To me, simple plain cross
country flying is by far the most dangerous way to operate a glider. At
least as risky as competition and certainly far more risky than
aerobatics.

Huh? Your logic escapes me. Comp flying IS X/C flying, but with the
added element of being adrenalin saturated, *pushing it faster, and
now sharing the air with 20-150 other gliders doing the same thing on
the same course, with some course legs potentially overlapping and
opposing other legs. How does regular X/C flying even come close to
this? (perhaps this should be it's own thread?)

As a pilot with acro tendencies, I also disagree with the risk levels
being on par with X/C. Acro flying removes most of the variables that
make X/C flying more likely to bite you or your ship (scratching low
for lift, stretching glides, running ridges, landing out, etc) than
say flying within the vicinity of your local airport. In USA, acro is
done above 1500ft agl, and with a chute, outside of controlled
airspace and not above dense populations, although it does add a risk
of it's own; the increased chance of structural damage. I firmly
believe acro flying teaches/promotes life saving skills and reflexes
(upset attitudes ans such) that carry over into all other flying the
same way wringing out your car on a skidpad after some advanced driver
training will leave you better equipped to deal with unexpected road
emergencies.

tl:dr: comp flying is X/C on steroids and hence more risky but acro
involves less risks than regular X/C and adds useful skills...

-Paul

ps. those promoting the seatbelt-logic-fallacy should be ashamed...

Oops... sorry John, read closer and now see we do have the same basic
view on acro flying vs X/C, my bad. A stand by my analysis though...