Skill Mix for 2010 Olympic Figure Skating

The results detail provided under IJS provides a wealth of information about the performances in a competition (and also the quality of the judging), but it is sometimes difficult to see the forest for the trees. Individual marks tell us about specific strengths and errors in specific elements and components, and about how the judges use the marks, but they do not give a clear picture of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the skaters for the various skills required in competition.

In this article we look at the strengths and weaknesses of the skaters in the main skill categories that make up skating performances. For Singles, these skill categories consist of: jumps; spins; sequences; skating skills and transitions (the technical contribution from skating ability and connecting movements); and the presentation/artistic skills (performance and execution, choreography and interpretation). For Pairs, the skill categories consist of: lifts and jumps; spins and death spirals; sequences; skating skills and transitions; and the presentation/artistic skills. For Dance, the skill categories consist of: lifts; spins and twizzles; sequences; skating skills and transitions; and the presentation/artistic skills.

The values provided in this article are calculated from the judges marks using all marks from all judges averaged as a simple mean. We do this to get the best estimate of how each skater was viewed by the entire panel in each of the skill categories. By comparing the total scores and placements here to the official results the motivated reader can also get a sense of how discarding some of the judges and using the trimmed mean alters the calculated value for each skater and their final placement in their event.

The purpose of IJS is to determine the absolute value of each performance to determine the order of finish. However, due to the spread in the judges marks, and other uncertainties in the system, the point totals determined for the skaters are only approximations for their true absolute values. If the uncertainties in the values of programs is greater than the point difference between two competitors, then those results (placements) are not statistically significant, and have a significant chance of being incorrect. That is, they have a high chance of being incorrect because IJS is just not very good at determining what a performance is really worth in an absolute, repeatable sense.

To determine this "believability" of the results, we calculate the statistical uncertainties for the total points for each skater. These uncertainties are included in the following table as a +/- value listed below the total score. It is the uncertainty in the total score only due to the spread in the judges opinions, and does not include the uncertainty due to other errors and uncertainties present in IJS. The full uncertainty in the total value for a competitor due to all sources of error and uncertainty in IJS is roughly 3 points.

Ladies

Skater	Segment	Jumps	Spins	Seqns	PC 1-2	PC 3-5	Totals

1 KIM Yu-Na	SP	24.00	11.54	9.20	13.20	20.62	78.55
	FS	56.58	11.83	9.87	28.14	43.55	149.98
	Totals	80.58	23.37	19.07	41.34	64.17	228.53
		1	1	2	1	1	+/- 0.73
	Kim scored best in all skills, other than sequences, where she trailed by only 0.67 points. Even had Asada not been downgraded on a triple flip, and not singled a triple toe loop, Kim would still have outscored Asada in jumps. Kim showed herself to be not only the best all around skater, but the best skater in nearly all skill categories. Trivia Note: If Kim is scored using the same Program Component factors as the men her point total is 254.91, and she wins the bronze medal in the men's event. If she had been allowed the eighth jump element the men have, and cleanly landed a double Axel with a plus GoE (or in the second half), she would have won the Men's event.

2 ASADA Mao	SP	21.28	11.04	9.87	12.66	19.84	74.69
**	FS	42.03	11.72	9.87	25.86	39.95	129.43
	Totals	63.31	22.76	19.74	38.52	59.79	204.12
		4	3	1	3	3	+/- 0.96
	Asada placed her strategic bet on having three triple Axels in her performances. Asada needed to beat Kim in jumps in order to overcome Kim's recognized strengths in other areas. This strategy failed, since even with three triple Axels her jump total was still well below Kim's. Had Asada not under-rotated a triple flip and singled a triple toe loop, her jump total would still have been roughly 10 points below Kim. Asada also scored significantly below Kim in components, and only exceeded Kim in sequences, the least important (in point value) of the skill categories.

3 ROCHETTE Joannie	SP	20.53	9.57	9.26	12.71	19.62	71.69
**	FS	43.63	10.78	8.86	26.70	40.90	130.87
	Totals	64.16	20.35	18.12	39.42	60.52	202.56
		3	12	3	2	2	+/- 0.86
	The difference between silver and bronze for Rochette was the spin skill category, where she was scored 12th best, more than 2 points behind Asada. She might also have squeezed a few more points out of the jump category, having made costly errors on two jump element in the Free Skate. Rochette was also not helped by Asada being over-scored in her two triple Axel combinations, but the jump errors in the long where her own, and with the weakness in spins she was still in control of her own fate.

4 NAGASU Mirai	SP	16.74	11.58	8.81	10.75	16.49	64.36
	FS	47.70	11.63	6.04	23.86	36.75	125.97
	Totals	64.44	23.21	14.85	34.61	53.24	190.33
		2	2	14	6	6	+/- 0.90
	Even without a triple-triple, Nagasu was scored second best in jumps, and was also second best in spins. Sequences were a serious drag on her scores, being 14th best in this skill, roughly four points behind where they need to be. Components in general also weighted down her scores. More specifically, her Transitions mark, and then the Choreography and Interpretation marks have considerable room for improvement. Nagasu currently has the jumps and spins under control. Bringing the other three skills up to the same level would solidify her future as the next great lady coming out of the U.S.

