Objectivity

Well, there are some more Olympics happening again, so it is time for another rant about the subset of Olympic activities that are subjective spectacles frequently misnamed as "sports." The lack of an objective "counter" (e.g., "a goal" or "a basket", etc.) makes these events inherently unfair--so much the worse that the judging is rendered in-auditable by the viewer!

Since a fair portion of the appeal of these events is aesthetic--which is immune to adjudication--we are left with the conundrum of how to tell who wins. My simple solution is this: HORSE. Have all parties do a program of tricks to qualify--make it tough and go ahead and use a judging panel--and then have subsets of the qualifiers do ascending round-robins of HORSE to determine the qualifiers for an 8 person HORSE tournament with random seedings. The need to master the fundamentals is preserved, and the need to outdo one's competitor would continually raise the bar of competition, making the athletic and innovative skaters shine even more!

Note: in order to make the judging panel fair, increase the membership significantly and select a random subset of the scores--always excluding judges from the competitors' countries.