
ASIA MASSAGE
C HAMPIONSHIP 2026
Tournament Results
Thank you so much for all your entries!!
Oil Massage Department

🥇1st place🥇
Mazlin Mazlan
Evaluation Score: 52 points
🥈2nd place🥈
Chiharu
Evaluation Score: 51.5 points
🥉3rd place🥉
MASATO SONOBE
Evaluation Score: 50.16 points
4th
KAYABA KUMIKO
Evaluation Score: 49.16 points
5th
阿山夕貴
Evaluation Score: 48 points
6th
Sumiko
Evaluation Score: 47.33 points ※1
7th
Yasunari Kawani
Evaluation Score: 47.33 points ※1
8th
Kiyomi
Evaluation Score: 47.16 points
9th
ゆっくん
Evaluation Score: 47 points
10th
Maho Nakaide
Evaluation Score: 46.83 points
Audience Award
森 厘香
※1 Determining Rankings in Case of a Tie
The scores shown have been truncated to two decimal places for easier readability. Tournament rankings were determined based on the full, untruncated values.
When competitors have the same total score, final rankings are determined according to the judging guidelines, using the following tiebreaker criteria in order of priority:
① Impression Score The overall impression score given by the judges is compared first as the highest priority.
② Massage Technique Score If a tie remains after comparing ①, the massage technique score is compared next.
③ Sequential Comparison of Innovation, Posture, and Flow Scores If a tie still remains after comparing ②, scores are compared in the following order based on the priority of the judging criteria: innovation, treatment posture, and treatment flow.
Final rankings are determined by applying the criteria above in sequence.
4th
Aksu Tayyar
Evaluation Score: 53.57 points ※1
5th
加藤優一
Evaluation Score: 52.28 points
6th
海東 清
Evaluation Score: 52.14 points ※1
7th
YAMADA MIKI
Evaluation Score: 52.14 points ※1
8th
小垣内 正幸
Evaluation Score: 52 points
9th
ゆっくん
Evaluation Score: 51.57 points
10th
Koki Miyata
Evaluation Score: 51.14 points
Audience Award
冨樫倫子
-
※1 Determining Rankings in Case of a Tie
-
The scores shown have been truncated to two decimal places for easier readability. Tournament rankings were determined based on the full, untruncated values.
-
When competitors have the same total score, final rankings are determined according to the judging guidelines, using the following tiebreaker criteria in order of priority:
-
① Impression Score The overall impression score given by the judges is compared first as the highest priority.
-
② Massage Technique Score If a tie remains after comparing ①, the massage technique score is compared next.
-
③ Sequential Comparison of Innovation, Posture, and Flow Scores If a tie still remains after comparing ②, scores are compared in the following order based on the priority of the judging criteria: innovation, treatment posture, and treatment flow.
-
Final rankings are determined by applying the criteria above in sequence.
Facial Massage
Department

🥇1st place🥇
ふくあつ先生
Evaluation Score: 57.22 points
🥈2nd place🥈
春山 眞妃侶
Evaluation Score: 56.88 points
🥉3rd Place🥉
Janie Wang
Evaluation Score: 55.55 points
4th
真下恵
Evaluation Score: 55.33 points
5th
Chika.
Evaluation Score: 53.88 points ※1
6th
美崎 全衣子
Evaluation Score: 53.88 points ※1
7th
三谷 麗奈
Evaluation Score: 53.77 points
8th
康雅潔 KANG YACHIEH
Evaluation Score: 53.66 points
9th
葉 恩霏
Evaluation Score: 53.55 points
10th
作見 憲造
Evaluation Score: 53.33 points
Audience Award
春山 眞妃侶
※1 Determining Rankings in Case of a Tie
The scores shown have been truncated to two decimal places for easier readability. Tournament rankings were determined based on the full, untruncated values.
When competitors have the same total score, final rankings are determined according to the judging guidelines, using the following tiebreaker criteria in order of priority:
① Impression Score The overall impression score given by the judges is compared first as the highest priority.
② Massage Technique Score If a tie remains after comparing ①, the massage technique score is compared next.
③ Sequential Comparison of Innovation, Posture, and Flow Scores If a tie still remains after comparing ②, scores are compared in the following order based on the priority of the judging criteria: innovation, treatment posture, and treatment flow.
Final rankings are determined by applying the criteria above in sequence.
Thai Traditional
Massage Department