5 ANDO Miki	SP	15.83	10.50	8.59	11.89	18.27	65.09
**	FS	43.78	10.99	7.93	23.79	36.53	123.03
	Totals	59.61	21.49	16.52	35.68	54.80	188.12
		7	4	5	5	5	+/- 0.95

6 LEPISTO Laura	SP	16.58	9.80	6.34	11.31	17.29	61.32
**	FS	43.21	11.20	9.20	24.45	37.92	125.98
	Totals	59.79	21.00	15.54	35.76	55.21	187.30
		6	8	11	4	4	+/- 0.75

7 FLATT Rachael	SP	19.45	9.50	8.59	11.02	17.11	65.67
**	FS	41.42	9.88	7.51	22.93	35.42	117.16
	Totals	60.87	19.38	16.10	33.95	52.54	182.83
		5	15	8	9	8	+/- 0.87
	Flatt's greatest strength is in jumps, and she was banking on clean jumps and two triple flip - triple toe loop combinations to keep her near the top of the pack. She got credit for the triple-triple in the Short Program, but was downgraded in the Free Skate and also had a second triple flip downgraded. This cost her near 10 points in jumps and dropped her from potentially second in jumps to fifth in jumps. Those 10 points might also have pushed her up into fourth place overall. But strength in jumps alone will not make her a medal contender in the future. Spins are a major weakness, and the other three skill categories are also several points behind the leaders.

8 SUZUKI Akiko	SP	14.52	10.16	8.42	11.34	17.14	61.58
**	FS	40.60	11.27	8.75	22.98	36.05	119.64
	Totals	55.12	21.43	17.17	34.31	53.18	181.22
		10	5	4	8	7	+/- 0.91

9 LEONOVA Alena	SP	15.86	10.21	8.15	10.85	16.84	61.90
**	FS	39.46	9.00	6.98	21.42	32.53	109.39
	Totals	55.32	19.21	15.13	32.27	49.37	171.29
		9	16	12	10	10	+/- 0.83

10 MAKAROVA Ksenia	SP	17.11	9.97	8.14	9.34	14.13	58.67
**	FS	41.14	9.01	8.04	21.02	32.30	111.51
	Totals	58.25	18.98	16.18	30.36	46.43	170.18
		8	17	6	16	16	+/- 0.88

11 KORPI Kiira	SP	9.43	10.01	7.81	10.42	15.78	54.44
	FS	35.85	10.84	8.31	21.33	32.45	108.77
	Totals	45.28	20.85	16.12	31.74	48.23	163.21
		15	11	7	11	11	+/- 0.62

12 PHANEUF Cynthia	SP	16.13	10.54	5.76	10.51	16.25	60.19
	FS	30.26	10.32	8.20	20.26	31.63	101.66
	Totals	46.39	20.86	13.96	30.77	47.88	161.85
		14	10	15	15	12	+/- 0.71

13 KOSTNER Carolina	SP	15.55	8.89	8.98	11.86	17.76	63.04
**	FS	19.34	8.86	6.94	22.50	33.34	93.99
	Totals	34.89	17.75	15.92	34.36	51.10	157.03
		23	20	9	7	9	+/- 0.69

14 GEDEVANISHVILI Elene	SP	17.29	10.01	8.59	10.18	15.93	61.98
**	FS	24.14	11.17	4.93	20.80	31.60	93.64
	Totals	41.43	21.18	13.52	30.98	47.53	155.62
		19	6	17	13	13	+/- 0.81

15 KWAK Min-Jung	SP	14.32	10.37	6.43	8.45	13.02	52.59
**	FS	36.96	10.64	6.81	19.20	29.41	103.02
	Totals	51.28	21.01	13.24	27.65	42.43	155.61
		12	7	18	17	17	+/- 0.89

16 MEIER Sarah	SP	12.97	10.16	7.87	10.22	15.93	57.15
	FS	25.28	10.77	7.87	20.67	31.28	95.87
	Totals	38.25	20.93	15.74	30.90	47.21	153.02
		20	9	10	14	14	+/- 0.63

17 SEBESTYEN Julia	SP	12.76	9.73	7.87	10.58	16.14	57.09
	FS	25.08	9.81	5.96	20.80	31.07	92.72
	Totals	37.84	19.54	13.83	31.38	47.21	149.81
		21	14	16	12	14	+/- 0.80

18 HECKEN Sarah	SP	12.49	8.30	6.46	8.73	13.07	49.05
**	FS	35.45	9.82	5.92	17.52	26.13	94.83
	Totals	47.94	18.12	12.38	26.25	39.20	143.88
		13	19	21	19	20	+/- 0.64

19 LIU Yan	SP	15.86	8.20	5.68	8.65	13.29	51.68
**	FS	35.83	7.51	5.90	16.61	25.60	91.43
	Totals	51.69	15.71	11.58	25.26	38.89	143.11
		11	23	24	22	22	+/- 0.68

20 LEE Cheltzie	SP	15.10	8.90	6.50	8.38	12.94	51.81
	FS	26.79	9.67	5.63	17.78	26.50	87.37
	Totals	41.89	18.57	12.13	26.15	39.43	139.18
		18	18	22	20	19	+/- 0.66

21 LAFUENTE Sonia	SP	13.91	7.98	7.25	8.02	12.29	49.46
**	FS	28.85	9.02	5.74	16.00	25.01	85.61
	Totals	42.76	17.00	12.99	24.02	37.30	135.07
		16	21	19	24	24	+/- 0.58

22 GLEBOVA Elena	SP	12.82	7.48	6.70	9.22	14.09	50.33
**	FS	24.31	8.40	5.90	17.82	26.98	84.41
	Totals	37.13	15.88	12.60	27.05	41.06	134.74
		22	22	20	18	18	+/- 0.55

23 GIMAZETDINOVA Anastasia	SP	13.57	7.31	7.20	8.22	12.40	48.69
**	FS	28.87	7.83	4.46	16.98	24.98	84.11
	Totals	42.44	15.14	11.66	25.19	37.38	132.80
		17	24	23	23	23	+/- 0.69

