[PAR_WIG1350]

We are trying to find an absolute, "correct" definition of "sport", but in doing so we are dooming ourselves to failure. The concept of sports was fabricated by humans, and thus only exists in our own minds. the moniker "sport" carries false wight.

To say that something is a sport triggers certain responses in the brain. To make a reference to computers, "sport" is like a class. when something is declared to be a sport, it inherits some features from the "sport" class. Does every subclass or instance of sport need to use every feature? No, it doesn't. Furthermore, other objects and classes that are unrelated to the "sport" class can have the same features and functions as the sports class.

At a certain point, it simply becomes easier to make an object an instance of the "sport" class rather than creating a separate class. If the required features are included in the "sport" class already, it makes more sense to use the "sport" class since it avoids reinventing the proverbial wheel.

Our brains do much the same thing when we look at things in life. If something is called a sport, the brain will give it certain attributes associated with sports. Similarly, if something shares enough characteristics with a sport, the brain will associate it with sports.

This brings us neatly back to the beginning; a sport is simply as loose set of fabricated characteristics that is different from person to person which one can choose to apply to different activities as they see fit. Whether something is or isn't a sport has nothing to do with its value or the lessons it can teach. It is simply a tag we place on things to identify them more easily based on our personal idea of what that tag means. The correct answer is truly a personal matter.