Datebook: August 11, 2008

We left the nail-biting angst of Lake Placid for the breath holding, ice cream spoon to mouth delay of watching the suspense of the summer Olympics.

The opening ceremonies were spectacular and a living tribute to all that I value in terms of symbolism. Of course, with a 300 million dollar budget, maybe we all could be as creative and inventive.

The return from Lake Placid is always the same. Most of us return to air that is not as pure and rich and driving on more than single lane roads. Programs are changed, costumes get more crystals or beading, and final plans are made to try to determine what section to compete in.

Eventually the bruises heal.

Not the black and blue hues from falling on knees and hips due to the slip from an edge on the ice.

The bruises delivered by those who give feedback in the critiques.

Let me go on record as saying that getting feedback for the pilot status of a new program is vital. But what is destructive is having ice skating judges try to model Simon Cowell’s acerbity in comment and attitude.

I remember last year the futility of this process. Basically all skaters know what they did right and what they did wrong in any program. What they really need at Lake Placid is critical feedback on how the choreography works and how the program projects. In fact I think it might be a better idea to have someone sit with the technical callers and make a note sheet on what determined each level element and then send the page of critique notes to the coach to be reviewed when the team goes back home.

Having competitors face a gauntlet of judges (off the ice, in the bowels of the 1980 arena) is not beneficial. For one thing, skaters never see and hear from every judge on a panel. So, they are left to hear from one of two judges—so it could be a judge that gave them a 5.90 or a 2.75.

Let me put this in another scenario.

This process would be much like gathering your in-laws all together and then asking them to critique your qualities as a said in-law. You would then get to verbally hear the judgment of just two of them.

You do not get to hear the opinion of your dear sister-in-law--although you drove three hours to her Pampered Chef party. You do not get to hear the opinion of your nephew--although you took him on the perfect winter snowboarding vacation.

Instead, you get your mother-in-law and Aunt Sally. Your mother-in-law has never accepted that you have been able to get her son to eat broccoli when she could not. Your mother-in-law thinks your failure to use straight bleach as a cleaning agent renders your judgment faulty and your house unclean. Your Aunt Sally is much harder; she does not come to your house because you have animals in the house and are therefore unclean. You, unfortunately, answered her questions about your opinion on burial versus cremation and she has now cast you as an unclean heathen.

They each give you a 3.18 as an in-law. Do you want to hear their reasons? Would you then go and buy two gallons of Clorox and a burial plot?

My daughter was not part of the critique process this year but she has been in the past so I was not surprised at some of the feedback that others received.

"You are such a pretty girl…"

"You shouldn’t wear over the boot tights; we can’t see the point of the toe".

"You should wear over the boot tights; it gives you a longer line."

"Your skirt is too long."

"I love that dress!"

"You need to work on relating to each other."

"You have great partnering skills."

"He needs to do something with his hair."

"Why is he wearing his hair that way?"

"You should always wear your hair in a bun for compulsories."

"You have such lovely hair, why don’t you wear it down."

"You would have been higher if you didn’t fall on those twizzles."

"You need to do more than one revolution to get credit for a spin."

On the other-hand however, you can always ask your mother-in-law how her grandson or granddaughter skated.

"Oh my gosh! They were the best ones out there!

Mombo