What is a "sport?"

[termyt]

"Sport" is a word thrown around a lot lately. I've had this discussion many times and I thought I'd bring to you all.

I believe "sport," as it relates to athletic endeavors means something, but it is used as a catch all for any athletic competition, and even some leisure events. In reality, there are three different classifications for your favorite exercise activities.

The most basic and broad is “Leisure Activity.â€

[agasfas]

Sport... well Dictionary.com defines it as:

1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
2. A particular form of this activity.
3. An active pastime; recreation.

So i guess it can be either physical or not; guess the only requirement is that it's governed by a set of rules. But I would argue it needs to be phsycial, anything that isn't physical I think should be a hobby or a pass time. But hey that's just me...
I wouldn't call poker, the game "magic", or video games a sport; though there are many who do.

Though individual sports are cool; I loved being on the Wrestling team in High school.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

well, chess is considered a sport *loves chess*

[termyt]

Chess is not a sport. It is a game.

And you can trust everyting you read agasfas.

Wrestling is not a sport either. There's no ball. Don't get me wrong - it's an awesome athletic event and I have great respect for the athletes who make it look easy, but I just can't consider it a sport.

(Please don't take offense - I am speaking with tongue firmly in cheek. This is an ongoing discussion with some friends of mine, I thought I'd share and get some new perspectives.)

[agasfas]

First, I don't believe everything I read, but how can you say something isn't a sport for the simple fact there is no ball?
I mean a sport is "an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively."
No where I have learned, read or heard does it say it requires a ball or isn't a "team sport"

[quote]A sport has four requirements. You must be a part of a team, there must be a “ball,â€

[Kura Ookami]

According to your requirements for a sport Tennis isn't a sport even though it is played competitively, there is an active defence and there is a ball involved. Same could be said for badminton. Same reasons. No teams and badminton has no ball either. Tennis and badminton are sports in my opinion.Just individual sports. For me a sport must have a set of rules and a scoring system and also be a physical activity. So I agree with Agasfas. There doesn't need to be a ball nor does there need to be a team.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

No... Chess IS a sport. I mean, It is officially classified as a sport

[Kisa]

I think a sport is anything that involves physical activity and some kind of gameplay or rules or timing, ect....
Here is webster online's definition:
a source of diversion : RECREATION : physical activity engaged in for pleasure : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in...

[termyt]

I love the emotion this topic brings out in people. I'm just having fun, so hopefully no one is taking this too seriously.

The dictionary is no help when you tunnel this far down into a word’s meaning. Dictionaries are meant to encompass all of the common uses for a word in a language. These uses may, in time, grow to include uses that are not technically correct for the word in its purest form. Part of my initial lament was the watering down of this term “sport.â€

[Mangafanatic]

Any physical activity that I can't do. (Unlike a certain athletically gifted m-twin of mine!)

[Nate]

Heh...

A friend of mine once said, "If it's on ESPN, it's a sport."

So...that makes poker a sport. XP

I agree with you on gymnastics though...if it's opinion, it's not a solid point system and therefore it cannot be a sport. Sports don't hinge on opinion.

[agasfas]

The points in skating and gymnastics are assigned by judges, not earned by scoring a goal or getting the "ball" through the other team's defense, therefore they are not quantitative and don't count. Not a sport.

Chess is not a sport. There is credible defense and you can count the pieces as balls, but there is no team - it's not even athletic.

Think I may re-track my gymnast statement. You may have a point.
Actually, thinking about it I'm starting to agree about some things. Gymnastics winnings are based on judges opinions and chess is not physical. So, I will agree with you on those two points.

Though, I still see individual sports as sports. I don't think a sport should require a ball or a team. Though I will agree that a sport should have a defense (individual or team).

[termyt]

Ah, but the presence of a ball is important. Without the ball, how do you determine scoring? If there is a reasonable way to quantitatively score with out one, perhaps I will change my opinion.

Teams are important as well. I believe sports mirror life and the most important lesson we can learn in both is that we can't do it alone - we need the support of friends, family - teammates.

(Out of context) I'm glad you're coming around, agasfas. Not because you are beginning to agree with me, but because you are displaying an important skill - critical thinking, not to mention open mindedness. Ultimately, this discussion is not all that important in the grand scope of things, but the desire to understand the point of view of the people you are speaking with and the willingness to adjust your own way of thinking are wonderful skills to have. I was fortunate enough to learn these skills early in life and they serve me well today. And exercising these skills is important in the grand scope of things.

[VioletEyedCat]

Unfortunately, this thread strikes the spark of memory in me. My high school has had many debates on what officially counts as a sport. Namely, cheerleading. The cheerleaders all said it was a sport, but everybody else disagreed- along with me. Anyway, this question led me to researching a creating a suitable definition of the word 'sport'. I am also on the yearbook staff, so what counts as a sport and what counts as a club is a big issue when creating a ladder of pages.

