In view of Nelli Kim's recent interview, Lupita and I thought it timely to revisit the performance of some of the WTC President's judges over past competitions ... this article from 27th August 2012 is reposted here, as a reminder.
![]()
You will find a link to the FIG's newly published book of results at the Olympic Games here. This year, they have broken down the judge's execution scores so you can see exactly how each judge evaluated the gymnasts' performances. It makes for interesting reading - if only I had more time to analyse each judge's marking. A skim reading already highlights multiple inconsistencies in individual judges' marks and makes you wonder why they bother with the jury at all.
I have taken the time to look at the reference judges' scores for the top four in the women's all around. The FIG explains here what their role is, and how they are selected. I even used my calculator, which is a risky thing in my hands. My, how I wish we could have seen a similar document for the Tokyo World Championships.
I wonder if anyone can explain how, if the FIG's Code of Points is so objective and fair, it is possible to come up with two different results using two different sets of judges? Presumably the reference judges are expected to be highly reliable in their evaluation? Here is what the result of the women's all around competition would have been, according to the reference judges. It casts a whole different light on the competition, one which, satisfyingly or frustratingly, is reflected by the judgement of many on the gymternet.
1 Viktoria Komova 62.1
2 Gabby Douglas 61.75
3 Aliya Mustafina 60.05
4 Alexandra Raisman 59.2
One of the key differences appears to be in the bars scores, where the e-score situation for Douglas and Komova is more or less reversed by adopting the reference judges' score over the jury's. Bars scores had seemed particularly inconsistent all week.
Valentina should have a field day with this document. I am not sure what conclusions to draw, but I hope you have fun reading it. Do comment, please.
You will find a link to the FIG's newly published book of results at the Olympic Games here. This year, they have broken down the judge's execution scores so you can see exactly how each judge evaluated the gymnasts' performances. It makes for interesting reading - if only I had more time to analyse each judge's marking. A skim reading already highlights multiple inconsistencies in individual judges' marks and makes you wonder why they bother with the jury at all.
I have taken the time to look at the reference judges' scores for the top four in the women's all around. The FIG explains here what their role is, and how they are selected. I even used my calculator, which is a risky thing in my hands. My, how I wish we could have seen a similar document for the Tokyo World Championships.
I wonder if anyone can explain how, if the FIG's Code of Points is so objective and fair, it is possible to come up with two different results using two different sets of judges? Presumably the reference judges are expected to be highly reliable in their evaluation? Here is what the result of the women's all around competition would have been, according to the reference judges. It casts a whole different light on the competition, one which, satisfyingly or frustratingly, is reflected by the judgement of many on the gymternet.
1 Viktoria Komova 62.1
2 Gabby Douglas 61.75
3 Aliya Mustafina 60.05
4 Alexandra Raisman 59.2
One of the key differences appears to be in the bars scores, where the e-score situation for Douglas and Komova is more or less reversed by adopting the reference judges' score over the jury's. Bars scores had seemed particularly inconsistent all week.
Valentina should have a field day with this document. I am not sure what conclusions to draw, but I hope you have fun reading it. Do comment, please.