When is a sport not a sport?
-
thrakazog wrote:
For my money sports have defense.
Football, Soccer, Basketball, etc.
Without defense you just have yourself an activity.You've obviously never been at a racetrack? ;) In racing you have to have defense as well, it's not just about driving a quick lap or knowing how to pass another car. You have to equally good at driving defensively to make it as hard as possible for someone else to overtake you.
-
Motor racing is no less of a sport than person racing, racing with bikes or racing with horses.
-
When it's a bunch of girls prancing around with a ball or a hoop. Best rhythmic gymnastics outfits of the London 2012 Olympics[^] This is not a sport, at best it's a hobby.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Anything, that has competition, is a sport. You may not agree, but it is a sport none the less. Picking your nose with your colleagues and seeing who can flick their boogers the farthest, is a sport. Why? Competition baby. :)
Slacker007 wrote:
Anything, that has competition, is a sport
I disagree. Sport doesn't require competition. So you agree that chess is a sport?
-
When it's a bunch of girls prancing around with a ball or a hoop. Best rhythmic gymnastics outfits of the London 2012 Olympics[^] This is not a sport, at best it's a hobby.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Yes they are. You can objectively declare a winner and a (bunch of) losers. That makes it more of a sport than gymnastics.
-
If you can't objectively declare a winner, then it's not a sport. So anything where you score points for "artistic merit" isn't a sport.
Wjousts wrote:
If you can't objectively declare a winner, then it's not a sport. So anything where you score points for "artistic merit" isn't a sport.
Nonsense. Every large scale sport is based on rules that have no objectivity. There is no "objective" reason that a football player or a basketball player can't punch and kick an opposing player unconscious but there are certainly rules that disallow it.
-
I think they need a new kind of marathon. The event starts on the first day of the Olympics, and ends on the last day. The person that runs the farthest the fastest wins the gold. The runners are allowed to stop and rest for as long as they want, and as frequently as they want. If they want shelter when they sleep, they have to have been running with it (a backpack with a tent in it, for example). To make it more interesting, they also have to pack their own water/food, and can only replenish food/water every two days, and only after they've consumed all previous food/water. Alternatively, they could bring a non-firearm weapon with which to hunt for their food during the event, but they must still bring their own water. Anyone that dies within three days of the completion of the event forfeits their medal (if they won one).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I think they need a new kind of marathon.
That isn't new it just isn't in the Olympics. Ultra marathons have been around for a long time. There are also ultra triathalons with many variations on that. And there is a movement to add the ultra marathon to the Olympics.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Anything, that has competition, is a sport
I disagree. Sport doesn't require competition. So you agree that chess is a sport?
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
So you agree that chess is a sport?
yes.
-
Wjousts wrote:
If you can't objectively declare a winner, then it's not a sport. So anything where you score points for "artistic merit" isn't a sport.
Nonsense. Every large scale sport is based on rules that have no objectivity. There is no "objective" reason that a football player or a basketball player can't punch and kick an opposing player unconscious but there are certainly rules that disallow it.
Rubbish. There are rules spelt out in the rule book. And besides, I was talking about objectively declaring a winner. Which in any "real" sport is possible because one team has objectively scored more points (point scoring being objectively described in the RULE BOOK). Or in the case of a race, one participate objective crossed the finish line first.
-
Wjousts wrote:
You can objectively declare a winner and a (bunch of) losers.
So exactly what is the "objective" process that is used to determine the rules under which the participants must race?
They are in the rule book. They spell out exactly what qualifies or disqualifies you as a participant. The rules are decided ahead of time, are transparent to everybody and whether or not you are complying with those rules is not a matter of anybody subjective judgement. Your engine is either within the size range allowable or not. Your wheels are within the size range or not. You have the allowable wing area or not. You are old enough to race, or you are not. And besides, you are still missing the point. The point is whether you can objectively declare a winner, not what rules exist determining participation.
-
They are in the rule book. They spell out exactly what qualifies or disqualifies you as a participant. The rules are decided ahead of time, are transparent to everybody and whether or not you are complying with those rules is not a matter of anybody subjective judgement. Your engine is either within the size range allowable or not. Your wheels are within the size range or not. You have the allowable wing area or not. You are old enough to race, or you are not. And besides, you are still missing the point. The point is whether you can objectively declare a winner, not what rules exist determining participation.
