Rescoring of 2010 Olympics

[Blades of Passion]

Isn't that, in fact, the rule? "Lacking rotatiion (no call) = -1 GOE"?

Yeah for a jump that doesn’t get called, but jumps that get called underrotated shouldn’t receive this deduction (unless it’s, like, a < call on a jump that’s an entire 1/2 turn short). An underrotated jump that gets called is generally not “lacking rotation”, the jump met the amount of rotation for that amount of base value, and can just be seen as an element of its own. The same can be said of forwards-landing (<<) jumps, which shouldn’t be seen as inherently worse than doing a 1/2 turn less rotation and landing backwards, if you are executing it fine. Doing more rotation is strictly more difficult; realistically a 4T<< should actually be given higher base value than a 3T. People don’t practice forwards-landing jumps, so there’s usually other problems with the landing on those types of jumps when they happen, since they are unplanned mistakes.

As I think I said earlier in the thread, I can't score with an open mind if I already know the result, and especially not if I already have opinions about them.

Knowing a result shouldn't change anything about how you evaluate it personally. I'd say that would be something to work on if you have trouble with it. We all already "have opinions" about a competition as we watch it. In our heads we are already thinking about what an element should score or what PCS someone should get as we are watching (at least for me), regardless if we write it down or not at that time. Just by using an internal estimation of what everything should be worth, it's already enough in many cases to have a confident feeling for where someone should place. Sitting down and plugging the exact numbers in only serves to confirm what our internal calculator was already telling us, in the clear-cut cases. In the closer cases, that is where the numbers may differ from a less precise overall feeling, if we were forced to quickly choose.

I have no doubt that for some fans the opportunity to "prove" the results wrong is the biggest part of the enjoyment. That is not at all of interest to me. Nor is trying to prove them right. I'm personally interested in the process of evaluating what I see, according my understanding of the rules in effect.

Hmm, "the biggest part of the enjoyment" is quite a stretch; people who love skating watch it for that reason, and they simply want to see GOOD results. The "process" of evaluating what you see is inherently going to either agree or disagree with judgements that were made. If you can see for yourself that something was called incorrectly, then what? You are just going to sit there with the information and be like "well, that was a nice process"? That's kind of like determining someone got in a car accident because they were speeding and then just leaving it there...

For Skating Skills and Choreography(Composition) especially, we have significantly less reliable input about the performances than the real judges had.

This is simply not true. Judges do not magically see things better just because they are sitting in that designated spot. They actually see things worse in some cases, because the view of the skater's blades are obscured from them near that wall; or if a skater is at a far end of the rink from where a judge is sitting, that can also objectively be a worse viewpoint. It's been debated for a long time that judges shouldn't all be sitting in the same area; there are good reasons to instead spread judges out around the arena. Either way, sitting in a single spot in an arena is never going to provide a better overall viewpoint than a well-filmed version. That's the reality of how skating operates within a long 360 degree space. It's not a typical theater, where everything is constructed to be seen from 180 degree (or less) angle, and where the performers are not moving in a rink-length of distance on the stage.

 

[gkelly]

This is simply not true. Judges do not magically see things better just because they are sitting in that designated spot.

I'm not talking about jumps here. Nor about designated "spots" but just proximity to the ice.

I'm talking about things like speed across the ice, depth of edge, security of edge, effortlessness of acceleration, the sounds of the blades carving into the ice or scratching or scraping on top of it, etc.

Also the placement of elements in different parts of the ice surface and the patterns of travel including the depth of the curves. (Directions of the curves are relatively easy to see on video if you make an effort to look for them.)

Have you ever attended a competition live and then gone home and watched it on video? Or watched part of a competition, or practice sessions, from close to the ice and other parts from your ticketed seats further significantly higher in the arena?

Did different positions give you different perspectives on the quality of the various skaters?

And of course if your ticketed seat is on the opposite side of the ice from the judges' stand, you'll get a better sense than the judges do of how well the skater uses the 360-degree orientation of the arena. Prioritizing that criterion, live and close to the ice and on the opposite side might be the ideal perspective. But if the skater does have interesting aspects of judge-centric choreography, you'd miss the best parts.

Sitting high up can also be useful for seeing patterning, while missing any close-up details.

