What, exactly, constitutes a "sport?"

[silenus]

I got into a discussion with some of my students yesterday about the difference between a sport, a competition, and a game. We couldn't come up with any definitions that seemed to delineate these activities clearly. Everybody agreed that baseball, for example, was all three. But what about auto racing? Or horse racing? Chess? The example that stumped everyone, and provoked the most discussion, was cheerleading. It is definately a competition....but is it a sport? I don't think it can be called a game, either.

So I ask the Enlightened Brethren (and Sistren) of the SDMB...what is the difference between the three?

[Johnny Bravo]

I've thought about this for a long time, and I think this is what I'd consider a sport; any competition that, at a professional or semi-professional level, requires a high level of physical conditioning.

Not that I'd steadfastly stick to even that definition.

[Ottoerotic]

I don't think that there is any rule that you can come up with to clearly distinguish the three of them, because they seem like they're part of a larger group.

The way I see it, it would be like asking what the difference is between a pet, a dog, and a Poodle.

[WCOT©]

IMHO, I think any activity that scores are determined by objective means is a sport, and any activity where participants are judged would be a competition. In a sport the team that scores the most goals, or the runner who makes it to the finish line first wins, however, in a competion, the skater who impresses the judges the most wins. But i wouldnt say that athletic ability determines whether an activity is a sport or a competition. In relation to sports vs games, a sport is sort of a game that requires more athletic ability, but there are those middle of the orad ones, like pool.

[Munch]

This seems as good a place as any...

Can someone tell me what the deal is with ski jumping? The last Winter Olympics clued me in to the fact that there is a judged component to each jumper's score, which just seems absurd to me. Here we have a sport/competition that has an easily quantifiable score - distance. You jump further than me, you win. I jump further, I win. Nope, that's not the case. Not only do I have to jump further, but I have to make sure I do it more aesthetically pleasing than you do (or at least pleasing enough to not lose).

In my opinion, the world of ski jumping should reward the guy/gal who can get the farther. Flap your arms, fart, flail about like a windmill, I don't care. Whatever gets you to a point the farthest than any other person that day, you get a hunk of gold.

What has this world come to?



As per the OP, I agree with WCOT@. But I'm unsure as to how I would classify a game. Certainly, chess is a game, and not a sport (per my definition). Could it possibly be a category that is defined by exclusion (if it's not a sport or a competition, but has a winner, it's a game)?

[CoatOfArms]

I got into a discussion with some of my students yesterday about the difference between a sport, a competition, and a game.
I found a quote relative to sport/game that I think goes to the OP... not sure about competition ...

"If you can smoke while you play it, it's a game. Otherwise it's a sport."

[StGermain]

Munch - That's sort of like the difference between competing in Show Jumping and Hunt Seat riding. In Show Jumping, a rider is judges solely on how clearly they go (not bringing down any fences) and how quickly. In Hunt Seat you're judged on how you look going over the fences and how you ride your horse. They are two different disciplines. However, generally the most successful show jumpers are those with the best technique.

[RickJay]

The definition I learned was:

A contest of physical skill played for its own intrinsic purpose that determines a winner through an objective criteria.

Chess is therefore not a sport, since it is not really a test of PHYSICAL skill. Billiards, however, is a sport.

[CoatOfArms]

... Billiards, however, is a sport.
I smoke and wear glasses when I play pool :cool:

[Antigen]

IMHO, I think any activity that scores are determined by objective means is a sport, and any activity where participants are judged would be a competition. In a sport the team that scores the most goals, or the runner who makes it to the finish line first wins, however, in a competion, the skater who impresses the judges the most wins. But i wouldnt say that athletic ability determines whether an activity is a sport or a competition. In relation to sports vs games, a sport is sort of a game that requires more athletic ability, but there are those middle of the orad ones, like pool.


That would mean that several of the Olympic "sports" don't really count as such. Figure skating, diving, acrobatic skiing, gymnastics... They'd fall under your definition of "competition" but not "sport", because they're all judged subjectively (Yes, there are guidelines, but we all know how easily the judges can be influenced). Can we still call the participants athletes?

