Whenever the Olympics come around, I bring out my diatribe about which sports should not be included. Here's Clark's rule - If I can't figure out who won without being told, it doesn't belong. Examples of things I will allow:

• Football (soccer)
• Basketball
• Swimming
• Track and field
• Archery.

Examples of things I won't allow:

• Ice dancing
• Figure skating
• Gymnastics
• Diving
• Synchronized swimming.

No one from the International Olympics Committee has called asking my opinion yet.

I was a gymnast eons ago and agree with you somewhat. It used to be 0-10, and now its 0-?. The judges are usually skilled enough and the routines do have objective aspects. Moves or stunts have a specific numerical rating and how many of them occur is objective. The smoothness of performance, however, is subjective and accounts for some of the points. However, none of this is available for the normal spectator. Football is different, except for interference calls!

I watched some of the climbing comps, and judging was quite objective. Speed climbing, for instance. Bouldering also, with numerical points for the height the climber reaches.

Football is different, except for interference calls! — jgill

Yes, there is always some interpretation. There are rules and referees and umpires to judge how they apply and if they are being followed. The ump at the plate determines whether the runner is safe or tagged out.

For instance, is there any subjective interpretation involved in calling a 1v1 tennis match? — Cidat

Examples of things I won't allow: Figure skating — T Clark

Like science, this is us humans reaching for the objectivity of a measurement. So all games have rules and scoring.

Even figure skating has scoring. A triple axel beats a double axel. Even the briefest touch of hand to ice is a deduction.

And like science, objectivity is just an aspiration. Even if we reduce measurement to a number on a dial, it can get blurry when the needle hovers between numbers. A choice of whether to round up or round down has to be imposed.

Of philosophical interest might be why we strive for these objective measures of human performance. And why is it no surprise that the rationalising Greeks and industrialising English seem to have led the way in the invention of formal sport?

Yes, there is always some interpretation. There are rules and referees and umpires to judge how they apply and if they are being followed. — T Clark

This is called the Hard Problem of Umpiring which leads us to the Blindspot of Sport.

So there is no absolute, objective science for any sport? What about athletics, such as high jump and running?

For instance, is there any subjective interpretation involved in calling a 1v1 tennis match? — Cidat

Yes, there is a head umpire and occasionally one of the players will disagree with a call the umpire makes. Usually having to do with enforcement of some rule like taking too long to serve or poor conduct such as cursing and smashing rackets.

The French Open still has lines people who call balls in and out, but most of the professional matches have changed over to the Hawk-Eye computer vision which is always right. For the courts which don't use it, players can usually challenge the call, which will bring up a replay. Sometimes there is controversy over when a player makes a challenge call during a point and what that means for replaying or losing/winning the point.

What about hunting sport? The animal shot is dead or not.

So there is no absolute, objective science for any sport? What about athletics, such as high jump and running? — Cidat

I have never taken any interest in sport of any kind and have only ever seen a few minutes of football and tennis and maybe some other sport on the news by accident - not my thing.

That said, surely for any game you set rules and the 'objectivity', such as it is, comes from measuring the success of players subject to those rules. Umpires uses their flawed human senses, perhaps on occasion they see things wrongly.

I've heard that swimmers dislike being in the outside lane due to (perceived) turbulence but 100m sprints and 110m hurdles appear perfectly neutral.

Many esports would qualify since there is no ref and thus no space for subjective decisions. Rocket League (football with cars) is the best example I can think of as you can't accuse the maps of favouring one side/ role over the other.

Of philosophical interest might be why we strive for these objective measures of human performance. And why is it no surprise that the rationalising Greeks and industrialising English seem to have led the way in the invention of formal sport? — apokrisis

Watching children and thinking of myself when I was one, this starts early. Making up rules for everything. Arguing about how to apply them. Arguing about measurements. Arguing about everything. I wonder if it's something built in like language.

This is called the Hard Problem of Umpiring which leads us to the Blindspot of Sport. — Tom Storm

I think you've opened up the field of sports philosophy with your new insights.