Well, yes.
You need strength in your arms to be an elite archer.
But “athletic” clearly is more than speed, strength, and endurance. There have been thousands of hockey players who were stronger and faster than Wayne Gretzky, so why was Wayne Gretzky a better hockey player than any of them? Michael Jordan was no less strong, fast or blessed with endurance when he played baseball as when he played basketball, so why was he such a great basketball player and a bad baseball player?
Ah, but medal-winning shooters move nothing but their index fingers. There is a certain amount of physical effort and practice needed to control one’s breathing and heart rate enough to be able to put five shots through a dime at 50 meters, without touching the edge. And to be able to do that for hours on end in order to be successful at events like the Olympics requires (IMHO) just as much self-discipline and hard work as a competitor in any other sport puts into his or her training.
How good a shot is your daughter? Maybe if she tried Olympic-style shooting, she would change her mind. (I’ve always wondered if those who claim such-and-such isn’t a sport and/or shouldn’t be in the Olympics have ever tried the sport they want to see gone, just to see how difficult and physically demanding it is.)
A sport at minimum requires a jock strap. There must be a female clothing counterpart.
BMX riding, around a short track with jumps.lumps and turns. I understand the skill set but how do you convince a bunch of old fogies that it should be an Olympic Sport?
Physical skill is different from athletic ability. Athletic ability is the physical portion of sport that is transferable from one sport to another sport. In other words, the U.S. Men’s gymnastic team would trounce the U.S. archery team at basketball, soccer, or whatever other sport you want to pick simply because of their huge advantage in athletic ability. Athletic ability is the running, jumping, strength, quickness, etc. part of sport. Physical skill is well, the skill part of a sport. It’s the ability to shoot the three pointer, hit a shot with an arrow, or make a goal.
Maybe if the hoop was lowered.
With arrows there would be no air in the ball.
With arrows, there would be no gymnastics team.
IMO, the difference between a game and a sport is that games can be played while drinking. No one drinks beer and then swims 200 meters. Swimming is a sport. On the other hand I don’t know of anyone who plays ping-pong without having to move the plastic cups off one end of the table and possibly clean up beer/vomit.
Can we just go back to 10 weight classes for men and 8 for women in wrestling? If we can, you can have all the rhythmic synchronized whatever you want.
You’re saying you’ve never had a mid-night swim after a few beers? Or that you’ve never run after something while drunk?
Cause that’s about as close to proper ping-pong your likeness is.
Sports bra.
I’ve never needed it (seeing as I’m tiny), but for better-endowed women there’s even an extra guard to protect the girls when doing archery. I saw one woman hit them and, well, ‘ouch’ isn’t enough of a description.
So football (American, soccer, doesn’t matter which kind) is right out then.
sigh
Another thread full of specious definitions of what “sport,” “athleticism,” and “athletic ability” are.
Not everyone is going to agree what the sports in the Olympics should be, which is why there is a committee. You know: the International Olympic Committee, who undoubtedly has spent far more time contemplating these issues than any of you could possibly imagine.
That’s precisely correct, yes.
Even if you disagree, it’s not circular reasoning. It’s simply a matter of what “athletic” means. Athletic, to me, means a degree of prowess in a physical activity.
Without knowing if the U.S. men’s gymnastic team has any soccer or basketball players on it, it’s simply not possible to be sure of that. If they have nobody on the gynmastics team who knows how to play basketball and the archery teams has one person who does, they’ll not only lose a basketball game against the archery team, but will make fools of themselves doing it.
I meant that particular quote is an example of circular reasoning…not your whole argument, which is perfectly valid…and wrong! 
This just dodges the argument. The point is that if I tell you I am going to pit the archery team vs. the gymnastic team in some sport, without telling you anything about the sport, you are going to take the gymnastics team. Why? Because they are stronger, faster, quicker, bigger, and more agile than the archery team. In other words, they have more athletic ability.
I mean, how exactly do you explain why athletes have to retire when they get old except for reduced athletic ability?
I was in the clubhouse bar after golf, and apparently there was team synchro swimming on. Man, that is some silly shit. Might as well include square dancing.
If you follow that line of reasoning, gymnastics isn’t a sport, since I’d take Olympic hockey players (the kind played on ice, not the silly “Field” kind) over gymnasts in almost any other team sport. And, again, it still wouldn’t be a guaranteed thing.
At what point do you determine something’s got enough of the particular “Athleticism” you prefer to make it a sport?