In the first few years after college, I traveled a lot for my job and was blessed with the opportunity to spend several months in Europe on my employer's bill. While there I began discussing sports with my colleagues from the UK and we began creating a list of rules in defining a "Sport" vs a "Game".
A Sport vs a Game:
Our initial analysis (typically performed after work in a local pub) quickly ruled that to be a sport the event could not be classified as a board game. This quality quickly allowed us to agree that things like Chess or Monopoly were games not sports.
Being from the US and my colleagues being from the UK, we found that our primary disagreement usually involved cricket and baseball. These 2 events always caused us to argue extensively. My argument was that it couldn't be a sport because the players wore sweaters and the rules made no sense what-so-ever to me. They argued that baseball... well I don't remember their argument because they were wrong and I was typically drunk by then.
Anyway, I pose the question to you out there, what criteria do you use to determine if something is a game or a sport?
Your poll doesn't work as we can only choose one option,so to choose one would suggest that none of the others are sports.
Baseball and cricket and football are sports ,chess is a game.
why does everyone bring up cricket when this topic comes up?
If you dont class it as a sport, you have obviously never played it, and if you have never played it your opinion doesnt count
I guess sport implies more physical activity than a game. So be a sport the activity level should be higher than in normal activities.
The problem is where to put the threshold.
In my opinion cricket and baseball are sports even if the level of activity is not like running a marathon but anyway you have to run and jump to catch the ball or run between the bases.
But I think that for instance billard is obviously a game not a sport and also darts or even bowling.
Some activies are not so clear. Like driving a formula 1 car. It's not a game but is it really a sport. Of course you sepnd a lot of calories sitting and driving the car and your neck muscles are under strong pressure but still is it really a sport. I don't really think so.
Is also golf a sport? you have to hit a ball and walk in the grass. But when you see how you can be not fit and out of form and still be able to play golf you wonder. For me golf is more like billard. You have to put a ball in a hole. Just in golf you have to walk between the holes. So not what I would consider as a sport.
Golf is a sport so is darts and so is pool/snooker,i suppose chess could even be considered a sport. A sport is something where there is competition,so anything with competition and set rules, i suppose could be considered a sport.
I don't agree with that. I don't think that the fact that there is competition defines a sport because you have competition for eveything. You can see exams or work as a form of competition. Is going to school a sport , no. You have competition in maths for instance but math is not a sport.
For me sport requires a good level of physical activity and all activities you mentioned are not really in this category.
Maths tests aren't really competition,the only person your really competing against is yourself,trying to get the best grade possible.
People who compete in sports,, do so to be the best in their sports,there are usually leagues,and championships,both national and world. Chess falls into that category. Your competing against other people,wether that be individual or teams. That for me is sport.
So i would say all of the above are sports.
I don't find chess sport but a game. I'd figure sport would involve moving a lot and being physically active whilst chess is a mind game and using strategies. Soccer, cricket and footie are examples of sport.
Truespeed - I like the slant of looking at this discussion from the perspective of competition, but I disagree that this is the only criteria. I think that competition is necessary but that a level of physical activity is also required. I also agree that if you haven't played or participated in an event then your opinion of it is less applicable. I have never played Cricket and therefore will stop referencing it in this discussion.
I appreciate everyone's comments on this post and am relieved that I'm not the only one who has had lengthly conversations about this. Maybe we can all walk away knowing that if we enjoy watching or participating in something, that is all that matters.
Is Poker a sport ?
In my opinion, card games in general are not sports. They are definitely games (and fun ones too). Poker has competition but certainly lacks the physical aspect that a sport requires (again this is my opinion and feel free to argue against it).
Yes I agree with you. In the psycholigical aspect we can think that is a sport. But as you say there is no physical aspect even if when they are put under stress they can feel some physical pain.
Ben_carrington - You make an interesting point regarding the stress of playing a card game such as poker. While I agree this has physical implications (e.g. muscle pain, stomach pain), it doesn't necessarily require a special physical ability. Yes, some people deal with stressful situations better than others, but I would argue that this is more of a mental challenge than a physical one.
