That research? The 2009 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

Done? Feel free to keep looking if you need more time. I don’t blame you. Like I said, it took me all weekend to really parse all of the data. But just in case you missed some of the highlights, I’ll throw in a couple, like straight-up bombshell Brooklyn Decker (who, in my opinion, should have gotten the cover):

Oh, but if you’re like me and you actually bought the issue, it probably took you no time to get through it all. Because Sports Illustrated has actually succeeded in making the print edition of their magazine less interesting than their online content. I really can’t blame SI though. The ability to host more pictures, along with video, interviews, and a slew of other content means that the online edition has to be better almost by default. Plus, it allows me to post more pictures, like this one of Slovakian knockout Lucia Dvorska:

But I fear that the advances in online content left their print version a little lackluster. This is especially obvious in comparison to last year’s issue. For one, this year’s issue is 50 pages shorter than last year’s. But more importantly there aren’t as many ads. I know that this is going to sound counterintuitive coming from a journalist (especially one who is also a red-blooded mountain of a man who survives on whiskey and raw meat), but ads in the Swimsuit Issue are kind of like ads in the Super Bowl. Car companies, beer companies and just about everyone else who pays for space uses it to show off more models. They also like to use big foldouts, which double as space for SI to show off more models. So, more ads equals more models, like French-Canadian Kim Cloutier:

But this year’s issue contains exactly one model foldout (as opposed to cover foldout, which is all ad, though it does feature a model. it’s complicated). Since they lost the extra space to show larger picture in the issue, they instead decided to go with two-page spreads. Which means that I’m stuck ogling a model with a huge black line running right through them (I considered a half-dozen different wordings for that sentence, and that was the tamest). No where is this felt worse than in the bodypainting section, especially for Julie Henderson:

Her spread in the issue not obscures the model, but it obscures the intricate artwork that went into painting this bathing suit. Of course, those teases at SI have to use a pull quote that literally says “She has beautifully curved natural breasts, which I wanted to show off here” ON A SPREAD WHERE YOU CAN’T EVEN SEE THEM FULLY BECAUSE OF THE BINDING! DAMMIT SI, THIS IS WHY A-ROD DID STEROIDS! Here’s a picture of Israeli model (and covergirl) Bar Refaeli:

So the photo layout of the magazine has some faults. Considering that the only content in the magazine in the photos, that doesn’t work out very well. But the online version is still there, except, if you’ve been looking at the photos (presumably fewer people are reading the words) you’ve probably noticed that the they’re all in the same portrait layout. Yeah, it’s for a magazine, so I guess it’s understandable. But if they’re trying to push their online content, you’d imaging that they’d cater to widescreen monitors and resolutions with more landscape pictures like this one of Melissa Haro:

There is nothing worse than having to scroll through pictures of hot chicks. Melissa Haro clearly knows this. But in the end the issue is all about the models (or, for some, the largely non-functional “swimsuits”) and I really can’t complain on that front, except for the gap in Jessica Hart’s teeth and a couple dozen of Cintia Dicker’s freckles (and yes, I am actually refraining from posting pictures of beautiful women in the skimpiest outfits that can still justifiably be called clothing over these minor complaints). Because really, despite all the distraction, there will always certified Leggy Blonde Anne V of Russia to make everything better: