[rlmorel]

I don’t think life expectancy and health risks have any bearing on whether someone is an athlete or not, I just don’t think there are objective measures. Someone who does nothing more than watching his diet and living everyday life may life a healthy life to the age of 99, but they can’t be called an athlete.

If an athlete must engage in a sport, then it boils down to what the definition of a sport is.

We can all agree that at one end of the spectrum (from a purely physical point of view) taking a nap in a comfortable hammock isn’t a sport. At the other end of the spectrum might be a marathon run. What lies in between?

I played hockey for a long time, and that seemed like a sport to me, even though as a goalie, I didn’t have to skate the same way everyone else did. I played basketball and that seemed like a sport, football as well. Wrestling, definitely.

Is skydiving a sport? How about scuba diving? Or mountain climbing? That is pretty specialized, and doing it can’t be healthy or lifespan extending, especially if you are climbing Everest.

[Alberta's Child]

I think there would be two different discussions about "sports" and "athletes." To me, a sport has some kind of competitive aspect. And someone can be "athletic" without engaging in any competitive events -- like mountain climbing, for example.

I have good news for you on the hockey front, too: in terms of technique and skill, goaltenders are expected to be the best skaters on their teams these days!