If you're watching a TV broadcast, you'll mostly be watching via cameras on the judges' side, but often with cuts to different angles that may obscure the patterning on the ice. Cameras that move along with the skater may distort the sense of speed (which is already inevitably flattened by the process videography itself).

Producers that try to get cute by showing spins from an overhead camera can give a better view of the centering than a judge might see from across the rink -- assuming the camera stays steady. But the quality of the spin positions will often be lost in overhead novelty shots.

If the camera is moving during a spin, it can easily give an impression of a spin traveling significantly more or less than it actually did. (If there happen to be nearby landmarks on the ice, that could help mitigate the distortion.)

To quote Abigail Feder, "Television editing can also manipulate our perception and lend credence to narrative. An impression of speed and choppiness can be emphasized by use of cuts, which instantaneously switch from one shot to another; while flow and grace can be emphasized by use of dissolves, which gradually replace on shot with another."

Sometimes TV producers make an effort to include sounds of the blades on the ice, though not consistently throughout the full programs by all skaters. Most often the sound mixing prioritizes the music and the commentators' voices at the expense of the blade sounds. (Or other sounds the skaters might make, e.g., when falling to the ice or when one pair partner calls out the side-by-side spin changes or asks the partner if they're all right after a nasty fall.)

Makeup, facial expression, gestures, etc., may seem over the top in a video closeup or practically imperceptible the cheap seats. Most skaters aimed to get the size scale right for the judges' viewpoint, but some may over- or under do it. Skaters who "skate small" often come across better on video than live, while skaters with, say, effortless power but less than ideal body line may be more impressive live.

And of course any network commentary that may accompany a performance will be drawing your attention to specific details that the commentator thinks is important (if they're good at focusing on what's happening in front of them) or distract you from what the skater is doing right then if they're talking about human interest nonsense. If the commentator has a pet peeve about lutz takeoffs or spin positions or whatever, you'll probably end up giving a lot more attention to those details than to other things that may be of equal importance to judges but of little interest to this particular commentator.

It is easier to ignore commentary if you don't understand the commentary language.

If you're watching skating via "the media," what you're seeing has always been mediated by choices of the camera operators and the producer, and the commentators if they are speaking during the performance and you can understand what they're saying.

That's not even getting into the limitations of "fan cams."

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

I'm not talking about jumps here. Nor about designated "spots" but just proximity to the ice.

I'm talking about things like speed across the ice, depth of edge, security of edge, effortlessness of acceleration, the sounds of the blades carving into the ice or scratching or scraping on top of it, etc.

Also the placement of elements in different parts of the ice surface and the patterns of travel including the depth of the curves. (Directions of the curves are relatively easy to see on video if you make an effort to look for them.)

Have you ever attended a competition live and then gone home and watched it on video? Or watched part of a competition, or practice sessions, from close to the ice and other parts from your ticketed seats further significantly higher in the arena?

Did different positions give you different perspectives on the quality of the various skaters?

And of course if your ticketed seat is on the opposite side of the ice from the judges' stand, you'll get a better sense than the judges do of how well the skater uses the 360-degree orientation of the arena. Prioritizing that criterion, live and close to the ice and on the opposite side might be the ideal perspective. But if the skater does have interesting aspects of judge-centric choreography, you'd miss the best parts.

Sitting high up can also be useful for seeing patterning, while missing any close-up details.

If you're watching a TV broadcast, you'll mostly be watching via cameras on the judges' side, but often with cuts to different angles that may obscure the patterning on the ice. Cameras that move along with the skater may distort the sense of speed (which is already inevitably flattened by the process videography itself).

Producers that try to get cute by showing spins from an overhead camera can give a better view of the centering than a judge might see from across the rink -- assuming the camera stays steady. But the quality of the spin positions will often be lost in overhead novelty shots.

If the camera is moving during a spin, it can easily give an impression of a spin traveling significantly more or less than it actually did. (If there happen to be nearby landmarks on the ice, that could help mitigate the distortion.)

To quote Abigail Feder, "Television editing can also manipulate our perception and lend credence to narrative. An impression of speed and choppiness can be emphasized by use of cuts, which instantaneously switch from one shot to another; while flow and grace can be emphasized by use of dissolves, which gradually replace on shot with another."

