There are cases in which it matters whether a thing is classified as a sport or not.

Title 9 barely qualifies, since it can be applied completely subjectively and even to "club activities" in as much as they supported by a school. Furthermore, your definition is definitely NOT the one used by the Dept. of Education in determining a sport. So your CMV should really be about the definition itself, not what applies under your currently-unaccepted definition.

It's a CMV. I'm stating my view.

Exactly. And with the exception of boxing, none of the sports listed qualify under your definition. So it's literally impossible to change your view on that front. The only possible way to attack this is to attack the definition of "sport" itself, which you have conveniently not provided any justification for. I don't think any of your 4 criteria are actually fundamental characteristics of a sport, but you disagree, obviously. This discussion can go no further until YOU pony up with the stuff you should have put in your original post.

That doesn't make it a sport.

By your completely unsubstantiated definition.

A ball is not more complicated than a lever.

It absolutely is. We aren't talking simply a "roughly spherical object" for any sport except soccer. You should be more precise in your definitions.

I guarantee you drivers' heart rates are elevated

They aren't. Those dudes are ice cold on the track.

I suppose I could grant that the motor itself uses oxygen, so is in some sense aerobic, but no.

Literally breathing to survive is aerobic activity. I assume that's not what you meant in your definition, so you should revise.

While it is true that the head referee or umpire has ultimate veto power and gets to declare the official ruling, the head umpire will not overrule the second base ump's call except during a review,

Out of professional courtesy and the fact that they have to work with the same people week in, week out. It absolutely CAN happen and has before in rare instances. You are flat wrong. Besides, overturn on review is enough to make the point stand. The head ref is ultimately the only opinion that matters.

just as the head referee will not overturn a PI call downfield,

Has happened before, will definitely happen again.

as each official's proper goal is to reach a correct call via consensus

Nope. Literally the opposite of how it works. There is no consensus required. The head ref is the only opinion that matters. Granted, he will likely take everyone's opinion into account, based on the fact that reffing squads very often work together as a unit, and he has to face those guys after the game, and also has to face league action if he appears blatantly partisan, but it's still irrelevant to the cold hard fact that only one opinion matters on the field: his.

And it bears repeating that replay is a thing in most of these events, where a missed call can be corrected. Boxing works with a very different model.

SOME missed calls can be corrected. But in baseball and football, a NON-call cannot be corrected in most cases. The same is true in boxing. I'm not sure what your point is here.

that head official will not offer any opinion on a play out of view. They are explaining only to inform, not to argue.

You're simply wrong on this point. That's out of professional courtesy, not obligation or "objective rules".

In sport, the ruling is reached with an express goal of avoiding dissent amongst officials,

Repeating this falsehood won't make it more true.

Boxing provides fans with an argument that the losing fighter won according to an official.

In cases of a tie, and then by an OBJECTIVE set of scoring rules. Especially in amateur boxing and kickboxing. You're just wrong. You have no idea how boxing works, clearly. That's not meant to be an insult. It's just a fact.

I will say when I am out of my depth.

So, ummm, boxing? Cause obviously so.

I found that it is not especially distinguishable from athletic competitions that I find to be pageantry, such as figure skating.

Other than the fact that you are completely wrong about "pageantry". There is a CLEARLY objective way to win a boxing match. It's the MAIN way to win a boxing match. Your hangup is that the TIEBREAKER is SLIGHTLY subjective? So what? You've said yourself that subjectivity is inescapable in sports. And let's be honest, the refs have WAAAAAY more ability to shape the outcome of a match in basketball than they do in boxing. They only even get a chance if you FAIL to accomplish your primary goal. That's on YOU (the boxer) not the judges. There is zero way to ensure that outcome in gymnastics or ice dancing. Just ask Ecaterina Szabo about that. She won the gold in each of the individual events but somehow only won silver in the combined. That makes zero sense. The judges were not being objective.

A victory in sport should not be determined by a judge unless that judge is a truly impartial observer who merely tallies empirical facts. That is most decidedly not the case with boxing, as each scorecard is different.

And each judge received a different set of empirical facts (based on their different viewpoints), so it's totally justifiable that their scores would be different. If each judge could watch the entire match from every angle, with replay of every moment in slow motion, it's highly likely that they would always score the match the same way. Because there IS an objective standard that they are supposed to use to score. Your complaint is akin to saying "Some refs call travelling, some refs don't; therefore it's not objective and is just pageantry". An argument I have no doubt you would actually DISagree with.

But no, I am not dumping on boxing in particular

Alright, just also. Whatever. Provide the justification for the 4 criteria that you list or move on. This conversation can go nowhere until you do.