Several times I've seen and even written pieces on what events are actual sports and what events are not. I've recently ammended my position. I used to argue that things like figure skating and diving were in fact sports, but I now don't feel that they are. Among other things, sport should have defined rules, require physical and mental discipline, require skill and coordination, and be competative. Figure skating and diving both meet all of those standards. I ammended my position recently because of a discussion I had with Amy, in which she was arguing for ballet as a sport. I immediately objected that it was not, however she pointed out that ballet meets all of the standards listed above. As I thought about this more, I came to believe that a sport also needs to have a concrete and objective scoring system in addition to the other things listed above. That means that things like baseball, football, basketball, hockey, rugby, soccer, tennis, golf, volleyball, and track (I'm sure there are more) are full-fledged sports, while figure skating, diving, gymnastics, most "extreme sports", cheerleading, and ballet are not.
Perhaps I'm throwing out to much here. Perhaps those things are sports and the term "sport" should be broken into categories of objective sports and subjective sports. What do you think?
That leads me to another point in this discussion: why is it that cheerleaders, ballet dancers, and skate boarders all feel that they must argue that their activity is in fact a sport? Why is their activity receiving a place in that category so important to them? Ballet certainly requires a great deal of physical and mental discipline as well as a great deal of skill and ability. I've also been informed that there are ballet competitions. What I don't get though, is why a ballet dancer wants to grouped into a category with a football player.
Posted by at November 19, 2003 08:52 PMScholarships maybe? Maybe so they can slap each others butt before they go on stage.
Posted by: troy at November 19, 2003 10:24 PMSo would you group hunters along with the ballet dancers and divers?
Posted by: Dave at November 20, 2003 12:19 PMI grant that ballet is not a sport. However, I think the need by some for it to be called such stems from the fact that their is no other category to put it in. Along with cheerleading, ice skating, etc.
Posted by: Amy at November 20, 2003 01:56 PMI would add to that the argument that any sort of activity wherein the main purpose is to kick a ball around without touching it with your hands is not a sport.
Seriously though, you could just group any sort of physical or competitive activity under the heading of "sport" (even "bridge" has made the cover of Sports Illustrated).
That does not preclude you, however, from further grouping those activities under "unwatchable", "pretty pointless", "stupid", "gay", "what are they thinking?" and "what real men enjoy watching/playing" categories.
The point is that no matter what you say is or isn't a sport, there are some very good, well crafted games that are enjoyable to watch and some very stupid games that people make themselves watch and keep telling themselves that they like said games until they actually believe it.
Posted by: Duane at November 20, 2003 08:54 PMI think you might be too rigidly committed to your definitions. Yes, words do indeed have meaning, but their boundaries may not be as well defined at you want them to be. I was once a slave to consistency. if I took up a position on something, I had to work out its logic all the way to its limit, but sometimes it gets difficult at the margins. It seems like you are too committed to the criteria you use to erect boundaries around sports. For you the only thing that appears to be wrong with calling diving a sport is that those criteria also allow ballet, so in order to exclude ballet, which you don't think should be a sport, you are willing to sacrifice diving and some others. Why not just say that a sport is a competitive recreational activity involving some sort of physical exertion, ranging from moderate (ping-ping) to intense (wrestling)? That way, i suppose that dance could be considered a sport (as it often is in the case of pom squads and other competitions) as well as performance art (as is usually the case with ballet). Some activities fit the definition better than others, and in those cases we may use a better descriptor (i.e., billiards might better be described as a game than a sport, ping-pong, though, could rightly be called both. Ballet might better be called performance art, but competitive ballroom dancing and figure skating could rightly be called both).
So I think that the biggest barrier to accepting a definition of sport is your committment to that definition precicely defining the boundries of what it rightly refers to. I however, don't think that is a necessary definition in order for language to mean something. In fact, I think it hampers language's referential ability.
Posted by: Matthew at November 20, 2003 08:59 PMDuane, I have to argue with you in that, just because you may not like the "sport" of soccer should not exclude it's exsistence in the realm of sports.
Posted by: Dave at November 21, 2003 11:04 AMDave... go ahead and read the rest of my post. You seemed to have stopped after the first sentence.
Posted by: Duane at November 21, 2003 11:18 AMI'm amazed that you are still so bothered by such a manly sport(real football). It is fun to watch and even more fun to play.
Posted by: SonofThunder at November 23, 2003 04:23 PMWhere does bass fishing fall?
Posted by: Deacon Blues at November 24, 2003 09:41 PM