Sport/Nonsport

[cindysphynx]

MJollner wrote (regarding curling):

>I just don't get it!  And 
> furthermore, I don't understand why it is an Olympic sport!  It 
seems 
> to me that very little physical exertion is required.  

Oh goodness!  I hope they don't open the floodgates and puff up the 
Olympics with *more* non-sports.  I think physical exertion ought to 
be important.  So golf can stay if you have to carry your clubs.  (I 
understand golfers actually do get injuries and such, so that makes 
it physical enough for me).

Is shooting a sport?  Nope.  Board games (bridge and chess)?  With 
all due respect to Andrew, no.  Archery?  Well, OK, but only because 
you probably have to have serious arm muscles, and you're essentially 
using a device to throw something, which makes it completely 
different from the "aim and shoot" of shooting.  Bowling?  No way, 
have you seen these guys?

So IMO sports can stay in the Olympics if:

1.  There is an element of risk that something will go wrong;
2.  There is physical exertion (mental exertion isn't enough, because 
if it were, there would be an Olympic event called "Cross-
Examination");
3.  It is something people might actually do in real life (this rules 
out things like flinging a ribbon around while doing flips); and 
4.  People can watch it without snickering (this rules out 
synchronized swimming). 

Cindy (didn't think much of synchronized diving in the last Olympics 
because it was the same divers just doing much simpler dives)