Problems with CoP and how to fix them

Mathman said:

OK, now I'm thinking it must be "Planned Program Content Sheet."

Click to expand...

Correct.

Well if I hadn't started this we would not know it existed.

Anyway, what's the chance of getting copies which makes relaying elements from sight to computer messge that much easier?

Joe

GoldMedalist said:

Several of us have been discussing some of the flaws within the CoP regarding jump combinations and other such issues. I have taken it upon myself to go through and fix everything that I currently see wrong with the judging system as it stands (have been working on this for some time now; I submit my ideas with the 2007-2008 season updates in mind as well)....

4Lutz - 9.8 (-1.6, +1 for GOE)
4Loop - 9.4 (-1.5, +1 for GOE)...

Click to expand...

OK, I finally found the time actually to read the Gold Medal proposals (aka, the Z-scores) put forward in the first post. Wow, that's an impressive chunk of work. Unlike the current rules, IMHO these have a robustness and internal consistency that is very impressive.

But the main thing is, all those lovely numbers for me to wallow in.

First, though, before I dive deliciously in, an overview. My impression of the plan presented here is that the main goal is to give points according to the difficulty of what the skater accomplishes.

So, for instance, an underrotated 3-loop that gets two-and-a-half times around is better than a properly done 2-loop with only two rotations.

The opposite point of view is that in sports, either you do it or you don't. If you didn't do a triple loop, then you didn't do a triple loop. If you fall down -- brrrrp -- no element. If you do a sequence, you deserve a penalty, because if you had the you-know-whats you'd do a combo like you're supposed to.

My impression is that this is the direction that the CoP and all of its many revisions is consistently heading.

In baseball, if you hit a double and get thrown out trying to stretch it to three, that's just an out. Nobody gives you any points for having made solid contact with the ball and with being so speedy on the base paths that you made it around two and three quarters bases.

In poll vaulting, you don't get partial credit for jumping 18 feet eleven inches when the bar is set at 19 feet.

If your Code of Points is too complicated in trying to give an extra hundredth of a point to every little thing, that misses the do-or-die spirit that is the hallmark of sport and that separates sports from other forms of recreation and entertainment.

So which approach is better?

The effect of do-or-die in figure skating -- IMHO, we are already seeing this -- will surely be to take the originality out of the mix, just like there is little "originality" when a batter steps up to the plate in baseball. The pitcher will go with a fastball or a curve, the batter will hit it or miss it, the fans will boo the umpire. That's sport.

Is this a good model or a bad one for figure skating to follow?

Regarding Planned Program Content Sheets.....

While nice to have to make notes (for accredited journalists), they are not always accurate.

For expample: If "Y" had a quad/triple planned, he (and/or coach) could change on the fly depending on how "X" performed or how "Y" may have done in warm-up. Many factors come into play.

I used them for marginal notes, but I certainly didn't rely on them. When I did, I found that my articles contained more errors because while writing, at the blink of an eye, I could miss an element. To try to "fill" in the blank with what is on the sheet could result in a error.

It would still be cool to be able to see them. We could compare what was originally planned with what the skaters actually did, and speculate on the reasons for the changes.

The PPCS is all completed on line. You enter it for your first qualifying comp of the season and it gets downloaded to the TC/TS database.

Mathman said:

It would still be cool to be able to see them. We could compare what was originally planned with what the skaters actually did, and speculate on the reasons for the changes.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

I wish I could comment on Goldenskates CoP modifications...but I'm off to work and haven't yet read it. It looks like a ton of work, though, so thanks for sharing and provoking discussion.

Mathman said:

But the main thing is, all those lovely numbers for me to wallow in.

Click to expand...

Here are some more lovely numbers - the results of the 2007 World Championships put through my revised CoP. My own GOEs, tech specialist calls, and PCS marks are factored in of course...but everyone else can judge too (most of these performances are still on Youtube) and maybe we can compile a Goldenskate listing.

OVERALL RESULT - LADIES:

1. Mao Asada - 188.62 ................. (4, 1)
2. Miki Ando - 186.61 ................. (2, 2)
3. Yu-Na Kim - 186.22 ................. (1, 3)
4. Kimmie Meissner - 174.45 ................. (6, 4)
5. Yukari Nakano - 174.45 ................. (5, 5)
6. Emily Hughes - 167.74 ................. (8, 6)
7. Carolina Kostner - 165.85 ................. (3, 14)
8. Susanna Poykio - 163.6 ................. (12, 9)
9. Elene Gedevanishvili - 162.84 ................. (9, 12)
10. Sarah Meier - 161.94 ................. (11, 11)
11. Valentina Marchei - 161.39 ................. (13, 10)
12. Joannie Rochette - 161.14 ................. (15, 8)
13. Alissa Czisny - 160.52 ................. (16, 7)
14. Julia Sebestyen - 156.15 ................. (7, 16)
15. Elena Sokolova - 155.53 ................. (14, 15)
16. Kiira Korpi - 151.17 ................. (20, 13)
17. Arina Martinova - 150.52 ................. (10, 18)
18. Elena Glebova - 142.5 ................. (22, 17)
19. Yan Liu - 137.34 ................. (19, 19)
20. Mira Leung - 135.77 ................. (17, 20)
21. Anastasia Gimazetdinova - 133.49 ................. (18, 21)
22. Joanne Carter - 131.74 ................. (21, 23)
23. Idora Hegel - 128.86 ................. (24, 22)
24. Tamar Katz - 128.63 ................. (23, 24)

OVERALL RESULTS - MEN:

1. Daisuke Takahashi - 239.64 ................. (2, 1)
2. Brian Joubert - 232.67 ................. (1, 4)
3. Stephane Lambiel - 231.72 ................. (9, 2)
4. Tomas Verner - 225.35 ................. (8, 3)
5. Evan Lysacek - 216.94 ................. (5, 6)
6. Nobunari Oda - 216.75 ................. (14, 5)
7. Jeffrey Buttle - 215.43 ................. (3, 8)
8. Johnny Weir - 208.27 ................. (4, 9)
9. Kristoffer Berntsson - 205.21 ................. (16, 7)
10. Sergei Davydov - 201.72 ................. (7, 12)
11. Alban Preaubert - 201.54 ................. (12, 10)
12. Stefan Lindemann - 194.66 ................. (18, 11)
13. Yannick Ponsero - 194.12 ................. (11, 14)
14. Christopher Mabee - 192.26 ................. (6, 17)
15. Ryan Bradley - 190.33 ................. (17, 13)
16. Karel Zelenka - 188.26 ................. (15, 15)
17. Emanuel Sandu - 187.34 ................. (13, 18)
18. Sergei Voronov - 183.51 ................. (20, 16)
19. Jamal Othman - 181.07 ................. (19, 21)
20. Anton Kovalevski - 179.78 ................. (21, 19)
21. Andrei Lutai - 179.45 ................. (22, 20)
22. Jialiang Wu - 176.58 ................. (10, 24)
23. Gregor Urbas - 174.14 ................. (23, 23)
24. Igor Macypura - 173.73 ................. (24, 22)

