Originally, the argument was "What is a valid sport for the Olympics?"

The two arguments were:
1. It is the pinnacle of achievement within that sport.
2. It can be measured or timed.

The second argument applies to sport in general, and there are lots of examples (pro boxing, gymnastics) that would seem to refute it regardless of personal opinion. Darts and snooker are measurable, but are they really sports?

Regardless of the definition of sport, I'd say 1. is the only sensible way to determine what should be part of the Olympics and what should not.

Posted By: yarmyyarmy, Aug 13, 16:54:55