24 KARADEMIR Tugba	SP	11.60	9.48	7.70	8.74	13.38	50.89
**	FS	20.15	10.65	7.43	16.75	25.78	81.76
	Totals	31.75	20.13	15.13	25.49	39.15	132.65
		24	13	12	21	21	+/- 0.61

25 PIEMAN Isabelle	SP	12.44	7.06	6.79	7.75	11.82	45.86
**	Totals	12.44	7.06	6.79	7.75	11.82	45.86
		25	30	26	28	28	+/- 0.22

26 ZIEGLER Miriam	SP	7.48	9.51	7.76	7.98	11.96	45.70
**	Totals	7.48	9.51	7.76	7.98	11.96	45.70
		27	25	25	26	27	+/- 0.15

27 POSTIC Teodora	SP	9.71	8.40	5.27	7.78	11.98	43.13
**	Totals	9.71	8.40	5.27	7.78	11.98	43.13
		26	29	30	27	26	+/- 0.10

28 McCORKELL Jenna	SP	5.77	8.94	5.57	8.75	12.99	43.02
**	Totals	5.77	8.94	5.57	8.75	12.99	43.02
		29	28	29	25	25	+/- 0.13

29 REITMAYEROVA Ivana	SP	6.93	9.18	6.65	7.62	11.47	41.86
	Totals	6.93	9.18	6.65	7.62	11.47	41.86
		28	27	27	29	29	+/- 0.16

30 JURKIEWICZ Anna	SP	0.70	9.30	6.48	7.44	11.15	35.07
	Totals	0.70	9.30	6.48	7.44	11.15	35.07
		30	26	28	30	30	+/- 0.18

** Place is not statistically significant.

21 of 30 places may be in error by one or more places.
2 of 3 medal places may be in error by one or more places.

The large fraction of places that are not statistically significant in the Ladies event is a stunning indictment of how pathetically IJS is suited to meet its intended purpose. This unbiased quantitative measure of the system uncertainty unambiguously demonstrates that trying to measure the value of a skating performance with IJS is like trying to time a race with a broken watch.

The fraction of places that are statistically uncertain is significantly greater at the 2010 Olympics than it was at the 2006 Olympics. As we will discuss in another article, this is a direct result of the reduction in the number of judges used, and an increase in the spread of opinion among the remaining judges. Rather than improving the ability of IJS to make an accurate measurement of the value of a performance over the past four years, the ISU has seriously degraded the quality of the scoring.

Men

Skater	Segment	Jumps	Spins	Seqns	PC 1-2	PC 3-5	Totals

1 LYSACEK Evan	SP	26.92	11.26	10.20	16.22	25.98	90.58
**	FS	62.68	11.77	9.42	32.44	51.16	167.47
	Totals	89.60	23.03	19.62	48.66	77.14	258.05
		2	3	2	4	3	+/- 1.02
	Lysacek's victory is the result of being the best overall skater, scoring high in all skill categories, though not the highest in any skill category. He also benefited from the fact the best scores in each of the five skill categories were split among three skaters. Further, the second best scores in each of the skill categories are split among three skaters, of which he is one.

2 PLUSHENKO Evgeni	SP	31.89	11.27	8.04	15.22	24.59	91.01
**	FS	63.64	10.76	8.43	31.60	51.78	166.21
	Totals	95.53	22.03	16.47	46.82	76.37	257.22
		1	4	5	5	4	+/- 1.25
	Plushenko's strategy of building up a buffer of points in jumps, by landing two quad toe loops, to compensate for weaknesses elsewhere nearly worked. Nevertheless, even with two clean quad toe loops, his jump advantage was only 5.93 points. Although jumps are the most abundant source of element points, there are sufficient points available elsewhere to allow a skater six points behind in jumps to overtake the higher scored jumper, which is what happened. In order to convert his jump advantage to a win, Plushenko needed to stay close to the lead in the other four skill categories, but did not. Though fourth in spins, he was only one point behind in that skill. Sequences were a more serious deficiency, and after that components. Among the components, Transitions and Choreography were scored the lowest, followed by skating skills. Plushenko's Transitions marks were well below his other components, and alone accounted for enough points to make the difference between silver and gold.

3 TAKAHASHI Daisuke	SP	28.15	10.83	10.59	16.19	25.91	91.67
	FS	53.92	9.22	10.59	33.44	51.46	159.63
	Totals	82.07	20.05	21.18	49.63	77.37	251.30
		6	9	1	2	2	+/- 1.13
	For Takahashi, the difference between third and a higher place was jumps and to a lesser extent spins. For sequences and components he was at or near the top. Takahashi chose a gutsy strategy of attempting a quad toe loop in the Free Skate, knowing it was not a reliable jump for him. Landing the jump could have given him the victory. But so too could have a group of jump elements that did not include a quad toe loop. His quad toe loop attempt was downgraded and he fell, leading to no points for that element after accounting for the fall deduction. He also had a downgrade on triple toe loop in combination with a triple flip. Had he successfully landed the triple toe loop as a solo jump and had a clean triple flip - double toe loop combination, he would have scored significantly higher in jumps and perhaps high enough to overtake Plushenko, or even Lysacek.

4 CHAN Patrick	SP	24.01	9.77	9.09	16.30	24.80	84.97
**	FS	57.35	11.94	10.14	33.22	49.88	163.53
	Totals	81.36	21.71	19.23	49.52	74.68	248.50
		7	6	3	3	5	+/- 1.06

5 LAMBIEL Stephane	SP	19.56	13.17	8.71	16.81	26.67	84.92
**	FS	56.27	12.27	9.98	32.96	51.40	162.88
	Totals	75.83	25.44	18.69	49.77	78.07	247.80
		10	1	4	1	1	+/- 1.01
	For Lambiel, the jump points tell it all. Lambiel was scored first in spins and components, and was only a few points behind in sequences. In jumps however he was not competitive to the amount of at least 10 points. He landed three quad toe loops, though with negative GoEs, but the points earned despite that made it the right strategy for him. His real problem was the lack of a triple Axel to back up the quad toe loops. With three clean triple Axels he would have taken the gold, but Lambiel has not had the triple Axel for several years, and there are simply not enough points in the skills where he excels to make up for the lack of it.

