My wife read an article recently that suggested, probably semi-tongue-in-cheek, that figure skating is not a sport because it is subjectively judged, and the participants wear costumes and perform to music. While I’m not a big fan of subjective judging, I think this unfairly short-changes these athletes. So, out of a great breakfast conversation with some friends, this chart was born (made with gliffy):
Notes:
- While it seems to me that there are some fat professional baseball players, none of those guys can spend all their time on the couch, and most are in great shape, so baseball is a sport.
- Perhaps golf was a game before Tiger came along and raised the bar, and now it’s a sport?
- Not sure about NASCAR or bowling. I know there are physical demands, but can you compete on the elite level without athletic training? If so, game. If not, sport. I’m not making any judgments, I just have no idea personally.
Updated, Alternate: My breakfastmates had proposed a risk clause, which I had taken out for simplicity’s sake, so if you prefer, this version puts it back in. Also, thanks to Alec for the Hemingway clause that also made it in:
Updated, Personal Version: Personally, I like the Hemingway clause but not the risk clause, so this is the version I use:
so, i like what you have, but i struggle. if we were to break down the elements brought up here for any of the end points, they would include at the least (games, sports, etc – all):
- mind (intellect, mental fortitude, focus, knowledge, etc)
- athleticism or physical gifts (run, jump, strength, balance, etc)
- skill (throwing, shooting, swinging, etc)
now these are all intertwined, so it is a continuum, but for sports / not sport scale i feel like it is the balance between skill and athleticism that puts the activity in a bucket.
darts, golf, shuffleboard, curling… you need skill, and rely heavily on it, but can you get away without training? sure you can say that you don’t need much for darts and curling, but to succeed at an elite level (consistently?), you need to train to at the least avoid injury.
that is my struggle point. i have always leaned on the idea that sports should require a high level of athleticism, and thus when you bring up baseball, i wince a bit to think to call big papi an athlete. he is gifted with skill for sure, and he is strong, but is he athletic?
i just looked up athlete on MW:
1 : of or relating to athletes or athletics
2 : characteristic of an athlete; especially : vigorous, active
so i guess it is that ‘especially vigorous & active’ part that i just don’t see much of in many baseball players, curling or golf.
do sports require athletes or skilled people?
— bayson22 · Mar 4, 10:04 AM · #
Yeah, I continue to grapple with it. “Train athletically to succeed” is a little mushy. Does that include baseball or not? On the one hand, I kinda like leaving it to the reader to decide where to draw the line, on the other hand I’d like a hard and fast answer. I think if that box is interpreted in line with the MW definition, then all the activities in the “?” box end up as games.
Baseball is tough. You have some stellar athletes, and some chunky (putting it kindly) specialists. You probably have more athletes than not, and I hate to nix it as a sport because of the outliers. Kinda like you wouldn’t evaluate football by only looking at the punter.
Then again, the wording is “have to train athletically” and in baseball some bona fide fat players demonstrate that it’s not strictly necessary.
— Jim Biancolo · Mar 4, 03:40 PM · #