PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
Every four years when the Olympics roll around, inevitably, you get the peanut gallery discussion of what does and does not belong in the Olympics. Most often the discussion revolves around some vague definition of "sport" (despite the fact they're officially called Olympic "Events", not "Sports"). The athleticism of the participants is called into question along with the subjectivity of judgement, the role of technology and equipment, and the triviality of the skills. By these haphazard criteria, Shooting often ends up first on the chopping block, seen a step below Archery. Armchair critics claim no athleticism is required, the gun does all the work, while the shooter does naught but pull the trigger.
So... why does Shooting deserve its place in the Olympics?
(You can let the critics define the issue or argue seperate points, either way.)
So... why does Shooting deserve its place in the Olympics?
(You can let the critics define the issue or argue seperate points, either way.)