Sometimes TV producers make an effort to include sounds of the blades on the ice, though not consistently throughout the full programs by all skaters. Most often the sound mixing prioritizes the music and the commentators' voices at the expense of the blade sounds. (Or other sounds the skaters might make, e.g., when falling to the ice or when one pair partner calls out the side-by-side spin changes or asks the partner if they're all right after a nasty fall.)

Makeup, facial expression, gestures, etc., may seem over the top in a video closeup or practically imperceptible the cheap seats. Most skaters aimed to get the size scale right for the judges' viewpoint, but some may over- or under do it. Skaters who "skate small" often come across better on video than live, while skaters with, say, effortless power but less than ideal body line may be more impressive live.

And of course any network commentary that may accompany a performance will be drawing your attention to specific details that the commentator thinks is important (if they're good at focusing on what's happening in front of them) or distract you from what the skater is doing right then if they're talking about human interest nonsense. If the commentator has a pet peeve about lutz takeoffs or spin positions or whatever, you'll probably end up giving a lot more attention to those details than to other things that may be of equal importance to judges but of little interest to this particular commentator.

It is easier to ignore commentary if you don't understand the commentary language.

If you're watching skating via "the media," what you're seeing has always been mediated by choices of the camera operators and the producer, and the commentators if they are speaking during the performance and you can understand what they're saying.

That's not even getting into the limitations of "fan cams."

:2thumbs: You are my favorite poster here right now.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I'm not talking about jumps here. Nor about designated "spots" but just proximity to the ice. I'm talking about things like speed across the ice, depth of edge, security of edge, effortlessness of acceleration, the sounds of the blades carving into the ice or scratching or scraping on top of it, etc.

All of that is seen and heard equally well, or better, from a proper recording. Sitting in the arena will actually never provide better proximity to the skater than what a recording could have, and why do you keep ignoring the fact that a skater's blades when next to a wall can't be seen by a judge who's sitting there? The real "benefit" of live viewing is the ambiance, which is simply impossible to factor and could vary for any judge regardless, and shouldn't really be a further factor for judging anyway (the overall crowd reaction during a performance can already be heard in a recording).

If someone can't ascertain speed from a good recording, then they simply aren't skilled enough at judging spatial distances on screen. The rate at which the skater is moving across the frame in comparison to the board behind them makes it clear, and I've never had trouble seeing slow turns when presented in this manner either. If you were to concretely measure the speed of a skater by calculating how long it takes them to move from one part of the rink to another, nothing changes between doing that live or on a recording.

Have you ever attended a competition live and then gone home and watched it on video?

Yep, already talked about that many times, and watching practices live and then a good recording right after. The human eye doesn't gain better ability to detect these things live. The overall scope of what your eyes are taking in will be different live, but that doesn't give you any "better" information, it only changes the frame of what you're watching, and it's entirely rooted in perspective of where you're sitting, and that is an inherently flawed perspective. As long as you're able to read a film frame with the correct perspective for what you're seeing, the same info is there, and possibly more.

It could be argued "well the program is designed for the perspective of the judging panel" (which is still not the exact same perspective for each judge), but that doesn't change how a good recording from the same position, and just moving the camera as a human head would (with the direction of the skater), will still provide the same information. Not to mention, technical elements are reviewed on film anyway. Literally every skating performance is open to be being scored, in part, based upon viewing onscreen.

Skaters who "skate small" often come across better on video than live

For an undiscerning viewer or perhaps a bad video. Again, it's not hard to see on a decent recording when someone is crawling out there on the ice or if they are going very fast, and shades inbetween. Even if it's edited to a different shot as they go down the rink, and maybe even if it's edited too much, the spatial distances can still be measured in the eye and by the mind. If you see someone is going around the corner of the rink, and it's taking them longer to get to the other end of the rink than someone else in a similar pattern, then they are moving slower. Simple math.

 

[gkelly]

All of that is seen and heard equally well, or better, from a proper recording.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. I don't expect that anything I can say will ever change your mind, or vice versa.

For the benefit of other fans, especially those who have not had much opportunity to watch skating live and up close, I will share my experience.

I have found that there are qualities of skating (the skating throughout the program, much more than individual elements) that do not come across well on video at all, even with the best possible recording and even with plenty of knowledge of what live skating is like and what to look for on the video.

Different positions in the arena can make it easier to see some details. Different video records can show things that were hard to see from a particular position live in the arena.

Obviously watching live from a good vantage point and then watching again multiple times from different camera angles with closeups on the blades as well as long and medium shots, and maybe slow motion at points, would provide more knowledge than just watching once.

And standing on the ice right next to the skater, then getting down on one's knees to check the tracings on clean ice from inches away would provide more knowledge about the accuracy of turns and edges than watching from afar, or in a medium shot video, or on ice that has been skated on for an hour or more by previous skaters before the current one.

No one is ever going to have perfect knowledge of every detail of a performance.

Some of the most important aspects of how the skater covers the ice will never come across well on video.

Not even for the very most experienced viewers who have watched hundreds of thousands of programs in person and similar numbers, often the same programs, on video, bringing their knowledge of live skating to interpreting the mediated video record.

Definitely not for viewers who have only ever watched skating on video.

Nothing can ever replace the rush of air that whips past a first-row spectator when a skater zips by 10 feet away at top speed. Most videos make no effort to capture the sounds of the blades on the ice at all, much less consistently.

In the past few days I have been lucky enough to have an opportunity to walk into a local rink and see some local skaters skating. Completely different experience than watching the same kind of skating on video.

The object that is being judged is the live performance, which is ephemeral. Video replay in competition is an adjunct to the primary event.

Videos shot by television networks who edit what gets shown to viewers as they go along, or videos shot by shaky equipment from the stands, are a great way to bring skating to the thousands and millions of viewers who don't have the opportunity to watch every or any event live.

But video records of the performances are not the same as the actual performances and are not what is being judged.

Except in a "virtual" competition like this year's Peggy Fleming trophy.

Maybe that kind of format will become accepted practice for a while in the current situation where skaters and coaches and officials all traveling to the same venue for live events is not feasible -- let alone spectators.

But it's not the same.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Agreed. A recording does NOT replace the feeling of watching a skater live.

It would also be absolutely absurd to place the judges at various spots around the arena. If you're trying to achieve consistency and fairness then they should have a similar vantage point - not to mention logistically it wouldn't make sense. And they still get access to video replays anyways in case they missed something or need a better look at an element.

This would also fundamentally change the makeup of programs as many skaters tailor aspects of their choreography to present to the judges (I mean - how would you do an opening pose when your back might be facing some of the judges?! ), and if you spread the judges out, there will be a disparity in how the performances are received. If there is an emotional/expressive section in one corner of the ice, then the judge closest to that might give higher interpretation scores than a judge placed at the other corner of the ice.

Although I suppose since some people believe it's better if the judging panel communicates with each other during a performance/competition, we can just give them walkie talkies so they can share with the group the real-time aspects of each performance so everyone else's scores are well-informed. "Judge 2 at ice level, paging Judges 6 and 9 in the nose bleeds - I can confirm that there WAS good depth of edge on that counter turn! Over and out!"

 

[gkelly]

This would also fundamentally change the makeup of programs as many skaters tailor aspects of their choreography to present to the judges (I mean - how would you do an opening pose when your back might be facing some of the judges?! ),

If the skating community agreed that 360-degree perspective on the choreography was a sufficiently important criterion, they could spread the judges around the arena and solve the significant logistical problems to data input and communication with the referee to make this feasible.

Of course this would end up being pretty silly in local rinks that don't have spectators on the opposite side from the judges, let alone at both ends of the ice, so all judges would end up sitting on the same side in any case.

and if you spread the judges out, there will be a disparity in how the performances are received. If there is an emotional/expressive section in one corner of the ice, then the judge closest to that might give higher interpretation scores than a judge placed at the other corner of the ice.

That can still happen when the judges are spread out along much of the length of the ice, with the tech panel behind them instead of taking up one side of the front row. If a skater does something good (or bad) right in front of the judges at one end of a panel the judges at the other end could have a much poorer view.

 

[Mathman]

Knowing a result shouldn't change anything about how you evaluate it personally. ... Just by using an internal estimation of what everything should be worth, it's already enough in many cases to have a confident feeling ...

For myself, I never have a confident feeling. For each skater, I think in real time, "Wow, she deserves to win."

Then the next one comes out and it's, "No, I mean her!

