In a comment the question was basically why are we trying to redefine a word that seems pretty clear by its definition. Athlete or athleticism basically refers to an individual who participates in a game or sport requiring physical components of strength, stamina, etc. The comment was correct in pointing out that the word needs no new definition.
However what wasn't asked is why was the topic presented in this manner to begin with?
The reason I asked the question for a definition of athleticism was to break up the confines of rehabilitation and therapy. Too often we see an individual in our clinic or ATR and we immediately go to work on the area in question. The mantra train movements not muscles comes to mind (Gary Gray). So is the idea that we should train/rehab the whole person not just the 1 muscle that may have tendonitis. In the industrial setting where I work the production workers could all benefit from improved physical function as to prevent injury during their jobs. If I only rehab their 1 joint or muscle that has pain I've really not done my job. However if I can improve there overall function then I may have prevented them from becoming the next recordable. Perhaps I can even convince them to become the next fitness user at our facility.
So instead of looking at your next patient in terms of Range of motion, goniometer measurements, and 4+/5 during a manual muscle test try seeing them in terms of agility, balance, coordination, functional strength, functional endurance, functional reaction time.
Do we need to drop the swelling measurements? Maybe not but look and rehab the next patient as a whole and not as an injury.