An interesting statement about sports watches: Do they have to be chronographs?

Hi all,

there?s an interesting point made over on the Harry Winston forum:

"Sports watches are immediately linked with chronographs"

I?m curious what?s the take of the GP fans; do sports watches have to be chronographs?
With all personal preferences possible, there are several pieces i?d count in; of the 2004 news, the new R&D chronograph, the Sea Hawk II (new dial) and the Sea Hawk Pro 3.00m come to mind.

I?m not sure a chronograph, which is a complicated and thus more vulnerable mechanism, would be my first thought when it comes to sports watches. But then, a timing device like a chronograph finds a natural place in sports activities; if you take the "purpose" approach, then a chronograph is probably first choice for a sports watch.

That may lead to another question i?d like to bring up:
What?s the type of watch you regard a sports watch?
Is it to be defined by intended field of use, special functions, case/dial/hand materials or a certain design?
There seem to be some common factors; personally, i?d count in a watch that is rugged and easy to read. Luminous hands and index markings are somewhat of a must-have.
A particular point may be the size: A large case does allow for a larger dial and hands, which probably improves readiability. But then, there are some examples of "smaller" watches (below 38-40mm) which are pretty easy to read, so the size may be a debatable criterium. Or is not and a sports watch requires a large case?

To illustrate the point, here?s a pair of GP watches that may fall into the sports watches category. Or not?

2004 new "R&D 1" chronograph reference 49930

1999 Laureato Tourbillon

Just a few points that came to my mind; i?m really interested in your take on sports watches in general and GP?s interpretation in particular!
So please don?t hesitate and share your thoughts!

Greetings from germany,

Peter