Sports - What Is And What Isn't?

[infiniteslip]

wether or not racing is categorized as a sport or a game, you gotta have respect for a driver who undergoes unbelievable physical and mental stress for four hours surrounded by 40+ other drivers inches from his bumper going 180+ miles per hour. They basically put their lives in the hands of the other drivers and themselves are responsible for everyone else on the track. Lose your focus for one split second or lose your patience just once...and you could kill the guy next to you. And for four hours, you're wondering if the guy next to you is gonna take you out. And it might not even be a driver error, the car could decide to fall apart at any second. In racing, the consequence for human error or equipment failure is not just losing the race....it's the possibility of severe injury or death.

lol, and I can't believe nobody has said this yet...."The difference between racing and other sports......racing requires two balls" haha just a little joke....

[fcbayern]

wether or not racing is categorized as a sport or a game, you gotta have respect for a driver who undergoes unbelievable physical and mental stress for four hours surrounded by 40+ other drivers inches from his bumper going 180+ miles per hour. They basically put their lives in the hands of the other drivers and themselves are responsible for everyone else on the track. Lose your focus for one split second or lose your patience just once...and you could kill the guy next to you. And for four hours, you're wondering if the guy next to you is gonna take you out. And it might not even be a driver error, the car could decide to fall apart at any second. In racing, the consequence for human error or equipment failure is not just losing the race....it's the possibility of severe injury or death.

lol, and I can't believe nobody has said this yet...."The difference between racing and other sports......racing requires two balls" haha just a little joke....

I could get hit by a bus crossing the street downtown, But it doesnt make it a sport>> Game yes

[Dr. B]

Time would be a factor of the rules of the game. For example: The winner of a game of football is determined by comparing the number of points each team earns within a given time period.

Can you give me an example of an activity in which a winner is determined solely by time that is without a point system or a system in which points, not necessarily victories, are assessed based on time?

olympic swimming.

The object of swimming and similar named sports is to accomplish a task in the shortest time. Time is always a secondary variable because an activity is not an activity is there is nothing to be done. More to come

[Dr. B]

For some reason I can't edit my post... second to last is = if.

Will had a lot of insight as to what the meaning of the word "sport" really is. I think I can paraphrase well by saying when that when the time comes to determine what is and what is not a sport, do not let your opinion of the activity determine if it is a sport: let your opinion determine if the criteria for what can be called a sport is legitimate. We need to come to a consensus on what makes a sport a sport and what makes a game a game.

For instance: I do not call Cheerleading a sport. Same goes for Figure Skating. Why? They are both judged. Even if an athlete (they are athletes) performs at his best in either sport, a bias judge can determine the winner of the competition despite skill. This scenario is possible 100% of the time, whereas in football, although judges/refs exist, their input is marginal and only asked for when a consensus cannot be reached by the coaches and players abiding by certain rules. It'd be a different story if every time a team thought they got a first down they had to argue about it, but the chains exist to give a non-bias judgment about forward progress. Football is a sport, Cheerleading is not.

For that same reason time-based sports, though not necessarily reliant upon points, assess scores based on the time, a quantitative measure, in which an activity is completed. Perhaps it is in swimming that each second spent swimming is a deduction from score starting at zero. In order to qualify for rankings, you must complete a certain length of the course or a certain number of laps. Then, once all contestants have qualified or been disqualified, the scores are assessed and the swimmer with the highest score (closest to zero) wins.
But we don't need to see it as that complex. What we observe is somebody winning a race and objectively being named the winner.

It is is not simply how to win that must be examined, it is why. We have a chance to get something concrete going here guys, we could write new man-law.

Have at it. Edited March 7, 2009 by Dr. B

[Boricua]

Sport: Football Soccer

None Sports: Everythingelse

George Carlin Baseball vs Football
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0

Fixed.

