Over the years my friends and I have often discussed criteria necessary to deem a competition a sport, and even though most of these debates occurred over countless pitchers of beer, we have been able to whittle down our standards to what we believe to be a fairly thorough list of items that must be met to satisfy our scrutiny. First and foremost there is an underlying assumption that physical activity is involved. Not the sweat you get while playing Halo, but the type that results from true physical exertion.

There must be an opponent - This really just establishes the baseline that a competition is the common denominator. Without the presence of an opponent, you are really just playing a game or participating in a hobby.

There may not be subjective scoring of the event - There are a number of events today that are represented as sport, but leave too much open to interpretation. Anything that has subjective scoring is not a sport. While many of them may require incredible physical ability and dedicated training, the fact that the outcome of the competition is solely up to an aggregation of opinions reduces its legitimacy. The scoring could be represented by a measurement of time, distance or accomplishment (scoring of a goal for instance).

While an argument can be made that there is a presence of subjective interpretation when it comes to officiating, there is an assumption that any officiating is being performed by competent, ethical personnel. Their judgments tend to influence a moment during the competition as opposed to the final decision. Any flaws in the officiating that may affect the results is more a representation of the management of the sport as opposed to the sport itself.

(Sports eliminated: gymnastics, figure skating, diving)

There may be no external machinations - While it is true that technology is having an ever-increasing impact in all sports, the reliance of the performance of an external object must not be relied upon. An aspect of the mythology of the athlete participating in sports is the potential that sheer will could be the deciding factor. That is lost when much more depends on the efficiency and engineering of the machine, be it inanimate or living.

(Sports eliminated: horse racing, car racing)

The actions of one opponent must DIRECTLY influence the other competitor’s scoring - Taking turns is for kids. Both competitors must be on the field of play at the same time where what one does has either a positive of negative affect on the other. This goes back to the mythology of sheer will. Who has the ability to summon up what is needed in order to do battle head-to-head against their foe.

(Sports eliminated: track and field, swimming, bowling, golf)

The one event that straddles the line of the requirements listed above is boxing. If one boxer knocks out the other, the result is conclusive. However if they both make it through all rounds, there is a subjectivity that exists based on the scoring of the points. There is consideration to distinguish between subjective scoring of a point and the entire competition. This would address the hybrid nature of boxing. While the scoring can (and often does) introduce some dubious interpretation, it is at least minimized to a period of time during the event as opposed to the event as a whole.

To the best of my memory, these four criteria address just about any event you can think of. Thoughts? What do you think falls outside of the canon listed above?