In my mind, I've always figured that if you break a sweat or it wears you out, it's a sport. And all sports are a form of competition.

[Typo Negative]

"If you can smoke while you play it, it's a game. Otherwise it's a sport."I can get behind that.

[Kaitlyn]

Disclaimer: The following response is my method of defining these terms, and is not intended to be read as being what I think are the only way to define them, merely one system that I think would work well.

They're not distinct. I would say that sport is a specific subdivision of game, which is a subdivision of competition, which is a subdivision of activity. Thus all sports are games, and all games are competitions, but the reverse is not true. This is not hard and fast, though, and has some exceptions.

I would define a competition as any activity in which one person's achievement is judged against another's. An art exhibit or a county fair is a competion, but not a game or a sport. A job interview is a competition.

A game would be characterized by a standarized set of rules, equipment, and venues, simultaneous or alternating participation by the contestants in the same venue, the ability to directly or indirectly affect your opponent's play, and a scoring system involving at least some objective component to determine a winner. Monopoly is a game, as is Baseball.

A sport is a subset of game that would involve all of the above conditions, in addition to which the contest would need to primarily involve some test of physical ability, be in strength, speed, stamina, endurance, balance, eye-hand coordination, etc, and must have wide-spread participation.

A couple of things to emphasize in these definitions. To be a game, it would have to involve at least some objective measures, but by no means all.

Given these definitions, let's examine into which categories some activities would fall. Keep in mind that these are cumulative; by these definitions, all sports are games, and all games are competitions, but not all competitions are games and not all games are sports.

Art exhibit: Competition
Darts: Sport
Chess: Game
Jogging: Physical activity
road racing: sport
cheerleading (at a sporting event): physical activity
cheerleading (at a cheerleading competition): sport
bodybuilding: competition
fishing or hunting(when done competetively): competition
fishing (done for recreation): Physical activity
auto racing: sport
bridge: game
roofball (an activity invented by my brother and I that can only be played at our childhood home): game.
bowling: sport

[flodnak]

This seems as good a place as any...

Can someone tell me what the deal is with ski jumping? The last Winter Olympics clued me in to the fact that there is a judged component to each jumper's score, which just seems absurd to me. Here we have a sport/competition that has an easily quantifiable score - distance. You jump further than me, you win. I jump further, I win. Nope, that's not the case. Not only do I have to jump further, but I have to make sure I do it more aesthetically pleasing than you do (or at least pleasing enough to not lose).

In my opinion, the world of ski jumping should reward the guy/gal who can get the farther. Flap your arms, fart, flail about like a windmill, I don't care. Whatever gets you to a point the farthest than any other person that day, you get a hunk of gold.

What has this world come to?

It has always been thus, and thus it shall remain, as long as the FIS (the International Skiing Federation) continues to be the most conservative sport federation on this or any other known world. They're still getting used to the idea that girls can jump, without the world coming to an end or any of the delicate creatures dying in the process.

At least the aesthetic criteria are pretty clear-cut: stay as still as possible, don't let your skis wobble, and get as close to a Telemark landing as you can. All skiers are working towards the same "perfection", so the judge's individual preferences are not supposed to matter. (In the past they have, and standards have changed, but let's not complicate this more than we have to.) And distance counts for more than aesthetics. Unless the guy who jumps the furthest falls, he usually gets the most points for that round. Note that it's the total points over (typically) four rounds, not the score for an individual jump, that determines the winner.

[WCOT©]

just a quick response...

under the definition i described..
participants in both sports and competitions are athletes, because they both require physical skill to perform the required tasks... but i think i poined that out when making the distinction between the two.

on second thought, maybe pool was a bad description of a middle of the road sport, auto racing would be a better description..........

[BlackNGold]

I agree with many of the above. To me, meeting any of the criteria below would disqualify an activity as a sport:

1- No sweating or chance of injury. Sorry chess & poker, this means you are a game.
2- Subjective judging. Sorry gymnastics, you are a competition.
3- People in their mid-teens competing at the highest levels. Sorry any number of "sports", but I just can't take you seriously if a 15yr old can be ranked in the top ten. Try harder.