Amen to that

Football/Futbol/Soccer the true beautiful game

[Boricua]

In closing I would like to say that there is only one true sport in this world. Dominated by one country, specifically one team

1899 hoffenheim

Fixed that for you

[fcbayern]

In closing I would like to say that there is only one true sport in this world. Dominated by one country, specifically one team

1899 hoffenheim

Fixed that for you

Actually in todays standings both hoffenheim and bayern are tied for second place in the standings behind
Hertha Berlin
Sorry for the off topic thread jackin

[tinyj316]

For instance: I do not call Cheerleading a sport. Same goes for Figure Skating. Why? They are both judged. Even if an athlete (they are athletes) performs at his best in either sport, a bias judge can determine the winner of the competition despite skill. This scenario is possible 100% of the time, whereas in football, although judges/refs exist, their input is marginal and only asked for when a consensus cannot be reached by the coaches and players abiding by certain rules. It'd be a different story if every time a team thought they got a first down they had to argue about it, but the chains exist to give a non-bias judgment about forward progress. Football is a sport, Cheerleading is not.

I think this statement is a little off. How many times in a football game (or soccer, hockey, basketball, baseball) has a referee or umpire made a call that cost a team the game? Founded or not, you can't tell me there is a certain degree of "acting". The spot of the ball is purely subjective (see: "forward progress"), holding and facemasking calls can easily be botched, pass interference can be faked, and QBs and P/Ks can flop and say they got hit after the play was over. The chains only help to an extent, but how do you know how far he got with forward momentum or would have gotten if they didn't take an auxillary hit? I liken them to the electronic starting blocks in a swimming/track meet, or the foul poles in baseball. Its all subjective.

In cheerleading competitions there are a certain set of criteria that must be met to achieve a perfect score. If those criteria aren't met, a perfect score can't be given. Sure there are some penalties that may be assessed for poorly executed moves, but by and large, the criteria is there.

While I haven't been a cheerleader myself, I have been in marching band/drum corps for 9 years. People say that it is not a sport. Yet when I tell them to march an entire show (roughly 20 min), with appropriate form, playing and marching from memory, they tell me they can't, or that's too much for them to handle. I'm talking football players, cheerleaders, joe the plummer, joe six-pack, your mom... everyone...

If we let one subset of athletes decide what a sport is, then we lose out on the true meaning of the word. How do you think the sport fishermen feel about not being called athletes, when they have to pull in a 30 pound catfish, or 150 pound marlin? What about the hunter who goes out, stalks his prey, shoots it with a bow and arrow (or gun, if you lack aim/skill) and has to drag a 200 pound deer/elk/whatever out of the woods back to camp? I'm sure the average person couldn't handle dragging that much weight, let alone killing a living creature.

Same thing can be said for racers, golfers, bowlers (how many people play golf or bowl, but suck worse than a hoover?). Just because something isn't footbal, doesn't mean its not a sport, or just a game. If that was the case there would be no other sport besides football (or futbol/football/soccer for everyone else in the world). Most of the people who are quick to say something isn't a sport either hasn't tried that particular activity, fail at that activity, are trolling, or a combination of the three.

Just my .02 (which is right by the way... so /thread)

[inino]

im just gonna say if people can drink beer and curse to the winds it must be a sport!!

[tinyj316]

im just gonna say if people can drink beer and curse to the winds it must be a sport!!

So hookah is a sport? AWESOME!!!

[Evildave]

I say you merkins should finally admit the truth to yourselves and put "Nascar" as your religion in the upcoming national survey. Problem solved.

Oh, and don't forget hockey, the only professional sport where fighting is part of the game.

[Dr. B]

Tiny, I used football to juxtapose cheerleading because I don't think anyone here will deny football is a sport. Maybe that comes from my belief that there does exist a standard.

I'm with you on the majority of what you said about hunting, fishing, driving, bowling, etc; but I used cheerleading because I've had a roommate who was a male cheerleader admit it is not a sport. Again, it's not about letting certain athletes decide what is and what is not a sport (if you think I said that you completely misread my post) it's about having solid criteria and defending why something is a sport.

