What is a sport?

thebigcb

Hurling

The game of Legends

thebigcb

Simple way to tell if a sport is a sport

Do you need special footwear to do it

If yes its a sport, if no, sorry it just aint

scottaworley

Simple way to tell if a sport is a sport

Do you need special footwear to do it

If yes its a sport, if no, sorry it just aint

Some people need special footwear for life.
Is their life a sport?

Zomoniac

Is curling a sport? That one confuses me. It's objective, but stupid.

I'm pretty sure an additional criteria for sporthood should be "not stupid".

The Americans are going to have to come up with some new stuff to play then if they want anything to call a sport

rjmudlax13

Everything is a sport...

...except baseball.

Zomoniac

If it's a ball game and from the start to the end of the game the ball is not in play for at least a third of that duration, it's not a sport, it's a lot of standing around and every now and then doing something for a few seconds, and generally a waste of everyone's time. So yeah, baseball, cricket, American football and softball aren't sports.

And the likes of snooker and darts are games, not sports.

soldier4242

I do think that you should not be using four periods in an ellipsis. You should also only use an ellipsis to indicate an omission. Since you are not quoting nobody has any way of knowing what you are omitting. So I guess you are just trying to tell us that you had more to say but chose not to. Or it could be you just don't know what an ellipsis is.

Using an ellipsis as an aposiopesis is a perfectly valid application. It still shouldn't have four points though.

Dangit. Beat me to the punch. Sorry for using four periods.... I kind of just put my finger on the period key......

I suppose that is an appropriate application but if it is an aposiopesis it wouldn't be a simple omission. As I understand it that would mean you were either unwilling or unable to proceed. I have been out of college for years so it might have a more broad definition than that.

BeachIron

If it's a ball game and from the start to the end of the game the ball is not in play for at least a third of that duration, it's not a sport, it's a lot of standing around and every now and then doing something for a few seconds, and generally a waste of everyone's time. So yeah, baseball, cricket, American football and softball aren't sports.

And the likes of snooker and darts are games, not sports.

I would argue that American football is the epitome of sport. Well, that and boxing and MMA.

At least there's far less cuddling then one sees in rugby.

Zomoniac

If it's a ball game and from the start to the end of the game the ball is not in play for at least a third of that duration, it's not a sport, it's a lot of standing around and every now and then doing something for a few seconds, and generally a waste of everyone's time. So yeah, baseball, cricket, American football and softball aren't sports.

And the likes of snooker and darts are games, not sports.

I would argue that American football is the epitome of sport. Well, that and boxing and MMA.

At least there's far less cuddling then one sees in rugby.

WSJ did a study and found the ball was actually in play during an American football match for about 11 minutes. How can anything that can last up to three hours from the start of a game to the end of a game where the game is only actually being played for 11 minutes be classed as the epitome of sport? It's about as valid a claim as saying that running to the end of your street, standing there for an hour and running back home makes you a distance runner. A rugby game has a clock time of 80 minutes. At the last world cup the ball was in play for 47 minutes in each match. And I don't care for rugby, I never watch it, but it has a lot more claim to being a 'sport'.

BrettWithPKU

Hurling

The game of Legends

Hurling is the epitome of sport.

If you're not from Ireland, or if you're not part of it's cult following worldwide (I play it in the States), Google it.

ninerbuff

I've had this debate many times and one of my friends and I came up with what I think is a pretty good definition. Something is a sport if and only if the action is decided by the players/officials on the field (i.e. football, basketball, volleyball, tennis, track and field, weight lifting, golf, etc). If the outcome is decided by a judge (diving, cheerleading, gymnastics, etc), then it is an athletic competition but NOT a sport.

Let me fight off all the indignation from the get go. I absolutely recognize that cheerleaders and gymnasts and divers are athletes. They have talent, they have ability and they work hard at their craft. I am not, in any way, attempting to minimize their efforts or accomplishments. But their chosen event does not, in my opinion, qualify as a sport because the outcome is beyond their ultimate control.