I know there are more, I'm trying to came up with examples. I guess I would exclude golf on the "chance of injury" clause, but I'm still up in the air on that one. Auto racing qualifies, I'm going to assume sweat there. OTOH, I would only include horse racing if you consider the horse to be the "athelete", not the little dude on top. Hmmm... seems further consideration is required...

[flamingbananas]

What about ballet?

[silenus]

Yep. This is why I threw it out to the board. Every time we thought we had it nailed down, it slithered away. :D

[Kaitlyn]

I agree with many of the above. To me, meeting any of the criteria below would disqualify an activity as a sport:

2- Subjective judging. Sorry gymnastics, you are a competition.
[\QUOTE]

I disagree with you here. Most sports have some form of subjective judging. Football: Spotting the ball. Forward Progress. Did the ball break the plane of the goal line? Basketball: Charging or blocking? Soccer: Yellow cards, red cards. Did the goalie move early? Baseball: Balls and strikes, the most important aspect of the game, is entirely subjective. If a game has officials making judgement calls, it has subjective judging.

I'd make the criterion whether there were some objective criteria involved in scoring and determining a winner. Gymnasitcs certainly qualify in this regard.

[quote]3- People in their mid-teens competing at the highest levels. Sorry any number of "sports", but I just can't take you seriously if a 15yr old can be ranked in the top ten. Try harder.

Anita Nall and Janet Evans were both world champions and held world records in their mid-teens. By your criterion, women's swimming wouldn't be a sport, but men's would. That's just silly.

[WCOT©]

with regards to number six's comments about subjective judging... i would go as far as to say that most or maybe even all activities that involve an officiating party judgement calls are being made, and it is possible to make a bad call. But on the other hand regardless of the skill of the pitcher or the attempted pitch, a strike's a strike, and a ball's a ball.

[nocturnal_tick]

So according to your definitions if me and my mates decided to have a, ahem, masterbating competition because it is demonstrating physical skill and the results are determined not by judges, but by "fastest first" it means it would qualify as a sport?

[Largo62]

In my mind, I've always figured that if you break a sweat or it wears you out, it's a sport. And all sports are a form of competition.
I can't disagree, but wouldn't that qualify sex a a sport? I suppose it's possible without sweating, but certainly it's better when the participants glisten a little at its completion.

Some people keep score, too.

Objective criteria:
Who finished first -- or last.
How many times.

Subjective criteria:
Quality of movement.
Relative attractiveness of partners.

I didn't see anybody mention golf. It would qualify under both objective and subjective criteria, though hardly sweat (unless the ambiant temperature was on the high side).
Who finished first.
How many times.

[Largo62]

Sorry. I haven't figured out the "list" function yet. Old age creeping up, I guess.

[flamingbananas]

if me and my mates decided to have a, ahem, masterbating competition

Ummmm.... do guys really do that? *shudders*

[CoatOfArms]

Ummmm.... do guys really do that? *shudders*
On that one, I should think you could smoke, have a beer and wear your glasses ... a game?

[BlackNGold]

I disagree with you here. Most sports have some form of subjective judging. Football: Spotting the ball. Forward Progress. Did the ball break the plane of the goal line? Basketball: Charging or blocking? Soccer: Yellow cards, red cards. Did the goalie move early? Baseball: Balls and strikes, the most important aspect of the game, is entirely subjective. If a game has officials making judgement calls, it has subjective judging.

I guess you and I have different meanings for the word "subjective". In all the cases you quoted, I would say the official is making a judgement call, but the primary component is an objective criteria. Did the ball break the plane? Was the ball over the plate? Contrast this to, say, figure skating. How "graceful" was that triple-toe-loop (or whatever it is they do). How cute did she look doing it? I'm not saying these things are not tremendously difficult and demanding, just not a sport IMHO. And that was the question.

Anita Nall and Janet Evans were both world champions and held world records in their mid-teens. By your criterion, women's swimming wouldn't be a sport, but men's would. That's just silly.