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Don't hate on me guys, this is a judging collaboration:
the results surprise even me, as I expected fully for Plushenko to be on the podium:
https://filebin.net/oki9j0nwmac6kilx

link expires in a week. This is with no changes to tech panel.

Thanks for sharing! Some surprising results, indeed!

1st and 2nd separated by less than 1 point... 3 to 5th so close!

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I don't know if the Deductions were incorporated.

Takahashi should have a -1 deduction in his FS for the quad fall.
Kozuka also should have -1 for fall deduction on his solo triple axel in the FS.
Chan should lose -2 for a time violation in the SP/fall in the FS.
Oda also loses -3 (-1 for a fall, -2 for the interruption) in his FS.

Which means the scores would end up:
1 Lysacek (261.56)
2 Takahashi (260.6)
3 Lambiel (253.48)
4 Kozuka (252.75)
5 Plushenko (252.00)
6 Chan (251.31)
7 Weir (250.28)
8 Oda (243.47)

And here's the difference from what the judges in 2010 gave:

4 Kozuka (252.75- 231.19 (8th) = +21.56)
2 Takahashi (260.6 - 247.23 (3rd) = +13.37)
7 Weir (250.28 - 238.87 (6th) = +11.41)
6 Chan (251.31 - 241.42 (5th) = +9.89)
3 Lambiel (253.48 - 246.72 (4th) = +6.76)
8 Oda (243.47 - 238.54 (7th) = +4.93)
1 Lysacek (261.56 - 257.67 (1st) = +3.89)
5 Plushenko (252.00 - 256.36 (2nd) = -4.36)

 

[kolyadafan2002]

Sorry to the Dai fans (self included), but he should have a -1 deduction added to his FS for the quad fall. Kozuka also should have -1 for his 3A fall.

Sorry I missed that, I will fix in the morning I must have just been very tired.
This flips first and second, but still very close!

 

[Baron Vladimir]

So, its Lysacek in 1st, Takahashi in 2nd and Lambiel in 3rd then. According to my own rankings i had Lysacek in 1st, Plushenko in 2nd, Wear in 3rd, then two Japanese skaters, with also close results. Lambiel was second to last in my scoring Also, we should check what results would be if the highest and lowest mark don't count in the final results. I think that rule existed back then too!?

 

[Blades of Passion]

So the results after deductions and tech adjust would be:

1. Takahashi
2. Lysacek
3. Lambiel
4. Kozuka
5. Plushenko
6. Chan
7. Weir
8. Oda

Interesting results overall, Kozuka was so close! If only the PCS hadn't been so lopsided between him and Lambiel in the LP, that one makes me sad to see (Lambiel in general for that tentative and unimaginative performance didn't deserve high PCS). Definitely can't say I'm happy with the Lysacek overscoring either, that's probably the worst of all here. Giving +2 GOE's to jumps that barely get off the ground, especially that last 2Axel (which was receiving the same GOE bonus factoring as Quads back then...), is certainly a choice. It shows especially under that system where the GOE's for easier jumps were worth so much, how easy it is to manipulate a result any which way.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Some 2010 vs 2020 PCS analysis:

Kozuka 37.45/74.20 -> 39.64/78.89 = +6.88
Takahashi 41.45/84.5 -> 43.26/87.72 = +5.03
Weir 39.2/77.10 -> 40/80.5 = +4.20
Chan 40.70/82.00 -> 41.59/83.28 = +2.17
Oda 38.85/77.00 -> 38.7/76.95 = -0.20
Lysacek 42.00 SP/82.80 FS -> 41.28/82.34 = -1.18
Lambiel 43.15/83.6 -> 42.33/82.5 = -1.92
Plushenko 39.75/82.80 -> 38.34/79.16 = -5.05

It is a bit of a surprise that Plushenko is off the podium in spite of being the only one to go clean, with a quad in each program.... but he was primarily hammered by us on PCS -5.05 points (39.75 -> 38.34 SP; 82.80 -> 79.16 FS).

Kozuka (perhaps unsurprisingly) got the biggest jump especially thanks to +6.88 PCS (37.45 -> 39.64 in the SP & 74.20 -> 78.89 in the FS)... although 21 points, and 8th to 4th (almost bronze), is an astounding leap. Clearly we thought the judges didn't give his elements the quality they deserved, with us awarding him almost 15 points more on GOE than they did.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Sorry I missed that, I will fix in the morning I must have just been very tired.
This flips first and second, but still very close!

