It is so very clear that your stance on this topic says a ton about you as a skier:
1. The Ranner Camp - people who believe Tanner should have won are more fans of skiing from a progression standpoint. These are skiers who understand the sport, probably ski at a high level, and can identify with why his run was significantly more advanced.
2. The Simon Camp - These are your casual fans who think that because Simon went bigger he should have won. These are people who would not notice if someones spun both ways, or had a more complete run because they see the first hit and freak out and then see the bonered out 1260 and go "ooooooohhhhh, that was crazy" and assume that because it had more shock value, he should have won.
My non-skiing little sister thought Simon should have won along with my gaper buddy. Ask the pros in the sport who should have won. Everyone I have spoken with said the same thing...."simon had a good run but Tanner's run cannot be beat." You are showcasing your lack of skiing ability and understanding of the sport by arguing this point. There is no debate and Tanner didn't even lay down his run that would have scored a 98 because he did not need to. Had Simon somehow gotten a 93, Tanner would have dropped a bomb on that place. Those that have seen his top run (a 1260, two 1080s, a flat 3, and a right and a left 9) know that there is no one on planet earth that can beat it, period.