Indeed. This is a sport not a show where one manipulates to attract audience. Think about the skaters. They trained hard and for years to win medals irrespective whether they have been on the scene for a long time or a newbie. It wouldn't be a competition if the criteria is to spread the medals around first and not performance of the day. Whether is it an old timer medalist like Yuna or Mao or newbie like Julia, how they perform on that day itself should determine the outcome.
Originally Posted by Krislite
Think about it this way: Mao has had more time to get it together. Competing throughout the season is an advantage.
Originally Posted by MsLiinaLii
I agree that the best performance should be awarded by gold medal. If not, another big pee stain will be left in the Olympic history and stink forever, so to speak.
Indeed. It's the Olympics, not the Oscars. Where you give X an Oscar because "Oh, this is such a great role, and they'll probably never be nominated again!", or "Oh, they should have won for X performance, but didn't, so let's award them an Oscar this year instead!" And you still end up with... Peter O'Toole with zero (proper) Oscars. Probably because "Oh, he's sure to win for something else, so it's okay - let's give it to X instead!"
Originally Posted by spikydurian
I don't think Yuna had put less "effort" than anyone else out there who "competed" more. If the number of competitions justifies fairness, shouldn't it matter that Yuna was "unfairly" withdrawn from her chances to compete?
Six Point Zero
This whole talk over fairness is just a quibble. Had she competed fully during the last quad and dominated accordingly, people would still scream "unfair" but for different reasons.