Hello KC – not to throw TOO big a monkey wrench into the system, but yes, I can think of something that (in some quarters at least) is considered a sport, and yet does not meet your definition thereof! Sports Illustrated seems to think it's a sport, because they've covered every world championship that I can recall. I tend to agree with that view, though I can certainly see where some would not. I am referring to what has been called the “Olympics of the Mind:” chess.
But, to return to the original question – why are we taking an “either-or” approach? At times, such as when struggling for technical exactness in competition, dance is a sport. And yet, does it ever lose the quality of self-expression, the communication of thought, idea or emotion – the hallmark of art? Even in a “drill and practice” session, are we doing anything different than the watercolorist learning the subtlety of different brush techniques?
If we become so fascinated with the idea of dance as an Olympic sport so as to draw recruits and attention to our passion, and thereby lose the perspective of it as an art, God help us. It is the ability to express, to create something new, that keeps dance from stagnation. Dance can be art, sport, or both, depending on its context and execution. JMHO.
Ralph
P.S. Remembering we have an international audience, I suppose I should explain Sports Illustrated in the US's leading sports periodical.
[This message was edited by Ralph on 12-16-03 at 09:49 AM.]