The Austin American-Statesman carries a column by a commentator named Ken Herman. I frequently disagree with him, but in THIS column, he really doesn't state anything I disagree with.
Basically, he lays out his criteria for what Olympic events are sports, and which ones are not sports.
(Hint: he's not a fan of judges picking winners.)
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/sport-or-not-a-sport-2427039.html
I disagree strongly. Just because you and this guy do not understand the criteria by which such sports are judged doesn't mean they arn't sports.
He includes archery, shooting and fencing based on it's orgins in "warfare" but then
."
Equestrian: Would be a sport (and only for the horse, not the rider) if they jettisoned dressage, which is French for "horse dancing."
Dressage is designed to measure how well a horse can preform natural movements on command, and orginates as movements used by warhorses both for parade and for actual fighting.
Three day eventing decends from the disiplines required for a good warhorse. Cross Country was to test stamina and speed, and Dressage was to test the above.
As for "sport for the horse, not the rider." BS. This is the same stupid delusion that makes people think downhill skiing isn't "real skiing" since you are "just sliding down the hill"
The horses skills are worthless without a rider directing him, and, for those of you who think the rider just sits there, go get on a horse and ride two point at a trot without sturrips for an hour WITHOUT A CROP. and if you need a clue as to why this is physically demanding, try understanding that English trained horses respond more to leg pressure then reins. You don't just tell them go and they go, you have to SQUEEZE, and not just once, not just a little nudge with your heels, but the whole time.
"Sport" is not defined as cut and dry, black and white scoring systems. It is an activity requiring both physical skill and technical requairments, with an empasis on COMPETITION.
