That’s my opinion.
Therefore Artistry should not be part of ranking gymnasts in any Code of Points.
Science of Gymnastics Journal 2014:
Due to its nature and relatively poor definitions in the Code of points, judging of artistry may suffer from serious flaws in reliability and validity.
We have used the balance beam artistry evaluation forms given by 5 execution judges at World Championship in Tokyo 2011 to analyze reliability and validity. Data on 194 competitors was gathered.
Deductions were received by a highly variable number of competitors from separate judges in the same components of artistry. The variability of average total artistry deduction was relatively large …
We conclude that neither reliability nor validity of artistry judging was satisfactory in this analysis. …
THE JUDGING OF ARTISTRY COMPONENTS IN FEMALE GYMNASTICS: A CAUSE FOR CONCERN?
We can evaluate Execution and Difficulty in reliable ways. And come up with a score that would be consistent meet to meet, panel to panel.
Artistry could be rewarded by a separate (subjective) panel. Something like the Longines Elegance Award, but with a much better panel of evaluators.
Give this guy an award. 😊
Gymnastics Coaching.com 
Great article, very well written! Learned a lot on that, thanks for sharing this!
LikeLike
Agreed completely!
LikeLike
And this is why you are a slave of devotion to such nightmares as Mykayla Skinhead and Shallon Olsen.
Artistry was very effectively judged for DECADES during the previous Golden Ages of Gymnastics. We now are saying it’s “impossible”, and the sport has never been more crass and ungainly in its history. There’s a direct correlation there.
Why EXACTLY are you considered a gymnastics “expert”?
LikeLike
Perhaps you should start your own site, balabanov. You seem to have plenty of unique opinions.
Or send me a guest post that I could put on this site, explaining your positions.
LikeLike
Artistry was not effectively judged in the so called “Golden Age”. It was entirely subjective, with certain countries or athletes being granted higher scores because of reputation. Yes routines were more well executed, but there was a huge lack of difficulty to make up for it. Here we have a link to an actual scientific article providing evidence that current methods of assessing “artistry” are not working and are too random. This is probably because there is no scientific definition of what “artistry” actually is, which is problematic. I tend to listen to science when it comes to proper assessment, and not a bunch of rude and tedious opinions like you have stated here. Objective evaluation is the future of gymnastics, and assessing gymnastics in more objective ways (execution and difficulty) rather than subjective ways (artistry) will continue to build our sports reputation and help our sport to continue in a more positive and fair direction.
LikeLike
Totally agree. This code can be manipulated to favor certain countries. That country of the guy named Lance Amstrong that ruined a beautiful traditional competition as Tour de France for years, are the ones favoring this poor tumbling gymnastics that incetivatee use of steroides. Artistry there were no steroids baby, americans could never bit Russia and Romenia. Common guys! We love gymnastics, you americans could stop spoling our sport makinf is swallow your cheerleaders with lack of grace!
LikeLike
Booooooooooo!
So stop watchin”artistic gymnastics” and
Go watching tumbling competition or the miserable routines of the cheerleaders.
LikeLike