This morning on his radio program, Jim Leach entered into the sports-talk arena by bringing up the classic argument of what is and isn’t a sport. He suggested that to be a sport, two easily recognizable factors must be at play: a ball and a defense. Therefore, volleyball=sport, track and field≠sport.
White Goodman, a true sportsman by any definition.
Give Leach credit for defining his terms. Too often when waging this debate, certain combatants will arbitrarily rule an activity a non-sport simply because it doesn’t live up to their machosomistic standards and/or it is dominated by foreigners. By applying a set of criteria, as Leach does, then each activity can be judged impartially and consistently.
But I find his definition too arbitrary and restrictive. It assumes that all sports must be team sports and that there were no sports before the dawning of the ball.
I believe Bob Costas once said that the key characteristic in identifying a sport is if there is an outside force that works against the competitor. This is consistent with Leach’s defense dictum, but broadens it to include other elements. For instance rhythmic dancing would not be a sport because the only thing that can prevent a competitor from dancing a perfect routine is herself. Bowling might also fall into this category, except when you consider that in competitive bowling, lanes are waxed in such a way as to provide the keglers with an element of the unknown. So is the wax in this instance a sufficient enough external force to provide a competitive element? I don’t know, Costas is remaining mum on the issue and not returning my calls.
I’m not sure I fully accept Costas’ definition, but it does speak to the competitive aspect of sports and doesn’t limit it to human opposition. Clearly nature plays a role in most sporting events and the laws of physics can be just as stingy a defender as a seven-foot center or 300-pound nose tackle.
As a result of not caring all that much, except to fulfill a blogging requirement, I’ve never formulated what could be considered reasonable criteria for identifying a sport. As such, it’s only right that I should be a staunch liberal on this issue. I would like to think that presence of sweat and at least a modicum of physical exertion would be a telltale sign that something sporting is going down, but if tree-squatting deer hunters want to call themselves sportsmen, then I say more power to you brother.
If you have your own definition of a sport, how about sharing it with us now, why don’t you.*
* I fully expect that someone will use this as an opportunity to defame the great game of soccer. Know that doing so will only disprove whatever theory you are supposing to promote.
Loading ...
Dan,
I am saying this in jest so take it easy on me.
Soccer is a great sport, for someone with no arms.
Soccer isnt a sport, its an activity, it is nothing but glorified kickball, something to do in gym class to pass the time.
Actually, I used to believe it but have started to come around to appreciating it just a little bit more.
RickMonday | Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
My only rule is to do away with the ambiguous term “sport.” Let’s just call everything a competition. We can all agree on that. Baseball is a competition. Spelling bees are a competition. Ballroom dancing . . . a competition. Flicking those little paper footballs with your finger . . . competition.
See how much easier that is?
John | Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
One defintion of the word sport that I came across and liked was – defined as physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. So John’s suggestion to call it a competition seems fair. By this definition, running is a sport. Flicking those paper triangles called ‘footballs’ is a sport. Trying to pound the most beers could be considered a sport, if you can really call that physical activity – maybe the art of hurling is the physical part.
The one I’ve always struggled with calling a sport is golf. By the definition given above, it fits. But they walk, or ride carts, from hole to hole. They swing a club and try to hit a ball to a certain location, which, admittedly, is not easy. But is it a game? Or a sport? And what is the difference?
I didn’t really answer your question, did I?
Soccer is far from glorified kickball. For anyone who’s ever played the game, this is a given. One has to be in top physical condition to even consider getting out on the field. Not to mention having to dribble, pass and shoot the ball. It’s more complex than meets the eye.
Brian | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
I think that people who don’t consider soccer a sport generally lack the endurance to participate for very long. It has to be one of the most athletic sports out there. I don’t see how kicking a ball is any less cerebral than hitting one with a piece of wood (and then resting for long periods of time, sitting in a dugout before your next opportunity). From a female standpoint, the physique of a soccer player is just yummy. Becks, anyone?
nancy | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Since someone brought it up…
There’s no doubt that soccer is an athletic activity. I sure couldn’t do all that running. But that’s one of the issues I have with soccer: It’s mostly just people running around. Anybody can do that. It’s not something that takes any skill.
That’s not to say that dribbling and passing and stuff aren’t skills, but when the vast majority of the game is spent running around it makes for a boring sport.
