As for the actual difference between their scores -- 133.41 for Brian vs.133.38 for Kevin. This is similar to the old 4-5 splits under 6.0 system.
Why would you say that this is similar to a 5-4 split? I *think* the marks in the detailed data on the scores are scattered randomly so that none of the judges' marks are identifiable, but if we assume hypothetically for illustration purposes that the columns each represent a single judge's marks, I broke down the total marks for presentation like this:
Joubert:
35.50 36.25 35.75 34.50 38.00 39.25 38.25 39.25 39.75 34.75 32.25
VDP:
35.75 32.00 34.00 35.50 35.25 39.25 38.25 31.00 29.25 36.00 31.25
In this case, at Lalique 6-3 judges placed Joubert over VDP in the presentation marks. 2 were tied. Furthermore, under the traditional scoring system, it goes without saying that BJ's program would have placed ahead of VDP in the tech marks. (VDP simply milked the CoP with his 3 double axels.)
And, if you include Skating Skills and Transitions under the technical mark, as people say they belong, then you'd also see that an overwhelming majority would have placed BJ ahead in the tech mark as well.
Joubert:
SS 7.25 7.25 7.00 7.00 7.75 7.50 7.25 8.00 8.00 7.00 6.50
T 6.75 7.00 6.50 6.75 7.25 7.00 7.75 7.00 7.75 7.50 6.25
VDP:
SS 7.00 6.50 6.75 7.00 7.00 7.50 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.25
T 7.00 6.25 6.00 7.00 6.75 7.25 7.25 5.00 5.75 7.25 6.00
And for Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation, grouped together as one presentation mark, BJ still wins a solid majority of the presentation marks.
Joubert:
21.50 22.00 22.25 20.75 23.00 24.75 23.25 24.25 24.00 20.25 19.50
VDP:
21.75 19.25 21.25 21.50 21.50 24.50 24.00 20.00 17.50 21.75 19.00
Keep in mind, I'm pretty sure that the data does NOT list the individual judges' marks under the same column. But the point is that a close competition as defined by CoP is not the same thing as a 5-4 split of the judges in the ordinal system, which is most likely bloc judging. If 2 or more skaters are ranked closely in CoP with very close scores, it is simply a failure of that system in differentiating skaters, and does NOT imply anything about who the judges actually preferred (would have ranked higher) in that competition. In fact, under CoP the majority of judges might prefer Skater A over Skater B, but the CoP can erringly put Skater B ahead in the standings. This is probably what happened at Trophee Lalique. I don't think the panel was divided.
(no offense)