6 ODA Nobunari	SP	27.25	10.95	7.60	15.20	23.70	84.70
**	FS	61.85	10.82	7.77	30.94	47.16	161.54
	Totals	89.10	21.77	15.37	46.14	70.86	246.24
		3	5	12	8	7	+/- 1.08

7 WEIR Johnny	SP	23.70	11.00	8.26	15.25	24.05	82.26
	FS	61.74	10.01	7.99	31.00	48.40	159.14
	Totals	85.44	21.01	16.25	46.25	72.45	241.40
		4	8	6	7	6	+/- 0.89
	For a skater without a quad toe loop Weir scored well in jumps. He would probably be better served by cleaning up the edge on his triple flips than anything else, as correcting these errors buys him roughly 4 points; enough to put him a close third in jumps. Weir also leaves significant points on the table in spins, sequences and Transitions. By the numbers, Weir is not medal competitive in any of the components, though there are others who feel several of his components are under-valued for whatever reason judges choose to under-value a skater.

8 KOZUKA Takahiko	SP	23.16	11.73	7.82	15.02	22.83	80.56
	FS	59.60	11.77	7.60	29.50	44.60	154.07
	Totals	82.76	23.50	15.42	44.52	67.43	234.63
		5	2	11	9	9	+/- 1.13

9 BREZINA Michal	SP	27.36	8.40	7.55	14.55	22.36	80.22
	FS	52.85	8.71	7.26	28.38	43.84	142.04
	Totals	80.21	17.11	14.81	42.93	66.20	222.26
		9	21	14	11	11	+/- 0.91

10 ABBOTT Jeremy	SP	12.14	10.96	7.93	15.55	23.16	69.74
	FS	52.64	10.27	8.10	30.82	46.62	149.45
	Totals	64.78	21.23	16.03	46.37	69.78	219.19
		16	7	7	6	8	+/- 0.78
	For Abbott this competition was primarily about the jumps, or that lack of them. His jump points were 25 points off the mark needed for medal contention. However, even with contending jump scores, which he is capable of achieving, his mediocre position in the other skill categories would still have kept him off the podium, and even out of the top ten.

11 TEN Denis	SP	24.37	8.92	7.99	13.67	21.19	76.14
**	FS	51.03	9.12	7.60	26.76	41.00	135.51
	Totals	75.40	18.04	15.59	40.43	62.19	211.65
		12	16	10	14	15	+/- 1.07

12 AMODIO Florent	SP	25.36	9.00	7.66	12.89	20.20	75.11
**	FS	46.51	8.62	8.26	28.60	44.10	136.09
	Totals	71.87	17.62	15.92	41.49	64.30	211.20
		13	17	8	13	12	+/- 0.80

13 FERNANDEZ Javier	SP	20.92	9.46	7.60	12.36	19.23	69.57
**	FS	50.29	10.04	8.21	27.44	44.58	141.56
	Totals	71.21	19.50	15.81	39.80	63.81	211.13
		14	12	9	16	13	+/- 0.81

14 BORODULIN Artem	SP	23.37	8.72	7.71	12.33	19.47	71.60
**	FS	56.88	8.60	7.37	25.60	40.12	138.57
	Totals	80.25	17.32	15.08	37.93	59.59	210.17
		8	20	13	18	18	+/- 0.86

15 JOUBERT Brian	SP	15.21	9.89	6.71	14.67	22.25	69.73
**	FS	42.22	9.89	7.60	29.16	44.68	134.55
	Totals	57.43	19.78	14.31	43.83	66.93	204.28
		20	10	17	10	10	+/- 0.96

16 SCHULTHEISS Adrian	SP	16.62	9.66	6.99	12.39	18.74	64.40
**	FS	58.84	8.59	6.86	24.90	39.44	138.63
	Totals	75.46	18.25	13.85	37.29	58.18	203.03
		11	15	18	19	19	+/- 0.88

17 van der PERREN Kevin	SP	23.84	9.16	5.77	13.61	20.81	73.19
**	FS	39.82	8.20	6.77	25.78	39.32	119.89
	Totals	63.66	17.36	12.54	39.39	60.13	193.08
		17	19	20	17	17	+/- 0.89

18 CONTESTI Samuel	SP	20.05	9.57	7.21	13.88	21.33	73.04
**	FS	34.12	9.24	7.54	26.28	41.22	118.40
	Totals	54.17	18.81	14.75	40.16	62.55	191.44
		23	14	15	15	14	+/- 0.90

19 VERNER Tomas	SP	13.74	8.79	7.65	14.59	21.89	67.66
	FS	40.00	8.72	4.49	27.18	40.26	121.65
	Totals	53.74	17.51	12.14	41.77	62.15	189.31
		24	18	21	12	16	+/- 0.81

20 PFEIFER Viktor	SP	18.66	8.64	6.99	10.70	16.50	61.49
**	FS	48.31	7.55	5.71	22.22	34.66	119.45
	Totals	66.97	16.19	12.70	32.92	51.16	180.94
		15	24	19	24	23	+/- 0.85

21 BACCHINI Paolo	SP	18.69	8.76	7.71	11.55	18.39	65.10
**	FS	37.51	10.48	7.04	23.10	36.50	114.63
	Totals	56.20	19.24	14.75	34.65	54.89	179.73
		21	13	15	22	20	+/- 0.88