I never said I wasn't silly. Although it wasn't my intention, I think this also disqualifies women's tennis. I think this is more an economic/social thing. If women's sports become more accepted and lucrative, I think we'll see the adults out-do the kids. I think I'll stand by this one, try harder. Unless someone will point out to me why adult males can out-compete adolescent males, but adult women can't out-compete their younger counterparts. I don't think there is a physical reason, for most "sports".

[START]

Anything on ESPN of course...jus kidding I think its anything where you are using physical and or mental skill to win against an opponent, that could be Chess, that could be kickball, that could be Auto Racing, Basketball, Golf, or even being on the Debate team.

[Kaitlyn]

1. There are half a dozen things that a figure skater must do correctly to execute a triple toe loop. The routine as a whole is judged on artistic merit; jumps are evaluated according to a specific set of elements such as which edge the skater takes off from, height, length, speed coming out of the jump, number of complete spins, how complete the last spin was, landing on one foot on the correct edge, etc. It's a lot more than just how pretty it looks. Based on your definition of objective, these are objective criteria.

I don't downplay the importance of artistic interpretation. But that is layered on top of the athletics involved. A skater who cannot complete several triple jumps and spins in both directions will not be able to compete at the highest level, regardless of the beauty of their skating.

2. You miss my point about certain women's events being dominated by the very young. Tennis is a sport or it isn't. Swimming is a sport or it isn't. To say that an activity is a sport when men do it, but not when women do it is sexist on it's face.

Are you saying that right now, women's tennis isn't a sport (but men's is), but if at some time in the future, there are no longer any teens able to compete at a high level (and there is a trend towards that, though women's tennis has usually been dominated by women in their 20's).

One more question. At what age does the participation at the highest level disqualify a competition from being a sport? How about 18? Kobe Bryant played for the Lakers at that age. Scratch basketball. How about 17? Wilfred Benitez was World Jr. Welterweight champion at that age. Scratch boxing. 16: Anita Nall held the world record and medaled at the Olympics. Swimming isn't a sport. Let's make it 15. Marco Melandri, world 250cc champ at 15. Freddy Adu signed to play pro soccer at that age. Scratch motorcycle racing and soccer.

Every major sport in the United States except for football recruits teens. As I said before, this seems a silly criterion.

I don't really think excluding activities from being sports based on the age or sex of the participants is really the best way to go about it. Would you include race as an excluding factor? Of course not, nobody would. So how are sex and age any different?

[MaddyStrut]

I agree with many of the above. To me, meeting any of the criteria below would disqualify an activity as a sport:

1- No sweating or chance of injury. Sorry chess & poker, this means you are a game.
2- Subjective judging. Sorry gymnastics, you are a competition.
3- People in their mid-teens competing at the highest levels. Sorry any number of "sports", but I just can't take you seriously if a 15yr old can be ranked in the top ten. Try harder.

I know there are more, I'm trying to came up with examples. I guess I would exclude golf on the "chance of injury" clause, but I'm still up in the air on that one. Auto racing qualifies, I'm going to assume sweat there. OTOH, I would only include horse racing if you consider the horse to be the "athelete", not the little dude on top. Hmmm... seems further consideration is required...

You don't think jockeys sweat and risk injury? Try rating a 1200 lbs, racing-fit thoroughbred who wants to be up front way too early--definitely sweaty work! I think the risk of injury goes without saying!

[unixrat]

Bah. What's the old joke? "A sport is anything that people bet upon."

[Trunk]

The definition I learned was:

A contest of physical skill played for its own intrinsic purpose that determines a winner through an objective criteria.

Chess is therefore not a sport, since it is not really a test of PHYSICAL skill. Billiards, however, is a sport.
I second this wholeheartedly. I might add "between humans" excluding a horse race or a dog race as a sport.

1) Physical skill. Important. Chess is a competition. Poker is a competition. They're not sports. As much as you think pool and golf are silly, they are contests of physical skills and that makes them sports.

2) played for its own intrinsic purpose. I don't know if this is necessary. They're not played for their own instrinsic purpose (money, the trophy, etc.) but they can be.