SHORT PROGRAM - LADIES:

1. Yu-Na Kim - 69.46

3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ 2)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
FSSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .25)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (+1)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
LSp4 ................. 2.8 (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .25) ................. Technical Total - 38.67

Program Components - 7.75, 7.5, 8.0, 7.5, 7.75 = 30.8

2. Miki Ando - 65.94

3Lz + 3Lo ................. 11.48 (+ 1)
3F* ................. 3.96 (+ 1)
LSp2 ................. 1.9
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 36.34

Program Components - 7.5, 6.75, 7.75, 7.5, 7.5 = 29.6

3. Carolina Kostner - 65.56

3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ 2)
3Lz ................. 5.2
2A ................. 3.2
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
FCSp4 ................. 3.0
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .5)
LSp2 ................. 1.9 ................. Technical Total - 35.96

Program Components - 7.5, 6.75, 7.75, 7.5, 7.5 = 29.6

4. Mao Asada - 62.26

3Lz** ................. 4.16 (+ 1)
3F + 1Lo ................. 5.0
SpSq3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 31.46

Program Components - 8.0, 7.5, 7.5, 7.75, 7.75 = 30.8

5. Yukari Nakano - 61.85

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- .5)
3F ................. 4.4
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .75)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
LSp3 ................. 2.3
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
FCSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ 1) ................. Technical Total - 31.85

Program Components - 7.5, 7.0, 7.75, 7.5, 7.75 = 30.0

6. Kimmie Meissner - 60.8

3Lz + <3T ................. 8.6 (+ .3)
3F ................. 4.4
LSp2 ................. 1.9 (+ .5)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 32.4

Program Components - 7.0, 7.0, 7.25, 7.25, 7.0 = 28.4

7. Julia Sebestyen - 60.3

3F ................. 4.4 (+ 2)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
FCSp4 ................. 3.0
SpSq4 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2
LSp2 ................. 1.9
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 31.9

Program Components - 7.25, 7.0, 7.25, 7.0, 7.0 = 28.4

8. Emily Hughes - 59.66

3F + 2T ................. 6.06 (+ 1)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 1)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.2
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 31.26

Program Components - 7.25, 6.75, 7.5, 7.0, 7.0 = 28.4

9. Elene Gedevanishvili - 58.64

3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 3)
2F* + 3T ................. 5.54
FCSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .5)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1) ................. Technical Total - 30.54 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.25, 7.0, 7.25, 7.25, 7.0 = 28.6

10. Arina Martinova - 57.45

3Lz* + 2T ................. 6.35
3F ................. 4.4
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
FCSp2 ................. 2.1
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 29.65

Program Components - 6.75, 6.75, 7.0, 7.25, 7.0 = 27.8

11. Sarah Meier - 57.0

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (+ 1)
3F ................. 4.4 (- 1.5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2 (- .8)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 29.0

Program Components - 7.25, 6.75, 7.0, 7.0, 7.0 = 28.0

12. Susanna Poykio - 56.5

2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- 1)
3F ................. 4.4 (+ .5)
LSp3 ................. 2.3
SpSq3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
FSSp2 ................. 2.1 ................. Technical Total - 28.7

Program Components - 7.25, 6.75, 7.0, 6.75, 7.0 = 27.8

13. Valentina Marchei - 56.1

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- 1)
2A ................. 3.2
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
<3S ................. 2.7 (+ .6)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
LSp2 ................. 1.9 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5 ................. Technical Total - 28.8 (- .5)

Program Components - 6.75, 6.25, 7.25, 7.25, 7.25 = 27.8

14. Elena Sokolova - 55.9

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- 2)
3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ 1)
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2 ( + .8)
LSp2 ................. 1.9
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 Technical Total - 29.1

Program Components - 6.75, 6.5, 7.0, 6.5, 6.75 = 26.8

15. Joannie Rochette - 53.36

3F + 2T ................. 6.06 (- .5)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (- .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2
LSp2 ................. 1.9
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (- 1.5)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 26.26 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.0, 6.75, 6.5, 7, 7.25 = 27.6

16. Alissa Czisny - 52.62

FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
3F ................. 4.4 (- 3)
A ................. 0.0
SpSq3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
<3Lz + 2T ................. 5.22
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ 1) ................. Technical Total - 25.42 (- 1)

Program Components - 7.0, 7.0, 6.75, 7.25, 7.25 = 28.2

17. Mira Leung - 51.15

3Lz + 2Lo ................. 7.5
3F ................. 4.4
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5)
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (- .5)
<2A ................. 1.9 (- .75)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 ................. Technical Total - 26.75

Program Components - 6.0, 5.5, 6.25, 6.25, 6.25 = 24.4

18. Anastasia Gimazetdinova - 51.0

2A ................. 3.2
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- .5)
3S ................. 4.0
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
LSp3 ................. 2.3 ................. Technical Total - 27.8

Program Components - 6.0, 5.5, 6.0, 5.75, 5.75 = 23.2

19. Yan Liu - 50.85

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- .5)
<3Lo ................. 3.2
FCSp2 ................. 2.1
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .4)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
LSp3 ................. 2.3 ................. Technical Total - 26.85

Program Components - 6.5, 5.5, 6.0, 6.0, 6.0 = 24.0

20. Kiira Korpi - 49.58

3Lo + 2T ................. 6.48 (+ .5)
3F ................. 4.4 (- 2)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
A ................. 0.0
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 24.68

Program Components - 6.25, 6.0, 6.25, 6.25, 6.25 = 24.8

21. Joanne Carter - 49.41

3F + 2T ................. 6.06 (- 1)
3T ................. 3.6 (+ .5)
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
2A ................. 3.2 (- .4)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
LSp2 ................. 1.9 (+ .25) ................. Technical Total - 26.61

Program Components - 6.0, 5.5, 6.0, 5.5, 5.5 = 22.8

22. Elena Glebova - 46.82

3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 3)
SpSq2 ................. 2.5
3T + 3T ................. 8.28 (+ .5)
LSp2 ................. 1.9
1A ................. .9
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (- .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 24.82

Program Components - 6.0, 5.0, 5.75, 5.5, 5.25 = 22.0

23. Tamar Katz - 46.6

3Lz + Combo ................. 5.2 (- 3)
3Lo ................. 4.8
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2
LSp1 ................. 1.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 26.2

Program Components - 5.5, 4.75, 5.25, 5.0, 5.0 = 20.4

24. Idora Hegel - 46.42

2Lz + 2T ................. 3.52
3Lo ................. 4.8
LSp2 ................. 1.9
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 25.42

Program Components - 5.5, 5.0, 5.25, 5.25, 5.25 = 21.0

.
.
.

