But you can also win a cricket game without ever advancing a base.
Was it George Carlin who brought up this exact point, stating that most games run back and forth left to right, but only one has you running in a circle?
Wasn’t there then a comment about watching the games in reverse?
What kind of unholy combination is curling?
I guess it belongs with a class of accuracy/combat games like billiards, shuffleboard, bocce ball, and croquet. It’s more than just accuracy because there is an element of attacking the competition as well. Do they get their own category, primarily accuracy or sit the fence between a few?
I thought Ice Hockey was a Combat Game that just happened to arm the players with clubs and bladed shoes?
The joys of taxonomy. Whatever scheme you decide on, you’ll find examples that cross boundaries. Rickjay’s modified list is pretty sensible, until someone invents something like extreme ironing.
The distinction between goal and territorial games isn’t clear cut, territorial gains are required in order to make a scoring opportunity. Think motor sports should be split off from speed games. They may both be races, but motor sport requires a completely different skill set to running around a track.
Which one sport was he thinking of? Baseball? Rounders also has you running in a circle via bases, like baseball.
Yep, they are. That might be why they’re all boring to me.
The joys of taxonomy indeed!
I interpreted the OP as suggesting classifications of games based on what the object is. The means of achieving the object can vary from game to game; what matters is the elementary nature of the objective.
Speed games, I would argue, include all games in which the object is to move a defined distance in a shorter period of time. I don’t think it matters what the person is using to move that distance. Clearly, the skills involved in running are totally different from the skills involved in racing a car… but they’re also totally different from the skills involved in swimming, or in alpine skiing, or in cycling, or in luge. Or if you looks at goal games, the skills involved in ice hockey are dramatically different from soccer, every bit as different as running and auto racing.
If we want to really get into our classifications, I’d then argue that speed games should be broken down into various orders of games based on the method of propulsion:
SPEED GAMES
- Running Games
- Swimming Games
- Cycling Games
- Motor Sports
- Skiing Games
- Sledding Games
Etc. etc.
I’m really enjoying this, as you can tell.
In the interest of heading toward a complete taxonomy, should we consider the “extreme” games and even “to the death” games?
It would appear to the otherwise uninformed observer that “gluttony” games could be added.
What do you mean “until”?
It’s easier to see with cricket, but both baseball and cricket could be considered goal games in a perverse way - the batter/batsman is defending the goal in each case.
Well, only in the technical sense that a batsman who scores purely through boundaries won’t have to run between wickets. But the scores for boundaries are a way of saying “you hit the ball so well you could have run between the wickets 4 or 6 times”. In other words the running is assumed, not forgotten.
But other than our freakishly good/lucky batsman above, you win a cricket game by scoring more runs than your opponent.
(You could re-frame Base Games from the pitching/bowling perspective - the aim is to get the ball strikers out for as few runs as possible - but I don’t think that adds anything to the classification question.)
Both enforce penalties by reducing the number of players the penalized team may have on the playing surface. (In the case of hockey, temporarily rather than permanently, and for more minor infractions).
Depends on the extreme game. Most things branding themselves as “extreme” are just existing games rebranded and retooled.
Anything that’s actually to the death isn’t really a game, but would usually be a combat game, wouldn’t it?
Gluttony games would pretty clearly be a separate class.
Bullfighting? Hunting? Fishing in some cases?
The distinction between game and sport has always been pretty arbitrary as far as I can tell.
Sure, if that’s the way you want to organise them. An object-based classification system is useful from an observer’s point of view, while a skills based organisation would be useful for participants (if I can do this, I might be good as these things - c.f. Rebecca Romero, who who went from being an olympic rower to a cyclist). Putting on my Sherlock Holmes hat (deerstalker), I’d guess you watch more sport than you play (damn, I’ve been playing too much mafia…).
And now you’re creating a taxonomic hierarchy. Maybe it should be done on a genetic basis, where one game was derived from another.
My example may not have been chosen entirely at random. 
I think they would go under an Endurance Class (which would also hold dancing, balancing, etc.)
Hm, bullfighting is pretty clearly a combat game (albeit an asymmetrical one), but I’m not sure how I’d classify fishing.
I used to have a book called “Rules of the Game” which supposedly contained the rules for every sport in the world.
Actually, it’s still available on Amazon:
Looking at the table of contents, we can see that they divide sports into the following groups:
- Athletics
- Gymnastics
- Combat
- Target
- Target Ball
- Court
- Team
- Stick and Ball
- Water
- Winter
- Animal
- Wheels
- Air
Interestingly, they put soccer with Team, but all versions of hockey are in Stick and Ball.
I’d call them “hit and run” games. The central concept is one team wants to hit an object and then run around a set of goals while the opposing team tries to regain control of the object.