3) Objective criteria determine the winner. This is why ice skating and gynmastics are not sports. The judging actually determines the outcome. Not like basketball or baseball where it CAN determine the outcome but is really there just to enforce the rules. Big difference. That doesn't mean a gymnast isn't an athlete. Gymnastics just isn't a sport.

The problem with #3 is that it kind of excludes boxing -- which most people would concede is a sport. Even though I think boxing is the best sport going (except maybe NFL), there is a slight problem in that sometimes the winner is chosen by judging or reffing. Of course, that's part of the fun and part of the frustration with the sport. OTOH, sometimes it is determined by objective criteria, a Knock Out.

Horse racing is somewhere in the grey area. The jockeys are competing against each other physically to an extent. But the best jockey in the world riding "Old Paint" ain't gonna beat Fat Willy riding Secretariat so the skills are only seconday to the physical contest of the animals.

[Rick]

I found a quote relative to sport/game that I think goes to the OP... not sure about competition ...

"If you can smoke while you play it, it's a game. Otherwise it's a sport."
I have always used a similar yardstick
If you can do it without breaking a sweat, it is not a sport
golf, billards, bowling, poker, sorry, not a sport.

[doreen]

I have always used a similar yardstick
If you can do it without breaking a sweat, it is not a sport
golf, billards, bowling, poker, sorry, not a sport.

What about if bowling does make you break a sweat (and not because the air conditioning is broken). I don't know much about golf, but there are different levels of bowling. Friday night bowling with your friends isn't really a sport. Bowling in a league is a little different. And tournament bowling is a lot different. The pace is much faster that either recreational bowling or most league bowling ( generally for singles and doubles events, I see four people on a pair and there is often a time limit- no going to the snack bar in between frames, usually there's not even time to sit down) and more games are usually bowled, both consecutively and over the course of a few days.

[Lobelia Overhill]

I normally use the criteria if you play, it's a game. If you compete it's a sport ... so chess, snooker, pool, football (soccer) etc are games, and skating, equestrianism (not leisure riding), boxing, swimming, gymnastics etc are sports. There are other 'activities' that (by my definition) are sports - like ballroom dancing (and cheerleading). Then you get things like surfing and skateboarding ... If at the end of your participation someone awards you a trophy/cheque/rosette you've competed, if not then you were pursuing a pass-time/hobby

[Snooooopy]

So according to your definitions if me and my mates decided to have a, ahem, masterbating competition because it is demonstrating physical skill and the results are determined not by judges, but by "fastest first" it means it would qualify as a sport?

And yet, I'd rather see a masturbating competition enter the Olympics before, say, bridge. AAARGH! Every time I think about the fucking sham of a movement that wants to have bridge become an Olympic sport, I thank God that I already have little use for the Olympics to begin with.

[Johnny Bravo]

3) Objective criteria determine the winner. This is why ice skating and gynmastics are not sports. The judging actually determines the outcome. Not like basketball or baseball where it CAN determine the outcome but is really there just to enforce the rules. Big difference. That doesn't mean a gymnast isn't an athlete. Gymnastics just isn't a sport.

The problem with #3 is that it kind of excludes boxing -- which most people would concede is a sport. Even though I think boxing is the best sport going (except maybe NFL), there is a slight problem in that sometimes the winner is chosen by judging or reffing.

This would excluse wrestling, too. Real wrestling, I mean, where the outcome is quite often determined by points earned, which is determined by a referee.

[sqweels]

Here's my (still not perfect) definition of "sport":

A recreational activity in which challenges of a significant physical nature are created and met throught the application of physical skill coupled with a sense of urgency, usually with the purpose of gauging the quality of said skill.

[SlowMindThinking]

I don't know if it lends any credence to what I have to say, but most people think of me as an athlete. I do think there is a fuzzy line. I don't think that all Olympic events are sports, just because they are in the Olympics. Competitive dance was considered for a while. It's inclusion does not determine whether or not it is a sport.

Sport: an athletic competition in which the criteria for winning is objective and quantifiable. (Highest score, lowest score, got there first, ...)
Athletic Competition: A competition in which at least one physical skill determines ability.
Competition: any social interaction with with a quantifiable (subjective or objective) criteria that determines winners and losers.
Game: something with rules that participants do for fun.