LONG PROGRAM - LADIES:

1. Mao Asada - 126.36

3A ................. 6.8
2A + 3T ................. 7.84 (- 1.8)
3F + 3Lo ................. 10.6
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+.5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+.5)
2A ................. 3.52x (+ .8)
3Lz** ................. 4.58x
SpSq3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
3F ................. 4.84x (+ .5)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3Lz** + 2Lo + 2Lo ................. 8.28xx
LSp2 ................. 1.9 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 66.36

Program Components - 8.0, 7.25, 7.5, 7.5, 7.25 = 60.0

2. Miki Ando - 120.67

3Lz + 3Lo ................. 11.48 (+ .5)
3S ................. 4.0 (+ 1)
3F* ................. 3.96 (+ .5)
FSSp2 ................. 2.1
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3Lz ................. 5.72x
3T + 2Lo + 2Lo ................. 7.18x
3F* + 2Lo ................. 6.81
2A ................. 3.52x
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
LSp2 ................. 1.9 Technical Total - 61.67 (+ 1)

Program Components - 7.5, 7.0, 7.25, 7.25, 7.25 = 58.0

3. Yu-Na Kim - 116.76

3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ 2)
2A + 3T ................. 7.84 (+ 1)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
CSp4 ................. 2.5 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3Lz ................. 5.72x (- 3)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lz + Seq* ................. 4.68x (- 3)
3S + [2T] ................. 4.4x
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 4.16xxx
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 55.76 (- 1)

Program Components - 8.0, 7.5, 7.5, 7.75, 8.0 = 62.0

4. Kimmie Meissner - 113.65

3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 2)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
3F + <3T ................. 7.72 (- .3)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .25)
3S ................. 4.4x
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3Lo ................. 5.28x
SSp4 ................. 2.5
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
3Lz + Seq* ................. 4.68x
2A + <2T + 2Lo ................. 7.52xxx
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 55.25

Program Components - 7.5, 7.25, 7.25, 7.25, 7.25 = 58.4

5. Yukari Nakano - 112.6

<3A ................. 4.8 (- 3)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- .3)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3F ................. 4.4
3S ................. 4.0
FCSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x
FSSp1 ................. 1.7 (- .8)
3S + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.37x
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
2A ................. 4.16xxx (+ .4) ................. Technical Total - 53.9 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.5, 7.0, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 = 59.2

6. Emily Hughes - 108.08

2A ................. 3.2 (+ .8)
3F ................. 4.4 (- 3)
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.94
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5)
3T + 2T ................. 5.7x
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x
SpSq3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lz ................. 5.72x
3S ................. 5.2xxx
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 55.78 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.0, 6.0, 6.5, 6.75, 6.75 = 52.8

7. Alissa Czisny - 107.9

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
3F + 2T ................. 6.06
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3Lo ................. 4.8 (- 2)
FCSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3F ................. 4.48x
2A ................. 3.52x
3T + 2T + 2T ................. 6.22x
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
SpSq3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
<3Lz ................. 4.32xx (- 2.7)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1) ................. Technical Total - 52.8 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.25, 6.75, 7.0, 6.75, 7.0 = 55.6

8. Joannie Rochette - 107.58

3F + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.1 (+ 1)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (+ 1)
3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
3F ................. 4.84x (- 3)
2A + 3T + Seq* ................. 6.58x (+ 1)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (- .5)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
1Lz ................. .66x
3S ................. 4.8xx
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 55.18

Program Components - 7.0, 6.25, 6.25, 6.75, 6.5 = 52.4

9. Susanna Poykio - 107.1

3Lz ................. 5.2 (+ 1)
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.94
2A + 3T + Seq* ................. 5.9 (+ 1)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
2F + 2T ................. 3.12
CoSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .5)
<3Lo ................. 3.52x (- 2.4)
3S ................. 4.4x
LSp3 ................. 2.3
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3T ................. 4.32xx (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 52.8 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.25, 6.25, 7.0, 6.5, 7.25 = 54.8

10. Valentina Marchei - 105.29

3Lz ................. 5.2
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
2A + 2T ................. 4.8
FCSSp4 ................. 3.0
3S + 2T ................. 5.64 (- .3)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
3T ................. 3.96x
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
1A ................. .99x
3S ................. 4.4x
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5 ................. Technical Total - 50.49

Program Components - 6.75, 6.75, 7.25, 6.5, 7.0 = 54.8

11. Sarah Meier - 104.94

3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.94 (+ 1)
2F + 2T ................. 3.12
3F ................. 4.4 (- .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
CUSp3 ................. 2.5
3Lz ................. 5.72x (+ 1)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.52x
2S + 2T ................. 3.06x
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
3T ................. 4.68xxx ( -2.7)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 50.64 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.0, 6.25, 7.0, 6.75, 7.25 = 54.8

12. Elene Gedevanishvili - 104.2

3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 3)
3F* + <3T ................. 7.24 (+ .6)
FCSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ 1)
2A + 3T ................. 7.84
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
1Lz ................. .66x (- .2)
2A ................. 3.52x (+ .8)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
1F* + 2T + 2T ................. 2.6x
1S ................. .44x
LSp4 ................. 2.8 (+ 1)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 47.5 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.5, 7.0, 7.25, 7.0, 7.0 = 57.2

13. Kiira Korpi - 101.59

3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ 1)
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.94
3F ................. 4.4 (- 1)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
CUSp2 ................. 2.1
3Lo + 2T ................. 7.08x
<3S + 2T ................. 4.55 (- .5)
2A ................. 3.52x
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
3S ................. 5.2xxx (- 3)
CCoSp2 ................. 2.5 ................. Technical Total - 51.59

