What timing: before I decided to switch and make my previous post, I began writing my two cents and below it said 5:33 p.m., the exact same time Scott started his response.
However, I'm afraid Mr. Strader and I don't meet eye to eye, but rather my definition would very closely resemble Seth's. (Not accidentally, I might add, as Seth and I have discussed this topic before.) I realize that there are many competitions that I would normally consider a "sport" just like anyone else, but I think that might change on a person to person basis. (i.e. I'm still waiting on Cale's rebuttal to our NASCAR bashing of late, something I do not consider a "sport.") I agree with the idea of setting a series of criterion and then placing competitions, much like Seth did. Assuming my definition would be structured the same, as I believe it would be, here are a couple alterations I would make.
First of all, I would not consider running a sport, and certainly not sprinting. I know, I know, I'm flirting with angering a bunch of people (this is where you refute me, Cale) but I have run for distance and for speed in years past. In regards to a marathon, endurance is the most prominant aspect (both physical and mental). It requires strength, power, and timing, but too many of the other factors are borderline. Frankly, running is a fairly natural ability--some people are simply naturally faster than others. It is that running is highly "skilled" that I take issue. Now, we're talking about professionally trained runners here, so this goes beyond the schoolyard, but if we are going to include how fast a person can run we must include how high a person can jump. The high jump is done by people who train to enhance an already existing natural ability (although I agree it lacks endurance). In addition, marathons barely include full-body agility, physical quickness, coordination, and strategy is minimal. Sprinting, on the other hand, is completely void of any strategy whatsoever. And realistically, the 100 meter dash lasts around ten seconds making it difficult to argue physical and mental endurance play much of a role.
I'm glad you brought up boxing, Strader, as it was the most evident omission from the list. I would absolutely consider boxing a sport as outlined by the criteria, but only if it lasts until knockout. I agree that boxing is otherwise a judged competition and should not be included. (Again, strictly adhering to the criteria regardless of how I would catagorize it in the back of my mind.)
Another addition to the list of sports, albeit fairly new and obscure, would be Ultimate Frisbee. It is tough to find a competition that is better described and fits the description of a "sport" so well. Read down the list of descriptors and doesn't it just scream Ultimate Frisbee? (The only one up for debate is requirement of strength.)
Despite recent public attention within the past five years regarding cheerleading a legitimate sport, I shall have to disagree. This goes back to my statement that the majority of participants will consider their competition a sport, just like your boxer, marathon man, and jockey, Strader. Cheerleading will never get my approval because, although it requires every single bit of Rule #2, it is purely subjective. Maybe I'll change my mind once ESPN starts airing competitions to see who can build the highest human pyramid or who can get tossed the farthest or who can sleep with the most high school quarterbacks. Just food for thought.
Maybe a different angle to look at this delimma is whether or not to consider the participant of said competition an "athlete." This whole premise started as defining an "athletic sport," as I often think of true, natural sport as being hunting, fishing, etc. Strader's dart player would certainly not consider himself an athlete. In fact, this summer I went to a recruitment function and asked the smallest, weakest looking kid if played in any athletic sports and he said, "I'm just a golfer." All of the track and field participants would surely call themselves athletes but would the ping pong player? I dunno, just thought I'd open another door...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting. Although, I would have to disagree that "running" should not be considered an athletic sport. For some reason you believe that a marathon runner and a 100-yard dash runner employ no strategy. While the sprinter may not, a marathon runner surely employs his or her physical ability at correct and specific times throughout the race in order to reach the end.
Also, I would argue that all "sports" and "athletes" have some sort of natural physical ability. Narrowing this criteria down to running negates a boxer, basketball, or football player's natural ability to feel the game and perform. I know this because I, of course, have none of these abilities.
Also, as far as strategy and endurance are concerned, do you not consider the physical fitness and training required to perform? While it's clear that the definition of "sport" rests solely on the actual event, negating the influence of training ignores all aspects of performance beyond natural talent.
Finally, the baseball challenge has gone unanswered. Although runs scored determine the winner of the game, the officiating is purely subjective while still based on specific rules. I feel that if you disqualify "judged competitions" then most subjective officiating calls in the aforementioned legitimized "sports" would call in to question their inclusion. Unless, of course, the fact that the determining outcome (points or runs scored) is objective, then your argument likely stands.
On my way to Nashville I shall dive into this discussion. This is a good post by everybody, sans me for right now. More to come...
Post a Comment