As the sporting focus of 2008 comes to a close I think it is time I shared with you a theory I have been working on. In the spirit of clarity, and as a fairly good wind up, I have been trying to work out what exactly is a sport.
Ordinarily, as a good Englishman this isn’t a problem because the answer is always "cricket, and everything else is for oiks" but bearing in mind that I now live in Australia and some of the local obsessions have been rubbing off on me (except for the thing with the marsupials, which will never feel right to me) I have been forced to rethink and revise my position. So during these 17 days of the 2008 Olympics whenever one of the 38 sports being contested is shown on TV I have been raising a perennial question – "but is it a sport?".
I’ve long been harbouring a theory which I know I stole, I just can’t remember where from, and it has been holding up well enough recently to this scrutiny that it is time I put it on the web for you all to wonder at and agree with.
Todd’s law of sport states that if it needs a judge to to decide who wins it isn’t a sport.
Harsh, but fair, I think you’ll find. I welcome any corollaries in the comments below.
Update: Just as I wrote that I happened to glance at the BBC live page for today’s events in Beijing only to read this – "1245: Anon (see below), I think the valid reason was summed up inadvertantly by the Canadian commentator on the synchro final. When the Spanish team hit the pool, she remarked on how they “draw you in emotionally”. How can you have a sport in which the judges are affected emotionally? That’s not sport, that’s theatre."