Wjousts wrote:
They are in the rule book.
How are the rules objectively created?
Wjousts wrote:
The point is whether you can objectively declare a winner, not what rules exist determining participation.
And my point is that the rules are not objective. Thus by your criteria no sport is valid.
-
Rubbish. There are rules spelt out in the rule book. And besides, I was talking about objectively declaring a winner. Which in any "real" sport is possible because one team has objectively scored more points (point scoring being objectively described in the RULE BOOK). Or in the case of a race, one participate objective crossed the finish line first.
Wjousts wrote:
There are rules spelt out in the rule book
Which are arrived at subjectively. Not objectively.
Wjousts wrote:
Which in any "real" sport is possible because one team has objectively scored more points
Within a framework that is entirely subjective.
-
Wjousts wrote:
They are in the rule book.
How are the rules objectively created?
Wjousts wrote:
The point is whether you can objectively declare a winner, not what rules exist determining participation.
And my point is that the rules are not objective. Thus by your criteria no sport is valid.
jschell wrote:
And my point is that the rules are not objective. Thus by your criteria no sport is valid.
And my point is that the rules are arbitrary, but the JUDGING of those rules is not. In, say, soccer, the team that scores the most goals wins. It doesn't matter that that rule is arbitrary, the winner is nevertheless OBJECTIVELY the team that put the ball in the net the most times during 90 minutes. That makes it a sport. Ice dancing is not a sport. Why? Because the outcome is judged SUBJECTIVELY. There is no "ball in the back of the net", simple, clear, unarguable rule for the winner. Instead it's judged on nonsense like "artistry", which has no place in sport. Or do you think painting should be a sport too? I apologize that I wasn't clear enough for you to understand this distinction.
-
jschell wrote:
And my point is that the rules are not objective. Thus by your criteria no sport is valid.
And my point is that the rules are arbitrary, but the JUDGING of those rules is not. In, say, soccer, the team that scores the most goals wins. It doesn't matter that that rule is arbitrary, the winner is nevertheless OBJECTIVELY the team that put the ball in the net the most times during 90 minutes. That makes it a sport. Ice dancing is not a sport. Why? Because the outcome is judged SUBJECTIVELY. There is no "ball in the back of the net", simple, clear, unarguable rule for the winner. Instead it's judged on nonsense like "artistry", which has no place in sport. Or do you think painting should be a sport too? I apologize that I wasn't clear enough for you to understand this distinction.
Wjousts wrote:
And my point is that the rules are arbitrary, but the JUDGING of those rules is not.
Nonsense. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5198207/ce/us/referee-banned-life-match-fixing-loses-appeal&cc=5901?ver=us[^]
Wjousts wrote:
In, say, soccer, the team that scores the most goals wins.
Except of course that judging what a "goal" is is objective. And based on those subjective rules. And contentious enough that IFAB has now approved goal line technology.
Wjousts wrote:
Ice dancing is not a sport. Why? Because the outcome is judged SUBJECTIVELY.
You have a different view than me of how humans referee sporting events including soccer. Or a different definition of objective and subjective. And certainly at odds with specific instances of your claim of the sports that are objectively judged. http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/worldcup/story/World-Cup-referee-blunders-prove-instant-replay-needed-in-soccer[^]
Wjousts wrote:
Instead it's judged on nonsense like "artistry", which has no place in sport. Or do you think painting should be a sport too?
No Olympic sport is judged solely on artistry. And all of the sports that I have seen with artistic elements exist because the sports specifically allow for innovation and yet still allow for specific technical aspects which can be judged as well.
-
Wjousts wrote:
And my point is that the rules are arbitrary, but the JUDGING of those rules is not.
Nonsense. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5198207/ce/us/referee-banned-life-match-fixing-loses-appeal&cc=5901?ver=us[^]
Wjousts wrote:
In, say, soccer, the team that scores the most goals wins.
Except of course that judging what a "goal" is is objective. And based on those subjective rules. And contentious enough that IFAB has now approved goal line technology.