My previous post was mostly dedicated to defending my stance on how objectively a sport, versus a game, ought to be evaluated. I see you don't agree with the contention to some extent - fine. Wherein do you suggest the difference lies? You go on about the necessity of some prowess - be it stamina, strength, skill, or something else - but aside from insisting that objective standards do exist in cheerleading you say nothing about the contention in general. You didn't accomplish much in your post except to reaffirm a lot of what I already said, yet your attitude seemed rather pugnacious.

And no Dave my religion is not NASCAR, I just think it's a sport. I don't even watch it regularly Edited March 7, 2009 by Dr. B

[Click]

Honestly you can make pretty much anything into a sport.  I can make kicking a can on the street a sport if I applied rules and a competitive system to it.  

Nascar is of course a sport.  It's not just a driver sitting behind a wheel and letting a machine "preform", but a whole crew of guys, changing tires, tearing apart and rebuilding motors in under an hour.  It takes as much physical strength as any other sport and probably more mental toughness driving those speeds for hundred of miles inches from a 200+ mph crash.

[tinyj316]

Tiny, I used football to juxtapose cheerleading because I don't think anyone here will deny football is a sport. Maybe that comes from my belief that there does exist a standard.

I'm with you on the majority of what you said about hunting, fishing, driving, bowling, etc; but I used cheerleading because I've had a roommate who was a male cheerleader admit it is not a sport. Again, it's not about letting certain athletes decide what is and what is not a sport (if you think I said that you completely misread my post) it's about having solid criteria and defending why something is a sport.

My previous post was mostly dedicated to defending my stance on how objectively a sport, versus a game, ought to be evaluated. I see you don't agree with the contention to some extent - fine. Wherein do you suggest the difference lies? You go on about the necessity of some prowess - be it stamina, strength, skill, or something else - but aside from insisting that objective standards do exist in cheerleading you say nothing about the contention in general. You didn't accomplish much in your post except to reaffirm a lot of what I already said, yet your attitude seemed rather pugnacious.

And no Dave my religion is not NASCAR, I just think it's a sport. I don't even watch it regularly

So because your roommate said it's not a sport, it's not a sport in your mind? Doesn't that mean that your argument of not letting an athlete define a sport is flawed from the start? I suppose I should clarify what type of cheerleading I'm talking about. If its merely standing on the sidelines (not judged) performing a couple cheers, maybe moderate stunting, then no, that's not a sport, that's a group activity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okq8AimeVEA). If it is competitive (judged) cheerleading that involves heavy stunting, flipping, synchronization, etc. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGWynZvREFc&feature=related) then that is definitely a sport.

I didn't mean to come off sounding like a douche, I just feel that the term sport is not used in the way it should be, and when certain sports (in my mind) get overlooked because they're not in the "big 5" (football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer). That said, I'm surprised nobody has told me that marching band/drum corps is not a sport, despite my bringing it up in each of my posts in this thread.

[Will_Evo]

Tiny, I used football to juxtapose cheerleading because I don't think anyone here will deny football is a sport. Maybe that comes from my belief that there does exist a standard.

I'm with you on the majority of what you said about hunting, fishing, driving, bowling, etc; but I used cheerleading because I've had a roommate who was a male cheerleader admit it is not a sport. Again, it's not about letting certain athletes decide what is and what is not a sport (if you think I said that you completely misread my post) it's about having solid criteria and defending why something is a sport.

My previous post was mostly dedicated to defending my stance on how objectively a sport, versus a game, ought to be evaluated. I see you don't agree with the contention to some extent - fine. Wherein do you suggest the difference lies? You go on about the necessity of some prowess - be it stamina, strength, skill, or something else - but aside from insisting that objective standards do exist in cheerleading you say nothing about the contention in general. You didn't accomplish much in your post except to reaffirm a lot of what I already said, yet your attitude seemed rather pugnacious.