Thoughts?

I pretty much agree here. There are "sports" out there considered sports with NO ATHLETIC ability whatsoever. Good examples are: Curling, bowling, golf, bodybuilding, and dare I say it, NASCAR. These are competitive events with "gifted" skilled people, but not necessarily athletic in their endeavor.
As mentioned, I think that gymnasts, cheerleaders, and even ballroom dancers, have much better athletic abilities than those I've mentioned above.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Laces_0ut

If it's a ball game and from the start to the end of the game the ball is not in play for at least a third of that duration, it's not a sport, it's a lot of standing around and every now and then doing something for a few seconds, and generally a waste of everyone's time. So yeah, baseball, cricket, American football and softball aren't sports.

And the likes of snooker and darts are games, not sports.

I would argue that American football is the epitome of sport. Well, that and boxing and MMA.

At least there's far less cuddling then one sees in rugby.

WSJ did a study and found the ball was actually in play during an American football match for about 11 minutes. How can anything that can last up to three hours from the start of a game to the end of a game where the game is only actually being played for 11 minutes be classed as the epitome of sport? It's about as valid a claim as saying that running to the end of your street, standing there for an hour and running back home makes you a distance runner. A rugby game has a clock time of 80 minutes. At the last world cup the ball was in play for 47 minutes in each match. And I don't care for rugby, I never watch it, but it has a lot more claim to being a 'sport'.

they can run around more because they aren't getting hit as hard. padding allows players to launch themselves at a much higher velocity and hit their opponent with more force. think of punching someone. how many times can you punch someone without a glove? not many...you will break your hand. now how many times can you punch someone with a glove? you can punch until your arms get tired.

with the injuries in the NFL today some people want to decrease the pads and eliminate the helmet so that they wont hit each other as hard.

ninerbuff

Pretty sure track & field as well as weight lifting use "judging" as well. As a matter of fact all officiating is essentially "judging" if you want to get right down to it. An official can absolutely have an effect on the outcome of a game based on their good or bad judgement call on a play, move, etc.....

That's why I said players/officials on the field. Track & field is based on times or distance. That's not subjective. Weight lifting is based on weight. Also not subjective.

Boxing is an interesting example because yes, it is a sport, but can come down to a judge's decision. Hmmmmm.......

Unless there's a KO. Boxing/MMA or any "fighting" venue is usually subjective to even the crowds on who won unless there's a KO.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Zomoniac

I pretty much agree here. There are "sports" out there considered sports with NO ATHLETIC ability whatsoever. Good examples are: Curling, bowling, golf, bodybuilding, and dare I say it, NASCAR. These are competitive events with "gifted" skilled people, but not necessarily athletic in their endeavor.
As mentioned, I think that gymnasts, cheerleaders, and even ballroom dancers, have much better athletic abilities than those I've mentioned above.

I can't speak for NASCAR (I'm guessing it's far less important, what with nowhere near the downforce levels or braking speeds), but F1 drivers routinely get hit with G-forces of 5+ and whilst it might not seem like an athletically demanding 'sport', they have to be in phenomenally good shape and very athletic to be able to do it. I know many of them are triathletes to maintain the fitness required.

ninerbuff

If it's a ball game and from the start to the end of the game the ball is not in play for at least a third of that duration, it's not a sport, it's a lot of standing around and every now and then doing something for a few seconds, and generally a waste of everyone's time. So yeah, baseball, cricket, American football and softball aren't sports.

And the likes of snooker and darts are games, not sports.

Blasphemy on American football NOT being a sport. The athletes on there are usually much faster, quicker, agile than counter parts of the same size and weight and ability. I hear all the time that "but they take 40 second breaks between plays". Do me a favor..........carry or push your own weight for about 15 seconds, then tell me 40 seconds is too long to recover.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

ninerbuff

I pretty much agree here. There are "sports" out there considered sports with NO ATHLETIC ability whatsoever. Good examples are: Curling, bowling, golf, bodybuilding, and dare I say it, NASCAR. These are competitive events with "gifted" skilled people, but not necessarily athletic in their endeavor.
As mentioned, I think that gymnasts, cheerleaders, and even ballroom dancers, have much better athletic abilities than those I've mentioned above.

I can't speak for NASCAR (I'm guessing it's far less important, what with nowhere near the downforce levels or braking speeds), but F1 drivers routinely get hit with G-forces of 5+ and whilst it might not seem like an athletically demanding 'sport', they have to be in phenomenally good shape and very athletic to be able to do it. I know many of them are triathletes to maintain the fitness required.

One could go on extreme roller coasters (there are some up to 6 G's) all day. There are some who have successfully attempted it, but I would by no means put them in an athletic category.
Anybody doing ANYTHING in life will probably do it better if they are in shape physically.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Laces_0ut

One could go on extreme roller coasters (there are some up to 6 G's) all day. There are some who have successfully attempted it, but I would by no means put them in an athletic category.
Anybody doing ANYTHING in life will probably do it better if they are in shape physically.

that comment shows you know nothing about racing. for your comment to be valid F1 racers would have to sit in their cars and not participate in piloting it at all. what they actually do is fight against those G forces with steering and breaking.

at least you are correct about football.

Zomoniac

If it's a ball game and from the start to the end of the game the ball is not in play for at least a third of that duration, it's not a sport, it's a lot of standing around and every now and then doing something for a few seconds, and generally a waste of everyone's time. So yeah, baseball, cricket, American football and softball aren't sports.

And the likes of snooker and darts are games, not sports.

I would argue that American football is the epitome of sport. Well, that and boxing and MMA.

At least there's far less cuddling then one sees in rugby.

WSJ did a study and found the ball was actually in play during an American football match for about 11 minutes. How can anything that can last up to three hours from the start of a game to the end of a game where the game is only actually being played for 11 minutes be classed as the epitome of sport? It's about as valid a claim as saying that running to the end of your street, standing there for an hour and running back home makes you a distance runner. A rugby game has a clock time of 80 minutes. At the last world cup the ball was in play for 47 minutes in each match. And I don't care for rugby, I never watch it, but it has a lot more claim to being a 'sport'.

they can run around more because they aren't getting hit as hard. padding allows players to launch themselves at a much higher velocity and hit their opponent with more force. think of punching someone. how many times can you punch someone without a glove? not many...you will break your hand. now how many times can you punch someone with a glove? you can punch until your arms get tired.

with the injuries in the NFL today some people want to decrease the pads and eliminate the helmet so that they wont hit each other as hard.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that very little actual game happens. If association football was changed to allow players to wear helmets and kick each other in the face, and consequently the games went from being 10 minutes in play instead of 60, it wouldn't make the participants better athletes, and it would make the sport tediously dull. If there is more advert time than ball-in-play time then it stops being a spectator sport and becomes a marketing vehicle.

scottaworley

If it's a ball game and from the start to the end of the game the ball is not in play for at least a third of that duration, it's not a sport, it's a lot of standing around and every now and then doing something for a few seconds, and generally a waste of everyone's time. So yeah, baseball, cricket, American football and softball aren't sports.

And the likes of snooker and darts are games, not sports.

Each of the sports you mentioned (even softball) are more interesting than soccer.
Yawn.

Laces_0ut

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that very little actual game happens. If association football was changed to allow players to wear helmets and kick each other in the face, and consequently the games went from being 10 minutes in play instead of 60, it wouldn't make the participants better athletes, and it would make the sport tediously dull. If there is more advert time than ball-in-play time then it stops being a spectator sport and becomes a marketing vehicle.

they are completely different sports. what about cricket and baseball? are they sports? lots of down time there too.

and for soccer you have players that when the ball is in play have very little to do with the action. of course they may be moving a little for position.

in football when the ball is in play ever single player is very important. so i wonder if we took time that the ball is in play and couple it with how engaged each player is i wonder if football would come out ahead? not that it matters though really. both sports are great.