That leads into your other point of the psychological aspects of a game. I think most would agree that sports require strong mental abilities (e.g. focus, determination), but I still contest that this must be combined with a physical aspect in order to reach the status of a sport.
For any activity to be a sport it must involve a ball, a puck, or a gun. And yes, competition must be a factor. Sorry fishing fans.
TVme - So based on your definition, you would not include bow hunting as a sport but dear hunting with a rifle would be a sport. Is that correct? Also, what about boxing? or wrestling? Just some food for thought.
Soccer is perhaps the most demanding of all sports.
In the modern game (at any level) soccer training and conditioning is essential.
Few sports are played on as large a playing field, lasting as long and without regular rest periods.
Players cover 8-12km during a match, consisting of 24% walking, 36% jogging, 20% coursing, 11% sprinting, 7% moving backwards and 2% moving whilst in possession of the ball
Soccer players posses excellent endurance with VO2max reported to range between 55 and 70 ml/kg/min in elite performers . The game is played at an average intensity close to the lactate threshold - approximately 80-90% of maximum heart rate .
How important is the correct type of endurance training in soccer?
The greater a player's aerobic capacity, the more ground they cover during a typical game . Additionally, improved endurance also increases the number of sprints completed in a game . By improving the VO2max of youth soccer players by 11% over an 8 week period, a 20% increase in total distance covered during competitive match play was manifested, along with a 23% increase in involvements with the ball and a 100% increase in the number of sprints performed by each player.
What about other forms of conditioning?
Strength training now plays a major role in soccer. However, simply lifting weights with the traditional "3 sets of 10 repetitions" approach is not an efficient way to spend training time. Soccer requires a balance of explosive power and muscular endurance. Some players may benefit from increasing their lean mass but even they should focus on converting much of their strength into soccer-specific power.
Strength training for soccer also helps to correct muscle imbalances. Soccer players in particualr are prone to developing overly strong quadriceps in relation to their hamstrings and a well-formed strength plan can address this and prevent future injury .
That is why I think soccer is a sport,not a leisure.
It is hard for me to disagree with you since I was a soccer player in my ealier days. Your argument was well thoughtout and based on factual information. Thanks for participating in this discussion.
As usual, I like to play devil's advocate in these cases. You mentioned the challenging aspect of soccer due to the lack of rest periods, size of field, and length of play. How would you compare soccer to professional cycling such as the Tour de France? They oviously cover more ground than a soccer player because they are on a bike but they also perform at a high level for a longer period of time than a single soccer game. Not to mention that the event lasts several weeks with only 2 days off during that time.
Just some food for thought!
Good point socceraggie, even though I have been using this definition for years, I have no aversion to improvement - so I'll make a change:
"It's not a sport unless it involves a ball, a puck or a deadly weapon."
Your suggestion really helped because now NASCAR counts as a sport. Boxing is just fighting and wrestling isn't a sport.
By the way a string and a hook is not a deadly weapon (usually not even for the fish) so fishing isn't a sport.
TVme - I think you definition is getting us closer to a better set of qualifications for something to be a sport. You seem to have a bit of animosity towards fishing. Were you traumatized as a child by a fishing pole or something? haha!
Okay.. so our current definition is:
A sport must involve a ball, puck or deadly weapon.
Any other thoughts?
No animosity soccaraggie, it's just that my experience with this debate started many years ago when my boss talked about his interest in the "sport" of fishing - but I guess you didn't know that. I brought up the competition point that we see a lot of in this thread. I told him that competition must be involved and that there is no competition between a six pound bass and a 200 pound drunk.
As far as other thoughts - so far I can't think of any real sports we are not covering with this definition, I can even sneak in a boxers left hook as being a deadly weapon and appease some boxing fans. All the motor sports are included. I'll try to think of more. Thanks