What are the criteria by which competitors are judged? Objective - sport. Subjective - not a sport.
In gymnastics, theoretically, there is a correct score for any given routine Judges might differ because they make mistakes, similar to how an umpire might miss a strike. If body building is “those muscles are more aesthetically pleasing to my sensibilities” rather than… I dunno “his pose matched the template the entire time” then I wouldn’t consider it a sport.
In both gymnastics and bodybuilding, the criteria are objective, based on subjective choices. Certainly with sports like gymnastics and figure skating the performance is much more important than in bodybuilding, but both have performance aspects.
Way back in the early 1990s, I caught a bodybuilding competition on television and one of the commentators was none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger himself. They were discussing one the tattoo one of the competitors had on his upper arm. Back in the 90s, tattoos were not all that comon, and I think this one guy was the only competitor to have a tattoo. The topic of the discussion was whether the tattoo would hurt this guy’s chances with Arnie talking about how it might prove distracting to the judges.
Here’s what the World Fitness Federation uses as their criteria for judging such events.
Some organizations also judge on stage presence which I guess is like the personality/talent portion of a beauty pageant. In short, competitors are being judged on looks rather than any skill of some sort. It’s a beauty contest. Granted it requires hard work and sacrifice to be a competitor, but they’re not being judged on any display of skill. Just how they look.
There is some validity to comparisons to a beauty contest. But aesthetics matter in many sports, some featured at the Olympics (which makes them sports?).
A number of comedians have taken issue with this issue. Lachlan Patterson(?) has a funny bit about how these strong men “should be made to actually do something” - like open pickle jars. “How many pickle jars do you think that guy could open in a minute?”. Jim Gaffigan jokes about “Italian guys from New Jersey” judging aesthetics. Ivan Decker jokes about gyms in general - “I see that this machine works the red muscle groups”.,
But like many sports there are a lot of things a casual or sarcastic observer does not see or appreciate, My mother was appalled when rhythmic gymnastics appeared at the Olympics. The ribbon? The ball? These are events? No doubt there is more to it than that.
I am not surprised when people who look like they have musculature resembling wet pasta (nobody here I’m sure) think bodybuilders don’t do anything in competition. It takes a lot of effort to look like that. It requires skill and training to look like that. And besides the long training involved, the work happens at the time of competition, people don’t just walk around looking like that the way they do in beauty contests where appearances are mostly rated based on clothes and makeup.
And yet the explanation of why it’s a sport are basically things that can be applied to beauty contests.
Since you’ve tried to insult people multiple times in this thread, I assume the criticism has touched a nerve. Maybe you’re not the most objective person.
Seems to me that there are 3 axes to this.
There’s a notion that a “sport” ought to be something where there’s direct competition, and there’s a clear and natural ranking between the winner, second place, etc… Something like a swimming race, shot-put, etc… where the fastest/furthest wins, and so on. These are what people typically think of as “sports”.
There are “in-the-moment” judged competitions. Gymnastics, figure skating, etc… fall in this category. Competitors do their thing, and a qualified panel judges them and determines who won. This is less… self-evident than category 1- it’s often hard for the layperson to tell who would have won through a whole field of figure skaters. To me, this is a fundamentally different sort of competition than category 1- you could call them “kinetic beauty pageants” maybe.
There are competitions where the actual “work” isn’t done in-the-moment, but rather back in the studio, gym, etc… Bodybuilding, beauty pageants, dog shows, etc… all fall into this category. They certainly take a lot of work, dedication, and effort, but they’re basically all the same- someone’s judging the aesthetics of the person or dog, not their skill, speed, or endurance, unlike other sporting competitions.
I’m fine with it being called a sport. There is a TON of physical effort - both in prep and the competition, and there is a competition. I tend to consider more cerebral activities like chess - yeah, I know it requires stamina - to be games. I think I may have started a thread here a while back after hearing dog shows referred to as sport. Then there is something like darts… Or how about skydiving? How hard is it to fall out of a plane? 
There are a variety of “fitness” competitions. All of these folk put a heck of a lot of physical effort into achieving what they have. I don’t know that their pursuit is terribly different than running fast or jumping high.
I agree w/ folk above who don’t understand why people care whether participants characterize their activity as a sport or whatever.
This is pretty much my opinion.
I’m reminded of those folks who misunderstood a judge who once ruled cheerleading wasn’t a sport. He had no doubt as to the skills or athleticism of the participants, but it wasn’t considered a sport under Title IX because it didn’t have clearly defined rules, dates for competition, or a governing organization.
Nobody here has voiced any doubt that it takes a lot of effort (and performance enhancing drugs) to achive the look competitors are going for. And these men and women aren’t stupid, they understand very well how their bodies work, what it takes to achieve a competitor’s look, and are fully aware that there’s a good chance they’ll die of a heart attack or stroke out when they’re in their 40s or 50s. You’re right that it takes some skill and effort to achieve that look. But that’s not what’s being judged on during competition. They’re just being judged based on how they look.
Couldn’t the same be said of gymnasts? Or figure skaters?
Not really. Those sports are require difficult moves to be executed. That is what’s being judged, not the participants appearance.
No. A figure skater who performs an axel jump is being judged by how well they execute the manuever rather than what their thighs or ass looks like. A body builder in a rear double bicep pose isn’t being judged on how well he executes the pose but strictly on how his muscles look. You can certainly argue that it takes some skill to to achieve that look, but skill isn’t what’s being judged in competition.
Count me in the “not a sport” camp.
“How well they execute that maneuver” could be interpreted as “how they look.” But, that is just my opinion. I don’t really care about either, so I don’t care how their participants or viewers designate those activities.
Not really.
Sure, but are their toes pointed and their elbows close to their bodies while executing that technique. The are wearing makeup and sequins, and interacting with music while doing it…
No one lost a track and field event because a judge decided their toes were not pointed while crossing the line first or clearing the highest height.
So, ballroom dance is a sport?
The whole “debate” (as is most sport) just seems silly.
IIRC, you can lose a gold medal in racewalking if a judge says “hey, great job crossing the line first, but that knee bend was a no go.”
I don’t really have a strong opinion either. If I hear two people talking about the competitive sport of bodybuilding, I’m not going to interject myself in their conversation and explain why they’re not really talking about a sport. But if I’m at a party and someone says, “Is bodybuilding a sport?” then I don’t mind giving my opinion when invited to do so.
Now if you want to interpret how someone executes a maneuver as “how they look,” well, okay, but this is Great Debates, so make your argument for that being a valid perspective. Because from where I’m sitting, that dog don’t hunt.
2 skaters - or gymnasts - perform routines with identical moves. They both complete them without falling and with no major errors. The winner is the one who is determined to have shown the better form. Looked better.
Good call on the race walking above, but with the majority of sports - like they say in baseball, “It looks like a hit in the record books.” Or in golf, they put down the number of strokes it took to get from tee to cup - not how pretty the scores were - or how classical the golfer’s swing. A TD is 6 points, no matter how pretty the play that crossed the goal line. If you are including “style points”, IMO, that makes it considerably less “sporty.”
I haven’t really thought this through but I’m musing whether there might be a distinction to be drawn between athletic endeavors in which “judging” is involved. Diving, ski jumping, freestyle skiing, figure skating, gymnastics, whatever. I’ll readily grant that they are all sports. But once you introduce a subjective assessment of style, it seems to make it a different type of competition. Looked at that way, chess and darts could be considered more sports than gymnastics.