Strazdas said:
And we'd just have to disagree on that point. I simply think that definition is too narrow and excludes too many things traditionally viewed as sports while includes other things that simply aren't.
I'd reiterate that there are plenty of (if not most of the) primary definitions online that don't support that specific guideline as stated (including Webster, Oxford, Dictionary.com, cambridge, thefreedictionary, etc.). Even the wikipedia article explicitly states that victory in some sports can be determined by subjective measures of individual skill and/or artistic impression. You haven't really countered that point, just implied that you don't agree with those definitions by not addressing them. I realize there is at least one definition online that does support the idea that there needs to be an purely objective measure of victory, but to say your definition is "more correct" without further validation simply isn't a reason for me to agree with you, especially when that view seems to reflect the minority of definitions. That said, I respect that there is validity to your view simply based on alternative definitions existing.
Anyway, back to politics, sports status is met by the following guidelines according to the women's sports foundation
1. It must be a physical activity which involves propelling a mass through space or overcoming the resistance of mass.
2. ?Contesting? or competing against/with an opponent is required.
3. It must be governed by rules that explicitly define the time, space, and purpose of the contest and the conditions under which a winner is declared.
(this is the same as gymnastics or boxing, with a panel of judges operating off of a standardized scoring system declaring a winner being deemed sufficient in explicity defining victory conditions, as they also fulfill this criterion given their classification by the women's sports foundation. Cheerleading, while arguably more subjective than gymnastics, does have some pretty rigorous guidelines for determining scores and victors at competitive levels)
4. Acknowledgement that the primary purpose of the competition is a comparison of the relative skills of the participants.
5. The primary purpose is competition verses other teams or individuals within a competition structure comparable to other ?athletic? activities.?
Assuming you take the notion I've forwarded that it has become more about competition at face value, then it absolutely meets those criteria. The problem is that many states believe it doesn't meet that last one, which is where the real argument lies and the crux of varsity's argument against the sports classification.
As to the competitive aspect, I don't have pure statistical data, and it's easily the most contentious part of the argument. This isn't just because most of what I have to offer is anecdotal, but also because it's such a murky topic with a lot of different aspects. As far as I can tell, it's intentionally convoluted.
Here is the general case I'd make for my angle:
You have "all star cheerleading squads" which are cheer squads that are purely dedicated to competition, they partake in "competitive cheerleading". They don't cheer, they just compete. Many to most colleges have one, though many squads are not affiliated with any school. Most schools (including high schools) attend competitions, which they prioritize over games (can confirm this for the 3 different high schools I attended). There's just a general air of "competitions are the most important thing" based on everyone I've ever talked to about it (probably about 50 people). These squads also partake in "competitive cheerleading". You also have "stunt", an offshoot sport that literally IS cheerleading, just called something different (routines and practice are identical to all-star squads, with increased safety standards and a few tiny differences like the inclusion of "sidelines" and "halftime"). It was created by varsity in order to pacify people who say cheerleaders can't do cheerleading without it being dangerous because it doesn't have sports status and thus more rigorous safety standards. Varsity probably also created it simply to protect cheerleading as a "non-sport", attempting to further differentiate classic cheerleading from the burgeoning competitive cheerleading scene, despite the two being thoroughly intermingled.
I don't have statistics though, despite digging around for a bit. The paranoid part of me assumes that those kind of statistics (if there are any) are intentionally made hard to find. I'll keep looking at some point here, but I'm afraid I really don't really have time right now.
Also, I just noticed that the OP made a troll account and this is, in fact, a troll topic. I are ashamed.