Quote:
Originally Posted by SeoulFire
Flip,
Where do sports/activities such as the mentioned pistol shooting, archery and other such things fit in then? They also require very little to no physical exertion. Unless you are willing to rule out all of these accuracy style activities then your definition is flawed.
Golf has had and still has its' share of fatties and softies - some who have achieved a great deal of success.
By the way, I am not arguing that it is a sport - just that the definitions given and such are horribly flawed.
|
Well I don't think I gave any sort of real definition because I think it is way too hard to properly define a sport because there is such a fine line between a game/activity and a sport.
All I attempted to do was point out why Darts isn't a sport.
However, I think things like pistol shooting and archery aren't sports at all, they are games/activities.
A very broad definition of a sport, to me at least, is any game/activity, where the is competition (obviously) and where physical exertion/being fit is present and isn't really a necessity but an advantage. I think it impossible to say that even sports like hockey and soccer require physical fitness, hell I'm out of shape and I can still play both.
Even that broad definition is up for debate for many "sports" like baseball, golf and curling don't really require one to be fit but do require a reasonable amount of physical exertion.
I'd say there are really 3 classes of competition based activities. All sports are games/activities but not all games/activities/competitions are sports.
Class 1 would be things like hockey, soccer, swimming etc. Pretty much anything in the Olympics ('cept maybe Curling). A bubble class 1 activity for me would be MMA. 90% of the guys are in top physical form but every once and a while you see guys who have a nice big gut. Even certain positions within football are like this but overall I'd say those guys are pretty good athletes so I'd consider MMA and football sports. I think baseball also counts because a majority of guys are in good shape, a few exceptions does not disqualify it IMO.
So basically I'd say Class 1 games are all sports because virtually every person that competes in them professionally is a bonafide athlete and MUST be in good shape to excel.
Anything in Class 1, to me, is an activity that is also a sport.
Class 2 would be anything that does not require a person to be fit but requires, arguably, enough physical exertion to be a sport. Golf and Curling are the two examples that come to mind. They fit somewhere in between Class 1 and 3. Not totally sports but not just activities.
I'm content to just leave class 2 as anything where physical exertion is required, but not enough that a majority of competitors are required to be fit.
Class 3 is anything where there simply isn't enough physical exertion that anyone is required to be fit. Darts, Archery, pistol shooting, video games, poker, board games etc.
It is a pretty broad category IMO. Pretty much anything that you play and compete in but requires little real physical exertion and virtually no advantage to those who are most fit.
Actually maybe Archery is more like class 2 because it can be very physically taxing. Maybe it is somewhere in between class 2 and 3.
Even by that broad and certainly uncomprehensive definition there are some activities that people could debate are sports, or sports that are just activities.
Things like car racing, equestrian/horse racing and even something like luge don't by definition require a person to be fit (although neither do hockey or soccer I guess). However, we virtually never, ever see fat people in Nascar, horse racing and luge. The reason is that they are physically taxing so much so that being unfit would probably mean that you'd never win. As such I'd put them all in between class 1 and 2 because while none of the three require great amounts of fitness (like hockey soccer etc) or require significant strength (weightlifting) they are nevertheless quite physically taxing and as such require a person to be of a certain level of physical fitness to properly compete in them.
Just to kind of summarize.
Class 1: 90% of professional competitors in these "sports" must be in excellent physical condition with very, very few exceptions.
Class 2: professional competitors must still do a fair amount of physical activity and being fit provides an advantage in many cases but is no means required like class 1. These aren't completely not sports but since it could be argued that a majority of professionals aren't in peak physical form it is on the bubble.
Class 3: There may be some physical exertion but in order to be a professional does not require any real athletic ability (unless you consider smarts and hand/eye coordination athletic abilities).
A few I can't quite put my finger on, like car racing and equestrian. 99% of the professionals are in pretty good shape (certainly no over weight professionals that I know of). Car racing is very tough, so much so that an overweight person probably could never race in F1 because it is physically taxing but the competitors just aren't necessarily in top athletic condition IMO. They just need to be in good enough shape. Equestrian/horce racing, well they just require someone to be small/thin to be a professional. And since thin people are generally thin because they are in reasonably good shape it is somewhere in the middle.