And no Dave my religion is not NASCAR, I just think it's a sport. I don't even watch it regularly

So because your roommate said it's not a sport, it's not a sport in your mind? Doesn't that mean that your argument of not letting an athlete define a sport is flawed from the start? I suppose I should clarify what type of cheerleading I'm talking about. If its merely standing on the sidelines (not judged) performing a couple cheers, maybe moderate stunting, then no, that's not a sport, that's a group activity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okq8AimeVEA). If it is competitive (judged) cheerleading that involves heavy stunting, flipping, synchronization, etc. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGWynZvREFc&feature=related) then that is definitely a sport.

I didn't mean to come off sounding like a douche, I just feel that the term sport is not used in the way it should be, and when certain sports (in my mind) get overlooked because they're not in the "big 5" (football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer). That said, I'm surprised nobody has told me that marching band/drum corps is not a sport, despite my bringing it up in each of my posts in this thread.

I completely see the point brought up by Dr.B, and although you brought up that ref's in sports like football make alot of the decision...in the full scheme of things, their input is minor. All the movement, all the hitting, tackling, throwing, catching , running is all done by the players. A ref is simply the neutral zone, he is a necessary person in every sport. All he does in enforce rules so that the sport can continue.

Now the point brought up by Dr.B is that things like cheerleading, band, diving, and all that are that they are judged completely. No part of the rules are in the hands of the person performing. If someone in those activitys was to say mis step, mess up in some manner, it is completely up to the judge what that will do to their score. The person performing has no actual control, he cannot "Score" a point himself, he requires someone elses opinion.

With that said, because of how those activitys are scored it may disqualify them from being a sport. According to definition of sport, and used in context the definition of skill;

Skill- the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well

In the case of cheerleading, doing well is completely relative because the performers are not scoring points, the judges are. You could have a group of 20 of the worst cheer leading teams in the country, put them in a competition, and someone will still win. Now just because this team won, doesn't mean they do it well, It means according to the judges they did. For this reason, I do not think cheerleading, marching band, olympic diving, or anything judged is a sport. I am not saying it isn't hard, or that it doesn't take practice and what not, I am just simply saying that according to definition, they are not sports. They contain every other criteria needed to be a sport, but they lack the ability for the player, team members, to be in full control of the point system based on their actions.

Anyway hope that clarifys by definition.

Poker takes LOADS of endurance. It may not take much athletic ability but I doubt the average person could play for 36 hours straight, at a high level, like the top pros

No doubt it takes a load of mental endurance, but according to definition, poker is not a sport. A sport requires Physical Prowess. Poker has nothing physical to it. Poker is a game a mental game. Again I am not saying it is not difficult, I sure as hell couldn't sit down with the pros, but all in all, it doesn't fit the criteria to be called a sport.

-Evo

[An1m]

Dude have you ever tried to push all in with 3 million dollars worth of chips?!? Takes a very strong raising hand =D

On a serious note I wholeheartedly agree. But soccer... c'mon! I think the criteria of "worth watching" should be added to sport. Otherwise all sorts of ridiculous athletic pursuits creep in. Figure skating, soccer, golf you see where I'm going with this? American Football is the only sport. /thread.

Still kidding... but not really. I actually do watch soccer and golf occasionally.

[cotsi95]

"The difference between racing and other sports......racing requires two balls"

OH SO TRUE!

[tinyj316]

While I don't necessarily agree with the definition of "what is sport", I decided I would do some browsing around for as complete a list of sports as I could find. I know its on wikipedia, and anyone can edit it, but to some, editing wikipedia is a sport (I don't think that, but I'm sure some basement dweller does.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports

I would venture to say this is a pretty concise definition of "what is sport":

Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play

And for those saying that cheerleading can't be called a sport because the judges have too much leeway in scoring, or the individual competitors don't have a way to get a higher score, here are some sample scoring rubrics from a cheerleading competition: http://www.championscupseries.com/cheer/ch_crit.html

[judgeposer]

I like a definition of sport that limits consideration around having a competitive atmosphere where players have to earn points, while opposing players have the opportunity to defend themselves against those points, all within predetermined rules. It pits competitors against one another in a most direct way, making the players respective talents, mostly athletic ones, much more obvious. I see no harm in creating distinctions between sports, competitions, and games. Some competitions and games for instance can be sports, but not all. Again, I see this attempt to define sports as an exercise of creating distinctions. And again, to limit the definition of "sport" doesn't diminish the difficulty or skill required of other athletic events, it merely separates them based on certain characteristics. As with anything expansively defined, the word loses its explanatory power. So, when we say something is a "sport," does it allow us to know any better what that activity is, if we don't distinguish through as narrow a definition as possible, that "sport" from other activities? I don't have an inclination to consider anything simply competitive (like competitive cheerleading) as a sport because that would bring into the word's ambit other things that have a host of distinguishing characteristics. Edited March 8, 2009 by judgeposer

[judgeposer]

I like a definition of sport that limits consideration around having a competitive atmosphere where players have to earn points, while opposing players have the opportunity to defend themselves against those points, all within predetermined rules. It pits competitors against one another in a most direct way, making the players respective talents, mostly athletic ones, much more obvious. I see no harm in creating distinctions between sports, competitions, and games. Some competitions and games for instance can be sports, but not all. Again, I see this attempt to define sports as an exercise of creating distinctions. And again, to limit the definition of "sport" doesn't diminish the difficulty or skill required of other athletic events, it merely separates them based on certain characteristics. As with anything expansively defined, the word loses its explanatory power. So, when we say something is a "sport," does it allow us to know any better what that activity is, if we don't distinguish through as narrow a definition as possible, that "sport" from other activities? I don't have an inclination to consider anything simply competitive (like competitive cheerleading) as a sport because that would bring into the word's ambit other things that have a host of distinguishing characteristics.

Edit: Also, in appealing to existing definitions of "sports," does, to some extent, miss the point. If the definition were, in fact, settled, we'd have nothing to discuss. A three page thread on the word serves as evidence that that's not the case. Definitions from dictionaries can depend on several theories of language usage, namely two: descriptive use (when a dictionary defines words as commonly used in society) and prescriptive use (when a dictionary attempts to create a normative definition, or how the word -should- be used). Merriam Webster mostly attempts the first type, whereas American Heritage mostly attempts the latter. Also, encyclopedias, including Wikis, attempt to chronicle both. None really leaves a true inquirer satisfied because each presents but one approach. Drawing from those references though does often provide a helpful starting point; so I'm not saying we shouldn't consult such references. I'm just saying that we can and do, but in an effort to refine them in their accuracy.

[joytron]

Okay imma break it down

Sports: football, soccer, swimming, track and field etc.
Art: Diving, gymnastics, surfing
Motorsports: Gokarts, NASCAR, motocross

[Dr. B]

Lists don't help Joy, you gotta say why. Even if you don't think you know, starting to write it down and thinking twice about it might get you to define it, at least for yourself. Before you know it, you might have added something to the conversation.

I looked at that cheerleading rubric. Some of the criteria are ridiculous: Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Dress Code, Abuse of warm-up time, Vulgar language and gestures... These can actually take points away. Let's compare this to football again. Did the Dallas Cowboys lose the touchdown points when T.O. signed the ball, grabbed that popcorn, or acted like the ball was a camera used to film the play (that was awesome BTW). No, they got fined. They were penalized as a franchise, not as competitors in a game. Despite what the opinions of the officials were, the points stayed on the board - unlike in cheerleading. Edited March 9, 2009 by Dr. B

[tinyj316]

Lists don't help Joy, you gotta say why. Even if you don't think you know, starting to write it down and thinking twice about it might get you to define it, at least for yourself. Before you know it, you might have added something to the conversation.

