The Ongoing Debate of Last Year's X-Games

BCKicker540

BCKicker540

Active member
Despite the fact that it's almost a year later, i stil read posts about how Tanner should have won the slopestyle. Everyone who says this cannot think for themselves and are blinded by Tanner's rep. Here are my reasons why Tanner deserved second place, even third in my opinion. I will pick apart their runs to show you all why Tanner didn't win.

Tanner: The nollie lipslide was incredible, very progressive, but you're whole run cannot be carried by one trick. He only slid about half the down on the flat down with his 450 on, and his 270 off was pretty sloppy. Also you cannot expect to win with that horrifying revert after the rail. On his jumps, a lot of his spins looked slightly out of control, and all but one of his landings were sloppy. He also didnt hold his grabs nearly as long as Jon or Gagnier

Jon: Tried to change it up a little by using the box, his bs switch up to tailslide was sick, but he came off a little early, in my opinion the only imperfection on his whole run. His 270 disaster was flawless, and he landed right at the kink and slid the whole down. All his jumps were video game smooth with perfect landings. The first time i watched the run i thought his last switch 10 was a switch 7. If Jon didnt blow the first box he should have won.

Gagnier: One footer on the stair rail, very progressive, i like it, but many hate it. lets leave it at that because this is a discussion of the rightful winner, not one-footer's. His switch 270 on was real good, not as good as Jon, but smoother than Tanner. To everyone's dissapointment, Gagnier also reverted after the landing. Gagnier's jump line was near perfect, with some flailing, but much smoother and with much longer grabs than Tanner. His switch 10 on the money booter had the most tweaked grab of the day and he held it from about 180 to 720.

A final analysis:

Jon had by far the smoothest run of anyone, but his one slip up cost him. Tanner's run was very technical, but he was sloppy on landings and grabs. Gagnier fell victim to the revert as Tanner did, but his grabs and landings were much smoother. Tanner's first rail was more technical, but his nollie was extremely subtle, i didn't even notice until Pep said it, and i still have trouble seeing it. So in conclusion I agree with the rankings, where each person deserved his place.

NOTE: Do not say that a nollie lipslide should beat a one footer; a slopestyle comp is about the whole run, not the first trick you do.

 
i wouldnt say that jon deserved third... he deserved more then that, for all teh reason you mentionned. I likedcharles better but yea that's prolly because I know charles and that I liked the way he landed his tricks betterthen everyone up there.

Jon and Charle was a close call but no way tanner deservedto beat Jon
 
yea after watching one of jon's run then watching gagniers run and thalls run that placed them 1st and 2nd i definatly think that jon should have won
 
Yeah, Chales deserved his place, he killed it. But Jon should have been 2nd. Tanner Hall was sloppy at some jumps.
 
heres soemthin to try. the x games are over, no one can do anything about the results. no one really cares any more, and tanners 270 out of the flat down was the illest fuckin thing done, fuckin 450d to uphill 2 out fuckin red rum on that shit mang
 
yeah who the hell watches for a nollie in a ski comp, skiing is not skating and hopefully never will be.
 
no. the nollie was sick. better than charles' backslide, or at least smoother.

the 450-270 out was also sicker than charles' sw. 270. they both reverted.

at that point, tanner was ahead of charles. then he did a no grab on his sw. 7, and charled killed the grab on his 5.

tanner had the slight advantage on the hip with a little nicer trick than charles.

after that, charles dominated the bottom 3 booters with natty and unnatty, ridiculous, and varied (important concept) grabs, and stomped (another important concept) tricks. tanner went both ways as well, but had less amplitude, used one grab, and sketched his landings.

so for the last time, gagnier deserved the gold.

sidenotes...i think tanners first run was the best of them all, but first runs count for nothing. as well, all jon had to do was hit the rail instead of the box and the gold was his.

anyways, thats my piece.
 
the run of jon look like charles.but jon land the firts run and charles the second .every time in a history of the x-games you have more point in the second run.a dont understand but is that.but the 2 last jumps look like more difficult of charles and it is the same trick. a talk witch charles and the bad point in a run of charles is the switch 270 in because land of the nose of the ski and dont slide the bigining of the rail. what is bad for jon is look like 3 year is possible to win and finish 3 not 2
 
i noticed the nollie, but i dont think the nollie should have been scored higher than a 270 on.

it just looked different... and xgames are about spectacles... not technical.
 