But to answer the original question… I think a support should satisfy certain conditions: 1) There should be direct competition among the players; 2) There should be some sort of strategy involved; 3) The players should perform under their own power.
Therefore:
Baseball = sport
Soccer = sport
Bowling: not a sport
Auto racing: not a sport
etc.
Anonymous Communist | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
So….YOU couldn’t do all that running, but “anybody” else could? Playing soccer poorly may not take any skill, but like ALL sports, playing it well takes a lot of skill. If you think it’s boring, fine, but it has a lot more action than most baseball games. (I’m not sure why I’m so defensive of soccer, b/c most of my kids have given it up.)
That said, I like your definition of sports.
nancy | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Anon,
I like your self-propelled requirement for defining a sport, but I must side with Nancy against your soccer hate rhetoric. If the alternative to all of that running around in soccer is standing around, as they do in baseball, how is that less boring and more skillful?
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Nancy: Anyone can do all that running with a little training. But not everyone has the myriad skills that baseball requires. I played baseball for 10 years and couldn’t consistently throw a curveball, much less hit one. All you have to do in soccer is be able to run and kick at the same time.
Dan: I don’t find watching people run in an amorphous mass mentally stimulating. The strategic aspect of baseball more than makes up for the perceived lack of “action.”
It takes skill to recognize the appropriate tactic for a situation, and it takes skill to be able to execute that tactic.
That’s why I find baseball more stimulating. It’s an exercise for the mind as much as it is for the body.
Anonymous Communist | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Ah, Sports…great album by Huey Lewis and the News.
My opinion – and my opinion is usually uninformed and obtuse – is that a sport:
a) requires physical activity (sweaty)
b) requires some opposing force other than mother nature or one’s own ‘personal best’ (defense)
c) requires that the professional version of the activity could not be performed by me
There are things that are sometimes mislabeled as ’sports’, which should more accurately be called games, events, challenges, etc…but not sports.
Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey – These are the big four in the US. They are a given when you talk about what is a sport.
Soccer – Yep. It’s a sport. We may not love it here, but it’s the most popular sport in the world.
Softball, Volleyball. – Both sports. Girlie, yes – and you’ll find the fattest, drunkest people in the county playing both at Four Seasons, but on the pro level only great athletes make it.
Golf – Ugh. I say nay. Golf is a game.
Car racing – Again, nay. No way NASCAR is a sport.
Cheerleading – Just stop.
Russ | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Aside from occasionally having to hit cutoffs,doesn’t most of the strategy involved with baseball involve HITTING the ball and CATCHING the ball? I’m not saying that’s necessarily easy to do, but it doesn’t require all that much decision-making, just practice.
Seriously, you can dumb down pretty much any sport to being fairly simple if you’re not willing to look at the training involved with excelling at it. There are different kicks in soccer as there are different pitches in baseball. On paper, baseball’s easy (hit ball with bat, catch ball with mitt), soccer’s easy (kick ball with foot), basketball’s easy (put ball through hoop).
Sucking at all athletic competition myself, however, I can appreciate athletes in every sport who put the time and effort into becoming great, whether I find one more boring than another or not.
nancy | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Wow this has a lot of interesting comments. It seems that everyone including myself agree that bowling and car racing are not sports. But on Russ’s cheerleading comment I have one thing to say: (well maybe more than one). I’m not sure I consider it a sport (even though a team competes against another team)– but they ARE athletes and possess a lot of coordination, flexibility, and endurance to be at competition level. And my favorite sport: swimming, which no one has mentioned yet, takes a lot of shoulder strength and uses every major muscle group. It is just not a “contact” sport similar to gymnastics, diving, triathlons/marathons, and yes ice skating. But those people are AMAZING athletes. Last year I completed a marathon and consider myself athletic, but I was not going to run 26.2 miles in 2 hours and 11 minutes like last year’s Chicago Marathon male winner (or even 4 hours and 11 minutes and knew that well in advance) And boxing is definitely a sport.
Tammy | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Wow…I have to say I agree with John and say that everything is a competition. I won’t get into the great soccer debate…I can’t run far enough or fast enough to evade the hundreds of children who would be capable of kicking my rear for defaming the activity.
Golf, eh, I’m sorta on the fence there…I think some people that partake are certainly athletic, but then I see fat guys riding around in golf carts, drinking beer and I think, “Hmmm, not so much a sport.”
