been properly imposed at that competition?...

Click to expand...

She would have won anyway. Looking at the judges' protocols, it is just possible that Jenny Kirk might have inched into second in the short program (Sasha Cohen was first), by 5 judges to 4. But Michelle was in no danger of dropping below third behind Angela Nikodinov or Amber Corwin.

In the long program Michelle gave perhaps the most exciting and passionate performance of her entire career, earning first place ordinals across the board (though Sasha was no slouch).

What really put Michelle behind the eight ball at worlds was the qualifying round. By the luck of the seeding system she was in the harder of the two qualifying groups, with Shizuka Arakawa, teenage phenomenon Miki Ando and Irina Slutskaya (although Irina was not up to par that year). Sasha, in the other group, had only Elena Sokolova to contend with (the 2004 Sokolova, not the 2003 Sokolova ) Also, as I recall, the earlier group (Michelle's) had problems with the ice -- it was too hard, or too cold, or something -- and the second, later, group gave uniformly cleaner performances.

Michelle probably wouldn't have won that year no matter what, as Arakawa gave the best LP performance of her career (Turandot).

Mathman said:

Each judge is supposed to subtract .1 from both the first mark and the second. Under the 6.0 system it was sometimes hard to tell whether the judges applied required deductions strictly according to the rules or not.

Click to expand...

One judge gave Michelle a 5.1 on the first mark, which was ridiculous. I don't think it was a conspiracy. I do think that judge, at least, went out of his or her way to penalize Michelle.

LiamForeman said:

I think Kwan got enough benefits of the doubt in her career, especially at USN. It's hard for the referee to not notice she's over the time limit when the clock is RIGHT THERE for everyone to see. No I don't think it was a conspiracy. It was amazing how she brushed off that streaker and kept her composure. Dorothy Hamill would have run off the ice in tears and stopped the competition until she could go back on the ice. But it WAS Kwan's 11th Worlds, so she had the experience to handle it.

Click to expand...

Michelle might have gotten a few more 6.0's than she deserved at Nationals, but when did she win by being given the benefit of the doubt? Sasha sometimes led after the short program but always handed Michelle the win with a flawed long program. 1996--a clear win. 1997-she lost to Tara. 1998-a crushing victory (no undeserved 6.0's here). 1999-She fell in the long program but had a beautiful 3-3. Does anyone really think Naomi Nari Nam, the silver medalist, deserved to win this year? 2000-Sasha had it in the bag until she fell on the last jump. 2001-I couldn't find Sarah Hughes's skate for this year. Michelle made a mistake on her opening 3-3 but skated the rest of the program very well and landed 6 triples. 2002-Michelle would have won the Olympics if she had skated like this in SLC. 2003--Michelle dominated. 2004-Michelle's long program is one for the ages. I think even Sasha's fans agree that Michelle deserved to win. 2005--again, the door was open for Sasha to walk through but she faltered. Michelle short program was one of her best of all time.

Mathman said:

No, I don't think there was any big conspiracy going on. The streaker was there to advertise a gambling web site. IIRC he had "appeared" at other sporting events that year for the same purpose, having nothing to do with figure skating. He chose Michelle's performance for his act because he figurered that's when the most people would be watching.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that same company has a bit of a history messing up events. In Athens in the men's synchro competition, one guy climbed to the top of the diving platform and jumped into the water. Weirdly enough, it must have rattled a few teams as the Chinese, US, and Russian teams all messed up their final dives, allowing the Greek pair (who had already dived before the incident) to come from 4th to win gold. (China received a zero score dropping from a healthy lead to 8th overall, the US dropped from 2nd to 6th). :hopelessness:

jenaj said:

Michelle might have gotten a few more 6.0's than she deserved at Nationals, but when did she win by being given the benefit of the doubt? Sasha sometimes led after the short program but always handed Michelle the win with a flawed long program. 1996--a clear win. 1997-she lost to Tara. 1998-a crushing victory (no undeserved 6.0's here). 1999-She fell in the long program but had a beautiful 3-3. Does anyone really think Naomi Nari Nam, the silver medalist, deserved to win this year? 2000-Sasha had it in the bag until she fell on the last jump. 2001-I couldn't find Sarah Hughes's skate for this year. Michelle made a mistake on her opening 3-3 but skated the rest of the program very well and landed 6 triples. 2002-Michelle would have won the Olympics if she had skated like this in SLC. 2003--Michelle dominated. 2004-Michelle's long program is one for the ages. I think even Sasha's fans agree that Michelle deserved to win. 2005--again, the door was open for Sasha to walk through but she faltered. Michelle short program was one of her best of all time.

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't explain myself but it wasn't just the results, although I thought Sasha should have won it based on the SP in 2000, because Kwan fell on a 3toe while Nikodinov who always had nice non-fridgebreak SP's was clean with 3flip and better spins, yet Kwan got the benefit of the doubt and inexplicably was placed over Nikodinov. I just meant that Kwan after her transcendent programs at 98 USN would ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt on the second mark even if she was flat and lackluster. But she became America's skating sweetheart and the crowd would go absolutely nuts whenever she skated, and even flat she'd get all 5.9s and 6.0s whether deserved or not. I don't think her 2004 Worlds LPs deserved any 6.0s or 5.9s either because by then she was just skating to the same program with the same layout and no interesting choreography. But it wasn't just Kwan that got benefits of the doubt at USN. Cohen had no business placing 3rd in over APMcD, and Nikodinov never got any love either. I was at 1997 Nationals, and Nikodinov I think should have placed 2nd in the SP ahead of Tara, Tonia, Corwin, and I would argue 2nd or 3rd in the LP which should have assured her a trip to Worlds. Oh well, Kwan earned just about all her placements but it might have put a bug in her competitors' heads knowing that Kwan could go out and pee on the ice and still get 5.9s and 6.0s. How deflating.

^ Still, it is hard for me to complain about all those 6.0 showers that Michelle bathed in, especially near the end of her career.

For one thing, after 2002 6.0s were literally going out of style and the judges felt they had to do something with them. (Like at the end of the Fourth of July fireworks where they shoot off all the flares they have left all at once as the Marine Band hits "o'er the la-and of the FREE!…")

To me, this isn't as unsporty as it sounds. The 5.8s and 5.9s were never intended entirely as absolute marks, but rather as place holders and mnemonic aids for ordinals. Especially for the top few skaters who were serious podium threats, the judges tended mentally to rank the skaters' performances first, then juggle the 5.8s around to make it come out that way. (This still goes on to some extent under the IJS.)

Under the old system, there were two marks -- the "land your jumps" mark and the "wow the audience" mark. This was not considered inappropriate for a discipline that was half sport, half performing art. Michelle bedazzled, charmed and delighted audiences, performance after performance, alike through all-time-great outings and outings not quite that good. She carried U.S. figure skating on her back for a decade. I can see why judges would be pleased to be able to toss a few top marks her way, in contests where she had won anyway.

I think Alexei Yagudin has the most 6.0s internationally, for pretty much the same reasons.