I didn't go to the XGames but a friend of mine, a snowboarder went. He went this year, and he went last year. He told me, and I quote here, "That Jon olsson dude from Sweden gets robbed at the XGames. Last year at superpipe he went bigger and skied way smoother than anyone, I don't get why he doesnt win." That almost verbatim what he told me. So if a snowboarder even thinks Jon goes big and is smooth, that tells you something.
 
agreed , jons pipe run was so sick. one of the only guys at that comp who did all tricks down the pipe on both walls, meanin left side to righside spins every hit basically
 
jon definetly deserved second, no doubt. Tanner probably didn't even deserve third with that run, he didn't look smooth at all. Charles had a great run, and his grabs were perfect.
 
I would hate to of had to judge that because it was so close for everybody. Rails where even and jumps where even. Any decision they could have made would upset most people. I just can't stand the fact that a 1 footer won. other than that I don't really care
 
i think ganier won fair and square because of his last three hits.

though i do agree that he got showed up on the rails and could have definitly popped out the cork 810...
 
honestly, i wouldn't be surprised if Jon FINALLY won this year. everyone's talking about new guys like Corey Vanular (and with very good reason), but i think that Jon is just too smooth to be touched. hopefully the judges will agree with most of us this year, Jon will put together a solid run, and he will finally win.
 
i donno its really a tough call, tanner and gangier both drag a hand on there switch 10s, but tanners was corked, tanner did however nuckle a couple of the landings making it look slopy, but his 450 on 270 look reall clean in my opinion and beats out gangies s270 on the same rail. Jon except for comin off a little early i think had the smoother run outta the two. If i had to judge I would say Jon gets first because over overall he was the cleanest, (tanners and gangiers slopyness down the course added up to me, even tho it was little things). Tanner gets second, because he did have the most diffuculty but wasnt always super smooth, and 3rd to gangier because he couldnt equal all tho close tanners difficulty level and jons style level, and seriously you dont go to the xgames and throw a 3 off a jump (he 3ed that hip)
 
corey canular did 450-270 out but he fell on a rodeo.

ive thought the whole time that if vanular didnt fall he would have won.
 
the one thing that set Charles apart from Jon and Tanner was the unnaty 7. I mean...switch unnaty rodeo 7 reverse mute landed in the Aspen cafeteria, you can't beat that.
 
If we are really going to bring this back.

I think the real debate is between pipe. Did Simon's deserve first just because he went high as a kite?
 
did he even deserve a spot on the podium? i think bronze at best.

you're right, pipe was even more of an atrocity. it was clear that t-hall won, and jon came a close second. all dumont did was 5s, and a stupid 720 that was after the end of his run and was ugly.

jon was smooth and tech, with a ton of flow. but tanner's run had more energy and even more technicality, and he didnt miss grabs. for that, he won.

the funniest thing of all is that crichton's run from two years ago wasn't even touched last year.
 
he didnt win because he thought he could just win it so easily, but then he didnt try hard so other people took his spot, its as simple as that.
 
it was a switch 3. completely blind landing on a feature nobody else was landing switch on. i think it's a sick addition to a run, and he did everything else he could have done jump-wise, so why not?
 
In my opinion Jon won 1st for sure, all of his landings, spins, and grabs were absolutely flawless, and his bs swich up was not to terrible at all.
 
Whilst I was at the X games, I met all the judges and pretty much all the pros. I questioned those judges that I spoke to about T's score, they gave their reasons, some which I didn't agree to, and of which I am not at liberty to publish here. What I will say however is that at the end of the day, this sport involves a subjective element, judgin unfortunately is not objective and to achieve objectivity would contradict the essence of the new school movement. Subsequently, judging not only involves one's interpretation of what is witnessed in a competitors run, but it also involves the judge's emotions and personality, and the judge's perception of the competitor's personality and their relationship with the competitor that is being judged. The truth of the matter is that some judges are more professional than others, some are more experienced than others and judging formats differ fromone competition to the next. In order to create more consistent judging, which is essentially what everyone here is looking for and is what I believe, is costing many competitions the appearance of thosemost celebritised pros, a code of conduct for judging or somes standard needs to be established by the industry's most experienced judges in orderto relieve the competitive proportion of this sport of ambiguity and amateurism.

Arthur Raptis
 
gagniers run straight up sucked. ugly one footer, uglier switch 27, even uglier switch 3. and even tighter pants. i bet he sucked a mean cock for gold. period.
 
^^^ Nope year b4

And despite the fact that a onefooter looks gay.......it is a pretty technical trick adn not many can do them as clean as gagnier
 
i liked tanners style much more than jon and charles, jon's style is definatly unique, and very smooth but i dont think he has a very good style, charles has pretty good style, though i dont think its very unique, like tanners and jon's. and since tanners and charles had very similar runs alot of it came down to what they did on the rails, and if the rails were what decided the winner then i think they messed up, a nollie lipslide is much harder and much more creative than a 1- footer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top