So, all sports are athletic competitions and all athletic competitions are competitions. Any of them can be games.

So:
Ballet is not a sport. It is my favorite example of a physically demanding activity that is not a sport. It is not even a competition. It is an art. Just ask ballerinas.
Ggolf and bowling are sports, although they do not necessarily require heavy physical activity. They do require physical skills.
Chess: a competition that is not an athletic competition.
All track and field events, swimming events are sports.
Football is a sport. Just because you use refs to ensure fair play and determine the placement of a ball doesn't mean there are subjective criteria. People are, so far, the best means of determining such things, but computers could be used.
Figure Skating: an athletic competition, because someone has to tell you who won.
Dance: a physically demanding art.
Ice dancing: a physically demanding art that has become an athletic competition. It is not a sport.
Wrestling: this is my idea of the borderline. I think it is a sport because points are awarded for objective criteria and anyone can compare scores. However, matches can be fixed, although it is pretty obvious.
Boxing: Again, in the borderline area. It can be clear cut - only one man is left standing. Or, it can be like Olympic boxing in the 80's. I call it a sport because others do.

[Kaitlyn]

Sport: an athletic competition in which the criteria for winning is objective and quantifiable. (Highest score, lowest score, got there first, ...).

By your own criteria, figure skating is a sport. The criterion for winning is objective and quantifiable: highest score.

And yet, I'd rather see a masturbating competition enter the Olympics before, say, bridge. AAARGH! Every time I think about the fucking sham of a movement that wants to have bridge become an Olympic sport, I thank God that I already have little use for the Olympics to begin with.

What exactly makes the movement to include bridge and chess a sham? I can understand why you might dislike the notion of their being Olympic events, but what makes you think the movement to include them isn't genuine?

Personally, I'd like to see them included. I think it would only enhance the Olympic Games to include mental competitions in addition to physical ones.

[Jet Jaguar]

I looked up the definition of "sport" once in a dictionary and found this definition, which I like:

Sport: Any physical activity performed for the purposes of recreation in the spirit of athletic competition.

That's a pretty broad definition but the keys are:

1. A competition with winners and losers based on physical ability or skill. Chess and poker are out, as they are not primarily physical in nature. I may be able to toss a piece farther than anyone else (especially my opponents king, when I lose, after a forced mate in 8, while screaming "Why must I lose to this idiot?!" :) ), but that's not the objective.

2. A primarily recreational activity. By this I don't mean that pro football isn't a sport because that's how the players make their living, but that the activity itself is one that a reasonable person would generally agree that it's a game of some sort.

So I consider figure skating, golf, bowling, auto racing, etc... to all be sports.

[Kaitlyn]

Jet Jaguar: I actually like that definition better than my own. Thanks for providing it.

[SlowMindThinking]

By your own criteria, figure skating is a sport. The criterion for winning is objective and quantifiable: highest score.



What exactly makes the movement to include bridge and chess a sham? I can understand why you might dislike the notion of their being Olympic events, but what makes you think the movement to include them isn't genuine?

Personally, I'd like to see them included. I think it would only enhance the Olympic Games to include mental competitions in addition to physical ones.

I guess I wasn't clear. Figure skating has a quantifiable, objective criteria for winning, but not for scoring. The scores are subjective. Most obviously the artistic merit scores, but even the technical score is pretty subjective, or they wouldn't vary. That is what I meant.

I never said anything about what makes some thing a genuine Olympic event. (I assume that is what you are driving at.) I think your view on this depends on what you think the Olympics should be. I prefer that the Olympics be a recognizable offshoot of the ancient Olympics, which were limited to just sports. (By my definition of sport.) For me, the Olympics are a forum for world wide sports. They help determine "world champions" at various events. Even most professional sports do not have such forums. E.g., widely played sports like basketball and baseball do not have such forums. (Tennis and what we call soccer being two exceptions.)

