Kwan has many qualities that the skaters to whom she lost olympic gold will never have - grace, endurance and excellence. Tara Lipinski's gold winning performance, in particular, was famously (and accurately) likened to that of a "robotic shrimp." Kwan's technical marks may have fallen just short of the gold, but anyone who appreciates figure skating doesn't measure a skater's excellence solely upon whether she makes the cover of the Wheaties box.

Botton line: Kwan's performances are breathtaking. And no arbitrary piece of medal can take that away from her. And likewise, winning the gold doesn't bolster the uninspiring performances of the inferior skaters to whom she lost

Luge was invented by the sober college students. The drunk ones invented skeleton.

Namely, that figure skating insiders will take things like the world championships and US championships into account and to figure skating outsiders debating whether or not a figure skater is great is along the lines of debating what's the best thing to get hit in the mouth with.

btdenver: Lipinski and Sarah Hughes are both younger than Kwan, yet both are out of competitive skating.

Right. They reached the top and left.

Christy: e.g. early 90s Buffalo Bills (great team, no super bowl), and 50s Hungarian national soccer (great team, no world cup) have been included in their sport's respective video games as unlockable "greats".

Uh, Christy, I don't know about your video game theory. What you're saying is that video-game designers, whose decisions are based on what will sell the most video games and nothing else, are the ultimate arbiters of greatness. I'm not buying that. The public, down through the ages, is the arbiter of such things.

And if you're asserting that:

IF the early '90s Buffalo Bills are considered an all-time great team, THEN Michelle Kwan must be considered an all-time great skater

then I'm comfortable resting my case. The Buffalo Bills are not considered an all-time great team precisely because they went 0-4 in the Super Bowl.

Yuda: King wrote: "Just once, I'd like to get a closer look at an athlete who's anathema to the Olympic spirit. 'Up next, a profile of a guy who's all about the Benjamins, hates foreigners and thinks the Olympics are a big joke. But he's really fast.'"

I guess NBC hasn't done their closeup of Bode Miller yet?

I don't know about that. Miller's all about how competing well is more important than winning. That's pretty close to the Olympic spirit as I understand it. He might be kind of a putz -- don't be so sure about that; remember that guys like me have a way of making guys look bad when they won't sit still and be good little subjects, though I also agree with the writer above that the Lance Armstrong/Barry Bonds comment was uncalled-for -- but I don't see him being anathema to the Olympic spirit.

At least one compliation of the great baseball teams lists the 1969 Baltimore Orioles, who won 109 games in the regular season, swept the NL playoffs, and then lost 4 games to one to the New York Mets.

Assessing a quarterback's greatness on the basis of his handoffs is a bit like assessing a pitcher's greatness on the basis of his pickoff move.

"Look at the real greats and you can't tell where the ball is."

When people talk about the "real greats" - Montana, Graham, Elway, Unitas, et al - I'm quite confident that their ability to hand off nimbly is rather low on the list of their positive attributes - somewhere down around their sense of style, their kindness to strangers, and their ability to hold the ball with laces out on field goals (and, I suppose, their ability or willingness to tackle after a fumble or INT).

"Marino wanted passing stats and made sure he got them."

That Marino wanted passing stats is beyond dispute. But if the implication is that he intentionally sabotaged his running game to set up the pass, then I might have to change the title of my first post.

Marino was one dimensional. He could pass well. Calling him an "all time great" is as rediculous as people calling Vick a "great quarterback" 'cause he runs well.

I'll give you Unitas though, he was an all time great that never won the Superbowl.

And if any of these posts are the most rediculous things you've ever read, you don't read much.

I'm 35, and I swear I recall from the Olympics coverage of my youth seeing lugers -- and bobsleds -- wipe out and go flying over the lip of the course into hay bales or the concession stands or Jim McKay.

As to your last line, touche.

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure where to begin in responding to your classification of Marino as "one-dimensional", that one dimension being "passing well". All things considered, I'd say that passing the ball is a pretty important aspect of quarterback play. Really, how do you define a great QB? Can I presume that Kordell Stewart is high on that list?

dobiesk8r: For a sports writer to assert that the only competition that matters in the sport of figure skating is the Olympics is disappointing.

King: And how do you feel about a world-class downhill skiier saying it about the sport of downhill skiing?

I feel okay about it - but then again I'm just a recreational skier and don't know anything about the competitive aspects of the sport of downhill skiing. Apparently it can be done after having a few drinks...a skater attempting the same thing might make a mess on the ice after a spin.

By your criteria, having won an Olympic gold medal, Beatrix Schuba (Trixie who?) will be remembered as one of the "greatest skaters of all time" whereas Michelle Kwan will not.

King: That's false logic, and it's not what I said. I didn't say that everyone who wins a gold medal is an all-time great.

I realize that my logic wasn't quite up to snuff, but I disagree with your premise that a skater cannnot be considered great without an Olympic gold. And I happen to believe that winning an Olympic gold is dependent on luck, since it comes around only every four years and age becomes a factor. For most skaters, particularly females, there is a short window of opportunity to do triple jumps. But a skater who has won multiple World titles should not be disqualified from greatness on the basis of having "only" won silver and bronze. There's a lot to be said for consistency.

Just my thoughts. I enjoy your column.