Wjousts wrote:
Ice dancing is not a sport. Why? Because the outcome is judged SUBJECTIVELY.
You have a different view than me of how humans referee sporting events including soccer. Or a different definition of objective and subjective. And certainly at odds with specific instances of your claim of the sports that are objectively judged. http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/worldcup/story/World-Cup-referee-blunders-prove-instant-replay-needed-in-soccer[^]
Wjousts wrote:
Instead it's judged on nonsense like "artistry", which has no place in sport. Or do you think painting should be a sport too?
No Olympic sport is judged solely on artistry. And all of the sports that I have seen with artistic elements exist because the sports specifically allow for innovation and yet still allow for specific technical aspects which can be judged as well.
jschell wrote:
Except of course that judging what a "goal" is is objective. And based on those subjective rules.
And contentious enough that IFAB has now approved goal line technology.Good. I'm glad you agree with me. Judging a goal is objective. The ball crosses the line or it doesn't. There is no room for interpretation. That fallible humans sometimes make mistakes is neither here nor there. That goal line technology looks like it'll be used actually supports my assertion that judging a goal is objective, not subjective. Show me the equivalent of goal line technology for ice dancing, and you'll have an argument for ice dancing being objective. But you can't, because there is no objective way to measure artistry. That's why it's not a sport.
jschell wrote:
And all of the sports that I have seen with artistic elements exist because the sports specifically allow for innovation and yet still allow for specific technical aspects which can be judged as well.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? To go back to soccer, yes you can play it beautifully like the Brazilians or the Argentinians, or you can play it technically and defensively like the English or the Italians. But it doesn't matter. Neither approach actually scores you points and wins you the game. Only goals win games. If a game ends in a draw, they don't declare a winner based on who played the prettiest. Really, I suspect you are just trolling. Or are you really that offended by my throw away comment about sports?
-
jschell wrote:
Except of course that judging what a "goal" is is objective. And based on those subjective rules.
And contentious enough that IFAB has now approved goal line technology.Good. I'm glad you agree with me. Judging a goal is objective. The ball crosses the line or it doesn't. There is no room for interpretation. That fallible humans sometimes make mistakes is neither here nor there. That goal line technology looks like it'll be used actually supports my assertion that judging a goal is objective, not subjective. Show me the equivalent of goal line technology for ice dancing, and you'll have an argument for ice dancing being objective. But you can't, because there is no objective way to measure artistry. That's why it's not a sport.
jschell wrote:
And all of the sports that I have seen with artistic elements exist because the sports specifically allow for innovation and yet still allow for specific technical aspects which can be judged as well.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? To go back to soccer, yes you can play it beautifully like the Brazilians or the Argentinians, or you can play it technically and defensively like the English or the Italians. But it doesn't matter. Neither approach actually scores you points and wins you the game. Only goals win games. If a game ends in a draw, they don't declare a winner based on who played the prettiest. Really, I suspect you are just trolling. Or are you really that offended by my throw away comment about sports?
Wjousts wrote:
Good. I'm glad you agree with me. Judging a goal is objective. The ball crosses the line or it doesn't. There is no room for interpretation.
Err...perhaps you didn't read what I posted. Right NOW it is subjectively judged. And right NOW that is a problem. And when this specific technology is implemented, in the future, it will be only ONE aspect of the game of which the vast majority of the rest is still refereed subjectively.
Wjousts wrote:
That fallible humans sometimes make mistakes is neither here nor there
Except sometimes it isn't a mistake - it is deliberate. And other times it is controversial, because it is subjective.
Wjousts wrote:
But you can't, because there is no objective way to measure artistry. That's why it's not a sport
As I already said NO Omplypic event is judged solely on artistry. You restating that over and over again doesn't make it so.
Wjousts wrote:
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
There is only one way for a ball to go into a goal. There are many, many ways for a floor excercise to be executed, including the required elements. This is specifically demonstrated over time as the required elements have increased in complexity as the participants have found ways to do it. This is true for any number of sports that allow for variety.
Wjousts wrote:
If a game ends in a draw, they don't declare a winner based on who played the prettiest.
Which only demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea how they score the events that you are deriding.
