quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by slowrunner77 please tell me you are joking about Mr Williams...it's hard to tell. [:D] quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 Walter Ray Williams Jr, the bowler with the most PBA titles also was a three time world champion in horseshoes. Mostly serious. Being a dominant pro bowler is no less impressive than being dominant in any hand eye coordination sport. I consider it similar to being a good golfer, pool player or racecar driver. It's a skill sport and just because it might be less physical than some doesn't make it any less of a sport. "Sport" as in the English sense, game / leisure.... Sport as in the American sense.... Skill plus some sort of physical and enduring element, I think not.

You think not, I think so. I can't go out and drive 200 laps at 220 mph while not making any mistakes. I can't golf 16 under on a pro style course. I can't average over 200 while bowling in a competitive manner. I can't clear the table on a rack of balls in nine ball. However, I could play a game of pick up basketball, sprint down the street, kick a soccer ball around, play tackle football....but none at even close to a pro/ olympic level (or even collegiate level). You draw the line where you want. I draw it at poker, that is not a sport.

quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 You draw the line where you want. I draw it at poker, that is not a sport.

That's precisely what I did by combining elements of "skill" and "physical/enduring" characteristics to be a sport. By that definition, none of you added examples / counters blow up my world, because none of them included both aspects. Sure, you may disagree with my definition, but the physicalness of bowling a 200+ game doesn't cut it for me, as skilled as that is. Your playing football doesn't cut the skill for me, as much as it is physical enough. But, we will both agree on poker being below the line ;). Skill is diluted by luck/chance in the first place, and I doubt anyone could make an argument that it is physical. Strip poker on the other hand... I guess that could be.... nevermind....

quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 You draw the line where you want. I draw it at poker, that is not a sport. That's precisely what I did by combining elements of "skill" and "physical/enduring" characteristics to be a sport. By that definition, none of you added examples / counters blow up my world, because none of them included both aspects. Sure, you may disagree with my definition, but the physicalness of bowling a 200+ game doesn't cut it for me, as skilled as that is. Your playing football doesn't cut the skill for me, as much as it is physical enough. But, we will both agree on poker being below the line ;). Skill is diluted by luck/chance in the first place, and I doubt anyone could make an argument that it is physical. Strip poker on the other hand... I guess that could be.... nevermind....

you can break it down in many ways.. in a way alot of football players aren't real sportsman.. what about a center who does nothing but stand there and stop a guy running by just holding him.. wow, that takes alot of skill.... goalies just stop a ball/puck from going into a rectangle.. baseball players who stand around in center field all day doing nothing... oh, he caught a ball and threw it.. hmm?? trying to define what is a sport or not is just dumb.. you try hard enough, nothing and everything is a sport...

quote: Originally posted by Suds McDuff trying to define what is a sport or not is just dumb.. you try hard enough, nothing and everything is a sport...

This can be true for sure. But, normally the ones that become disqualified by someone are because they don't have an appreciation for the skill involved. Baseball players can indeed be less athletic than others, but a centerfielder doesn't just stand around. And, if they do, it's cuz their bat is quite the deal, and hitting a ball at 90mph with breaks in it with a bat that has a 2" profile.... That's pretty physical AND skilled. The same would be said for a center, as the technical elements for the offensive lineman DO require quite a bit of skill (I'm assuming you'll grant the physicality, lol). But, you're right, this debate has been played out in several situations before to no avail. Bowling and race car driving, though, just aren't SPORTS.... they're (insert english pronunciation) "sport, eh?" But that's about it. (And no, I don't need to hear how sweaty it can be behind a NASCAR wheel....)

Jackie Stewart: 3-time Formula One World Champion, and a championship skeet-shooter before he took up racing.

quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 You draw the line where you want. I draw it at poker, that is not a sport. That's precisely what I did by combining elements of "skill" and "physical/enduring" characteristics to be a sport. By that definition, none of you added examples / counters blow up my world, because none of them included both aspects. Sure, you may disagree with my definition, but the physicalness of bowling a 200+ game doesn't cut it for me, as skilled as that is. Your playing football doesn't cut the skill for me, as much as it is physical enough. But, we will both agree on poker being below the line ;). Skill is diluted by luck/chance in the first place, and I doubt anyone could make an argument that it is physical. Strip poker on the other hand... I guess that could be.... nevermind....

One could have no arms and still play poker. One has to have arms for bowling. That is enough for me, a hand eye coordination, combined with concentration in a particular skill set that most do not possess. But what do I know? I actually watch golf, bowling and pool on tv. I especially love the trick shot competitions. [:D] I just call BS on the "leisure" definition. I gave my examples to show that any sport can be ultra competitive or leisurely depending on the context. Lots of people I know play volleyball at bars. Does that mean that pro volleyball players aren't athletes? Yeah, Suds is right, this is a never ending argument. [:D]

quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 You draw the line where you want. I draw it at poker, that is not a sport. That's precisely what I did by combining elements of "skill" and "physical/enduring" characteristics to be a sport. By that definition, none of you added examples / counters blow up my world, because none of them included both aspects. Sure, you may disagree with my definition, but the physicalness of bowling a 200+ game doesn't cut it for me, as skilled as that is. Your playing football doesn't cut the skill for me, as much as it is physical enough. But, we will both agree on poker being below the line ;). Skill is diluted by luck/chance in the first place, and I doubt anyone could make an argument that it is physical. Strip poker on the other hand... I guess that could be.... nevermind.... One could have no arms and still play poker. One has to have arms for bowling. That is enough for me, a hand eye coordination, combined with concentration in a particular skill set that most do not possess.