No worries! Thanks for all your hard work in making this happen!

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

So, its Lysacek in 1st, Takahashi in 2nd and Lambiel in 3rd then. According to my own rankings i had Lysacek in 1st, Plushenko in 2nd, Wear in 3rd, then two Japanese skaters, with also close results. Lambiel was second to last in my scoring Also, we should check what results would be if the highest and lowest mark don't count in the final results. I think that rule existed back then too!?

Yeah, I noticed that as well, it's more work though... but it would be interesting to see how the scores would be affected if the high and lows of GOE/PCS were removed, especially with some of these scores so close and a quite a few PCS/GOE outliers!

 

[Daniel1998]

A couple of preliminary notes upon a quick scan...

I'm not a Plushenko fan, but I'm finding it really difficult to justify leaving him 5th or 6th after two clean skates with two quads. I get that his skating and transitions aren't that great, but honestly, not a lot of people blew me away with their skating in this event. Imagine the confusion among casual or non-hardcore fans watching if they saw this result. It would probably turn them off the sport.

I didn't realize Kozuka was so disliked by the judges? Granted, I'd never seen him skate before but... Had he always been lowballed with PCS or are we just seeing something different?

The score sheet honestly looks a lot more legit than I expected. Not as many crazy outliers and anomalies as I thought there might be given few (none?) of us are trained judges.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

It is a bit of a surprise that Plushenko is off the podium in spite of being the only one to go clean, with a quad in each program.... but he was primarily hammered by us on PCS -5.05 points (39.75 -> 38.34 SP; 82.80 -> 79.16 FS).

Kozuka (perhaps unsurprisingly) got the biggest jump especially thanks to +6.88 PCS (37.45 -> 39.64 in the SP & 74.20 -> 78.89 in the FS)... although 21 points, and 8th to 4th (almost bronze), is an astounding leap. Clearly we thought the judges didn't give his elements the quality they deserved, with us awarding him almost 15 points more on GOE than they did.

I've never watched Kozuka live, but he is probably one of those skaters who appear to skate 'bigger' on TV screens comparing to live impression. With Plushenko probably being an opposite of that

 

[Baron Vladimir]

A couple of preliminary notes upon a quick scan...

I'm not a Plushenko fan, but I'm finding it really difficult to justify leaving him 5th or 6th after two clean skates with two quads. I get that his skating and transitions aren't that great, but honestly, not a lot of people blew me away with their skating in this event. Imagine the confusion among casual or non-hardcore fans watching if they saw this result. It would probably turn them off the sport.

I think the 'problem' was in a scoring system back then. Because you would get the same additional GOE points for 2A with 1 GOE and for 4T with 1 GOE, for both of them one additional point more. In todays system with +1 GOE you are getting additional 0.33 points for 2A and 0.95 for 4T for example. That's why Yuna Kim would also be a winner if she chose to compete in mens free in Vancouver, even without any 3A and quads.

 

[Blades of Passion]

The scoring system is an issue, but so are the GOE's behind handed out. Too many judges are much too generous. Seeing rows of +2's for many of Lysacek's elements (and some +3's, including his...merely adequate 3Flip+2Toe+2Loop combo?) is rather sickening.

I've just seen there's a big mistake with how the GOE's were calculated on the sheet though: People are getting too many points for their Spins and Level 3 footwork than they are supposed to under this scoring system. The factor is supposed to be 0.5 point per +1 GOE, but all of these elements are listed as a way higher GOE score than the actual amount assigned by the judges. That will have to be adjusted.

I've never watched Kozuka live, but he is probably one of those skaters who appear to skate 'bigger' on TV screens comparing to live impression. With Plushenko probably being an opposite of that

Oh this silly argument again.

I saw him several times in person, there was no difference, his beautiful and effortless glide over the ice was apparent. Several people I talked to at the Vancouver arena also thought Kozuka was particularly wonderful there. He was just underscored, total politics, going into the Olympics as the "3rd ranked" Japanese Man. It's too bad he didn't win his World Silver Medal in 2009 rather than 2011...