2006 Pacific Coast Championships

Senior Pairs

All photos Copyright 2005 by George S. Rossano

Only results from the last warmup group in each event are reported.

1. Naomi Nari Nam & Themistocles Leftheris (1, 1)

After a promising start as a young singles skater, Naomi Nari Nam was sidelined by injuries and other issues.  She has now reinvented herself as a pair skater.  Though she is a little on the heavy side for a pair girl,  she has found a capable partner with the height and strength to make this a team with some potential.  They won the Sectional Championship by a margin of nearly 23 points.

There greatest strengths were in lifts, jumps and throws; and they scored tolerably well in Program Components.  There other elements were fairly simple with three level 1 and 2 elements in the short program and five in the long program.

Their presentation was respectable enough for this stage in their partnership, but they have yet to develop any visible chemistry.  Nam gives the impression of the more motivated partner, with Leftheris looking largely like someone out there doing a job.  A capable job, but just a job.


2. Marisa Sharma & Amir Ganaba (2, 2)

Marisa Sharma & Amir Ganaba were in firm control of second place in both the short and long programs;  that is, they were well behind the leaders and well ahead of the third place team.  Their programs were stronger in the level-based elements than the leaders, but weaker in lifts, jumps and throws.  They did not land a triple jump in the short program or the free skating, and in the long program they received no credit for a broken lasso lift that did not make it into the air.  The majority of their point deficit, however, came from the program components, where they received marks mostly in the fours and fives, compared to sixes for the leaders.


3. Janice Mayne & Ethan Burgess (3, 4)

For Janice Mayne & Ethan Burgess, this event was a mixed bag.  They had the second best Program Component scores of all teams in both the short and long programs, but were hobbled by their element scores.

In the short program Mayne fell on triple Salchow (scored as a double) and throw triple loop.  Nevertheless, they held the program together and got PC marks as high as 6.00 from some judges.  There long program was sloppy, with Burgess the one who struggled this time, and the errors pulled down their PC scores significantly compared to the short program.  With two level 1 elements in the short program and four in the long, the difficulty of their programs was not up to expectations for a senior team.


4. Katie Uhlig & Michael Modro (5, 3)

Katie Uhlig & Michael Modro left the rink in fourth place after the short program, but the next day found themselves in fifth place after a protest by Bobbie Anne Flower & Joseph Jorgens resulted in the levels of a spin and a lift being increased, which nudged them up one place. The start order for the free skate then had to be redrawn to accommodate the new results.

Their short program was a sloppy exercise, with six of the eight required elements receiving negative GoE.  Their Program Components wre maily in the 4 to 5 range.  The lack of a triple jump and two level 1 elements also held them back.

In the long program the story was much the same.  There only triple was a throw triple Salshow.  Their second throw was a throw double loop with a step out.  Program Component scores remained in the 4 to 5 range and three elements were scored as level 1.  All but one of their elements received one or more negative GoEs.