22 LINDEMANN Stefan	SP	23.86	8.78	4.99	12.30	18.73	68.66
**	FS	34.57	7.93	4.68	23.88	34.94	106.00
	Totals	58.43	16.71	9.67	36.18	53.67	174.66
		19	22	24	20	21	+/- 0.82

23 CHIPEUR Vaughn	SP	16.67	9.49	4.47	10.92	16.48	58.03
**	FS	39.27	10.19	6.04	23.84	37.12	116.46
	Totals	55.94	19.68	10.51	34.76	53.60	174.49
		22	11	23	21	22	+/- 0.95

24 KOVALEVSKI Anton	SP	22.47	8.10	6.27	10.89	17.04	64.77
**	FS	36.43	8.54	4.94	22.46	33.84	109.21
	Totals	58.90	16.64	11.21	33.35	50.88	173.98
		18	23	22	23	24	+/- 0.90

25 RI Song Chol	SP	21.70	7.52	4.16	9.50	14.26	57.14
	Totals	21.70	7.52	4.16	9.50	14.26	57.14
		25	28	30	29	29	+/- 0.22

26 RAKIMGALIEV Abzal	SP	19.06	8.81	4.57	9.70	14.28	56.42
	Totals	19.06	8.81	4.57	9.70	14.28	56.42
		26	26	27	27	28	+/- 0.33

27 KELEMEN Zoltan	SP	14.41	7.30	5.66	9.97	15.50	53.84
	Totals	14.41	7.30	5.66	9.97	15.50	53.84
		29	29	25	25	25	+/- 0.14

28 URBAS Gregor	SP	16.41	7.83	4.57	9.75	14.69	53.25
**	Totals	16.41	7.83	4.57	9.75	14.69	53.25
		27	27	27	26	27	+/- 0.15

29 DOMANSKI Przemyslaw	SP	15.08	9.20	4.55	9.63	14.73	53.19
**	Totals	15.08	9.20	4.55	9.63	14.73	53.19
		28	25	29	28	26	+/- 0.31

30 NURMENKARI Ari-Pekka	SP	10.61	6.47	5.64	9.42	13.80	46.94
	Totals	10.61	6.47	5.64	9.42	13.80	46.94
		30	30	26	30	30	+/- 0.15

** Place is not statistically significant.

20 of 30 places may be in error by one or more places.
2 of 3 medal places may be in error by one or more places.

This event also has an absurdly large fraction of places that are not statistically significant.

Pairs

Skater	Segment	Lifts Jumps	Spins DeathSp	Seqns	PC 1-2	PC 3-5	Totals

1 SHEN Xue / ZHAO Hongbo	SP	23.84	14.67	4.19	13.71	20.91	77.33
**	FS	48.54	14.44	4.73	28.26	43.74	139.72
	Totals	72.38	29.11	8.92	41.97	64.66	217.05
		3	2	4	1	1	+/- 0.74
	Shen & Zhao won in the Short Program and held on in the Free Skate to win the gold. They scored best in components and were sufficiently high in the three element skill categories to win. In this they were helped by they fact the best scores in the elements skills were split among three other teams.

2 PANG Qing / TONG Jian	SP	23.34	12.96	4.02	13.15	20.14	74.61
**	FS	53.37	12.23	5.07	27.82	42.98	141.47
	Totals	76.71	25.19	9.09	40.98	63.11	216.08
		1	8	3	3	3	+/- 0.77
	Pang & Tong won the Free Skate, but not by a sufficient margin to overcome their deficit from the Short Program. The deciding skill here was spins/deathsp which was several points below the top teams. Had this skill been one point better in either the short or the long they would have taken home the gold.

3 SAVCHENKO Aliona / SZOLKOWY Robin	SP	22.91	14.99	4.13	13.62	20.89	76.54
	FS	46.36	14.19	5.07	27.65	42.35	136.63
	Totals	69.27	29.18	9.20	41.27	63.24	213.17
		4	1	2	2	2	+/- 0.93
	For Savchenko & Szolkowy the skill category separating them from a higher place was the lifts/jumps category, and more specifically errors on the two solo jump elements in the Free Skate.

4 ZHANG Dan / ZHANG Hao	SP	24.01	13.13	3.58	12.33	18.61	71.65
**	FS	49.18	12.68	4.29	23.57	35.38	126.10
	Totals	73.19	25.81	7.87	35.90	53.98	197.75
		2	7	9	7	7	+/- 0.80
	Competitive lifts/jumps skill from this team, and that was it. Not competitive by too many points in all other skills.

5 KAVAGUTI Yuko / SMIRNOV Alexander	SP	22.04	14.64	4.02	12.89	19.95	73.53
**	FS	40.88	11.34	5.40	25.74	39.25	123.61
	Totals	62.92	25.98	9.42	38.63	59.20	197.14
		9	6	1	4	4	+/- 0.91
	Surprising to find this team best in sequences and low in lifts/jumps, and also spins/deathsp considering how much effort they put into presenting interesting lifts and spins. Component marks were close enough to the leaders to be competitive for a medal, but they needed to deliver in lifts/jumps and spins/deathsp, which they did not. For the lift/jump skill the story is errors in one jump element and both throws in the Free Skate.