Yes, you've removed the physical component and retained skill along with competitiveness. This is what makes it "just" leisurely for me. Hand-eye coordination and concentration just don't sound physical to me. Skilled, yes. Competitive, yes. But, anyone's definition involves some subjectivism, so no one is right or wrong here.

quote: quote: quote: Lots of people I know play volleyball at bars. Does that mean that pro volleyball players aren't athletes?

Never define a sport by its play at the least common denominator! I play volleyball in a competitive / physical setting in a work league. I have played it in a church picnic setting. The former is a sport, the latter is purely leisurely even if I did break a sweat. Volleyball, regardless, is a sport.

quote: quote: quote: Yeah, Suds is right, this is a never ending argument. [:D]

Yah, no argument here, though. Just discussion, seeking to understand for my own benefit. I don't care what you or anyone else personally defines as a sport when all is said and done. For me physical and skill will both be important. I like your addition of "competitiveness" as a necessary element. You've stopped at competitive and skill. I just can't recognize knitting and bridge as sports - only leisure :).

quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 Never define a sport by its play at the least common denominator! I play volleyball in a competitive / physical setting in a work league. I have played it in a church picnic setting. The former is a sport, the latter is purely leisurely even if I did break a sweat. Volleyball, regardless, is a sport.

But I think that is what you are doing with golf, bowling, etc. Just because you think there is a lack of physicality that is required by some sports, that makes them "sport" or leisure activities. There is still a physical component. If a sport must have that physical plus skill, then are you going to discount sprinting and weight lifting? To me, those are very much tilted toward pure physical acts. Technique is part of it, though. so what if the technique/ skill is the dominant factor and the physical is less important? They are still both part of the sport.

One definition from dictionary of Sport that made me smile... 3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime. ..in the end if you enjoy watching it, there you go... --- i'm going to add Hakeem Olajuwon to the list, he was a great goalkeeper for Nigeria in his younger days... he only played basketball for 2 years before being picked up by Houston, that's crazy.. -- on another note, how did Marion Jones make the list?? she's a doper.. probably during her whole career... --

quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 Never define a sport by its play at the least common denominator! I play volleyball in a competitive / physical setting in a work league. I have played it in a church picnic setting. The former is a sport, the latter is purely leisurely even if I did break a sweat. Volleyball, regardless, is a sport. But I think that is what you are doing with golf, bowling, etc. Just because you think there is a lack of physicality that is required by some sports, that makes them "sport" or leisure activities. There is still a physical component. If a sport must have that physical plus skill, then are you going to discount sprinting and weight lifting? To me, those are very much tilted toward pure physical acts. Technique is part of it, though. so what if the technique/ skill is the dominant factor and the physical is less important? They are still both part of the sport.

You're right. I'm absolutely swayed to a "sport" having more than a minimum level of physicality. And it's certainly above the amount involved with poker or bowling, both of which I've participated in and believe to be below the minimum threshold even at the most competitive levels. Golf is right in a gray area for me. The walk is long enough and often in the heat/weather, that I'd probably grant it "sport" level vs. leisure. Your physical condition can certainly impact the game. Weight lifting has a lot of technical technique in it.... So, I wouldn't discount that as a sport. I'll bet if I actually participated in weight lifting, I'd have even more of an arugment for its technical requirements. So, I'm not as concerned with "winning" the battle across views on where to set the bar. That's in the eyes of the beholder. I'm more intetrested in capturing the key elements of sport vs. leisure and examining if my own definitions are consistent. I like what I've heard here so far: physicality, skill, and competitiveness. The other thing besides physicality, skill, and competitiveness that often tries to get in there for me is the "team" element. The "one man" individual stuff is harder for me to view as "sport" vs. leisure. I know that rubs some people the wrong way, and I haven't reconciled my own position on that, but there is something sportier about a team competition vs. individual. In that sense, I wouldn't discount tennis as a sport, though, but I would moreso swimming where countries or team aren't really adding up their points. So, the "team" element doesn't get held as an essential for me. But.... I struggle with it. And to add my two nominations: Tom Brady and Tony Gwynn. Gwynn was a baseball STUD, totally under-rated, a student of the game, perfect in all the technical elements, not bad at all physically, team sport, and he was an excellent basketball player. Allen Iverson was the most ridiculous nomination on the list. I'd easiliy replace him with Gwynn. Gwynn was drafted in his second sport, Iverson nope.