They make a comment in the beginning of the movie that she is so difficult to work with that they should've made her a singles skater instead of a pairs skater. Why can't she just become a singles skater and train for that instead now? Anyone know how this works?
sharejeb1410, in real life, that would be the way they would probably go. They might even just give up on her except for the fact that she was considered one of the best. Then they would have to deal with her just messing up on her own and not messing up any partner she would get.
For the sake of having a movie, they had to make her skate with partners.
Single skaters have more of an athletic program to perform. A transition from a singles skater to a pairs skater would be easier than the other way around.
It's kind of like tennis. Singles players are not necessarily great doubles players. And if doubles players became singles, they probably wouldn't do as good. It is easier for a singles player to be a successful doubles player than the other way around.
so it is with figure skating.
Exactly. It's what she was trained to do.
share[deleted]
But if they did that, there'd be no movie!
shareEkaterina Gordeeva became a singles skater after her husband/pairs partner died. They won gold medals as pairs skaters, but as a singles skater she never won anything. Different jumps and turns.
shareExactly.
Different cardio regiment, different skill-set, different pacing, and different levels of physical exertion.
It's not necessarily starting from scratch, but in many ways it is because everything about going from doubles to singles changes in terms of how the physicality is expressed and for how long. With doubles, there is a partner there to hold, lift, spin, and throw you -- between these moments you have an opportunity to catch your breath, and your exertion is different from when skating on your own.
Just like NASCAR is a completely different beast from rally racing; sure, they're both racing, but going from rally racing to NASCAR is a completely different skill-set, and you no longer have a co-pilot reading your turns, and you're also competing against other racers directly. Same profession, but completely different skill-set involved.
"Different cardio regiment, different skill-set, different pacing, and different levels of physical exertion."
But HOCKEY PLAYERS have the same cardio regiment, same skillset (this word doesn't have a hyphen), same pacing (whatever this means) and same levels of .. ok, I am not even going to repeat that, because THAT is just stupid (no offence)?
Really?
I mean, figure skater into figure skater seems to be WAY similar compared to hockey player into figure skater. At least they already know how to use the toe pick and how to do the basic moves, all they have to do is just learn to do things without a partner - I can't believe the training or execution of the routines would be all THAT different physically or psychologically.
If you disagree, please ELABORATE on why you think they're so different. It's still all figure skating, you still twirl around and use toepicks and do all those coreographies according to music, it CAN'T be _THAT_ different. You still use the same muscles and same kind of stuff, you still have to be able to 'skate alone at fast, controlled speed fluctuations' with AND without a partner, so what's the real difference anyway?
Someone NOT WINNING something is no proof - she might have gotten too old at that point to compete with the fresh, young people, there might be a myriad of reasons why she didn't win things. It could be that competition is tougher, it could be that the partners-version is easier because there is less competition or fewer skilled people or whatnot, it could be that the PARTNER was the really skilled one that did most of the work and made them look good, and she was simply coasting (at least partially), it could be that she's psychologically a different entity alone, and can't muster similar amounts of energy and excitement because of the 'loss', and due to all this sadness, can't really do things as well, and so on..
It could also be that she was never that good in the first place.
How different are the jumps/turns?
I mean, she DID convert SUCCESSFULLY from 'double to single', so that proves that it's not only possible, it HAS BEEN DONE.
Her winning / losing-ratio doesn't enter into it. Kate could've certainly turned into a single skater, even if she hadn't been as successful as one.
In any case, it could be that judges and audiences are more lenient in scoring and admiration for the doubles, as it's more 'romantic' - singles have more pressure, as the pressure isn't shared, so if they make a mistake, it's just a big mistake, but if a partner makes a mistake, the other might cover for it somewhat.
In any case, you haven't convinced anyone that it's MORE feasible to turn a hockey player into figure skater than a double skater into single skater. Why can Doug become such a success even though he doesn't even know the basics, like how to use a 'toe pick', but Kate absolutely CAN'T become a success as single, although she does?
None of this makes any sense, and you are just trying to use some random example to justify your rationalization of a stupid movie trope that makes no sense.
There ARE no in-universe answers to this question that would make any sense. The ONLY real and true answer is the external one; 'the plot requires it'. That's the only answer that makes any sense - in-universe, they would definitely have made Kate a single skater as soon as any problems arose. Sure, it might've taken some time, but she would've made a good one - except that she's in 'sabotage mode', so she would not have won anything, I am sure.
How do we even know this is not the case for the real-life example as well, perhaps she consciously or sub-consciously sabotaged her show for some kind of motivations that we just don't happen to know, and that's why she didn't win anything...
The point of all that isn't even whether she won anything or not, but whether she was able to convert, and if she was able to compete, she clearly completed the transformation successfully. Q.E.D.
But HOCKEY PLAYERS have the same cardio regiment, same skillset (this word doesn't have a hyphen), same pacing (whatever this means) and same levels of .. ok, I am not even going to repeat that, because THAT is just stupid (no offence)?
Her winning / losing-ratio doesn't enter into it. Kate could've certainly turned into a single skater, even if she hadn't been as successful as one.
The point of all that isn't even whether she won anything or not, but whether she was able to convert, and if she was able to compete, she clearly completed the transformation successfully. Q.E.D.