Gabriella Papadakis & Guillaume Cizeron | Page 163 | Golden Skate

Gabriella Papadakis & Guillaume Cizeron

I agree: the cist looked very clean. I think it might have been one of those benefit of the doubt situations where it could have gone either way........ Maybe because the tech controller knew they would win without out it she went one way with it rather than the other....

it also allowed a straightforward contrast between the two teams with all levels being equal.

Damn it looks cold in Montreal!
Yes, that's a good one and all levels equal, P/C deservedly won. About the fall in France, it does put things in perspective and keep them on their toes, also a good point. I can't imagine the level of exhaustion after the Olys, no wonder some skaters skip Worlds.
 
A very happy New Year to us all!
May 2018 bring for Gaby and Guigui only victories. The rest of this season they will continue to win every competition they enter, and most probably also the beginning of next season so that they will end 2018 unbeaten.
 
The official and detailed program of the Europeans is now available
http://www.isuresults.com/schedules/ec2018_ColouredTimeSchedule.pdf

[15.01] 09:30 - 13:30 : Practice (Short/Free)
[16.01] 18:45 - 22:45 : Practice (Short/Free)
[18.01] 11:40 - 15:40 : Practice (Short/Free)
[19.01] 07:30 - 11:30 : Practice (Short Dance)
[19.01] 12:10 - 16:52 : Short Dance
[20.01] 07:30 - 09:30 : Practice (Free Dance)
[20.01] 13:40 - 16:58 : Free Dance
[20.01] 17:00 - 17:15 : Victory Ceremony

CET hours (2 hours less compared to Moscow time):
[19.01] 10:10 - 14:52 : Short Dance
[20.01] 11:40 - 14:58 : Free Dance
[20.01] 15:00 - 15:15 : Victory Ceremony
 

Thanks a lot. Here is a translation:

Journalist: Was it the perfect start of the season for you ?
GP: Yes, up to now it really went well. Perfect doesn't exist but the start of the season met our hopes. Each new competition was better than the last, which is very encouraging. We're very satisfied to have accomplished during the competitions what we were able to achieve in training. Sometimes it's difficult to achieve the same performances in competition because the pressure and the stakes are different. So it meant a lot for us to be able to do it.

Journalist: As a symbol of this great start, there were several different WR. What do they represent for you in a sport where records aren't so talked about ?
GC: It's a matter of personal pride. It wasn't our objective but it happens as a result of what we set ourselves up to achieve. Breaking the 200 points barrier is indeed a nice symbol, even though our sport is different from athleticism or swimming, disciplines where you can compare records over time. In skating, the points system evolves so comparisons can only be made over a period of a couple of years. It's a sign we're on the right track with a really strong program which touches the judges. This does motive us even more.

Journalist: It motives but it adds to the pressure as you're now seen as favorites for the next OG ?
GP: There's always pressure and I feel that right now, we're in the most possible comfortable position. It's not always easy to live up to it but I prefer it to any other position.

Journalist: When you watch your performance in Nagoya and the 202.16 points, do you tell yourselves you can't do much better than that ?
GC: I think we still have a sizeable margin. We know what we need to improve, where we can still grab couple of more points. We feel relieved to know we beat records while keeping some space for improvements artistically as well as technically. For the moment, we've performed very well but we need to keep aiming for even more perfection.

Journalist: In a video shot by your sponsor L'Or, you mention your sensations on the ice. What are they when one breaks a WR ?
GP: This program, we truly love it immensely. We chose it for the OG and we think it's the most interesting and the most complex we've ever done. And most importantly, it's the one with which we're the most at ease, the one in which we take the most pleasure.
GC: Our aim is to go get the audience's emotion as much as we can. Each movement, each intention must be clear to be understood by the audience. Let's not forget this is a sport and a show. It's important for us to work on that. We can spend hours in training to perfect on single move trying to be aware of the effect it can have on the spectators. Now, record or not, when we watch back our performances on video, we only see imperfections.

Journalist: Are you ever satisfied ...
GC: (smiling) Yes, of course.
GP: But even if we enjoyed ourselves on the ice and we had a great performance, there's still a will to improve and to spot what wasn't right.
GC: There's a big difference between a live experience and the fact of seeing it on video. On the latter, we can't feel as much the expressions of our faces, the way we enjoy ourselves. We can't fully grasp the speed on the ice and the atmosphere.