6 DUBE Jessica / DAVISON Bryce	SP	18.01	14.38	3.80	12.13	18.65	67.96
	FS	44.92	11.93	4.40	24.30	37.10	123.65
	Totals	62.93	26.31	8.20	36.43	55.75	191.61
		8	4	7	5	5	+/- 0.76

7 MUKHORTOVA Maria / TRANKOV Maxim	SP	17.94	12.53	3.69	11.98	18.08	65.21
	FS	43.87	12.65	4.84	24.32	37.10	123.78
	Totals	61.81	25.18	8.53	36.30	55.18	188.99
		10	9	5	6	6	+/- 0.86

8 VOLOSOZHAR Tatiana / MOROZOV Stanislav	SP	19.14	13.31	2.02	11.16	16.75	62.38
**	FS	47.98	12.98	3.84	22.22	33.74	121.77
	Totals	67.12	26.29	5.86	33.38	50.50	184.15
		5	5	18	8	9	+/- 0.83

9 LANGLOIS Anabelle / HAY Cody	SP	20.89	13.50	3.63	10.60	16.49	65.11
**	FS	43.32	13.16	4.18	22.50	34.30	118.45
	Totals	64.21	26.66	7.81	33.10	50.79	183.56
		6	3	10	9	8	+/- 0.81

10 EVORA Amanda / LADWIG Mark	SP	19.87	11.64	2.52	9.95	15.18	59.16
	FS	44.33	13.15	4.40	20.80	31.57	114.25
	Totals	64.20	24.79	6.92	30.75	46.74	173.41
		7	10	12	10	10	+/- 0.77
	Evora & Ladwig demonstrated a fairly well balanced skill set, with lifts/jumps their strongest skill category. Within that category, lifts were their strongest elements. Errors in the two Free Skate solo jumps cost them several places in the lifts/jumps category, but successful completion would not have moved them up significantly in the standings. The most important vein of points to be mined in the future (if they stay in) are the components, where there are 30 points room for improvement to be competitive with the top teams. After that, the spins/deathsp and sequences categories offer roughly 10 points to go after in the future.

11 BAZAROVA Vera / LARIONOV Yuri	SP	19.15	10.27	2.52	9.62	14.66	56.23
**	FS	40.65	12.65	4.18	19.74	29.92	108.15
	Totals	59.80	22.92	6.70	29.37	44.58	164.38
		11	15	13	12	12	+/- 0.97

12 DELLA MONICA Nicole / KOCON Yannick	SP	16.95	11.78	3.80	10.18	15.04	57.76
**	FS	37.08	12.39	4.62	20.43	30.53	106.05
	Totals	54.03	24.17	8.42	30.62	45.57	163.81
		13	12	6	11	11	+/- 0.74

13 DENNEY Caydee / BARRETT Jeremy	SP	16.30	11.81	2.41	9.25	14.18	53.95
	FS	41.11	11.84	4.18	19.68	30.03	106.84
	Totals	57.41	23.65	6.59	28.93	44.21	160.79
		12	13	14	13	13	+/- 0.75
	Denney & Barrett demonstrated a fairly well balanced skill set, with no one skill category dominating the others. A combined total of three errors in the event (elements with negative GoEs) cost them a few points, and perhaps one place at the most. None of their skill categories were competitive with the top five teams. The team needs to improve at least 50 points to be competitive with the top teams. Most of these points are in the lifts/spins skill category and then in the components. Some points are also available in spins/deathsp and sequences, but these amount to only 10 points of the 50 they need to improve.

14 MORAND Anais / DORSAZ Antoine	SP	17.68	13.35	2.36	9.02	13.96	56.38
	FS	33.28	11.19	4.18	17.20	25.78	93.63
	Totals	50.96	24.54	6.54	26.22	39.74	150.01
		15	11	15	15	15	+/- 0.70

15 JAMES Vanessa / BONHEUR Yannick	SP	14.64	10.47	3.63	8.98	13.74	51.45
	FS	38.08	7.51	3.49	18.21	27.78	95.06
	Totals	52.72	17.98	7.12	27.18	41.51	146.51
		14	18	11	14	14	+/- 0.79

16 HAUSCH Maylin / WENDE Daniel	SP	12.92	7.29	3.63	8.74	13.38	45.96
**	FS	36.70	10.43	4.29	17.20	26.26	95.87
	Totals	49.62	17.72	7.92	25.94	39.63	141.83
		16	19	8	16	16	+/- 0.61

17 KEMP Stacey / KING David	SP	14.65	11.19	2.30	8.25	12.64	49.03
**	FS	34.38	12.15	3.66	16.62	25.12	91.95
	Totals	49.03	23.34	5.96	24.87	37.76	140.98
		17	14	16	17	17	+/- 0.73

18 SULEJ Joanna / CHRUSCINSKI Mateusz	SP	10.57	10.11	2.52	7.22	10.85	43.28
	FS	34.32	11.60	3.43	15.01	23.07	88.43
	Totals	44.89	21.71	5.95	22.23	33.92	131.71
		19	16	17	19	19	+/- 0.59

19 SERGEJEVA Maria / GLEBOV Ilja	SP	11.74	10.29	1.86	7.75	11.66	44.30
	FS	32.56	8.77	2.58	15.47	22.96	82.34
	Totals	44.30	19.06	4.44	23.22	34.62	126.64
		20	17	20	18	18	+/- 0.68

20 KOSTENKO Ekaterina / TALAN Roman	SP	11.74	8.40	1.77	7.66	11.64	42.20
	FS	33.53	8.47	3.96	14.35	21.95	82.26
	Totals	45.27	16.87	5.73	22.02	33.59	124.46
		18	20	19	20	20	+/- 0.74

** Place is not statistically significant.

10 of 20 places may be in error by one or more places.
2 of 3 medal places may be in error by one or more places.

This event also has an unacceptably large fraction of places that are not statistically significant.