The big point where you and I differ, termyt, is in the use of balls. I do not think they are necessary when playing a sport. Maybe I am biased, having believed that the thousands of hours I've spent swimming were for a sport, along with the hundreds of hours running and throwing discus and shotput. My definition of a sport is a bit different. After much deliberation, my definition of a sport is an activity whose main goal is to show physical prowess; and has a definite outcome (i.e.- not decided by judges) That means that cheerleading, dancing of any kind, diving, syncronized swimming, ice skating, gymnastics, etc.. are all out. Judged events, I personally think, would be better off with things like painting competitions or cooking competions- a good thing to call them would be arts. Billiards and chess- where physical prowess is not emphasized- is out. But wrestling, track and field, baseball, basketball, football, swimming, tennis, lacrosse, cycling- are all in. Whether or not there is a ball involved does not matter at all in my opinion.

One thing I dislike, that I think confuses the definition of sport- is the Olympics. They include a whole slew of activities that are not sports- and everyone assumes that because they are in the Olympics, they are sports. Sigh...


Sorry- saw termyts last comment and need to edit. It is easy to score without the quantitative use of balls. The fastest time is a very accurate way to determine the winner, probably more accurate than a simple point system, since technology can now differentiate hundredths of seconds, etc. I once won a race by .02 seconds. And about the teams issue- supposedly 'individual' sports like track and swimming are very team oriented. Just because the actual race does not involve the whole team does not mean the team is not truly involved in how the race comes out (training, moral support, before, during and after the race). The whole baseball team doesn't hit the ball, does it? Even if some races are individual, there are relays- the most popular events anyway. I'm hoping you'll change your mind.

[termyt]

There's no credible defense in swimming, either. You are not so much competing against others as you are competing against a clock. I'm not trying to diminish anything by excluding it from "sport." On the contrary, I believe the athletes who participate in individual athletic events are often greater than those who participate in sports.

Gymnasts, swimmers, and wrestlers are among the best athletes in the world where as offensive linemen in football are definitely not. The achievements made by individuals in these events can not be minimized and athletics are very worth-while.

However, that does not mean they get to call themselves sports out of desire or sentiment. Just like studying and understanding Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't make you a genius.


For the record, I enjoy swimming more than any sport.

I am curious though, you have me thinking. It seems important for you to change my mind about swimming in particular. I take you are/were a competitive swimmer. Please don’t take offense, but you will need to better explain why my requirement for a credible defense is not valid.

[VioletEyedCat]

I'm very glad you enjoy swimming- the lowest impact exercise on record! And yes, I am a swimmer (competitive, I mean). I've been swimming since I was six, so I definitely know that I'm biased, but I've done some thinking, and here's what I got:

Your definition for the requirements of a sport include the use of a ball, the presence of teams, the presence of credible defense, and a quantitative outcome. I have given my opinion on the first two rules; also on the last. This post will argue the third point. Why does a sport require that you compete against other people? If sport truly do mirror life- as you suggested- then swimming would have to be a sport, for are not almost all the battles one experiences in a lifetime internal battles? To compete against one self in an attempt to improve mirrors life exactly! Do we not compete against our fleshly self to become more like Christ? Personally, I believe the noblest sports are the ones where the athlete must compete against his own weakness.
Most of us can agree that the idea of a sport came into being during the ancient Olympic games. What concerns me is that you are arguing that almost all the competitions the first Olympics had were not Sports at all- races, hammerthrow, wrestling. As much as I dislike the present Olympics definition of sport, the original idea of a sport was created at the Olympics- and we cannot ignore their definition of the word. And their definition included events in which one did not compete so much against other people as they did against themselves.

Wow, that was long. Please review and tell me what you think! I'm really enjoying this.

[termyt]

I'm glad you are enjoying this as much as I am, and I have to say that that is a very compelling argument. Using my own analogy against me is very clever. However, I used it as an example of why we need teams in life. We can’t go it alone. Even internal struggles are best met with the help of friends and family. Not many people, for instance, tackle alcoholism successfully on their own and without the support of people who care for them. You could, with reason, say swimming is a team sport in the same way with your friends encouraging you on (although it isn’t the same), however, we are talking about the need for a credible defense here. Even if I were to concede the swimming qualified or gave it a pass on the other grounds, this is still a sticking point for me.