Journalist: While performing, can you really enjoy yourselves or the concentration sucks out everything ?
GP: Actually, I think enjoyment comes from concentration. Our performance is a whole and the concentration carries us, takes us further.
GC: The most beautiful programs we've skated, in reality, we were not thinking at all. People don't necessarily realize how technical all the steps are. Everything must be so precise without the slight margin for error. It takes a lot of concentration but it doesn't take away from the pleasure we experience when we feel we successfully accomplished an element. Those moments are unparalleled.
 
Thanks for the translation, cocotaffy! I admire the way these two seem to take a very level-headed approach to the whole issue of scores and records - that they're nice to get, but not for their own sake, more because of what they tell you about how the judges are responding to the programs. It's a good way to keep their focus on what matters!
 
The European Championships are approaching, a new opportunity to see the performances of our favorite couple.
There are 31 couples competing for ice dance. Out of curiosity, I watched the 2018 high scores of the participants. It is quite amazing ; scores of 202.16 for Gabriella and Guillaume to 138.64 for the Hungarian couple, a gap of more than 15 points between the first couple and the second ...

1 Gabriella PAPADAKIS / Guillaume CIZERON FRA 202,16
2 Ekaterina BOBROVA / Dimitri SOLOVIEV RUS 186,66
3 Anna CAPPELLINI / Luca LANOTTE ITA 186,56
4 Alexandra STEPANOVA / Ivan BUKIN RUS 179,35
5 Charlene GUIGNARD / Marco FABBRI ITA 178,16
6 Penny COOMES / Nicholas BUCKLAND GBR 177,13
7 Tiffani ZAGORSKI / Jonathan GUERREIRO RUS 169,81
8 Natalia KALISZEK / Maksym SPODYRIEV POL 168,58
9 Laurence FOURNIER BEAUDRY / Nikolaj SORENSEN DEN 164,40
10 Sara HURTADO / Kirill KHALIAVIN ESP 163,58
11 Alisa AGAFONOVA / Alper UCAR TUR 162,48
12 Alexandra NAZAROVA / Maxim NIKITIN UKR 160,88
13 Marie-Jade LAURIAULT / Romain LE GAC FRA 157,62
14 Angelique ABACHKINA / Louis THAURON FRA 155,55
15 Kavita LORENZ / Joti POLIZOAKIS GER 152,50
16 Cortney MANSOUROVA / Michal CESKA CZE 143,44
17 Lucie MYSLIVECKOVA / Lukas CSOLLEY SVK 143,22
18 Allison REED / Saulius AMBRULEVICIUS LTU 142,95
19 Tina GARABEDIAN / Simon PROULX SENECAL ARM 140,98
20 Anna YANOVSKAYA / Adam LUKACS HUN 138,64

In 2017, with two difficult programs for Gabriella and Guillaume, the competition was relatively tight (for the SD) and without much difference in the final total. With also a certain tension at the level of the notations and the judges (late reclassification of the SD, etc ...).
This year seems to me quite different; there is such a difference in the first part of the season, both for the SD and for the FD, that I hope a "quieted" competition at the level of the ratings.
Moreover Gabriella and Guillaume have this year accumulated experience, confidence and pleasure in the realization of their two programs, very much better conditions than last year.
This could be an opportunity for Europeans to overcome micro-conflicts (source of severe and fussy notes), and to give marks, in the Olympic year, more in line with the level of competitors, and inspired by traditional 4CC ratings that tend to value athletes.

Stand up Europe, value and be proud of your athletes!
And of course, the best of success, artistic, technical, emotional for Gabriella and Guillaume.
 
Their position is indeed stronger this time around and does remind me of their break-out season 14/15 where they actually received such a boost in their scores at Euros putting them up there for contention at the 2015 Worlds. Thinking of it, they received lukewarm scores during two difficult season:
- 15/16, Euros were their first ISU competition after Gaby's concussion and they needed more time for their SD, as for their FD, it was amazing but they may have suffered from the fact it was their 1st competition.
- 16/17, late start to the season (well they were clearly unprepared tbh) and being destabilized by V/M plus a let's say "interesting" panel in Ostrava had them in a weaker position.
So those 2 seasons might have been more the exceptions than the rule. I also hope for the judges not to sabotage their european teams right before the Olympics, meaning giving realistic/encouraging and not over the board 4CC style scores because then one can get disappointed like the Shibs last year, 115 pts at 4CC and then around 110 at Worlds.
Anyway, from this interview, I'm happy they feel more comfortable than stressed by their slight favorite position. I say slight because let's face it, both teams are very close and V/M are among the most fierce competitors out there. I also believed Scott mentioned he prefers to chase than being chased, Tessa didn't look pleased at all at GPF either so they gonna come all guns blazing. I'm expecting huge scores at Canadian National giving them the fire the need for the last stretch. What a battle ! I just wish I knew the end results so I could just enjoy the ride :laugh:

As for the scores you compiled by Escarbille, it's interesting to see the three regular top teams this quad P/C, B/S and C/L being clearly ahead of the field. Then for all the talk of Stepanova/Bukin overtaking B/S, they're still kind behind. I think they'll need to wait for B/S retirement. What surprised me most is how close G/F and C/B were from S/B which makes me hopeful for the italians. They deserve to be in the top 5 Europeans imo. I would also like to see the Danish team improve and get close to the top 5, 6th would be just great and with their great programs this year, they too deserve it. I mean no way is the polish even close to the Danes especially when comparing skating skills. Anyway, it should be very exciting this year.
Sorry for the off-topic but Golden Skate is missing a general ice dance thread tbh.
 
You guys probably noticed it but the OG referee and technical panel already "rehearsed" once together earlier this season, from Sept 27 to 30 at the Nebelhorn Trophy in Oberstdorf. So if you look to the protocols of the Nebelhorn, you can get some hints about the OG Tech panel views.

OG Tech panel & referee:
- Tech Controler: Ms Hilary SELBY (GBR)
- Tech Specialist: Ms Slavka GRINCOVA (SVK)
- Assistant Tech Specialist: Ms Tae-Hwa YANG (KOR)
- Referee : Ms Ingrid-Charlotte WOLTER (GER)
 
You guys probably noticed it but the OG referee and technical panel already "rehearsed" once together earlier this season, from Sept 27 to 30 at the Nebelhorn Trophy in Oberstdorf. So if you look to the protocols of the Nebelhorn, you can get some hints about the OG Tech panel views.

OG Tech panel & referee:
- Tech Controler: Ms Hilary SELBY (GBR)
- Tech Specialist: Ms Slavka GRINCOVA (SVK)
- Assistant Tech Specialist: Ms Tae-Hwa YANG (KOR)
- Referee : Ms Ingrid-Charlotte WOLTER (GER)

Selby was tech controller at Finlandia; and Grincova Tech specialist at COC; Wolter was a judge at IDF- three out of the four have seen SOU and MS performed at least once this season..... Wolter was a tough scorer for them at IDF (by tough, I mean 9.75's across the board apart from one one 9.5) but she's the ref here so that prob won't matter.....
 
Selby was tech controller at Finlandia; and Grincova Tech specialist at COC; Wolter was a judge at IDF- three out of the four have seen SOU and MS performed at least once this season..... Wolter was a tough scorer for them at IDF but she's the ref here so that prob won't matter.....

Yeah, and Selby was also TC at 2016 Worlds. Makes me think we're going to see some huge scores at the Olympics.
 
Didn't (virtually) everyone get all levels 4 at Worlds 2016. Was there a rule change after that on the step sequences such that that occurred? Or were the results based on the current rules?

http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1516/wc2016/wc2016_IceDance_FD_Scores.pdf

Yes, I still remember the outrage on the forum when the scores were coming up. Those gigantic scores from 2016 Worlds are the reason why I think we'll see a repeat of that in PyeongChang. As far as I know, the rules for the step sequences remain the same (the only recent change I can think of is that in case of messing up a double twizzle within the step sequence, the teams no longer automatically lose 2 levels, but only one).
 
Yes, I still remember the outrage on the forum when the scores were coming up. Those gigantic scores from 2016 Worlds are the reason why I think we'll see a repeat of that in PyeongChang. As far as I know, the rules for the step sequences remain the same (the only recent change I can think of is that in case of messing up a double twizzle within the step sequence, the teams no longer automatically lose 2 levels, but only one).

Thanks! Got to admit I look at those scores and think- but how did the top eight or so teams all get level fours on their step sequences! And why can't they all get them now? i wasn't in to the sport that analytically at the time; and one of things when researching information for a current understanding is that changes in rules are very difficult to pinpoint (like I can't out when the ladies were able to start doing solo 3a in the sp). And with the rules of ice dance being so intricate, even tiny changes can produce significant result differences. I wish the protocols were even more analytic than those provided- like they listed how levels are achieved on lifts; and also what features were with step sequences. But I guess that then the arguments that are currently limited to rotation and edge calls on jumps and a few other bits would become interminable. But it's good to have an eye-witness account that those scores were noteworthy at the time!
 
Back
Top