Excellent response to such a dumb comment. And I agree about Paul's posture. It's not bad, but it doesn't look natural IMO.
While Mitch is not as natural as projecting at Alex, I agree with
skatingfan04 that to suggest that his expression is nonexistent is silly.
http://youtu.be/q-1_hSy2u8U?t=1m56s
And the criteria states the projection can be between the partners rather than out to the audience, which is what they did very well in W.E.
Projection is also a very small percentage of the criteria, so you simply can't disregard technical ability because of a supposed weakness in that one area. If the judges lose their desire to award marks for all the technical and movement aspects of the skate because they don't like the way the team is performing, they're really bad and/or corrupt judges.
Yes, you have to judge a skater on the content they're executing, not what their theoretical ability might be. When G/P are executing much simpler content than P/I, it makes it more complicated to rate Paul's skill level next to them. P/I are superior skaters from a judging perspective both because they're superior to Piper and they're executing more difficult content.
Uh... so which is it? Should we look at his programs with Vanessa to see that he's superior to present-day P/I? If P/I are doing equally or more difficult content as well, does that mean they win? Are we supposed to look at Paul currently skating with Piper, even though he's forced to execute simpler content, and just assume that he's improved at a certain rate since then without him having to actually demonstrate this on the ice for us?
Oh, ok. You often praise G/P at P/I's expense in this thread, so I get confused and forget that.