Dance

Skater	Segment	Lifts	Spins Twizzles	Seqns	PC 1-2	PC 3-5	Totals

1 VIRTUE Tessa / MOIR Scott	CD	0.00	0.00	21.98	12.74	8.68	43.40
	OD	6.17	7.67	18.64	14.40	20.38	67.26
	FD	22.50	12.81	17.84	28.31	28.78	110.24
	Totals	28.67	20.48	58.46	55.44	57.84	220.90
		1	2	1	1	1	+/- 0.82
	Virtue & Moir led the group in all skill categories, except spins/twizzles where they were 0.11 points back (essentially tied). They demonstrated excellence in all dance skills judged under IJS.

2 DAVIS Meryl / WHITE Charlie	CD	0.00	0.00	20.78	12.48	8.52	41.78
	OD	6.00	7.67	18.55	14.06	19.90	66.19
	FD	22.11	12.92	17.51	27.32	28.11	108.97
	Totals	28.11	20.59	56.84	53.86	56.52	216.94
		2	1	2	2	2	+/- 0.83
	Davis & White slightly edged out the gold medallists in spins/twizzles, and trailed by less than two points in the other skill categories. In addition to being essentially tied in spins/twizzles they were nearly tied in lifts, where 0.56 points separated the top two teams. For Davis & White the path to a gold medal appears mainly to be bringing up their component scores a notch. Taking compulsory dance out of the competition structure would seem to favor this couple as it would remove a strength of Virtue & Moir from the results, and also Domnina & Shabalin.

3 DOMNINA Oksana / SHABALIN Maxim	CD	0.00	0.00	21.80	12.83	8.76	43.40
	OD	5.72	7.39	16.98	13.73	19.53	63.35
	FD	21.38	11.22	15.38	26.29	26.67	100.93
	Totals	27.10	18.61	54.16	52.85	54.96	207.68
		4	3	3	3	3	+/- 0.82
	Domnina & Shabalin trailed the top two couples by a few points in each skill category. Despite Shabalin's "bad knees" the couple stayed close in lifts, and all their lifts reached level 4. No one skill category was a dominant deciding factor in their placement. Taking compulsory dance out of the competition structure would adversely affect this couple as it is their strongest segment, at least for those dances that do not excessively strain his knees. Note, however, that skeptics would argue that this couples marks were inflated for reasons discussed below, and do not reflect the true merit of their skating at this competition.

4 BELBIN Tanith / AGOSTO Benjamin	CD	0.00	0.00	20.67	12.17	8.34	41.18
	OD	6.00	7.06	16.87	13.20	18.60	61.73
	FD	21.23	10.58	16.29	25.71	26.25	100.06
	Totals	27.23	17.64	53.83	51.07	53.18	202.97
		3	8	4	4	4	+/- 0.90
	Taking the scores at face value Belbin & Agosto missed out on the bronze medal by being roughly a point short of Domnina & Shabalin in each skill category, except for lifts where they edged out the Russians by 0.13 points. For cynical fans they placed fourth because the judges did not want a North American podium at the Olympics and tweaked the marks accordingly (mainly in components for Domnina & Shabalin) to avoid that.

5 FAIELLA Federica / SCALI Massimo	CD	0.00	0.00	19.61	11.84	8.14	39.58
	OD	5.72	5.44	17.53	12.95	18.43	60.08
	FD	21.17	10.67	16.17	25.24	26.22	99.47
	Totals	26.89	16.11	53.31	50.03	52.79	199.13
		5	13	5	6	6	+/- 0.87

6 DELOBEL Isabelle / SCHOENFELDER Olivier	CD	0.00	0.00	18.69	11.75	8.08	38.54
	OD	5.89	5.72	15.63	13.20	18.88	60.32
	FD	19.41	10.25	15.83	25.26	26.05	96.80
	Totals	25.30	15.97	50.15	50.21	53.01	195.66
		11	14	7	5	5	+/- 0.92
	Given their short time to prepare, Delobel & Schoenfelder were in a difficult situation. The element skills proved their biggest obstacle, but they also trailed the leaders in components, though not as severely. A total of six elements were called level 2 collectively in the Original and Free Dances, which pulled down their scores in all three element skill categories.

7 PECHALAT Nathalie / BOURZAT Fabian	CD	0.00	0.00	18.06	10.82	7.52	36.39
	OD	5.78	6.94	16.64	12.26	17.33	58.97
	FD	20.06	11.26	15.51	23.47	24.01	94.31
	Totals	25.84	18.20	50.21	46.55	48.86	189.67
		8	4	6	8	8	+/- 0.91

8 KERR Sinead / KERR John	CD	0.00	0.00	18.30	11.23	7.63	37.16
**	OD	5.50	5.42	16.20	12.02	17.32	56.48
	FD	19.36	9.85	14.95	23.25	24.23	91.64
	Totals	24.86	15.27	49.45	46.50	49.18	185.28
		13	20	8	9	7	+/- 0.89

9 KHOKHLOVA Jana / NOVITSKI Sergei	CD	0.00	0.00	18.35	11.21	7.64	37.20
**	OD	5.67	5.92	14.40	12.15	17.03	55.17
	FD	20.33	11.20	13.36	23.39	23.89	92.16
	Totals	26.00	17.12	46.11	46.74	48.55	184.53
		7	11	10	7	9	+/- 0.93

10 ZARETSKY Alexandra / ZARETSKY Roman	CD	0.00	0.00	16.95	9.73	6.77	33.45
	OD	5.67	6.44	15.09	11.54	16.38	55.12
	FD	19.55	10.92	13.94	22.08	22.69	89.18
	Totals	25.22	17.36	45.98	43.34	45.84	177.75
		12	9	11	10	10	+/- 0.93

11 SAMUELSON Emily / BATES Evan	CD	0.00	0.00	15.84	9.00	6.02	30.86
	OD	5.50	6.94	15.87	10.38	14.53	53.21
	FD	20.11	11.03	14.85	20.62	21.14	87.75
	Totals	25.61	17.97	46.56	39.99	41.69	171.82
		9	7	9	11	12	+/- 0.99
	Samuleson & Bates demonstrated a fairly well balanced skill set, with their element skill categories slightly ahead of the component skills categories. Their element skill categories are approaching becoming competitive with the top five teams. The team needs to improve at least 40 points to be competitive with the top teams. Most of these points, roughly 30, need to be developed in the components. The remainder, roughly 10, need to be developed in the element skill categories -- mainly lifts and sequences. This couple will benefit from the elimination of Compulsory Dance from the competition structure as CDs are not their strength and placing more importance on the Free Dance will favor their skills and future development there.

