kip@proper.UUCP (Kip Quackenbush) (02/14/84)
Did anyone out there feel as disgruntled as I did
to learn of the USA's chances for a medal in the
Nordic Combined event taken away by the infamous
'Jury' of the ski jump? Backround:
Two Americans entered the Olympics in the Nordic Combined
event. For the first time ever, we had a solid chance of
not only winning a medal, but taking the gold. Saturday was
the day for the jumping, and half of the 70 meter competition
was over when the Jury decided that the conditions were too
dangerous, as the two Americans sat one-two in the standings.
Both had flown well over the rest of the field.
As the jumping portion was postponed, it was decided that all
competitors would jump again, thereby wiping out all previous
jumps. The Americans fell to 16th and 24th places. Funny thing
is, the jury consisted of delegates from East and West Germany,
Norway, Sweden, and the USSR. After the second running of the
jumping, Norway, Sweden, USSR, and the Germans were in the top five.
Going into the Cross Country Skiing portion, jumpers took their
scores as 'penalty time' against the cross-country skiing times.
Thus, in 16th and 24th place, the Americans' chances for a medal
were wiped out.
Now, I'm not one who is interested in watching the competition
for 'mdeal glory'. But, to listen to the two Americans speak
just before the cross country race got my blood flowing. These
guys have worked long and hard (as all athletes do) and now
their 'personal' chances were blown. In addition, both skiers
are going to hang it up after these games. It is just a shame
to see this kind of thing happen, especially to the home favorites.
I kind of feel better- but not much
White Hot Keyboards,
Kip
{...}inhp4!dual!proper!kipmauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (02/17/84)
I do not have any information on the Nordic Combined competition in the Winter Olympics beyond that presented by proper!kip, but... 1) If conditions, such as windspeed, were different on the two days of ski flying then it would be unfair to compare results achieved on different days. Assuming that the event had to be postponed, forcing everyone to jump again seems fair. 2) In a two-part combined event, placing low in the first part usually wrecks your chances of winning in the combined standings. That's the nature of the game. 3) If the American competitors were so great, why did they only place 16 and 24 on the second day of jumping? Sounds like they were done out of a chance at an upset, but not cheated out of a richly deserved medal. I am willing to believe that the decision to delay the Nordic Combined event was influenced *in part* by the standings, but that's it. It's a heartbreaker for the athletes involved, but not a major conspiracy or injustice. -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University
haeckel@stolaf.UUCP (Paul C. Haeckel) (02/17/84)
You're right Kip - whether or not there was really any politics
involved in the decision to start the jumps over, Team USA got
screwed royally. There has to be some way to incorporate the first
set of jumps into the final standings. Perhaps averaging them with
the ones done from the new starting point. As long as everyone had
these two extra jumps, I see nothing unfair about some system like
this. Unfortunately, it's a bit late at this point to do anything
about it. Incidently, does anyone know what the USA's chances for
a medal would have been using the averaged score?
Paul Haeckel
NET: ihnp4!stolaf!haeckel
decvax!stolaf!haeckelmazur@inmet.UUCP (02/24/84)
#R:proper:-101400:inmet:6400090:000:2427
inmet!mazur Feb 22 14:57:00 1984
1) If conditions, such as windspeed, were different on the two
days of ski flying then it would be unfair to compare results
achieved on different days. Assuming that the event had to
be postponed, forcing everyone to jump again seems fair.
The event was not postponed; it was restarted. Actually 3/4 of the skiers
had skiied the first run when one of the last skiers landed past the
critical point on the slope (where the grade of the slope flattens out).
This is considered to be dangerous.
Therefore, the jumps were restarted from a slightly lower takeoff platform
to reduce speed.
2) In a two-part combined event, placing low in the first part
usually wrecks your chances of winning in the combined standings.
That's the nature of the game.
3) If the American competitors were so great, why did they
only place 16 and 24 on the second day of jumping? Sounds
like they were done out of a chance at an upset, but not
cheated out of a richly deserved medal.
Actually, Kerry Lynch (who managed to finish 3rd in the cross country
portion of the event) was *favored* to win the gold.
I am willing to believe that the decision to delay the Nordic
Combined event was influenced *in part* by the standings, but
that's it. It's a heartbreaker for the athletes involved, but
not a major conspiracy or injustice.
I disagree. There have been several injustices in just these Winter Games.
One other specific instance I can recall was in the final judging for the
Ice Dancing competition. The US pair was third going into the long program.
They chose to do a dance to "Scheherazade". They received good marks except
by the Italian judge who chose to give them a 5.6 (out of 6.0). The US pair
lost the bronze medal to the Russians who were in 4th place. The Italian
judge, when pressed for a reason for her low mark, pulled out the Ice Dancing
rule book and pointed out that couples are required to change tempos in their
long program.
The injustice? England's Torvill and Dean (easily the best ice dancer's in
the world) did their long program to Ravel's "Bolero". No major tempo change
that I can recall. The Italian judge gave this pair (who performed *after*
the US pair) a 6.0, a perfect mark.
While there may have been no conspiracy to rob the US couple of the medal
it certainly seems a flagrant injustice.
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur
knight@rlgvax.UUCP (Steve Knight) (02/26/84)
> From Beth Mazur ({ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur) > One other specific instance I can recall was in the final judging for the > Ice Dancing competition. The US pair was third going into the long program. > They chose to do a dance to "Scheherazade". They received good marks except > by the Italian judge who chose to give them a 5.6 (out of 6.0). The US pair > lost the bronze medal to the Russians who were in 4th place. The Italian > judge, when pressed for a reason for her low mark, pulled out the Ice Dancing > rule book and pointed out that couples are required to change tempos in their > long program. > The injustice? England's Torvill and Dean (easily the best ice dancer's in > the world) did their long program to Ravel's "Bolero". No major tempo change > that I can recall. The Italian judge gave this pair (who performed *after* > the US pair) a 6.0, a perfect mark. That's not exactly the rationale that the Italian judge used. Ice dancing *permits* couples to dance to four different tempo/meter changes in their long program, but does not require them to. It is, however, very standard to change tempos/meters the maximum number of times allowed, in order to demonstrate versatility, etc. Torvill & Dean's "Bolero" was first presented before the Olympics at a competition in South America, I believe, and was a radical departure from the norm, but well within the rules. The Italian judge's criteria for marking Blumberg & Seibert down (the American couple, whose names I hope I am spelling correctly) was that the music *is* supposed to be something to which you could dance on a ballroom floor--i.e., "ballroom dance" type music, as opposed to ballet, etc. Her argument was that "Bolero" fits this criteria, but "Scheherezade" does not, which strikes me as a fairly worthless nitpick. In any event, Blumberg & Seibert's getting marked down is supposed to indicate that ice dancing will return to its old conventions after Torvill & Dean retire, instead of continuing in the direction they started with "Bolero." Pity. -- Steve Knight {seismo,allegra,some other sites}!rlgvax!knight