To me a sport has 2 maybe 3 aspects. 1. Physical activity. (Racing is somewhat okay since it is specified as "motor" sports) 2. Direct competition - what I mean is that your actions directly affect your opponents performance. Good pitchers make it harder for hitters, that kind of thing. If it's an activity where everyone just goes out on their own and does their thing regardless of the actions of their competitors, it doesn't count. So no bowling, golf, fishing (how was that ever considered?) etc. 3. No judges. Winners are not chosen, they earn it straight up.
Well, referees are a sort of judge, aren't they? So wouldn't any game that has a referee be not a sport? Also, would this rule out events like the snowboarder or skateboarder's half-pipe? Where two of your conditions are certainly met, yet a judge is required for the winner to be declared?
In my mind sports should have that physical aspect and competiton against others. The physical aspect should reflect both skill and strength, one without the other is kinda pointless. Like Golf. Competition doesn't have to be directly against someone on a court or field, time trial/high scores are vaild, it has to offer an arena where improvment is possible. And in the UK last year I remember hearing about some sort of mastabatathon, to promote it as a 'natural thing' complete with prizes and events. I don't think anyone showed up.
I think to be a sport you have to be able to get an injury that could affect you the rest of your life: ruptured organs, torn ligaments, awkwardly broken bones. Carpal tunnel doesn't count, you "cyber athletes."
My experience is that guys who hate baseball were never good at it when they were kids, or were benchwarmers.
That's an airtight counter argument you have there. I only ever played baseball when absolutely forced to in gym class. I was too busy playing more physically demanding sports, like Hockey, or (real) football, or basketball, or track and field, or even lawn bowling
I would say that the environment can be an opponent as well as other players. Examples would be hills and distance in marathon running and the rain, snow and other elements in outdoor football.
Not every Golfer does this type of activity. Your typical weekend golfer will Drive a cart, drink a beer and really not focus too much on the game. I do however consider golf a sport. This was one of the big arguments that we had. My understanding of a ref is to ensure that the rules of the game are maintained. This being said the game cane generally be played without refs. In figure skating, if you have no judge, it would be a bunch of people skating around. Same goes for Skateboarders and other X-games. These require tons of skill and practice, but for the judged competitions, not a sport. Racing in any form is a sport; it is just a different way to race.
Not every baseball, basketball, football, soccer, etc. player plays in a way necessitating extreme amounts of physical activity and fitness either... Kind of an odd comment to make. People can treat any sport seriously...or not.
Anything you can play while smoking or drinking alcohol should not be considered a sport. Same goes for anything you can play professionally while being dangerously overweight. Not only is that a sport, its the greatest sport ever invented!!! They even have an Irish team!!! (note to self - book holidays in Minnesota next year)
Hell yeah! Aren't the Garda Belts a bunch of hotties? The team captains are of Irish descent, their dad is the Leprachaun team mascot. I sit trackside and many times, wind up with a girl in my lap! But I never spill my beer!
What I meant is that to be good at golf there is very little need to be in good shape. I have seen 90 yr old men make some kick ass golf shots, but need the cart to follow the ball. To be good at a sport like Football, soccer, rugby, basketball or whatever, there should be some kind of Physical conditioning so your not dragging your ass or getting killed.
That is kind of my point. How physically demanding could the sport be if said old guy was able to play it that well?
Which brings me back to Which in turn leads to *edit* To be a bit more explicit, what I'm trying to point out is that the 90 year old isn't going to be playing golf the same way a serious competitor would. A "weekend" or "recreational" golfer is not going to be playing golf the same way a serious competitor would either. And you can replace "golf" in my previous two sentences with any sport you care to choose. Maybe a blanket statement like "X is definitely a sport" is not always appropriate? People can be as serious about a sport as they feel like treating it. And I think I gave you a reasonable example of how a serious golfer would have to have some decent level of physical fitness in order to be both competitive and successful.
Not every one needs to walk that far and work that hard to finish a game of golf. Hell last time I played I was drunk by the 9th hole. In order to play 2 full halves of Rugby you need to be in somewhat good shape. I will use myself as an example. I used to play Football and Rugby, but now I don't have time. I have become somewhat out of shape. If I were to try and step on to a Rugby pitch for a pick-up game of rugby, I would be sore for weeks. However If I were to walk on to a golf course for 18, I could do it. My muscles may be sore and I may be a little hung over, but I would get through, because I don't need to necessary need to walk and swinging a club is easy. Now if I played speed golf it would be a different story…
But a "game of golf" as you described it is not playing the sport of golf. And it is most certainly not being treated as a serious competitive event. Hope you saw my edit above. People can choose for themselves how serious to treat any sport. I bet I could play a game of football with you and be drunk by half time.