Program Components - 6.5, 6.0, 6.5, 6.0, 6.25 = 50

14. Carolina Kostner - 100.29

3F ................. 4.4 (- 3)
2Lz ................. 2.0
3Lo ................. 4.8
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
3F + Seq* ................. 3.52 (- 2)
3Lo + 1Lo ................. 5.93x
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
CCoSp2 ................. 2.5
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
3S ................. 4.4x
2A ................. 3.84xx (- .4)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 41.99 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.5, 7.0, 7.25, 7.5, 7.5 = 58.8

15. Elena Sokolova - 99.93

3Lz ................. 5.2 (+ 1)
2T + 3T ................. 5.64 (- .9)
2A ................. 3.2
2S ................. 1.3
LSp1 ................. 1.5
3Lo + 2T + 2Lo ................. 9.29x (+ .5)
CSp1 ................. 1.2
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3Lo ................. 5.28x (+ 1)
2A ................. 3.52x
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
FCoSp2 ................. 2.1 ................. Technical Total - 48.73

Program Components - 6.75, 6.0, 6.75, 6.25, 6.25 = 51.2

16. Julia Sebestyen - 95.85

3S + 2T + 2Lo ................. 7.68
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (+ 1)
1F ................. .5 (- .2)
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3F + 2T + Seq* ................. 5.92x
CUSp2 ................. 2.1
2Lz ................. 2.2x (+ .6)
3T ................. 3.96 (- 2.7)
1A ................. .99x
CSp4 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+. 5) ................. Technical Total - 44.35 (- .5)

Program Components - 6.75, 6.0, 6.5, 6.5, 6.75 = 52

17. Elena Glebova - 95.68

3Lz* ................. 4.68 (- 3)
2F ................. 1.6
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
3S ................. 4.0
2A ................. 3.2
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
CUSp3 ................. 2.5
SpSq2 ................. 2.5
2A + 3T + 2T ................. 10.08x (- .9)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
2A + 3T ................. 8.52x
3S + 2T ................. 7.2xxx
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 51.78 (- .5)

Program Components - 6.0, 5.0, 5.75, 5.5, 5.5 = 44.4

18. Arina Martinova - 93.07

3Lz* + 2T ................. 6.35 (- 1)
3T ................. 3.6 (- 2.7)
1F ................. .5
3S ................. 4.0
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lz* ................. 4.68 (- 1)
FCSp2 ................. 2.1
3T + 2T ................. 5.7x (+ .5)
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
2A + 2T ................. 5.24x
CUSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 43.47

Program Components - 6.75, 5.75, 6.5, 6.0, 6.0 = 49.6

19. Yan Liu - 86.49

<3Lz + 2T ................. 5.22 (- .45)
3F ................. 4.4 (- 2)
3Lo ................. 4.8
<3Lo + 3S + Seq* ................. 6.2
FCSp1 ................. 1.7
3T + 2T ................. 5.7x
2A ................. 3.52x (- 2.4)
CSp2 ................. 2.1
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
CCoSp2 ................. 2.5
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3S ................. 5.2xxx
LSp3 ................. 2.3 ................. Technical Total - 44.19 (- .5)

Program Components - 5.75, 5.25, 5.0, 5.25, 5.5 = 42.8

20. Mira Leung - 84.62

3F ................. 4.4 (+ .5)
3Lz + 2Lo ................. 7.5
<3S ................. 2.6
CoSp2 ................. 2.1 (+ .5)
LSp3 ................. 2.3 (+ .5)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
<3T ................. 2.64x (- 1.7)
2A + 2T ................. 5.28x
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
<3Lz ................. 3.96x (- 1.8)
3F + Seq* ................. 4.84xxx (- 3)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 42.02 (- 1)

Program Components - 5.75, 5.5, 5.5, 5.25, 5.25 = 43.6

21. Anastasia Gimazetdinova - 82.49

3Lz ................. 5.2 (- .5)
3T + 3T + Seq* ................. 6.3 (- .9)
3S + 2T + Seq* ................. 4.9
2A ................. 3.2
2Lz ................. 2.0
FSSp3 ................. 2.5 (- .25)
LSp3 ................. 2.3
2S ................. 1.43x (- .45)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25)
SpSq4 ................. 3.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
2Lo ................. 2.21xxx (- .4)
CCoSp1 ................. 2.0 ................. Technical Total - 39.29

Program Components - 6.0, 5.25, 5.75, 5.0, 5.0 = 43.2

22. Idora Hegel - 82.44

3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 3)
3F ................. 4.4
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
2A ................. 3.2
2A + 3Lo + Seq* ................. 6.8
CoSp3 ................. 2.5
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3Lz + 2T ................. 7.54x (- .6)
SlSt1 ................. 1.8
3Lo ................. 5.28x (- 3)
2T + 2T ................. 3.42xxx (- .15)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25) ................. Technical Total - 42.14 (- .5)

Program Components - 5.5, 5.0, 5.0, 5.0, 5.0 = 40.8

23. Joanne Carter - 82.33

2F ................. 1.6
3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 1)
3Lo ................. 3.2
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
SpSq3 ................. 3.0
3F + 1T ................. 5.36x
2A ................. 3.52x (- 1.6)
CoSp3 ................. 2.5
3T ................. 3.96x
2A ................. 3.84xx
FCSp2 ................. 2.1
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
LSp2 ................. 1.9 (+ .25) ................. Technical Total - 40.33

Program Components - 5.5, 4.75, 5.5, 5.25, 5.25 = 42.0

24. Tamar Katz - 82.03

3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 1)
<2Lo ................. 1.1 (- .4)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2
2Lz ................. 2.0
3T ................. 3.6
2A + 1T + 1Lo ................. 4.85x
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
SpSq4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1)
2F + 2T ................. 3.68xx (- .3)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
LSp3 ................. 2.3 ................. Technical Total - 41.23

Program Components - 5.25, 5.0, 5.25, 5.0, 5.0 = 40.8

.
.
.

