grolby

I somewhat understand the frustration with judged events, but I find the alternative - that the only "real" sports are racing sports based on time or sports where points are accumulated by accomplishing specific physical tasks - much less appealing. There's a huge range of athleticism that would be left unexpressed without them, because there's no other way to score these sports. And although there have been scandals in judging, there are detailed scoring criteria that judges follow and the results do typically align well with what I, a non-expert viewer, am seeing. The judging process certainly has subjective elements, but there are objective ones, too - in figure skating, did the skater complete their required elements? Y/N. That's objective.

Not that we should shy away from subjectivity. Declaring subjectivity the enemy and requiring "objective" scoring for every sport would make as much sense as judging a writer by the WPM she can type rather than her ability to convey an idea or evoke an emotional response. That's not to mention that "objective" sports are subject to arbitrary rules (and often, subjective and hotly debated enforcement of them) that define the results every bit as much as a panel of judges does. Heck, how many stage races have been won based on utterly arbitrary time bonuses? Gerrans winning the TdU is just the most recent example - on "real time," Evans would have been the winner. I'm not a particular fan of figure skating or gymnastics, but they're every bit as legitimate as curling or XC skiing, and I don't want them to go away.