The struggle against an opponent is key to sport, if it is to mirror life. In life, we are constantly pushing against, and being pushed back by opposing forces. How we do in this struggle defines what kind of people we become, just as struggling against a defense defines how good your team’s offense is. In swimming, you are racing against the clock. Your friend’s encouragement may get you to train and may help prepare you mentally, but if you don’t have the goods in the pool, you don’t win and no amount of that kind of teamwork will solve that problem for you. Another important distinction – say you are twice as good as any other swimmer in the meet. What are the chances, barring injury or disqualification, that you loose the meet? In team sports, though, you alone can not compel your team to victory. If you are the only one out there, you will loose. That’s what I consider a team – total dependence on your teammates for the opportunity to win.

Most Olympic games do not count as sports. You are right that that is my conclusion. They are games, athletic competitions. I believe they are called the Olympic Games for a reason.

[VioletEyedCat]

Yes, I do concede the point concerning how much a team is involved in one's individual race. It is up to the swimmer to determine whether or not they win or lose their race. Your definition of team is a valid one-teams truly must all depend on one another or they won't win. The only situation in which races could truly be called team sports is relays.

But I still believe that there is an opponent in swimming. I guess it must be hard to understand outside of the realm of racing- but I'll try to make it clear. The clock is not my opponent. My opponent is myself. I fight against the weakness overtaking my muscles- I fight against my body, screaming at me to slow down and relax a bit. All these things are my opponents. The defense is that of our mind's will against our body's needs. We are most often our own opponent.

I can hear you now- "You must be part of a team!!" I truly do not believe that a team as you define it is necessary in a sport. To beat a dead horse- in life, there are battles that we must fight alone, decisions we must make alone. Perhaps we can compromise- swimming is not a team sport. But it is an individual sport. I believe that a distinction can and should be made between the two- one involves dependance on your teammates to win the game, the other involves having teammates as a source of support.

I'm not sure if many know this either- but this is an interesting thing about swimming. In high school, collegiate, and even Olympic (egads!) swimming, they also have scoring with points. The higher you place, the more points you get. The team with the most points wins. No individual swimmer can win a meet. Each teammate must totally depend on the other's results for them to receive the opportunity to win. (I'm so sad; I can't come up with my own sentences- I must steal yours ) No idea what that has to do with anything, but I thought that it better explained the team dynamics of swimming.

To put my opinions in a more suitable form:A ball is not required for a sport; the final outcome must be determined by a multiple number of people's efforts; opponents are necessary; and a quantitative measuring system must be used.

[LorentzForce]

I believe I define my understanding as following.

There are three types of activities. Leisure, game, and sport.

Leisure is something you do to enjoy yourself, recreational, and purely alone. It has no competition, and it has no rules to how to do it. Reading a book, rock climbing, watching anime, etc.

Game is something you do to enjoy with others, within a set of rules, with a definite objective. It is however, not a competition, there is no win or lose. All that's determined for is who performed/did better. Golf, swimming, gymnastics go here.

Sport is all of above; you do it to enjoy with others, within a set of rules, with a definite objective, and in competition. Competition means scoring; scoring does not have to include a goal, but a set of rules that defines scoring. Soccer matches and playing certain computer activities includes this.

Fact of life is, every activity is different to each other at least slightly. Classifying all recreational activities into following three would be like classifying different people into three categories, which is impossible. What I mean is that they usually overlap; some games like golf can be both a game or a sport, depending on whether it's for personal fun/training or competition.

So, in the end, I think it's futile to classify what each activity is, or isn't. They're all unique, and that's the way I think it should be accepted as.

[termyt]

I'm not sure if many know this either- but this is an interesting thing about swimming. In high school, collegiate, and even Olympic (egads!) swimming, they also have scoring with points. The higher you place, the more points you get. The team with the most points wins.

You can turn anything into a team activity that way. That’s just one way to confuse people into believing that it’s a sport. A bunch of individual activity’s results added together don’t make for a team effort for the purposes of my sport requirements.

You also can not be a credible defense to yourself. I fight against my own mind and body daily, but no one is claiming getting out of bed in the morning is a sport. Certainly, competitive swimming is a lot more demanding than that, but I never placed a “physically demandingâ€

[VioletEyedCat]

[quote="LorentzForce"]Fact of life is, every activity is different to each other at least slightly. Classifying all recreational activities into following three would be like classifying different people into three categories, which is impossible. What I mean is that they usually overlap]
I never thought of that! But if you think about it, it's true- most activities can be one or the other depending on how they're done. I suppose it is a little futile to set down a specific set of standards by which all activities can be measured- but sad sad obsessive compulsive me must have guidelines for everything .