SHORT PROGRAM - MEN:

1. Brian Joubert - 80.97

4T + 3T ................. 13.52 (+ 1)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3F ................. 4.4 (- .5)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 42.72

Program Components - 7.75, 7.25, 7.75, 7.75, 7.75 = 38.25

2. Daisuke Takahashi - 76.97

3F + <3T ................. 7.72 (- .5)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (+ 1)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+.5) ................. Technical Total - 37.72

Program Components - 8.0, 7.5, 8.0, 7.75, 8.0 = 39.25

3. Jeffrey Buttle - 76.91

3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ 1)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lz ................. 5.2 (- .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 39.16

Program Components - 7.75, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 = 37.75

4. Johnny Weir - 73.54

3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
3F ................. 4.4 (- 2)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 36.54

Program Components - 7.75, 7.0, 7.5, 7.25, 7.5 = 37.0

5. Evan Lysacek - 73.16

4T + 2T + Seq* ................. 8.86 (- 2.4)
3A ................. 6.8
3F ................. 4.4 (+ 1)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 35.66

Program Components - 7.5, 7.25, 7.75, 7.5, 7.5 = 37.5

6. Christopher Mabee - 72.55

3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04 (+ 1)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
3F* ................. 3.96
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 37.7

Program Components - 7.0, 6.5, 7.25, 7.0, 7.0 = 34.75

7. Sergei Davydov - 71.39

3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04
3F* ................. 4.0 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 37.14

Program Components - 7.25, 6.5, 7.0, 6.75, 6.75 = 34.25

8. Tomas Verner - 70.91

3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ 1.5)
1A ................. .9
3Lz ................. 5.2 (+ 1)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 34.66

Program Components - 7.25, 7.0, 7.5, 7.25, 7.25 = 36.25

9. Stephane Lambiel - 69.92

3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
3T + 2T ................. 5.22 (+ 1)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3Lz ................. 5.2
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .75)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 33.17 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.5, 7.25, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 = 37.25

10. Jialiang Wu - 69.91

3A ................. 6.8 (+ 2)
3F + 3T ................. 9.16
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
3Lz* ................. 4.8 (+ 1)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 38.66

Program Components - 6.5, 6.0, 6.25, 6.25, 6.25 = 31.25

11. Yannick Ponsero - 68.9

3A ................. 6.8 (+ 2)
4T + Combo ................. 8.2 (- 3.6)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
3S ................. 4.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .75) ................. Technical Total - 35.65 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.0, 6.5, 6.75, 6.75, 6.75 = 33.75

12. Alban Preaubert - 68.79

3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3F + 2T ................. 6.06 (+ .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lz* ................. 4.68 (- 2)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 34.04

Program Components - 7.0, 6.75, 7.0, 7.0, 7.0 = 34.75

13. Emanuel Sandhu - 67.86

3F + 3T ................. 9.16
3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (- .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 33.86 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.0, 6.75, 7.0, 6.75, 7.0 = 34.5

14. Nobunari Oda - 67.24

A ................. 0.0
3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04 (+ 1)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ 1)
3F ................. 4.4 (- 1)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1) ................. Technical Total - 32.24

Program Components - 7.25, 6.75, 7.0, 7.0, 7.0 = 35.0

15. Karel Zelenka - 66.51

2A ................. 3.2 (+ 1.2)
3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ 1)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lz ................. 5.2
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 35.51

Program Components - 6.5, 6.0, 6.5, 6.0, 6.0 = 31

16. Kristoffer Berntsson - 65.55

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- .3)
3A ................. 6.8
3F ................. 4.4 (- .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp3 3.0 (+ .5) Technical Total - 33.05

Program Components - 6.5, 6.25, 6.75, 6.5, 6.5 = 32.5

17. Ryan Bradley - 65.01

3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ .5)
3Lz ................. 5.2
CSSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp2 ................. 2.5 ................. Technical Total - 32.26 (- .5)

Program Components - 6.75 6.0, 6.75, 6.75, 7.0 = 33.25

18 Stefan Lindemann - 64.3

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (+ 1)
3A ................. 6.8 (- 1.1)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
3F ................. 4.4
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (- .5)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 ................. Technical Total - 31.8

Program Components - 6.75, 6.25, 6.5, 6.5, 6.5 = 32.5

19. Jamal Othman - 64.04

3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04 (- .5)
3F ................. 4.4 (- 2)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .4)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25) ................. Technical Total - 31.54

Program Components - 6.5, 6.25, 6.5, 6.75, 6.5 = 32.5

20. Sergei Voronov - 62.71

3F + 2T ................. 6.06 (- 1.5)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
2Lo ................. 1.7
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 30.46

Program Components - 6.75, 6.0, 6.5, 6.5, 6.5 = 32.25

21. Anton Kovalevski - 62.01

3A ................. 6.8 (- 2.2)
3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ .5)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 1)
FSSp4 ................. 2.0
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 34.01

Program Components - 6.0, 5.25, 5.75, 5.5, 5.5 = 28.0

22. Andrei Lutai - 61.8

<3A ................. 4.8 (- 2)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (- .3)
3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ 1)
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CSSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 30.3

Program Components - 6.5, 6.0, 6.5, 6.25, 6.25 = 31.5

23. Gregor Urbas - 61.44

3Lz + 2T ................. 10.04 (+ .5)
<3A ................. 4.8 (- 2.5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lo ................. 4.8
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 32.44

Program Components - 6.0, 5.25, 6.25, 5.75, 5.75 = 29.0

24. Igor Macypura - 60.74

3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ .5)
3Lz* ................. 4.68
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt1 ................. 1.8 (+ .25)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt1 ................. 1.8 (+ .25)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 35.74

Program Components - 5.5, 4.75, 5.25, 4.75, 4.75 = 25.0

.
.
.

LONG PROGRAM - MEN:

1. Daisuke Takahashi - 162.67

4T ................. 8.2 ( -1.2)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ 2)
3A + 2T ................. 8.64 (+ 1)
CUSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
3F + 3T ................. 9.96x
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 9.75x
3Lo ................. 5.28x (+ 1)
3F ................. 4.84x (+ 1)
3S ................. 4.4x
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 2)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 82.67 (+ 1)

Program Components - 8.25, 7.5, 8.25, 7.75, 7.75 = 79.0

2. Stephane Lambiel - 161.8

3A ................. 6.8
4T + 2T + 2T ................. 10.59
3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ 2)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1.5)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .4)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
4T ................. 9.02x (- 2.4)
3Lz + 3T ................. 10.92x
3S ................. 4.4x
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
2F + 3T ................. 7.12xx (- 1.8)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1.5)
FCoSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ 1.25) ................. Technical Total - 79.8

Program Components - 8.25, 7.5, 8.5, 8.25, 8.5 = 82.0

3. Tomas Verner - 154.34

4T + 3T ................. 13.52 (+ .5)
4T ................. 8.2 (+ 1)
3Lz ................. 5.2 (+ .5)
3S ................. 4.0
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.94
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3A ................. 7.48 (+ 1)
3Lo ................. 5.28 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
3F ................. 5.72xxx (- 3)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 78.84