12 CAPPELLINI Anna / LANOTTE Luca	CD	0.00	0.00	15.91	9.54	6.61	32.07
	OD	5.50	6.78	14.20	10.27	14.60	51.34
	FD	19.89	11.26	13.49	19.49	20.19	85.32
	Totals	25.39	18.04	43.60	39.30	41.40	168.73
		10	6	14	14	15	+/- 1.00

13 HOFFMANN Nora / ZAVOZIN Maxim	CD	0.00	0.00	16.02	8.98	6.15	31.15
	OD	5.39	6.89	13.31	10.45	14.98	51.02
	FD	18.93	10.26	13.93	20.05	20.70	83.88
	Totals	24.32	17.15	43.26	39.48	41.83	166.05
		15	10	15	13	11	+/- 0.85

14 CRONE Vanessa / POIRIER Paul	CD	0.00	0.00	16.19	8.98	6.06	31.23
**	OD	5.67	4.89	13.73	9.89	13.84	48.01
	FD	20.44	11.04	13.71	19.57	20.22	84.99
	Totals	26.11	15.93	43.63	38.44	40.12	164.23
		6	15	13	16	16	+/- 0.92

15 BOBROVA Ekaterina / SOLOVIEV Dmitri	CD	0.00	0.00	14.37	8.83	6.20	29.40
**	OD	5.56	7.00	12.98	10.20	14.49	50.23
	FD	18.28	11.09	12.58	20.19	20.77	83.92
	Totals	23.84	18.09	39.93	39.22	41.45	163.55
		18	5	18	15	14	+/- 0.95

16 ZADOROZHNIUK Anna / VERBILLO Sergei	CD	0.00	0.00	16.75	9.41	6.56	32.73
**	OD	5.39	6.44	13.07	10.66	15.10	50.67
	FD	17.88	9.11	11.69	19.87	19.90	78.45
	Totals	23.27	15.55	41.51	39.94	41.56	161.85
		22	19	16	12	13	+/- 1.00

17 REED Cathy / REED Chris	CD	0.00	0.00	15.06	8.53	5.86	29.46
	OD	5.28	6.33	15.87	9.51	13.88	50.88
	FD	19.23	9.36	13.83	17.83	18.69	78.94
	Totals	24.51	15.69	44.76	35.87	38.43	159.28
		14	18	12	17	17	+/- 0.97

18 BEIER Christina / BEIER William	CD	0.00	0.00	15.23	8.30	5.71	29.23
	OD	5.22	6.61	13.40	9.20	12.67	47.10
	FD	16.26	9.84	12.27	16.86	17.03	72.26
	Totals	21.48	16.45	40.90	34.36	35.40	148.59
		23	12	17	19	19	+/- 0.95

19 HUANG Xintong / ZHENG Xun	CD	0.00	0.00	15.44	8.30	5.66	29.40
**	OD	5.33	5.76	11.62	9.24	12.96	44.91
	FD	18.89	8.42	9.98	16.85	16.81	70.95
	Totals	24.22	14.18	37.04	34.38	35.43	145.26
		17	21	20	18	18	+/- 0.88

20 COOMES Penny / BUCKLAND Nicholas	CD	0.00	0.00	12.88	7.21	5.03	25.12
**	OD	5.67	6.33	12.51	8.75	12.66	45.92
	FD	17.94	9.58	13.73	15.60	16.22	74.07
	Totals	23.61	15.91	39.12	31.55	33.91	145.11
		20	17	19	20	20	+/- 0.91

21 REED Allison / JAPARIDZE Otar	CD	0.00	0.00	13.99	7.25	5.02	26.26
**	OD	5.22	4.28	13.07	7.98	11.40	41.96
	FD	19.05	7.54	9.33	14.09	14.50	65.51
	Totals	24.27	11.82	36.39	29.32	30.91	133.73
		16	22	21	21	21	+/- 0.83

22 HAJKOVA Kamila / VINCOUR David	CD	0.00	0.00	12.08	6.59	4.47	23.14
**	OD	5.17	5.56	11.52	7.66	10.63	40.54
	FD	18.56	10.37	12.16	14.23	14.69	70.01
	Totals	23.73	15.93	35.76	28.48	29.79	133.69
		19	15	22	22	22	+/- 0.89

23 SHTORK Irina / RAND Taavi	CD	0.00	0.00	11.00	6.06	4.09	21.15
	OD	4.89	3.67	11.40	6.74	9.45	37.15
	FD	18.56	7.37	9.00	11.84	11.97	59.74
	Totals	23.45	11.04	31.40	24.63	25.51	118.04
		21	23	23	23	23	+/- 0.96

** Place is not statistically significant.

9 of 23 places may be in error by one or more places.
0 of 3 medal places may be in error by one or more places.

This event also has a large fraction of places that are not statistically significant, though is not as bad as the other events. It is the only event where all three medal pals are statistically significant.

Return to title page