Gym geek

I’ve been waxing poetic about my glory days as an acrobatic tween, but the time has come to get down to business, that is, the judging. Based on the number of friends to whom I’ve offered an amateur explanation of the updated judging system, it appears to be a source of mystery, so I’m here to shed some light. I hope.

The most significant adjustment for viewers is the lack of the perfect 10. Now, there are three numbers to track, and how do you know what is right or wrong or how they compare to each other? Here is the breakdown:

• The first number on the left is what I call the difficulty score, and what the official people obscurely call “Score A.” Gymnastic skills have specific values that increase with difficulty, and that first number consists of the ten hardest skills in a routine (with the exception of the vault, which has single, inherent difficulty score). Gymnasts may earn bonus points by performing these ten skills in combination, which is why we’re seeing a lot more connected tumbling passes.
• The second number is what I call the execution score, or what is officially known as “Score B.” The execution score starts with ten points, and judges deduct for mistakes like steps on landings, missed handstands on the bars, or bent legs. This element of scoring most closely resembles the perfect 10 that we remember.
• The sum of the difficulty and execution scores makes up the final score. For example, if a gymnast’s difficulty score was a 5.8, the maximum score she can receive (or, her start value) is a 15.8. Because each gymnast may have a different difficulty score, there is no set upper boundary, and the scale slides depending on what the gymnast chooses to perform.

There are some obvious down sides to this system. First, it is anti-intuitive that a gymnast who falls can still get a high score, even after the mandatory eight-tenths deduction; however, if that gymnast has a 17.7-point start value, that deduction won’t hurt as much, compared to our gymnast with the 15.8 start value. Then, there is the sentimental attachment the viewing public has to the perfect 10. Visions of Nadia and Mary Lou are steeped into cultural memory, and the phrase “perfect 10″ has transcended beyond the sport.

But, hang on, I say.

From the perspective of a former gymnast, I appreciate this new scoring system, and I wish it had been around when I was competing. To me, the subjectivity of judging goes from 100% to around 70%, and each gymnast has control over that difficulty aspect of the routine.

Even more importantly, I hope this new system helps to curb the endless revisions to the code of points, or the almighty rulebook on what the hardest skills are. Every year that I competed, the code of points would change, and we’d retool my routines to take advantage of the most difficult skills I could do. Essentially, the harder skills would become more commonplace, and therefore not as hard, relatively speaking. With the updated system, when new skills inevitably develop, they can simply attain higher point values, and the whole scale won’t need to be recalibrated.

That said, a new system of scoring does not take out the human error of subjective judging, and the Olympics have been anything but immune to the pitfalls therein.

• I was incredibly displeased with what I perceived to be blatantly inconsistent judging during the women’s all-around competition, even though I was fine with the ultimate outcome.
• For whatever reason, gymnasts who qualify for event finals are not seeded according to qualifying score, and the competition order is determined by random draw. It’s hard luck that someone has to go first and get that too-low score, because judges will leave room for what may come next. In this respect, I think competition order made the difference in Shawn Johnson’s silver medal on the floor exercise.
• In my mind, Nastia Liukin’s silver medal on the uneven bars final was a fluke, merely a result of bureaucratic decision-making. Unlike other Olympic events, IOC does not allow ties in gymnastics, and I can not imagine why. The tie-breaking policy is to eliminate the highest and lowest scores from the judges’ panel (which composed the execution score), and then compare the remaining numbers. This practice is completely unfair to me, since the entire point of having a group of judges is to remove the influence of an individual. It also makes little sense to resolve a tie by returning to the scores that created that tie. Why not use their qualifying scores? Sure, I’m biased because Nastia got a 16.9 (the highest score so far in gymnastic competition), and He Kexin received something like a 15.7, but wouldn’t that have at least made sense? Even assuming that the judging was competent and consistent, I see no problem with awarding both girls gold medals. The judges placed them both on the top step of the podium; there is no place for a computer program to knock one of them off.

Ultimately, part of being a gymnast is accepting the scores the judges hand down. You put together your strongest routine, perform it to the best of your ability, and wait for the verdict. Judging is as part of the game as rain is in a soccer match: you just deal with it.

But, man, I really want Shawn Johnson to take home a gold medal.