SWA #19

1)

Andriesen takes the stance that most people end up taking when he talks about what really defines a sport. Most definitions don't fit enough sports or include an "activity" that shouldn't be considered a sport. As he says near the end, "the only point of agreement likely to be reached is that we'll never agree."Every time Andriesen brings up a factor to consider something a sport, there is something that counter acts that factor. For instance, racing under human power is always considered a sport but when one brings a horse or a car into the conversation, can it really be considered a sport? (235) Everytime Andreiesen talks of the activity having to be physical or scoring being apart of the sport there is always a but. He believes that scoring must be objective or boxing isn't a sport. There are so many tiny details that go into claiming something is a sport Andriesen doesn't make his own claim but just that everyone can agree that you know a sport when you see it.

2)

There are a couple circumstances that are important to have accepted criteria for constituting a sport. For instance, the Olympics is something where having an accepted criteria might be important because then no can complain about their "sport" not being in them. Also activities that are very similar to sports could not complain if there were criteria for constituting a sport. For instance, table tennis versus actual tennis. If tennis was defined under sport and table tennis wasn't then there would be no argument to go further with. Having a certain criteria would help to end the argument and the disappoint for certain activities. Activities like "sport stacking" wouldn't be arguing that their name needed to be changed from cup stacking to sport stacking.