To support this discussion, I propose a set of attributes for most relevant and least relevant Olympic sports. This is my opinion alone, and yes, it is completely intended to create a debate. Here's what I think:
Most Relevant Olympic Sports:
1) Competed Internationally at a competetive level in other venues
2) Opposing defense or head-to-head action is integral
3) Demands a high level of skill and athleticism
4) The sport has a complex developmental heirarchy in most countries (youth/amateur/semi-pro/pro)
Moderately Relevant:
1) Played by all G8 and traditional Olympic countries at a competetive level in other venues
2) Competitor is not completely in control of the conditions
3) Demands a high level of skill and athleticism
4) Lots of youth/amateur paricipation, but you can't go pro
Least Relevant:
1) Specific to a more limited set of countries
2) Prepared programs and/or benign competing conditions
3) One of either "level of skill" or "level of athleticism" required could be debated (I don't think both could ever be debated for the Olympics)
4) People pretty much only prepare for the Olympics in the sport
I think there could also be different combinations of the above that would probably fall in the "Moderate Relevance" category.