Sports vs. Games; let's get a definition (are golf, darts, bowling, etc. sports?)

[Birdmonster]

Last night, a roommate and I were trying to decide what makes a sport a sport. Why, in other words, do we all see basketball as a sport while some claim that golf is a game?

At first we decided this: a sport requires more raw athleticism than a game--of course, this theory was deflated by baseball players and the fact they can be borderline obese & have a mouthful of chaw the whole game. We realized that bowlers & baseball players are sometimes indistinguishable, physically. So we threw that out. What we decided on was this: Bowling, golf, darts, pool, etc. are indeed sports, but of a different variety. There are action sports & reaction sports, and reaction sports are the ones we, as a culture, most often equate with "real" sports.

So, to illustrate: Basketball or soccer are fluid games and the outcome depends on game plans and REACTIONS to a moving ball. No two games are ever the same. These games move quickly and demand near instinctual skills. Golf, on the other hand, is an action sport. Your approach is the same for every shot & no quick reactions are necessary. You can set up for an hour. The ball moves only when you hit it.

With this definition, ping-pong becomes more of a sport than golf. Probably more of a sport than baseball.

Thoughts? Rebuttals? Qualifications? I want a working definition here.

[silenus]

The last time we discussed this.

[gommsn]

I wasn't here last time but when I read the question, this popped into my head.

Monopoly is a game. Checkers is a game. Trivial Pursuit is a game.

Baseball is a sport. Golf is a sport. Tennis is a sport.

Y'all can work out the details but this is how I see it.

Seems sports involve something physical, games something more mental.

[RickJay]

We have this discussion about every two months.

A sport is a contest of physical skill with a defined victor, played for its own intrinsic purposes. (e.g. war isn't a sport.)

Darts is a sport. It's not a sport that requres great cardiovascular fitness, but it's a sport. Nobody said all sports had to be equal. Golf is very obviously a sport, as are ping-pong, bowling, and automobile racing.

[mittu]

So by your definition RickJay would snooker and pool be classed as sports?

[Martin Hyde]

I agree and really like the definition a Sports Illustrated author introduced a few years ago. He basically said that a sport is any athletic competition in which defense is employed.

So track and field could be called athletic competitions, but not "sports" because no defense is employed. However, NASCAR *could* be a sport because defense is employed and it's an athletic competition.

I like this definition because it makes a distinction between directly adversarial athletic competitions (sports) and non-directly adversarial athletic competitions (and non-athetletic competitions like Chess.)

[kanicbird]

I agree and really like the definition a Sports Illustrated author introduced a few years ago. He basically said that a sport is any athletic competition in which defense is employed

So war would be a sport.

[Arwin]

I think that the definition that describes practice best would be something like

Sports are:

- games that depend on physical skill and prowess
- games that are played to such a high level that some of its practitionars have become professionals

I would personally prefer to limit the term sports exclusively to the games for which top level players (or at least certain members of a team, in team sports) will be athletes.

[gommsn]

Martin Hyde ,don't be too impressed because it came from SI, its still only one mans opinion.

Defense is certainly an important element of some sports but it shouldn't be used to define what is and what isn't.

Try telling Carl Lewis what he does is not a sport!

Arwin , I really didn't understand your post. It seemed to me that you were implying that the worlds great chessmasters were playing a sport . Now, I have the highest regard for what they do, at the level they do it but I can't call it a sport. If I misunderstood, please correct me.

[Gangster Octopus]

Well personaly I do not think of judged competitions as sports, diving, gymanstics, figure skating, etc.. I suppose athletic competition would be more appropriate. This is just my personal opinon, of course.

[ltfire]

If you are sweating when the 'event' is over, it's a sport.

[marshmallow]

I haven't perused over any discussions of this subject here past this thread (except a quick search, which revealed nothing in the linked thread), but under many of your definitions of "sport" videogames, and specifically a particular set of PC games, falls under the category of a "sport." Lots of people in the community don't feel that sounds quite right, which has led to "e-sports," which at least passes the laugh test.

Examples of coverage: gotfrag.com, sogamed.com, and esportsea.com

I'll explain since I imagine a lot of people won't understand.

- many games have large, highly visible tournaments where large prize purses are available ($100k for large events).

- although consisting of a small percentage of the overall gaming population, there are several teams and individuals (depending on the type of game; some games are 1v1 while others are team oriented, like Counter-Strike) who earn a living off playing games, whether that is by being endorsed by companies or winning so often.

- these type of games either require intense reaction times, strategy, understanding of the game mechanics, and possibly chemistry with many other players. Even after a 'casual', non-pro tournament or intense match you will be sweaty and the adrenaline will be flowing.

The industry only grows larger and larger each year. South Korea is the most advanced in this area, followed by Europe, the US/Canada, and then even other developing nations, like Turkey and certain South American countries.

[mittu]

E-sports are certainly a big business, a quote about the Painkiller world tour:

The total purse will be a whopping $1 Million USD, with $50,000 USD at each international stop, and a $500,000 final.

A $500,000 1st place prize in a 1v1 tournament is certainly enough to make you a professional. E-sports are what first made me ponder the question posed by the OP, I don't believe they are sports at all, but struggled to come up with a decent definition of a sport that excluded e-sports but didn't exclude other activities I do consider to be sports.

[groman]

Why do we need a distinction? I grew up in a household that considered chess a sport and I never thought twice about it until I met people who didn't. I'd say a sport is a game where skill is the defining factor, rather than luck. As in if you took a skillful player and a newbie, and plotted their games, the skillful player would come out on top 99% of the time or greater. That makes certain recreational games, such as monopoly, just that, games, but serious games like Basketball, Chess, Poker, or Soccer sports.

[MindWanderer]

Originally Posted by groman

That makes certain recreational games, such as monopoly, just that, games, but serious games like Basketball, Chess, Poker, or Soccer sports.

Actually the top monopoly players would win a lot against an average player, maybe not as much as in something like chess, but still quite often.

[Just]

Someone once offerred this definition to me (and I have to admit, I kind of like it):

A sport is a game in which it is possible to get injured.

Not bad, huh?

(Actually, his first definition was that a sport is a game in which it is possible to get killed. So by this definition martial arts and motor racing are sports, while basketball and soccer aren't. I prefer the injured definition.)

[Balle_M]

Originally Posted by ltfire

If you are sweating when the 'event' is over, it's a sport.

My IRS audit was not a sport...

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by gommsn

Arwin , I really didn't understand your post. It seemed to me that you were implying that the worlds great chessmasters were playing a sport . Now, I have the highest regard for what they do, at the level they do it but I can't call it a sport. If I misunderstood, please correct me.

No, you didn't misunderstand. In Dutch, when we talk about the thing that the great chessmasters are doing, we call them Schaaksport, which means literally "Chess Sports". I think competition is a very important part of the definition of sport and that you will generally find that this is so in most parts of the world. The Sports section isn't called 'Sports and Games', after all, but you'll still find news on Kasparov's retirement and so on.

[gommsn]

Thanks Arwin , I didn't take into account the cultural aspect. I see what you mean. Always good to learn something about anothers country.

You're also correct about the Sports Section. Thinking about it, I often see things there I don't usually consider sports by my definition.

[glee]

Originally Posted by Arwin

In Dutch, when we talk about the thing that the great chessmasters are doing, we call them Schaaksport, which means literally "Chess Sports". I think competition is a very important part of the definition of sport and that you will generally find that this is so in most parts of the world. The Sports section isn't called 'Sports and Games', after all, but you'll still find news on Kasparov's retirement and so on.

Isn't there a German word meaning 'Mind Sport'? (Denksport?)

Chess is a world-wide competitive activity, involving pure skill, with professional players earning millions a year. There are thousands of useful books and the theory is still developing even after 500 years of analysis. The judgement of top players is so good that they can even take on modern computers (and chess is a game that is easy to program).
However chess doesn't involve physical effort, so many people say it isn't a sport. The problem comes when you look for an alternative word. A 'game' is usually something played for fun only. A 'hobby' doesn't have to be competitive. An 'activity' can be anything from painting to potholing.

[glee]

Originally Posted by MindWanderer

Actually the top monopoly players would win a lot against an average player, maybe not as much as in something like chess, but still quite often.

I would expect a novice to learn the rules and full strategy of Monopoly in 30 minutes. And they would have a significant chance to win against a top player in their first game. Perhaps 20 -30 %.

By contrast, any national strength chess player can beat a beginner wothout even looking at the board (just visualising it). Every time.

Kasparov took on a businessman, Terence Chapman, at odds of two pawns in 2001. Chapman had been ranked in the top 200 in England as a junior, but hadn't played for decades (though he trained for the match).
Kasparov won 2.5 - 1.5 - an incredible feat:

http://www.bcfchess.demon.co.uk/chessmoves/2001-05.htm

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by glee

Isn't there a German word meaning 'Mind Sport'? (Denksport?)

