Yeah, the point is to stir up emotion, because emotion gathers interest. He also dissed a few other sports too. Truth is, you can turn anything into a competition. As long as there are two people (usually guys) and some activity or tool, they can turn it into a competition. The difference is some competitions don’t attract much interest (the Office Chair Grand Prix), whereas others do (NFL Football). Is one sport better than another? Arguable - that’s how the Iron Man got going - 3 athletes arguing over who was more fit - swimmers, cyclists, or runners. But is it popularity that makes a sport “real”? Golfers get paid millions to whack little white balls with sticks in order to get them into holes in the ground, when they could easily pick the ball up, walk across the lawn and drop it in the hole. In North America, cycling as a sport isn’t that popular. How many fans go out to watch bike races around here (Crankworx excepted)? Whereas cycling as a participant activity is fairly popular - a fair number of people ride bikes to get around town - like Enright says “go to the store” - that’s how he sees cycling, which the majority of North Americans do too. In other countries, like France, Spain and Italy, things are a little different. Enright must never have watched the mountain top finishes in the Tour. Thousands of people crowding the slopes, and taking a long time to get up and get down, to see the parade and the athletes go by - cycling is taken pretty seriously over there… and it’s big business… pro cycling teams have million dollar budgets, bike manufacturers get big publicity, and the top athletes earn big bucks in salary and endorsements.
I think I’m rambling… What’s my point? Actually, I’m not really sure - I guess, what you consider a “real” sport is relative, Enright’s perspective is subjective, but maybe not far off from many North Americans who don’t take cycling seriously or “get” cycling as a sport.