Program Components - 7.75, 7.0, 7.75, 7.5, 7.75 = 75.5

4. Brian Joubert - 151.7

4T ................. 8.2 (+ .5)
3F ................. 4.4 (+ 2)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ .5)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
3T + 3T ................. 9.0x (+ 2)
3Lo + 2T + 2T ................. 7.6x
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x (+ 1)
3Lz ................. 5.72x (+ 1)
FSSp1 ................. 1.7
SSp1 ................. 1.2 (+ .25)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
2A ................. 4.16xxx (+ .8)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 76.7

Program Components - 7.75, 7.25, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 = 75.0

5. Nobunari Oda - 149.51

3A + 3T + 3Lo ................. 17.98 (+ 1)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ 1.2)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3S + [2T] ................. 4.0
CUSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
2A + 3T ................. 8.52x (+ 1.8)
3Lz + 2T ................. 7.54x
3F ................. 4.84x (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3Lz ................. 5.72x (- 2)
2A ................. 4.16xxx (+ .4)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 78.51 (+ 1)

Program Components - 7.5, 6.75, 7.0, 6.75, 7.0 = 70.0

6. Evan Lysacek - 143.53

4T + 2T ................. 10.05 (- 1.2)
3A ................. 6.8
2Lo ................. 1.7
3S ................. 4.0
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
3A + 3T ................. 12.84x (- 1.1)
3F + 3T ................. 9.96x
CiSt3 ................. 3.1
3Lz ................. 5.72x (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.52x
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 73.03

Program Components - 7.25, 7.0, 7.0, 7.0, 7.0 = 70.5

7. Kristoffer Berntsson - 139.66

3A + 3T ................. 11.98
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3Lo ................. 4.8
3F + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.1
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
3F ................. 4.84x (- 1)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
3S ................. 4.4x (+ 1)
2A ................. 3.84xx
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
CCoSp2 ................. 2.5 (- .5) ................. Technical Total - 70.66 (+ 1)

Program Components - 6.75, 6.25, 7.25, 6.75, 7.0 = 68

8. Jeffrey Buttle - 138.52

3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ .5)
<4T ................. 5.8 (- 3)
CUSp4 ................. 3.0
3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
FCoSp2 ................. 2.1 (- .4)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.94
3A ................. 7.48 (- 2.2)
3S ................. 4.4 (+ .5)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
3F ................. 4.84x
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ 1)
3Lz ................. 6.76xxx (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 62.52 (- 1)

Program Components - 7.75, 7.5, 7.75, 7.75, 7.75 = 77.0

9. Johnny Weir - 134.48

3A + 3T ................. 11.98 (+ 1)
3T ................. 3.6 (+ 1)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.2
2Lo ................. 1.87x
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
1A ................. .99x
3F ................. 4.84x
3S ................. 4.8xx
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ 1)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 59.98

Program Components - 7.5, 7.0, 7.25, 7.75, 7.75 = 74.5

10. Alban Preaubert - 132.75

4T ................. 8.2 (- 2.4)
3A + 3T + 2T ................. 13.48 (+ 1)
3Lz* ................. 4.68 (+ .5)
3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CUSp4 ................. 3.0 (- .25)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3F ................. 4.84x (+ .5)
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x
3Lo ................. 5.28x (- 2)
3S ................. 4.8xx
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (- .25)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25) ................. Technical Total - 66.75

Program Components - 6.75, 6.25, 6.5, 6.75, 6.75 = 66.0

11. Stefan Lindemann - 130.36

3F ................. 4.4 (+ 1.5)
3A ................. 6.8 (+ 1)
3A + 2T ................. 8.64 (+ .8)
FCSp2 ................. 2.1
3Lz ................. 5.2 (+ 1.5)
3Lo ................. 4.8
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
3S ................. 4.4x (+ .5)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
3T + 2T ................. 5.7x (- .5)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
2A + 2T + 2T ................. 6.72xxx
CCoSp2 ................. 2.5 (- 1) ................. Technical Total - 65.36 (+ 1)

Program Components - 6.75, 6.0, 6.75, 6.25, 6.25 = 64.0

12. Sergei Davydov - 130.33

3A + 3T ................. 11.98 (+ 1)
3A ................. 6.8
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
FSSp2 ................. 2.1 (+ .25)
3F* + 2T + 2T ................. 6.12
3Lo ................. 5.28x
3S ................. 4.4x
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
3T ................. 3.96x
2A ................. 3.84xx
CSSp3 ................. 2.5
CiSt1 ................. 1.8
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 65.33 (+ 1)

Program Components - 6.75, 6.0, 6.5, 6.5, 6.25 = 64.0

13. Ryan Bradley - 125.32

2A ................. 3.2 (+ 1.2)
3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
3S ................. 4.0
3A ................. 6.8 (+ .5)
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
3Lz + 2T + 2Lo ................. 8.94x
3Lo ................. 5.28x
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x
2A ................. 3.84xx (- 2.4)
CCoSp2 ................. 2.5
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
FCCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 63.32 (- .5)

Program Components - 6.5, 5.75, 6.5, 6.25, 6.25 = 62.5

14. Yannick Ponsero - 125.22

3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
2Lz ................. 2.0 (- .9)
3S ................. 4.0 (+ 1)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .4)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3A + 2T ................. 9.44x (+ .5)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (+ .5)
2F* + 3S + Seq ................. 6.3 (- .5)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3T + 2T + 2T ................. 6.22x
SlSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
2A ................. 4.16xxx (+ .4)
SSp4 ................. 2.5 ................. Technical Total - 60.22 (- .5)

Program Components - 7.0, 6.25, 6.5, 6.5, 6.5 = 65.5

15. Karel Zelenka - 121.75

2A ................. 3.2 (+ 1.2)
3F + 3T ................. 9.16
<3Lz ................. 3.6 (- 2.25)
3S + 2T + 2Lo ................. 7.68 (- .8)
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
3Lo ................. 5.28x (+ 1)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
3Lz + Seq* ................. 4.68x (- 2)
3F ................. 4.84x (+ .5)
SSt3 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 4.16xxx
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CSSp3 ................. 2.5 ................. Technical Total - 57.75

