I am hoping to find some opinions regarding the various events at the Olympics (and in general). There are two kinds of events - those that are objective, where the clock or number of goals determines the winner. And those that are subjective, which rely on judges, to determine the winner. I have heard some arguments that the subjective events are not really “sports” because the outcome always depends on a person or persons, with all their human frailties and prejudices and tastes, making a judgment call. For example:
Objective: Track and Field, Swimming, Soccer, Cycling, Rowing, etc.
Subjective: Gymnastics, Diving, Synchronized Swimming, Equestrian, etc.
I can see the argument. Can the best gymnast really be determined any better than, say the best guitarist in the world, or the best painter? It is like judging which opening ceremony is better, London or Beijing? - it is all a matter of opinion. At least with the objective events, it is usually pretty clear who is the winner. The argument usually accounts for officiating to enforce rules, that can have some bearing on the outcome of events, but does not decide the winner directly.
Closer to home, there is debate over Cheerleading as a sport. I suppose if you accept Gymnastics, etc. as a sport, then you should accept Cheerleading as a sport as well, right?
In your opinion, are the subjective Olympic events less of a “sport” than the objective ones? Why?