Not a fan of...

Yeah...that's why gymnastics and figure skating are kind of annoying to watch.

I like them, but I like them without all the dang commentary and scoring.

I think that it is set up that way - but it still seems to be a lot of opinion and conjecture.  I wish there was another way to do it. 

i agree, it'd definitely more subjective than say running or swimming. but for a sport called artistic gymnastics - how do you get away from that??? you really can't. same with figure skating. any sport where the artistry counts is going to unfortunately be questionable

They changed the scoring system a few years ago because of the argument of strength vs. artistry.  Before the change there was an artistry component.  Even with the change there is a choreography and interpretation component.  But the sport definintely has an artistic flare - from the costumes to the music choices to the choreography.  It's a routine, not just going out there and jumping.  And it's not easy to look graceful on skates, it's a skill.  Just like I give gymnasts mad props for standing on a 4in beam and looking like they are on the ground. 

But I do agree that it's easier to compare ice dancing b/c they all do the same thing.   

^^^sure, you can judge it because it's all the same...but I think that is boring, I like that in normal figure skating and gymnastics the greats can go out and attempt something more difficult and progress the sport.  I guess my beef with the new scoring is that it "tries" to get rid of the subjectivity, yet it still really exists.  Last night there was definitely some discrepancy in what the Americans got vs. what the Chinese got--not that it changed the results, but it could've.  The more I think about it, they do get two scores in figure skating--technical and artistic and each is on that "10" point scale, with a technical start level, and it's the same # of scores for each, not this weird split between execution, etc.  Maybe something more like that would make me happy (cause it's all about making me, the spectator happy, right??)...I dunno. I'm just confused by the new one some as it requires too much math (and I hate math--remember, it's about me) to figure out what "great" is for it....

But doesn't it give you a better idea of great?  Are you great for landing everything perfectly or great for trying the hardest routine of any competitor and having one mistake?  Remember, during the old system, you didn't just get marked down for messing up, you got bonuses for certain tricks (aka increased difficulty).  So a 10 wasn't necessarily a perfect routine - just that the math added up that way.  A perfectly executed routine with less difficulty never got a 10 because they wouldn't have gotten the bonus points. You just thought it was perfection b/c we all got that "Perfect 10" concept in our heads.

The new way gives you two scores - one for difficulty (the old bonuses) and one for execution (the old mark downs).  So now, instead of getting one score that has hidden in it all that junk, you get two seperate ones and they are added.  Son in reality, it's easier to know what greatness is.  A high degree difficulty with few deductions would be greater than a low degree of difficulty with the same deductions.  It's actually much much clearer than the old system.  And now there is no ceiling.  You want to do all the fancy stuff and do some never before seen super complicated stuff, go ahead and move that start value right on up and earn the higher scores.