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).[ul]
[li]Who finished first.[/li][li]How many times.[/li][/ul]
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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!
I second this wholeheartedly. I might add “between humans” excluding a horse race or a dog race as a sport.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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.
), but that’s not the objective.