Termyt-
Under those definitions, I can see how you do not believe swimming to be a sport. I suppose the thing I'm wondering specifically about is why does a sport need credible defense? I tried to give swimming a credible defense, but your bed metaphor showed me how my defintion of credible defense was too broad. The redefinition of the word 'ball' into an instrument to regulate quantitative scoring made a lot of sense to me- quantitative scoring was the important factor in the rule, not the exact tool that regulated it. But, what is the purpose of a credible defense- how does it make an activity any more of a sport?
My previous posts probably mentioned that my idea, my definition of a sport was an activity in which a demonstration of the greatest physical prowess was the main object of the activity- given that the activity has a quantitative system of measurement. Is there any activity that could not possibly be considered a sport under those terms? It disqualifies judged events while allowing individual events- a more accurate definition in my thinking.
If you can come up with any activity that I would not consider a sport that falls under those rules- great! More reason for me to consider following your standards for a sport. But if not, then we may just have to agree to disagree- for I do not believe in the necessity of a team or credible defense, under your defintions, to make an activity any more of a sport. If you could explain why they are so necessary, maybe I would understand better.

[vash10429]

what about hunting because some people say that they hunt for sport i just was wondrin what you guys think about hunting! is it wrong! i certainly do not know consider it sporting

[VioletEyedCat]

Hmmm... Interesting. I've never thought of hunting as a sport before. But it is very similar to marksmanship, so I guess if you consider that a sport, hunting would be one too. Personally, I don't really think so- the outcome is not definite enough in its simplest form to constitute a quantitative outcome- one of my rules for sports.

[termyt]

Hunting is not a sport. In addition to the problems of quantifying results, game animals do not constitute a credible defense. At best, they would represent the ball in hunting. Hunting "for sport" utilizes a different version of the word "sport."

To me, a credible defense is the most important aspect of a sport. It is the single greatest influence that transforms athletic competition into a real sport. You must overcome the direct, planned interference of other players in order to succeed. You know what you need to do to win and your opponents know what they need to do to stop you. In this way, sport mirrors life’s greatest struggles – the quest for dominance, the perseverance of your ideals against the invasion of other forces, only here, unlike in real life, no one dies. But, without the direct opposition of the other team, the sport looses a very import part of its dynamic.

my definition of a sport was an activity in which a demonstration of the greatest physical prowess was the main object of the activity

This is the very definition of an athletic competition. The greatest athlete of the day wins the competition. In sports, the presence of a team changes this. The greatest athlete may not win if his team is inferior. There is greater depth to the competition when the dynamics of a team are introduced. In swimming, a whole team of slow swimmers cannot band together to beat a fast swimmer, but in a sport, a team of inferior players can do just that – overcome their individual limitations be covering each other’s flaws and beat a team made up of superior individuals.

I would also point out that I do not necessarily consider athletic competitions to be less than a sport; they simply should have different classifications.

[VioletEyedCat]

Ahhh- now I see. You differentiate between an athletic competition and a sport. For some reason I never noticed that before. I do see the differences between the two- it is true how a team of people who are athletically inferior actually may win because of their teamwork. Something that individuals definitely can't do. Cool! I withdraw my argument- swimming, track and field, and any other 'individual' sport can be classified as an athletic event. Separate but equal.


I still maintain a division between quantitative activities and judged ones, though. Judged activites, to me, are arts- cheerleading, diving, ice skating, etc...

[termyt]

Separate but equal. I like that.

I would have placed all such events, whether swimming or gymnastics in the same athletic competition category, but you make a very good point. There is something to be said for a quantitative outcome. That's an import part of competition to me as well. So I will go with the idea that they are arts as well.

[olorc]

Eating is a sport if you really skarf it right!?!

[termyt]

Speed eating has definitely become an international phenomenon, but I don't know...

[Stephen]

Hunting is not a sport. In addition to the problems of quantifying results, game animals do not constitute a credible defense. At best, they would represent the ball in hunting. Hunting "for sport" utilizes a different version of the word "sport."

Spoken like most people with little knowlege of hunting. Hunting has been a sport for years, whether or not it makes people all whiney about the animals dieing...is irrelevent. A prime example of good sport hunting is Partrige hunting. Now, granted its not a team sport...but its a sport none the less. Hence why hunters are called sportsman.

[Nate]

Spoken like most people with little knowlege of hunting. Hunting has been a sport for years, whether or not it makes people all whiney about the animals dieing...is irrelevent. A prime example of good sport hunting is Partrige hunting. Now, granted its not a team sport...but its a sport none the less. Hence why hunters are called sportsman.

Well, I don't think he was saying it wasn't a sport because it was cruel, he was saying it wasn't a sport because it doesn't fit the definitions.

There isn't a credible defense in hunting...unless you had a second guy running in front of the animal to "block" the other hunter's bullet...then it would have a credible defense, but then it really WOULD be cruel and inhumane.

Also, there's no quantitative scoring...well, I guess whoever shoots the animal that weighs the most would get the most points, but I don't know...I know they rank deer by the number of "points," but not all hunting involves deer.

But it doesn't fit the "credible defense" requirement, so by the established definitions, it isn't a sport.