I looked at that cheerleading rubric. Some of the criteria are ridiculous: Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Dress Code, Abuse of warm-up time, Vulgar language and gestures... These can actually take points away. Let's compare this to football again. Did the Dallas Cowboys lose the touchdown points when T.O. signed the ball, grabbed that popcorn, or acted like the ball was a camera used to film the play (that was awesome BTW). No, they got fined. They were penalized as a franchise, not as competitors in a game. Despite what the opinions of the officials were, the points stayed on the board - unlike in cheerleading.

Actually, I do believe that TO has received many unsportsmanlike conduct penalties as a result of his actions, some of which have cost his teams points (perhaps not directly, but penalized yardage which led to an easy scoring drive). Also, in the pro's, if you're out of uniform, you can get penalized (in basketball that = free throws = points (unless its shaq shooting))

[Will_Evo]

Lists don't help Joy, you gotta say why. Even if you don't think you know, starting to write it down and thinking twice about it might get you to define it, at least for yourself. Before you know it, you might have added something to the conversation.

I looked at that cheerleading rubric. Some of the criteria are ridiculous: Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Dress Code, Abuse of warm-up time, Vulgar language and gestures... These can actually take points away. Let's compare this to football again. Did the Dallas Cowboys lose the touchdown points when T.O. signed the ball, grabbed that popcorn, or acted like the ball was a camera used to film the play (that was awesome BTW). No, they got fined. They were penalized as a franchise, not as competitors in a game. Despite what the opinions of the officials were, the points stayed on the board - unlike in cheerleading.

Actually, I do believe that TO has received many unsportsmanlike conduct penalties as a result of his actions, some of which have cost his teams points (perhaps not directly, but penalized yardage which led to an easy scoring drive). Also, in the pro's, if you're out of uniform, you can get penalized (in basketball that = free throws = points (unless its shaq shooting))

In either case, none of that matters. In a Judged competition, the person/team's performance is 100% relative. They are not directly in control of the point system. Nothing they do can GUARANTEE a point. They cannot throw a person into the air 15 ft and the cheerleader grabs a hanging ring worth 5 points. How well they do the activity is completely up to the judges.

A ref in football, like I said before, is simply there to keep the game moving. Could you imagine how long a game football would be if each play it was up to the players to call the penalties? In football the ref is an enforcer of rules, he doesn't hike the ball, throw it and catch it for points. In cheer leading...the judges might as well.

And as far as a definition, whoever said there are many versions is right...I could bring in a new definition everyday, but to counter someone could come in and say but I found this one over here. I personally like the one I found because it actually has a plain, out right, criteria for what is a sport and what isn't. I think we have made some ground though, whoever said there are 3 categories: Sports, Competitions, and Games..was spot on. Sports-Of course fit the criteria aka Soccer, Football, Baseball etc. Competitions- Olympic Diving, Cheer Leading, Marching Band etc... Games-Video games, Chess, Cards, etc...

There is no shame in not calling it a sport, we all know it isn't easy, we all know we could not step in and take your place, but what we do know is that there are differences. Anyways, still going off my last post and definition, that is how I see it. Everything else is relative, unless it fist the criteria, it is not a sport.

-Evo

[Dylank0010]

Okay imma break it down

Sports: football, soccer, swimming, track and field etc.
Art: Diving, gymnastics, surfing
Motorsports: Gokarts, NASCAR, motocross

I read for sooo long hoping someone would use the "motorsport" term. Different kind of physical prowess but basically all the other rules apply. For anyone who doesn't think any kind of racing is a sport, watch the Top Gear episode where Richard Hammond tries to do a lap in a Formula 1 car. Stalls it like 20 times before figuring out how to even launch correctly. This is a man on a car show. who drives cars for a living. on a car show.

As for the time/distance based "sports" or w/e we're classifying them as, I think the time and/or distance (e.g. long jump, high jump, etc) are essentially the point accumulation system and they also double as being what they truly are. Like sprinting. time is time as well as points if that makes any sense. feel like there's more i should say but for now that's my .02.