I know many see the Olympics as an international forum for what I call athletic competition. I can understand that. The Olympics are a ready-made, well known forum. This is a different vision of the Olympics from mine, but last I checked, I wasn't world-wide-president-for-life. Yet. I tend to dislike including athletic competitions that aren't sports, partly because they are more amenable to being rigged. (As much as the US '72 basketball team was robbed, and various boxers at the Korean Olympics, ice dancing and gymnastics have been much more problematic over the years.) I also just prefer sports. Except diving. It's not just the pretty, athletic, young women wearing very little. I even watch the guys dive. :eek:

Bridge and chess would meet my definition of sports, if physical skills primarily determined ability. Despite the impressive stamina required by chess masters, both are clearly mental competitions and not athletic competitions. Since I think of the Olympics as sporting events, I don't want them included anymore than I want to see competitive dance included. Those who see the Olympics as an international forum for any form of competition might disagree. Of course, chess doesn't need the Olympics. It already has a mechanism for creating a world champion. I suspect bridge does also, but I don't know.

[Kaitlyn]

I guess I wasn't clear. Figure skating has a quantifiable, objective criteria for winning, but not for scoring. The scores are subjective. Most obviously the artistic merit scores, but even the technical score is pretty subjective, or they wouldn't vary. That is what I meant.

I don't entirely agree. Sure, artistic merit is entirely subjective, but technical merit is only somewhat subjective, with the balance being objective. Skaters must perform a set number of jumps, spins, and other specific moves during their routines. For technical merit scores, the judges compare the number of elements successfully completed to the requirements This is objective, as the element either was or was not performed in the routine. Each of these elements has a specific manner in which it must be performed to be done correctly, an ideal the skater is trying to match. Height, distance, speed, number of spins, landing on one foot on the correct edge, etc., are all objective measures of success. The judges compare the element as performed to the ideal to determine a score. This is somewhat objective, and somewhat subjective.

Figure skating is an example of a sport that has a combination of athletic and artistic elements. I don't think there needs to be a hard line distinction between sports and arts. Ballet dancers are great athletes, but ballet is not a sport; it's parked fully at the artistic end of the spectrum. Speed skating is a sport with little to no art involved; the winner is the contestant with the fastest time. Ice dancing is closer to the art end, while figure skating somewhere in the middle, though I'd put it somewhat closer to the athletic end than the artistic. Diving is in the middle, but heavily weighted towards the athletic.

I never said anything about what makes some thing a genuine Olympic event. (I assume that is what you are driving at.)

Not exactly. I was just curious as to why you called the movement to include chess and bridge as Olympic events a sham. I see that you meant that you didn't like the idea, not that you believe the movement is fake.

For me, the Olympics are a forum for world wide sports. They help determine "world champions" at various events. Even most professional sports do not have such forums. E.g., widely played sports like basketball and baseball do not have such forums. (Tennis and what we call soccer being two exceptions.)

Without a formal count, I'd venture that the majority of of the core summer events have other ways of crowning world champs. Track and field, swimming, diving, boxing, gymnasitcs, tennis, soccer, bicycle racing, volleyball, and many more all have world championships.

[Snooooopy]

What exactly makes the movement to include bridge and chess a sham? I can understand why you might dislike the notion of their being Olympic events, but what makes you think the movement to include them isn't genuine?

Personally, I'd like to see them included. I think it would only enhance the Olympic Games to include mental competitions in addition to physical ones.

You're right, "sham" is probably the wrong word to express what I meant. I wasn't trying to imply that those movements aren't genuine, but I do think they're ridiculous. Then again, I try not to think about the Olympics (unless I read a thread about it, of course).

[ouryL]

You're right, "sham" is probably the wrong word to express what I meant. I wasn't trying to imply that those movements aren't genuine, but I do think they're ridiculous. Then again, I try not to think about the Olympics (unless I read a thread about it, of course).


An activity that has rules governing it.

Jogging - not a sport, fifty yard dash - a sport

[Johnny Bravo]

An activity that has rules governing it.'

Math?

Personally, when I think 'sport,' I think of physical exertion. I don't think that 'sport' and 'not sport' are the same as 'good' and 'not good.' It's just that they're different things.

