Qualifications : No Wierd stuff

A sport can not be really weird.

This criteria disqualifies all manor of weird things as sports. Curling is only one of eight things the that the Olympics consider a "winter sport".... Men sweeping the ice instead of a rock ?? as a sport ?? At least it's not judged. In Afghanistan they play buzkashi (in fact it's the national sport). This "sport" involves riders on horses trying to get control of a headless goat carcass.

Insane

buzkashi

buzkashi is NOT a sport.

What is it ?? It is that weird thing the afghans play. It's kinda like polo with a goat carcass.

First it's just too weird. I mean it is more like something out of Borat than what you could possibly believe is real game people play.

Robot Wars

Robot Wars is Not a sport.

I mean really ? are you kidding me ?

It's not physical , There is no risk of injury (unless of course a robot explodes and injures spectators) and it's all about the Machines.

Franky the whole thing has always annoyed me. The name doesn't even really work. They aren't even robots they are just remote controlled toys. While they might be cool looking, when you describe a robot (at least in my mind) I think of a self controlled thing. Not a mechanical toy controlled by a radio remote.

At least the the competition isn't normally judged. Usually the winner disables or in some quantifiable way, outperforms the other.

Bicycle Racing

In spite of the fact that it violates the No Machines rule Bicycle Racing is a sport.

The best proof if the point I can think of was when the summer Olympics was in LA. An American cyclist was challenged by a German or French cyclist. In spite of the fact that the American had a high tech bike with the newest composite wheels and frame, he was unable to defeat the European with the more classic bike design.

So, at least at that time it was a test of the abilities of the man, not the machine. As long as that is still the factor tested then I would consider it a sport.

Qualifications : No Machines

This argument is used to disqualify sports like competitive shooting ( pistols or rifles) , archery auto racing (again) or the mental sports (chess, other competitive boardgames). This argument works for somethings but not for others. Many of these things, like shooting require a lot of skill even and physical effort from the competitor. Sailing requires strength and skill but it really is the machine that wins the race. ( It requires BOTH a good crew and a good boat to win a race) Exemptions are granted for simple machines like clubs, bats or rackets. A purest might even challenge these.

I can't say that I agree 100% with the premise that if a machine is used that it's not a sport. but it clearly could be an indicator. I think it is more complicated.

Bicycle racing : Is a sport
Robot Wars: Not a sport

Qualifications : Mainstream

A sport should be mainstream.

This is a rather subjective criteria, basically the argument is if it doesn't draw an audience , it shouldn't be considered a sport. The big sports draw huge crowds in stadiums and in TV viewers. (Football, Baseball, Basketball, etc.. ) The problem with this criteria, is that if a new thing WAS a sport then it would not be considered a sport until it gained enough popularity to pass this imagery line of popularity. But within this point is the internal suggestion that the reason this or that doesn't pull an audience is that it's not really a sport. Soccer from an American perspective fails this test.

Qualifications : Judged sports

Figure skating, Mogul skiing , Most of the "extreme sports". (skateboarding, snowboarding) I think the most basic reason I feel this way is that when I watch these sports and see the judged results, I frequently find myself puzzled as to why one competitor is jugged as better than another. It gets worse when it appears that political concerns have played a part in the judges position. ( this was a big controversy in recent Olympics ). I have a lot of trouble supporting a competition where there is no measurable criteria to judge winners. ( highest score, fasted time, longest distance or greatest weight. ) (bodybuilding,boxing)

It should be apparent to all that watch who the better competitor is. You shouldn't need a special eye or a frame-by-frame camera to see who the winner is. To win in a true sport, the ball goes in the hole or hoop or you cross the line first. In a true sport somebody is clearly faster/better/more enduring.

Qualifications : Physical Effort

A sport must require great Physical effort.

This is argument is used to disqualify things like chess, poker and auto racing (NASCAR etc.) I have herd people use this argument against golf as well. The problem with that particular point is that golf requires both precision and physical effort. OK it's not like basketball well the player must maintain a high level of effort for a long time but it's not easy to smack a golf ball 300 yards. Sports car racing is also physically demanding.
This argument is used to disqualify sports like competitive shooting ( pistols or rifles) , archery auto racing (again) or the mental sports (chess, other competitive boardgames). This argument works for somethings but not for others. Many of these things, like shooting require a lot of skill even and physical effort from the competitor.

Embedded in this point is the idea that you must be in good physical shape to excel in this sport. If you can be successful in the sport while grossly obese, then it probably isn't a sport.