Denksport is a Dutch word, and yes it exists.

By the way, since the tournament started I've been seeking out some competition in Chess on itsyourturn.com to see how my old chess skills are holding up after a decade of non-use, but I've yet to run into serious competition (11 games, won all due to people giving me pieces for free and generally not knowing the value of the fields they stand on, and 6 more games in progress all of which I'm winning - though I admit I got away lucky in one of them).

I'm starving for some serious competition, and I know I can count on you to seriously trash me, so if you'd oblige to that task I would be incredibly grateful. (I'm Arwin on itsyourturn.com ... )

Yours,
A.

(oh, and saying that Chess is easy to program is a bit of an overstatement, I think - it's not THAT easy)

[HMS Irruncible]

How about this... in a sport, some or all skills can be rehearsed individually, whereas all skills involved in gaming must be developed against a real or simulated adversary. Gaming contests are predominantly strategy, sporting contests are predominantly physical.

I was thinking about this the other day when I was trying to explain to a non-English speaker why we do not "play" judo, we "do" it or "practice" it. I think the martial arts are a perfect balance between strategy and physical performance, so they go in a category of their own.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by Just

Someone once offerred this definition to me (and I have to admit, I kind of like it):

A sport is a game in which it is possible to get injured.

Not bad, huh?

(Actually, his first definition was that a sport is a game in which it is possible to get killed. So by this definition martial arts and motor racing are sports, while basketball and soccer aren't. I prefer the injured definition.)

Basketball - Hank Gathers
Soccer? Are we talking about before the game, during the game or AFTER the game?


I always liked the definition of a sport being based on a variable combination of human brain/skill/physical exertions ONLY. That throws out any "sport" dealing with the brain/skill/physical exertions of machinery, and animals other than human. Inanimate objects used are ok (like bats, gloves, skates, helmets, etc.) as long as they do not increase any brain/skill/physical exertion by themselves.

It may not be popular with some fans of Nascar or horseracing, but then again, more emphasis is placed on the car, horse, etc., and the human becomes secondary to the "sport". Still somewhat important to the "sport", but not the primary focus of the "sport".

[CookingWithGas]

Originally Posted by Yeticus Rex

That throws out any "sport" dealing with the brain/skill/physical exertions of machinery, and animals other than human. . . . the human becomes secondary to the "sport".

Steeplechase and dressage riders may disagree. Equestrian sports are interesting because it's a balanced partnership between rider and horse that makes a winning combination. The human is not secondary, but neither is the horse. And the winner of an auto race is not simply the guy with the fastest car. If that were the case they'd put put all the cars on a dyno and declare a winner.

Also, I notice that ESPN now shows poker tournaments. IMHO poker is no sport.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Yeticus Rex

I always liked the definition of a sport being based on a variable combination of human brain/skill/physical exertions ONLY. That throws out any "sport" dealing with the brain/skill/physical exertions of machinery, and animals other than human. Inanimate objects used are ok (like bats, gloves, skates, helmets, etc.) as long as they do not increase any brain/skill/physical exertion by themselves.

I think that definition would exclude baseball, cricket, jai allai and the racket sports. When you swing a bat, you're getting more angular motion than is possible to get by using one's arms alone, and that angular motion translates into greater force. Rackets would have a similar effect - they have the effect of making one's arm's longer, and therefore the angular motion greater.

Plus, you can hit the ball harder with a bat or a racket than you can with your hand or arm, because they don't have any nerves.

Put another way, how many people can take a swing with their bare hand at a hard ball thrown at 90 mph and hit it to the home run fence?

[Snooooopy]

Originally Posted by CookingWithGas

Also, I notice that ESPN now shows poker tournaments. IMHO poker is no sport.

The network is leaning on the "E" part of its name in that case, as it was when ESPN2 once showed a Magic: The Gathering tourney.

[glee]

Originally Posted by Arwin

Denksport is a Dutch word, and yes it exists.

By the way, since the tournament started I've been seeking out some competition in Chess on itsyourturn.com to see how my old chess skills are holding up after a decade of non-use, but I've yet to run into serious competition (11 games, won all due to people giving me pieces for free and generally not knowing the value of the fields they stand on, and 6 more games in progress all of which I'm winning - though I admit I got away lucky in one of them).

I'm starving for some serious competition, and I know I can count on you to seriously trash me, so if you'd oblige to that task I would be incredibly grateful. (I'm Arwin on itsyourturn.com ... )

Yours,
A.

(oh, and saying that Chess is easy to program is a bit of an overstatement, I think - it's not THAT easy)

Thanks for the language confirmation.

