[QUOTE=Knorf]
Another thread full of specious definitions of what “sport,” “athleticism,” and “athletic ability” are.
[/QUOTE]
I’m fond of a cartoon showing four old, bald guys with paunches out on the golf course - one guy says “It is a sport, therefore we are athletes.”
[QUOTE=RickJay]
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?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think there’s any solid line in the sand. Certainly, “I’m a better athlete than these guys” puts it definitely in the “not sport” category for me.
[QUOTE=Knorf]
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.
[/QUOTE]
They are contemplating other issues as well. An important one is how well a proposed sport appeals on television to women (who constitute the majority of viewers, for which advertisers are eager to pay).
This is definitely a significant threat to the “non-TV” sports such as sailing, shooting & fencing. It’s also why such things as rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming have been added.
I think sometimes they add sports that may be pleasing to watch on TV.