1.) Andriesen never takes a direct position on the issue of defining a sport. He concludes his article by saying that the ultimate point of a sport is so that people can have fun; however, he never definitively says what criteria a sport must meet. He does explore various criteria such as needing a ball, needing to be human-powered, competition, objective vs. subjective scoring, and physical effort involved. Overall, I believe Andriesen’s point of exploring all of those criteria is to show that not every sport fits into a set of specific criteria.
2.) The Olympics or other national/global competitions have a need for accepted criteria for what constitutes a sport. This is because they have a time limit and cannot feature every single competitive activity. By having accepted criteria, they are able to narrow down what sports they will include.
No comments:
Post a Comment