🥇1st place🥇
TONPHOOKHIEO SUPAWADEE
Evaluation Score: 59.57 points
🥈2nd place🥈
Déhlia Lapeyrie | ŌMIRI
Evaluation Score: 58.42 points
🥉3rd Place🥉
Ikeda Momoko
Evaluation Score: 58.42 points
4th
坂田雄輝
Evaluation Score: 57.14 points
5th
内山 冴恵
Evaluation Score: 56 points ※1
6th
新間 実佳
Evaluation Score: 56 points ※1
7th
華代
Evaluation Score: 55.57 points
8th
AI
Evaluation Score: 54.85 points
9th
前田 和香
Evaluation Score: 54.28 points
10th
YOSHINO
Evaluation Score: 53.85 points
Audience Award
野田
高木らん
※1 Determining Rankings in Case of a Tie
The scores shown have been truncated to two decimal places for easier readability. Tournament rankings were determined based on the full, untruncated values.
When competitors have the same total score, final rankings are determined according to the judging guidelines, using the following tiebreaker criteria in order of priority:
① Impression Score The overall impression score given by the judges is compared first as the highest priority.
② Massage Technique Score If a tie remains after comparing ①, the massage technique score is compared next.
③ Sequential Comparison of Innovation, Posture, and Flow Scores If a tie still remains after comparing ②, scores are compared in the following order based on the priority of the judging criteria: innovation, treatment posture, and treatment flow.
Final rankings are determined by applying the criteria above in sequence.
Western Freestyle
Massage Category

🥇1st place🥇
Déhlia Lapeyrie | ŌMIRI
Evaluation Score: 62.16 points
🥈2nd place🥈
Al Poliarco
Evaluation Score: 58 points
🥉3rd Place🥉
Tatar Cengizhan
Evaluation Score: 57.16 points
4th
Lim sim zher
Evaluation Score: 56.5 points
5th
RYAN
Evaluation Score: 56.33 points
6th
加藤優一
Evaluation Score: 55.33 points
7th
JoJo
Evaluation Score: 54.66 points
8th
夏八木ゆうな
Evaluation Score: 54.5 points
9th
難波 舞
Evaluation Score: 54 points
10th
NAOMI MORITA
Evaluation Score: 53.66 points
Audience Award
簗迫 龍王
※1 Determining Rankings in Case of a Tie
The scores shown have been truncated to two decimal places for easier readability. Tournament rankings were determined based on the full, untruncated values.
When competitors have the same total score, final rankings are determined according to the judging guidelines, using the following tiebreaker criteria in order of priority:
① Impression Score The overall impression score given by the judges is compared first as the highest priority.
② Massage Technique Score If a tie remains after comparing ①, the massage technique score is compared next.
③ Sequential Comparison of Innovation, Posture, and Flow Scores If a tie still remains after comparing ②, scores are compared in the following order based on the priority of the judging criteria: innovation, treatment posture, and treatment flow.
Final rankings are determined by applying the criteria above in sequence.
Eatearn Freestyle
Massage Department

🥇1st place🥇
Al Poliarco
Evaluation Score: 62.75 points
🥈2nd place🥈
Lim sim zher
Evaluation Score: 60.75 points
🥉3rd place🥉
JoJo
Evaluation Score: 58.5 points
4th
Aksu Tayyar
Evaluation Score: 57.37 points
5th
MUMEI
Evaluation Score: 55.75 points
6th
HO YU CHIEH
Evaluation Score: 55.5 points ※1
7th
伊藤空
Evaluation Score: 55.5 points ※1
8th
おたえ
Evaluation Score: 54.25 points
9th
吉井まお
Evaluation Score: 53.87 points
10th
東奈緒
Evaluation Score: 53.87 points
Audience Award
佐藤香織
※1 Determining Rankings in Case of a Tie
The scores shown have been truncated to two decimal places for easier readability. Tournament rankings were determined based on the full, untruncated values.
When competitors have the same total score, final rankings are determined according to the judging guidelines, using the following tiebreaker criteria in order of priority:
① Impression Score The overall impression score given by the judges is compared first as the highest priority.
② Massage Technique Score If a tie remains after comparing ①, the massage technique score is compared next.
③ Sequential Comparison of Innovation, Posture, and Flow Scores If a tie still remains after comparing ②, scores are compared in the following order based on the priority of the judging criteria: innovation, treatment posture, and treatment flow.
Final rankings are determined by applying the criteria above in sequence.