[SlowMindThinking]

I don't entirely agree. Sure, artistic merit is entirely subjective, but technical merit is only somewhat subjective, with the balance being objective. Skaters must perform a set number of jumps, spins, and other specific moves during their routines... This is somewhat objective, and somewhat subjective.

We do not disagree on what figure skating is, just on what is a sport. The technical merit score in figure skating is "somewhat subjective" in the same sense that how well one writes is "somewhat subjective". You can like or dislike various styles, but bad grammer is bad grammer. Ok, a bit of hyperbole, but you see why I think of figure skating as an art.

For me, not everything that is athletic is a sport. What is the difference between a runner and a jogger? It is more than speed. I know runners that are quite slow, and I'm sure some world class athletes can jog near my race pace. One reason I run is to improve my performance. IMNSHO, that is the difference between me an a jogger. We both run to get outdoors, enjoy ourselves, etc. But I also do workouts designed to make me faster.


Figure skating is an example of a sport that has a combination of athletic and artistic elements. I don't think there needs to be a hard line distinction between sports and arts. Ballet dancers are great athletes, but ballet is not a sport; it's parked fully at the artistic end of the spectrum. Speed skating is a sport with little to no art involved; the winner is the contestant with the fastest time. Ice dancing is closer to the art end, while figure skating somewhere in the middle, though I'd put it somewhat closer to the athletic end than the artistic. Diving is in the middle, but heavily weighted towards the athletic.


Clearly there are athletic arts and artistic athletics. Yes, the line is fuzzy, but there is a difference. My definitions tell you where I draw my line. I can't tell where you draw yours.


Without a formal count, I'd venture that the majority of of the core summer events have other ways of crowning world champs. Track and field, swimming, diving, boxing, gymnasitcs, tennis, soccer, bicycle racing, volleyball, and many more all have world championships.

Actually, you are wrong on most of these. Tennis and soccer do have world championships, which is one reason I'd rather not see them in the Olympics and I mentioned them earlier. (I can also watch either on almost any day of the week. I can't say that for Greco-Roman wrestling.) Boxing also has world champions. However, of those three, only soccer has a world championship tournament. Boxing doesn't even have seasons. Track and field, swimming, diving, and bicycling have international events, but don't identify world champions. (Lance Armstrong winning the one event covered in the US does not make him a world champion.) I will grant you that Track and Field does, in a sense. (I think that your average American marathoner has a better chance of knowing who won Boston or London, than that marathon designated as "World's".

At any rate, I didn't mean to overplay that. I would just rather the Olympics included sports I don't get to see much. Then maybe there would be air time for all the swimming finals, and not just the ones with Americans. (To be fair, though, they'd have to get rid of all of those bio bits.)

[Kaitlyn]

Actually, you are wrong on most of these. Tennis and soccer do have world championships, which is one reason I'd rather not see them in the Olympics and I mentioned them earlier. (I can also watch either on almost any day of the week. I can't say that for Greco-Roman wrestling.) Boxing also has world champions. However, of those three, only soccer has a world championship tournament. Boxing doesn't even have seasons. Track and field, swimming, diving, and bicycling have international events, but don't identify world champions. (Lance Armstrong winning the one event covered in the US does not make him a world champion.) I will grant you that Track and Field does, in a sense. (I think that your average American marathoner has a better chance of knowing who won Boston or London, than that marathon designated as "World's".

Actually, I'm right on most of these:

Track and Field (http://www.iaaf.org/WCH03/) has world championships every four years, on odd years preceeding the Olympics.

Swimming (http://www.fina.org/), diving, water polo, and most other water sports have a grand prix, which identifies world champions, and an annual world championship event.

Bicycle Racing (http://www.roadcycling.com/events/wc2003/)

Boxing has established world champions in the professional ranks. having seasons or tournaments is irrelevant. Boxing determines its champions through a standings based system. That doesn't mean they aren't champions.

I would just rather the Olympics included sports I don't get to see much. Then maybe there would be air time for all the swimming finals, and not just the ones with Americans. (To be fair, though, they'd have to get rid of all of those bio bits.)

I agree with this 100%. Dump the "up close and personal" bits and show more events, and every major event final that it is feasable to show, even if there are no Americans involved.