I will reserve comment on the Nascar/race car driver topic. I used to feel strongly one way but I’ve switched sides of that fence. To avoid persecution as one of “those” fans, I will just defer on that topic (although I will mention that a couple of those drivers are quite hot and are definitely in shape…in case any of you ladies interested in a little eye candy.
But here is my question…is a sport defined as an activity (competition) that people are willing to pay money to attend and watch said activity (competition)?
Casey
CaseyMay | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Casey,
I don’t think the spectator part of it should enter the equation. Even though many more people pay to watch men play basketball than pay to watch women play, the women’s game is no less a sport.
So are you an ex-NASCAR fan or a new NASCAR fan?
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
NASCAR
N on
A thletic
S port
C entered
A round
R ednecks
Dave H | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
I was hoping this would get around to the bashing of NASCAR….and rightfully so.
Actually you have to give the organizers of NASCAR some credit. It is the greatest marketing ploy ever perpetrated on the American public.
M.B. | Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
I’m adding criteria.
* There must be a winner and a loser.
* Results must be based on tangible scoring like runs, goals, points, etc. and not the opinion of a judge (especially French judges). Sorry gymnasts, divers, and figure skaters. ‘Artistic Merit’ should never factor into anything wanting to be considered a sport.
And Tammy, with all due respect of course, if you want to call cheerleading a sport then you have to give the same to the marching band. I just don’t think we’re ready for kids to be bragging about lettering in clarinet. Slippery slope. Slippery Slope.
Russ | Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
So, if the spectator aspect is off the table, then I think I am back to just agreeing that all activities are competitions…some of which people are willing to pay money to watch and some of which people are less inclined to watch, let alone pay money to do so.
I do agree with Russ that a sport should have a clear definition of a winner and a loser. That does hang me up a bit because in some sports you can have a tie…I like the idea of extra innings, overtime, sudden death, etc, etc…but after watching an entire extra period of hockey, even I have to admit, “Screw it guys, just call it a tie and go take a shower…enough already.” And seriously, a Green-White checkered finish? YGBSM. There, that’s your answer about whether I am or am not a current Nascar fan.
I won’t get to far into the cheerleading debate…I know young ladies who are cheerleaders who are quite athletic, practice diligently, go to competitions, and regard it as a sport. I don’t personally qualify it as a sport, but I do recognize that some of the participants are athletes.
Hmmm…have I raised a different threshold where we disect the participant and not the activity??
CaseyMay | Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
OK, I’m chiming in late . . .
Many good comments, on an interesting topic. But I have to weigh in on the sub-topic of soccer. If randomly running around a field is what disqualifies soccer, then shouldn’t football be disqualified as well? I’m not of the opinion that football isn’t a sport (I love the game), but I just think that it also centers on what could be seen as random running. Most of the ath-A-letes on the field NEVER touch the ball and simply advance a few yards one way or another (think O-line and D-line). What’s up with that?
My point is that by dumbing down soccer and removing what makes it unique and interesting (the HIGH skill level, coordination and physical fitness needed to excel at it), of course it comes up short – but so would football.
I like Russ’s comment that a sport is something that a shmuck like me couldn’t play professionally (to paraphrase) . . . I also like Nancy’s comments (as a general rule) . . .
Rock-Robster | Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
Re: Anon’s comments on soccer. Anyone who thinks that all there is to soccer is a bunch of ‘running around’ doesn’t know enough about it to even speak to it, and has clearly never played the game. You have to know where to be on the field at the right time, look for opportunities for a ball to squirt lose that could lead to a quick turnaround in the game, guard your man on defense, etc, etc. It’s way more complex than meets the eye.
But, is golf a sport? Anyone? I think it’s a game, yes. But is it a sport?
Brian | Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
Brian,
Thanks for coming to futbol’s defense.
It’s interesting. When my eldest daughter starting playing, it was fun watching these preschoolers all chase the ball in a happy scrum. But now, four years later, it’s fun watching how they have learned the game. They know that they shouldn’t always go where the ball is, but where the ball will be. They know that if a teammate has control, they’ll pass it to them away from the defense. They know not to kick the ball in front of their own goal and to center it on the attack.
I didn’t start playing soccer until college because when I grew up in Springfield, only southenders played. But I can say without reservation that it is the funnest game I’ve ever played. It’s not for the lazy or easily-fatigued. But if you crave action, you’ll love soccer.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Apr 27, 2008 | Reply