Program Components - 6.25, 6.5, 6.5, 6.5, 6.25 = 64.0

16. Sergei Voronov - 120.8

3F ................. 4.4 (+ 1)
3A ................. 6.8 (- .5)
3F + 2T ................. 6.06 (+ .5)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
3A + 1F + Seq* ................. 7.18 (- 2.2)
3Lo ................. 5.28x (- 2.5)
CUSp3 ................. 2.5
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
2A ................. 3.52x (+ .4)
3S ................. 4.4x
3T + 2T ................. 6.66xxx
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5) ................. Technical Total - 57.3

Program Components - 6.5, 6.25, 6.25, 6.5, 6.25 = 63.5

17. Christopher Mabee - 120.21

3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ 1.5)
3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (+ 1)
SSp3 ................. 2.0 (+ .25)
FSp3 ................. 2.5
1A ................. .9 (+ .2)
3F* ................. 4.36x (- 2)
3Lz ................. 5.72x (+ 1)
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
3S + 2T ................. 6.16 (+ 1)
3T ................. 4.32xx
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
FCSSp4 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 56.71 (- .5)

Program Components - 6.75, 6.25, 6.25, 6.5, 6.25 = 64.0

18. Emanuel Sandhu - 119.48

4T ................. 8.2 (- 3.6)
3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.3)
3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04 (- .5)
1A ................. .9
CoSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .25)
3A + 2T + Seq* ................. 8.5x (- 2.2)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0
CUSp4 ................. 3.0
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x (- .3)
2Lo ................. 1.87x
3S ................. 4.8xx (+ .5)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 55.48 (- 1)

Program Components - 7.0, 6.25, 6.25, 6.5, 6.5 = 65.0

19. Anton Kovalevski - 117.77

<3A ................. 4.8 (- 2)
3F + 3T ................. 9.16 (+ .5)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
2Lo ................. 1.7
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4 (- .5)
3Lz ................. 5.72x
3Lo ................. 5.28 ( - 1)
3S ................. 4.4x (- 2)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4 (+ .5)
2A ................. 4.16xxx (+ .4)
FCCoSp4 ................. 3.5
CoSp1 ................. 1.7 (+ .25) ................. Technical Total - 54.77

Program Components - 6.25, 6.0, 6.75, 6.25, 6.25 = 63.0

20. Andrei Lutai - 117.65

<2A ................. 1.9 (- .9)
4T ................. 8.2 (- 1.2)
3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9 (+ .3)
3Lo ................. 4.8 (+ .5)
FCSp3 ................. 2.5
3Lz ................. 5.2 (- 1.5)
3F* ................. 4.0 (+ .5)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3S + 2T ................. 6.16x (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.84xx (+ .4)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
FSSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .25)
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 ................. Technical Total - 56.65

Program Components - 6.25, 6.0, 6.25, 6.0, 6.0 = 61.0

21. Jamal Othman - 117.03

3Lz + 3T ................. 10.04 (- 1.35)
2A ................. 3.2 (+ .4)
CiSt3 ................. 3.0 (+ .5)
3F* ................. 4.0 (- 1.5)
USp4 ................. 2.5 (+ .5)
3Lo ................. 4.8 (- 2)
CoSp3 ................. 2.5 (+ .75)
3F* + Seq* ................. 3.6x (- 3)
3Lz ................. 5.72x
3S + 2T + 2T ................. 6.68x
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 (+ .75)
2A ................. 3.84xx
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
FCoSp2 ................. 2.1 ................. Technical Total - 53.03 (- .5)

Program Components - 6.5, 6.25, 6.5, 6.5, 6.5 = 64.5

22. Igor Macypura - 112.99

3A + 3T ................. 11.98 (- 1.8)
3F ................. 4.4 (+ .5)
3A ................. 6.8
3Lz* ................. 4.68 (+ .5)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
3Lo ................. 5.28x (+ .5)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
2A ................. 3.52x
FSSp4 ................. 3.0
2S ................. 1.43x
SlSt1 ................. 1.8
3S + 2T + 2Lo ................. 9.75xxx
CCoSp3 ................. 3.0 ................. Technical Total - 63.99

Program Components - 5.5, 5.0, 5.25, 4.75, 4.75 = 50.0 (- 1)

23.Gregor Urbas - 112.7

3Lz + 2T ................. 6.9
3A ................. 6.8 (+ .5)
2A ................. 3.2
SlSt3 ................. 3.0
FSSp3 ................. 2.5
3F ................. 4.4 (- 1)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0
2A ................. 3.52x
2Lz ................. 2.2x
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
3Lo + 2T ................. 7.08
3S + 2Lo ................. 7.95xxx
CSSp4 ................. 3.0
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25) ................. Technical Total - 58.7

Program Components - 5.75, 5.25, 5.5, 5.25, 5.25 = 54.0

24. Jialiang Wu - 107.34

3A ................. 6.8 (- 3.30)
3A + Seq* ................. 5.44 (- 3.3)
3Lz* + 2T ................. 6.48 (+ 1)
FSSp4 ................. 3.0 (+ .25)
CiSt2 ................. 2.4
2A ................. 3.2 (- 2.4)
3Lz ................. 5.72x (+ .5)
3Lo ................. 5.28x
3F + 2T ................. 6.62x (- .3)
CoSp4 ................. 3.0 (- .25)
SlSt2 ................. 2.4
3S ................. 4.8xx
CCoSp4 ................. 3.5 (- .25)
CSSp4 ................. 3.0 (- .25) ................. Technical Total - 53.34 (- 1.5)

Program Components - 6.0, 5.5, 5.25, 5.5, 5.5 = 55.5

GoldMedalist you get a standing ovation for the size

Thank you. *bow*

I think all of the little formatting errors should be fixed now. Let me know if you see anything funny looking still or if you need help interpreting any of my markings.

Very impressed am I., GS.

I was fooling around with the 6.0 system for the top 6 skaters.

Mao 2 + 1 = 3

Ando 1 + 2 = 3

Who would the 6.0 system say WON? assuming my nos. are correct.

Kim 0.5 +3 = 3.5

Meissner 3 + 4 = 7

Yukari 2.5 + 5 = 7.5

Both systems work but who won the gold in 6.0 system?
I think it would revert to the Presentation score with Mao. Am I correct?

Joe

Mao would have won because she won the LP.

However, under 6.0, she most definitely would have been 5th in the SP, so Miki would have won the Gold.

Why wouldn't that 5th place be reflected in the CoP score?

Well with the current CoP rules it WAS. She did a Triple/Single as her jump combination, which meant an automatic -3 GOE deduction to the element and brought her down to 5th place (and cost her the Gold medal).

