Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> Ok, biking is a kind of technical sport, so it is not comparable to
> swimming. But what is the point when we can say a sport is technical?
> Is ski technical? They use the ski and it does make difference if you
> have a better ski or curved pole or even if you have a better wax on
> your ski. Is golf technical? As the club and the ball makes
> significant difference. And is swimming technical, if the clothing
> makes that much difference? :-)

I think for pretty much all sports, technology can make a difference.
But for some sports, it is possible to rule out technological
differences and still keep the idea of the sport, while for others,
that's just not possible.

With swimming, running and wrestling, for example, technology can be
completely ruled out. (Do it naked... :)

With biking and skiing, it just can't be... you can't ride bike without
a bike :), so you need technology here. Of course, one could require a
standard bike, a standard ski, etc., but that would take the big runners
(financiers) out of that sport. And the competitions with
non-standardized equipment would surpass the ones with standardized
equipment in popularity by so much that they would die a quick death. I
think.

So it's probably basically a matter of popularity. Like most things. (I
stop now, because when popularity comes into play, this is almost there
with politics and religion... :)

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist