Originally Posted by Commodus

You're making two points here, and neither is accurate. To forward an argument does not immediately reduce both positions to triviality. One of us could be 'right' and the other can be 'wrong' - or, just because I do not know something does not mean that it can not be known. In this case, I suggest that some of these perspectives have more merit than others. I do not know this.

I do not have to proclaim anything to suggest this, and I'm not doing so here.

Consider: I can proclaim myself the world champion of whatever obscure 'sport' of my own design at any time. The fact that I'm the only one who participates would probably colour people's opinion of this particular rainbow jersey. Now let's take bob sledding. This is a sport that a tiny, tiny population is able to engage in and really has no value to the general population whatsoever. It is completely a contrived activity. You can't bob sled to the store. You can't bob sled to work. You can't even get together with a bunch of friends and bob sled for fun after work, generally speaking. So what does it mean to be world champion of bob sledding? I contend that it matters something less than being world champion of something that is more accessible - like say running. That's why everyone knows Usain Bolt's name and no one knows the name of whoever won the gold medal on the bob sled track a few years ago.

A sport's merit is thus tied to its participation and whether it's relatable to something in the real world. You can say anything is a sport, but if the activity being contended is too contrived, at some point people just shrug their shoulders and say, "well okay you're great at tiddly winks, but who cares?"

Does that apply to the sports being discussed? Maybe, maybe not.