I’d say Aikido is not a sport because you don’t compete. It’s a martial art, a discipline, etc., but not a sport. Judo is a sport.
And good golfers aren’t golfing 72 holes over four days. They are golfing 72 holes over four days with an hour on the range and another hour on the green before their tee time and another hour on the range after they are done.
I like this definition. I have no interest in the argument surrounding it–though I’d probably err on the side of agreeing that it is a sport (among other things). But I just wanted to say that I like this definition.
Golf, like running marathons, gets MORE grueling the crappier you are, in some ways. I mean, a top marathoner runs really fast and really hard for, like, two, two and a half hours. Shitty marathoners can be out there for seven.
On the other hand, those scratch golfers don’t really get their money’s worth - all they get to see is boring short grass. My dollar-per-shot ratio is probably a lot cheaper. 
Around my house, we call that “value golf.” Lots of strokes per dollar.
Wouldn’t competitive eating still make the cut with these definitions?
Go Takeru Kobayashi !
I think it would be a damned shame to play a round at a pretty course and never really see the landscaping, if you know what I mean.
I’ll admire the cacti from the distance just fine, tyvm. 
What activity doesn’t involve some degree of physical effort? That it is or is not easy for you to walk 4 miles does not mean it is easy for everyone to play checkers. Maybe I have no arms or have cerebral palsy or something - I can thik fine but moving a games worth of checkers is all I can muster.
OK so now you are saying golf is not a sport until you turn pro? Or that it is a sport because there are pros? Not sure I follow any of this to be honest…
In Aikido practice it was not unusual for us to practice swinging a heavy wood weapon (forget the name now) 1000 times as a warm up. We wanted to build the same kind of muscle memory and precision, maybe more, as a golfer does. If 250 swings over 15 hours on 4 consecutive days is a lot, then that is not making your case
Really? What about Daly? does he work out? do the seniors work out? Does the average duffer work out in the way that is meant to improve a golf game? Just because some do and some don’t is not the criteria for a sport is it?
I don’t think anyone here said it is easy - it requires a lot of eye hand coordination, and muscle memory to be able to conjure up varied swings to be good at it. It takes virtually none of that to go play a round - almost anyone can do it if they have the cash.
I will take you up on that if you pay the greens fees and supply me with clubs and drinks on the 19th hole each day. sounds fun. I walk 4 miles a day routinely taking my dogs out for a walk - I am not spent at the end of that. Bored maybe, but not spent. I think I might be bored each day, or maybe tired of socializing with you and the other pair, but “spent”? Come on!
So what is the difference then? May practice Judo without ever competing, in the same way people practice Aikido. The “-do” part is “the way of …” after all, the competition came later. Are they practicing a sport?
I don’t know the answer, that is where the fuzzy line is to me.
Another place there is a fuzzy line, far from golf, is figure skating. Sure there is competition, but the judging is arbitrary. In the old days, you actually got judged on how well you did specific figures before you got to the arbitrary part, but no more. So other than the arbitrary judging by 9 or so members of the audience, what is the difference between that and Ice Capades? Both are efforts to please the audience with no fixed way to compare efforts.
There are many similar examples, where competitions depend on style points and little more.
Another example:
Is ultimate frisbee a sport?
How about Footbag net?
these are very informal, but played competitively using physical skills and involve the physics of an object, complete rules, and scoring.
OK then, how about Frisbee as a whole? Hacky-sack? Are those sports in their own right, or are they simply games, or are they skill drills for the above or (gasp!) Frisbee Golf?
So they practice. BFD. Chess players practice too. Pokemon players probably practice that much. Poker players certainly do. That one practices regularly does not make it a sport - Aikido practice, which is essentially no different from Karate or Judo practice, was not enough to make it a sport according to ZSofia.
Well, if you’re already made up your mind, you’re naturally not going to want to follow anyone who disagrees with you.
But golf is a sport, in my opinion, because it is a contest of physical skill, played for its own purpose, with defined criteria for victory. That’s my opinion of what a sport is, and furthermore, I think it’s the most consistent definition anyone’s come up with. My reference to how golf is at the pro level is in response to the OP, which specifically references, as a definition of sport, how hard it is to excel at the sport, not how hard it is to just play it badly. The OP is, after all, the subject at hand. Since the OP says a sport requires that someone who excels at it must have above average conditioning, then that’s the standard. And to excel at golf you have to be in better shape than the average schmoe.
He does, or did, anyway; I don’t even know if he golfs anymore. I mean, this stuff is pretty easily looked up.
Judo’s a sport. If someone doesn’t happen to make it to the competition, it’s still a sport.
The Ice Capades is not a competition. A sport is a competition of physical skill. Nobody “wins” the Ice Capades.
Absolutely, in my opinion.
Sure is, in my opinion.
A Frisbee is an object, a disc that can be thrown. It is no more a sport than a golf ball is a sport. Make up some rules about how the Frisbee can be used in a sport - as with ultimate frisbee - and you have a sport.
That’s right. Practice does not make something a sport. So?
So American football isn’t a sport, then?
So you are the one that has made up his mind, not me.:dubious: Are you not following and considering fairly counterarguments?
Maybe, but it breaks down quickly. Is marching band a sport? Cheerleading? What about the examples I listed earlier? What makes for “physical skill”? what makes for “defined criteria for victory”? am I participating in a sport if I never compete? I go to a driving range every now and then for the heck of it or to bang out some frustration. Am I playing a sport in your opinion?
Really? They got to that level because they were in better shape then the average schmoe or because they liked it and had an affinity for it, then got in better shape then the average shmoe left at the level of the people they were competing with? Because I am betting there are few if any golfers in better shape then say, Dean Karrnatzes, but I bet he sucks at golf.
In fact, is he competing in a sport? He basically makes up events to achieve at this point. There is physical activity, there is a clear criterion for victory - he either achieves or he doesn’t, and sometimes he has others try with him, although he is not necessarily trying to finish ahead of them.
so the old ladies at the tennis court who lob a ball back and forth 3 times a year and who can’t even raise their arms over their head to serve, and who would never even dream of learning to keep score, they are competing in a sport because someone else does all that? In your opinion of course? Like the OP, I am not defining it, I am trying to understand (so far unsuccessfully) what you define it as when I extend it past your limited examples.
But the skills (and often the performers!) are the same in those exhibitions as in the Olympics or regional competitions. What is the difference except that they forewent the 9 judges? The practice is the same to get to that point after all…
So when kids learn to play catch, possibly even with baseball gloves, they are not playing a sport, but when they do the same drills with the knowledge of the rules of baseball, then they are playing a sport? :dubious:
[QUOTE]
That’s right. Practice does not make something a sport. So?QUOTE]
So then by your definition, I am not playing a sport unless I am actually competing according to the rules of the game? Practicing to be good, to get in shape to be better than the average schmoe defines what makes golf a sport, but when the average schmoe practices something, with no intent of competing, or even awareness of the rules, it is not a sport? :dubious:
I don’t plan to go out on a golf course anytime soon, but I will go to a driving range. My days of competitive lacrosse are long gone, but I still will stop by a good wall and toss the ball and maintain stick skills by doing drills. So am I playing sports in those cases or not?
Or is it that the sport is the actuall competition itself, not the drills or practice of it?
Which still leaves open the definition of how to keep score - figure skating to me seems nearly as arbitrary and political as “dancing with the stars” for instance, and requires similar practice and competition against folks at a similar level to oneself, but I assume you would say one is a sport and one is not - am I right about that?
To me, there is a triumvirate of factors I think - physical skill, well defined scoring as criteria for victory (and how much judgment is allowed in that, as most sports do have at least some discretion in the officiating) and entertainment value. If each of those three is a point and together they compose a triangle, the definition of a sport is somewhere in the triangle itself to me.
A quick search turns up a separate American football league for women.
If both genders participate at the highest levels of competition, then I don’t consider it a sport. For example, Olympic equestrian events often have men and women riders. I don’t consider that a sport. Similarly, NASCAR would not be a sport.
Interestingly, Olympic shooting has separate divisions for women, so it apparently is a sport, although it isn’t obvious what physical advantage one gender has over the other.
You’re certainly welcome to your own definition of sport, but I’m having a real hard time coming up with your rational for this.
I don’t really know a whole lot about marching band or cheerleading.
As to what constitutes physical skill, I really don’t know how that can be answered without simply suggesting you invest in a dictionary. There’a a sliding scale there to be sure, but the difference between a physical skill and a purely strategic game - like, for instance, chess - seems, well, obvious to me. Pochacco’s definition is pretty good; it involves constraints defined by the properties of physical objects. To use chess as the classic game-but-not-a-sport example, the physical properties of the chess peices aren’t relevant; you could play chess with no physical peices at all.
I’m sorry, but I’m being really, really clear in what I am saying, and you’re deliberately changing the meaning of my words in order to attack straw men. I’m trying to discuss this honestly, and welcome honest responses, but this is not an honest response.
The OP did not claim that a sport requires you be as fit as an ultramarathon runner. It claimed that a sport requires that, **to play it an an elite level, you be more fit than the average person. ** That is a very low standard, if you think about it - the average person isn’t very fit - but it was the OP’s claim, and I am saying that elite golfers are more fit than the average person. That’s it. I am not saying anything else with regards to that point; my personal opinion of what constitutes sport doesn’t include that requirement. I am not saying pro golfers are equivalent in endurance and fitness to marathon runners. Nobody has claimed that. And in any case, nobody sane would use that as a standard for what constitutes a sport, since it would eliminate almost all sports. The only point I was making there was that the OP’s requirement (that elite players be fitter than the average person) is not consistent with the OP’s claim that golf is not a sport, because golf fits that requirement; its elite players are fitter than the average person. That’s it.
Sure, why not? I don’t know a lot about ultramarathon running but someone has to be at the cutting edge of the creation of sport.
Of course tennis is a sport, in my opinion. It is a contest of physical skill, played for its own intrinsic purpose, with defined criteria for victory. That some people are not good at it does not make it not a sport. I would be a very bad marathon runner, but if I participate in this year’s Toronto Marathon, marathon remains a sport despite my inept participation.
The difference (this is in reference to Ice Capades) is that it’s not a competition, but then you go on to this:
Well, again, you’re just creating straw men. If you want to get into an argument over what constitutes PRACTICING a sport versus what constitutes participating in a sport, feel free to argue with the wall. I think it’s a ridiculous distinction to worry about. I’m not pretending that my definition or anyone else’s provides one clear, black-or-white, right-or-wrong line between sport and game. Whether practicing the skills of a sport is a sport itself doesn’t strike me as being a meaningful or important issue. If you want to say playing catch falls under the umbrella of baseball as a sport, go ahead. If you don’t, don’t. There’s no clear line.
Again, that is not what I said and you are deliberately taking my words out of context.
What I said, and it’s very clear, is that the fact that you have to practice something does not make it a sport. You have to practice handwriting, which does not make it a sport. You have to practice long division, which does not make it a sport. You have to practice painting to get good at it, but painting’s not a sport. You have to practice stand up comedy to get good at it, but standup comedy is not what I’d call a sport.
That’s a completely different question from whether practicing a sport is, itself, a sport - for instance, if baseball is a sport but practicing it is not. I don’t think that distinction’s meaningful or that there’s a clear line anywhere. Practice is part of a sport, it seems to me. But not every activity that requires practice is a sport. I think I’ve made myself as clear as I possibly can.
No, you’re wrong. I have no opinion about the issue because I don’t know how you win Dancing With The Stars. And even if it is a sport, it’s possible for a sport to be trivial and stupid.
But argument over how you keep score, while they can be very interesting, don’t necessarily have a lot to do with what is or isn’t a sport. Figure skating judging is, obviously, a VERY contentious issue and histopry suggests it’s about as badly flawed as it can possibly be. But just because the sport is badly officiated does not necessarily mean it isn’t a sport. It takes a lot away from the integrity of figure skating, of course, and there’s an argument to be made about whether the integrity of the judging process is part of sport. If figure skating was TOTALLY fixed you could argue that it therefore does not constitute a contest of physical skill. But I don’t believe, so far as I know, that figure skating is that bad. (It may be that it is, though. It’s alleged that at least in ice dancing the results are decided upon long before the event.)
To take an interesting in-between example, look at ski jumping. I had always assumed that in ski jumping, the winner was the guy who jumped the furthest. As it turns out that is not the case, or at least was not at the Olympics I was watching; they also tack on a score assessed by judges who decide how good your landing is. It’s subjective, and I think it’s sort of dumb; I say if you jumped further you should win even if you go in headfirst and they have to hand the medal around your frozen corpse like “Olympics at Bernie’s.” But the addition of the silly landing score, IMHO, doesn’t mean ski jumping is not a sport. It’s insane, but it’s a sport.
Sports are physical competitions. I know we’re supposed to be politically correct and all, but the simple fact is that men and women are not physically equal. To make things fair, either there are separate divisions for gender or the men are handicapped or teams are “evened out” by requiring a certain number of women. I don’t think it is sexist to point this out, it’s just reality.
Equestrian events and NASCAR are physical competitions, but the abilities of the horse or car are the determining factors, so I don’t consider them sports.
Long distance open water swimming competitions were dominated for years by women. Just because men and women are physically different it doesn’t mean that one is better at all activities then the other. I don’t see it as a meaningful division to decide if something is a sport or not.
golf - Honestly, I don’t see it any differently from basketball, or hockey, for that matter. Sure, you can be a flabby and uncoordinated and clumsy and eventually get the ball in the hole. Can you hit the green in regulation? Two-putt? Make a birdie? Make enough birdies to actually make the cut? Minimize your losses when you find yourself in the rough or similar bad spot? And can you finish consistently high enough to keep that precious tour card? Likewise, anyone can sink a 3-pointer. Can you sink 1 of 3? 1 of 2? How about with a hand in your face and two seconds on the shot clock? Because the top level does require physical skills, is highly exclusive, and is intensely competitive, I have no trouble calling golf a sport.
Granted, the abilities are a little different then for most sports. Golf demands laserlike accuracy, excellent visual acuity, flexibility, control, and stamina more than big muscles or a towering reach. But those are physical skills all the same, which average joes most definitely do not have.
What about John Daly? He’s a feast-or-famine slugger and always has been. He’s as likely to completely collapse as triumph, if not much more so. Nothing unusual about this for any sport. The name Brett Favre ring a bell?
car racing - Same deal. Anyone can cruise in a Corolla, or even a Titan. Charging 180 MPH in a tight course with an unforgiving wall mere feet away and 40 similarly-powered vehicles fighting you for position? Different story. Sure, the car is the real “athlete” here, but that’s why it’s called “motorsports”. Nobody involved in it has any illusions about the car not being important.
bowling, darts, table tennis, etc. - It would depend mainly on the level of competition. Two Olympic hustlers pounding away at a little ball whizzing across a table, yes, sport. Same deal with those $50,000 darts tournaments. A low-key sport, but a sport nonetheless.
martial arts - One critical, all-encompassing disctinction here…RULES. If there are rules dictating the size and shape of the play area, winning conditions, the officials and their duties, permissible attacks, start and stop procedures, etc., it’s a sport. If it’s highly formazlized, with rankings, sanctioning bodies, scheduled tournaments, complex coaching hierarchies, and the like, it absolutely is a sport. Some martial arts have sport variants, some don’t. There are no rules on the street, and most 70-year-old retirees are more interested in a disciplined, elegant, low-impact physical activity then bringing the state championship back to Tuskeegee.
anything with judges - I hesitate to call these sports, but they’re close enough to legitimate competitions that I don’t think splitting hairs is called for. Calle 'em “subjective sports” and leave it at that. Don’t mess with a winning formula.
Just one caveat…I will never, ever, under ANY circumstances call the Merrie Monarch Festival a sporting event. For crying out loud, this is a celebration of an ancient Hawaiian art form! Beauty does not have “winners” and “losers”, dammit!
I was thinking about this while watching the tournament last weekend - the Shell Houston open.
The 18th hole - a par 4 - was playing freakishly tough. Someting like a 5.2 average for either the final round or the entire tourney. Long drive straight into the wind requiring a lengthy carry over water to fairway with devillish traps on the right. Water all down the right side up to the green, and some more horrible traps short and right. Pros were scoring 8s and 9s on this hole - which is practically unheard of.
It crossed my mind that perhaps the average golfer COULD NOT complete that hole - at least not by hitting over the water. Maybe you could take a putter or short iron and putt/chip around the water and down the fairway, getting in in 50-100 strokes, but that’s barely the same as playing the hole.
Similarly the 17th at TPC, with the island green. Or one of the par-3s at Medinah requiring a 200 yd carry entirely over water.
Not that this proves the case one way or the other, but in at least some extreme cases, I think the average golfer COULD NOT play some of the holes the pros play. Same way folks say an amateur couldn’t hit pro pitching. Well, given enough tries you might eventually be able to make some kind of contact just by chance, but that certainly is not the same as “playing baseball.”
If there are defenders, it is a sport. Golf is a game (maybe competition would be a better word). Nascar is a game/competition. Football is a sport.
Thats my definition, and I’m sticking to it