ABSTRACT
The author’s focus is the debate about what constitutes graceful movement as illustrating various aesthetically relevant properties in sport. The debate begins with Best’s functionality account of grace. Cordner’s fluid integration account is motivated by his critique of Best. Davis’s proposed surface account is motivated by his critique of Cordner, Mumford’s deep account by his critique of Davis. Davis is right that there is no reductive basis for grace across all sport, yet Mumford is right that ascriptions of grace may be given reasons. In particular, the author argues, Best is right about grace in aesthetic sports, though Cordner is right about grace in purposive sports. Different aesthetic properties in sport may or may not exhibit similar realization profiles.