I'll see if I can get to itsyourturn (I'll be called glee).

I meant both that a legal game of chess was easy to program, and that simply using a 'brute force' approach of analysing every possible position a few moves ahead makes a pretty strong program.

[Rucksinator]

This is just my opinion:

All games can be placed on a 2 dimensional scale. One axis represents skill, and the other represents athleticism. The 4 corners of this scale could be labeled "games of chance" (no skill/strategy or athleticism, eg. The card game war, and most gambling games); "Games of skill" (all skill and no athleticism, eg. Chess, video games, Texas Hold 'em); "Athletics" (no strategy and all athleticism, eg. Running); and "Sports" (a lot of strategy/skill and athleticism, eg. Football).

The examples provided are games that, IMHO, fall close to each respective corner of the scale. Some might argue that sprinting involves some strategy, and some might argue that video games require some athleticism, since hand-eye coordination is required. Where a game/activity falls on the scale is up for debate. This is just MHO.

[notsocleverusername]

Here is my opinion...

A sport is an athletic competition primarily based on the paticipants' abilities to use their human physical skills and strategy to defeat an opponent; having an objective means to choose a winner; and where there are regulations that allow the competitors to directly affect their opponent's ability to score/win.

So by my definition, the following activities are not sports:

Chess (non-athletic)
Bowling, Diving, Golf, Swimming, Running, Gymnastics, Surfing (you can't directly affect your opponent's play)
Poker/card games (based too much on chance/luck and non-athletic)
Auto racing (not primarily based on a human's ability... too much reliance on a machine's abilities)
horse racing (not primarily based on a human's ability... too much reliance on an animal's abilities)
War (Generally speaking, no regulations on how to prevent your opponent from winning )

I would also like to add that just because an activity isn't considered a "sport", doesn't make it any less important, difficult, or valuable.

I realize that some of you will disagree with my list non-sports, especially with the swimming, running, auto racing, and horse racing. But unless all the cars/horses were completely identical (to the point were one could consider them inanimate objects, such as a bat or a pair of soccer cleats), then I would argue that auto/horse racing is just a form of competition. And the reason why I wouldn't consider swimming and track & field events "sports" is because there is not enough interaction with your opponents and generally speaking, you can't prevent your opponent from running/swimming faster (that would be cheating ).

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

This is just my opinion:

All games can be placed on a 2 dimensional scale. One axis represents skill, and the other represents athleticism. The 4 corners of this scale could be labeled "games of chance" (no skill/strategy or athleticism, eg. The card game war, and most gambling games); "Games of skill" (all skill and no athleticism, eg. Chess, video games, Texas Hold 'em); "Athletics" (no strategy and all athleticism, eg. Running); and "Sports" (a lot of strategy/skill and athleticism, eg. Football).

The examples provided are games that, IMHO, fall close to each respective corner of the scale. Some might argue that sprinting involves some strategy, and some might argue that video games require some athleticism, since hand-eye coordination is required. Where a game/activity falls on the scale is up for debate. This is just MHO.

Now this, I like.....except I would make it three dimensional.......strategy (brains), skill (ability), and athleticism (physical exertion). I'll stick with my definition of sport as being played by humans only though.

Which has all three?
Football, Hockey, and Rugby easily uses huge amounts of all three.
Basketball, Baseball and Soccer to a lesser degree, but they have all three.
I know there's more sports deserving of all three, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

[Fish]

I suspect this is better suited to Great Debates or perhaps Cafe Society. I'm not sure there's a hard-and-fast answer that the OP would be satisfied with.

In that spirit, I'll try to define game first:

A game is an activity primarily done for entertainment where the legal and permissible moves are absolute. That is, if one wishes to move a marker, or draw a card, or exchange one thing for another, or roll a die, this does not require any attempt on the part of the player to do so; he merely does it.

A sport is a type of game in which the legal and permissible moves must be attempted and success is not guaranteed.

This is sort of off the cuff, so I haven't thought it all the way through, but it seems to me that Games (by this definition) are things like backgammon, checkers, poker, D&D, chess, Monopoly, etc, where the rules permit certain legal moves in a given order. One need not try to move a chess piece, or attempt to buy a hotel. One either performs the move, or does not.

Sports, therefore, would be those games where one must physically or mentally overcome some obstacle or achieve some physical result to move a marker (or a baserunner or a ball-carrier).

How's that? I'm sure I've left a gaping hole in there somewhere, logically, but I'm too stuffed up and tired to think of it.