In my version of CoP for the Short Program, though, I don't have that rule (automatic deduction if the skater doesn't do at least a Triple/Double combination). I say it's rubbish that a clean 3F + 1Lo can be scored the same as a skater who did a double-footed 3F into a 1Lo that they fall out of. The skater is already losing points for the mistake of downgrading that combination, there's no need to tack on an extra penalty. Especially when it can lead to inaccurate results (ie. a clean Triple/Single being scored the same as a very sloppy one).

GoldMedalist said:

In my version of CoP for the Short Program, though, I don't have that rule (automatic deduction if the skater doesn't do at least a Triple/Double combination).

Click to expand...

If the requirement is a combination with no jump less than two revolutions then _any_ combination with a single is a catastrophic failure and technically a 3fl1tl is worse than a 2fl2tl*. Even a quad toeloop followed by a single toeloop would be a catastrophic failure and worse than a 2fl2tl.

If there aren't large deductions for catastrophic mistakes in the SP then why have the SP at all? A qualifying and final round with the LP (or LP alone) should be quite sufficient.

That said, I'm not sure if under 6.0 Ando wouldn't have won the LP. At any Asada would have been buried in fourth or worse under 6.0 and the wiiner wouldn't have been different.

Mafke said:

If the requirement is a combination with no jump less than two revolutions then _any_ combination with a single is a catastrophic failure and technically a 3fl1tl is worse than a 2fl2tl*. Even a quad toeloop followed by a single toeloop would be a catastrophic failure and worse than a 2fl2tl.

If there aren't large deductions for catastrophic mistakes in the SP then why have the SP at all? A qualifying and final round with the LP (or LP alone) should be quite sufficient.

That said, I'm not sure if under 6.0 Ando wouldn't have won the LP. At any Asada would have been buried in fourth or worse under 6.0 and the wiiner wouldn't have been different.

Click to expand...

First of all, thanks to GM. I actually understood what you wrote so maybe I am not a total lame brain.:yes:

I agree Mafke. I think the SP has outlived itself but fans would be in an uproar because they just want to see skating in any form, anywere, at any given time.

In place of the SP, I would suggest each skater do two different jumps and two different spins without any music a la gymnastics. Then the top 30 can proceed to the LP.

Mafke - Not sure about your last sentence.

(I'm having trouble finding different results between the two systems, but CoP is good for the skater's interest.)

Joe

Joesitz said:

Mafke - Not sure about your last sentence.

Click to expand...

My last paragraph (now with readability goodness added!)

Under 6.0 rules, I think Ando might have won the LP. Even if she didn't, Asada would have been buried in fourth or worse position for her flubbed combo meaning we would have had the same podium in the same order (maybe not so close as it ended up under COP).

As to the SP, my experience is that institutions _always_ outlive the circumstances that brought about their existence. The SP was introduced in order to decrease the importance of figures without shortening the length of the competition (instead of 2 days of figures and one day of free skating, we suddenly had one day of figures and 2 days of free skating). Even though figures have (quite wrongly!) bitten the dust, the SP lingers on despite its doubtful utility in determining much of anything. There's also resistence to modifying it in directions that would give it some meaning*. To paraphrase the Protopopovs, instead of an SP and LP we now have a SLP and LSP...

*how to make the SP something other than a short version of the LP:
1. Limit jump difficulty (no 3-3's for ladies, no quads for men) make the most important feature of jumps in the SP technique rather than brawn...
2. Make the requirements more universal as they used to be.
3. Figure out a way to make the required elements 'do or die' in the standings.
4. Free up requirements in the LP which is entirely too straightjacketed at present.

Mafke said:

My last paragraph (now with readability goodness added!)

Click to expand...

But the first version was , too, LOL.

To paraphrase the Protopopovs, instead of an SP and LP we now have a SLP and LSP...

Click to expand...

Yes. In fact, the two have almost changed roles. The short program often displays more varied skating skills and better choreography, while the LP is about shoe-horning in as many jumps as possible before the buzzer goes off.

Mafke said:

If there aren't large deductions for catastrophic mistakes in the SP then why have the SP at all? A qualifying and final round with the LP (or LP alone) should be quite sufficient.

Click to expand...

You have the short program because it's shorter. It creates different kinds of performances than the Long Program. *shrug*

Anyway...there are no other "catastrophic" deductions anyway? If a lady does a Level 1 Layback, it's a Level 1 Layback. Not a Level 1 Layback with a -3 GOE.

Mafke said:

If the requirement is a combination with no jump less than two revolutions then _any_ combination with a single is a catastrophic failure and technically a 3fl1tl is worse than a 2fl2tl*. Even a quad toeloop followed by a single toeloop would be a catastrophic failure and worse than a 2fl2tl.

Click to expand...

That's not what the requirement is, though. The short program jump requirement for senior ladies is any combination of a double and a triple jump or two triple jumps.

So all of the possibilities mentioned above (triple-single, quad-single, or double-double) would fail equally to meet the requirement and would all require -3 GOE. The triple-single would at least have a higher base mark than the double-double.

I'm not sure how they'd handle a quad combination in the ladies' short, since it's not allowed. If they give credit for the base score of the jumps performed before taking the -3, then it would actually be worth a lot of points. If they disqualify the whole element then it would be worth no points at all.

Of course a skater would have to be pretty dim to attempt something that difficulty and also illegal. Even if she's capable of doing a good quad-double or quad-triple combination, she should save it for the long program where she can get full credit.

GoldMedalist said:

Anyway...there are no other "catastrophic" deductions anyway? If a lady does a Level 1 Layback, it's a Level 1 Layback. Not a Level 1 Layback with a -3 GOE.

Click to expand...

If it's well done and meets the requirements, it won't get negative GOE.

It is possible for a layback that was intended to be a higher level to get downgraded to level 1 because of insufficient revolutions in each intended feature and also to get GOE as low as -3 because of insufficent revolutions in the whole spin, traveling and/or bobbles (either of those could range from -1 to -3), and weak position could lose -1 to -2 as well. Although the lowest GOE it can receive from any combination of those kinds of errors would be -3.

Also, if the skater needs more than 3 upright revolutions to get into or out of a recognizable layback position, then I believe the spin will be called as an upright instead of a layback spin, or if the skater never gets into layback position at all for at least 3? revolutions. That wouldn't meet the short program requirements and would therefore receive no points.

There are other ways that the other spins and step/spiral sequences can also rack up GOE reductions, fail to be credited with the level features intended, or, most catastrophic, fail to count as the intended element and receive no points.