I disagree. There's no such thing as an "objective metric." All qualities are contextual. Being smarter, strong, faster -- qualities one may say are "good" are not always desirable in all situations.

Even if it were possible for there to be an objective metric, that still doesn't mean one person is superior to another, even if they possess superior "objective metrics"

Yes, qualities are indeed contextual. In a specific, well-defined context (e.g., the Olympics) it is possible to be objectively superior to others.

Outside of this specific context, we cannot definitively say whether one is superior. It is subjective speculation. Hence why I said it is your opinion. I believe we cannot rule either way.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. My original comment was referring to the general case. I'm sure, given enough constraints, anyone can prove anything.

Even your Olympic example is bad. Is being faster better? Maybe for track. Or maybe not, given the disadvantage sprinting has on long distance performance, etc.

Sure, you could say some qualities are best suited for certain situations -- but that was already obvious. My original point was that overall, in general, situation independent, it's silly to say one person is superior to another.