Julian Finney/Getty Images
You can't have artistic gymnastics without the artistry—there's a reason this sport is different from its counterparts (see "Gymnastics, acrobatic" and "Gymnastics, aerobic").
The International Federation of Gymnastics (FIG) says it best on its official site: "Individuality, originality, maturity, mastery, and artistic quality are the key ingredients for the highest score."
Sure, Gabby Douglas had marginally higher start values on both beam and floor, her last two event rotations in the all-around final.
But when it comes to "maturity, mastery, and artistic quality," most experts and commentators marvel at Komova's elegance coupled with effortless but powerful tumbling in what makes for far more breathtaking performances.
Yet do the scores reflect that? Nope. This is how floor routines set to techno-esque beats have come to thrive, cheered on by crowds more eager in their countries' medal hopes than to appreciate the essence of artistic gymnastics.
This is not a fault of Douglas', but of the judges and the code of points in failing to uphold and honor the core of this sport's beauty, especially so in the last quad. Remember Olga Korbut and Nadia Comaneci? Or more recently, the Belarusian swan Svetlana Boginskaya and 2008 Olympic all-around champion Nastia Liukin?
Both Douglas and Komova had great sets on their last two apparatuses, but Komova's artistic quality was the one that stood out.
Should she have been awarded for that? FIG seems to agree that artistry needs a bigger role in scores with the upcoming new code of points for 2013-2016 that reportedly has more emphasis in this area.
So, what do you think? Was Douglas overscored, or did she deserve her all-around gold over Komova? Give your opinion in the comments.