With the explosion of televised activities in recent years, it's time to put to bed the debate, "What Makes Something a Sport?" These activities are on TV because they make money, not necessarily because they are sporting events.
Let’s start with some basic definitions, courtesy of dictionary.com:
Game: a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators
Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.
Hence, a sport can be a game, but a game is not necessarily a sport. Merely competing does not make something a sport. The key difference: a sport implies not just activity, but athletic activity.
What are athletic activities? Such things as running, jumping, throwing, lifting, and hitting with or swinging an implement at a moving ball, to name just a few. All of these imply a certain amount of physical exertion.
Therefore, sports are activities such as football, baseball, hockey, basketball, soccer, swimming, wrestling, tennis, and the like. And yes, I consider bowling, ping pong, and badminton to be sports.
Not sports: golf, poker, car/boat racing, gluttonous eating, pool , chess, darts, and equestrian, to name a few. These are at best, games. Yes, pool and golf involve striking a stationary ball with an implement, but nothing else athletic. (I say if golf is a sport, so is mini-golf). And spectators at these two events are prohibited from cheering or making noise during play.
[SIDE NOTE: Why it’s OK for a stadium full of people to yell at the top of their lungs while a batter awaits the delivery of a 95 mph fastball in his general vicinity, and it’s not OK to scream and cheer while a golfer hits a non-moving ball is beyond me. You don’t think a baseball batter has to concentrate as hard as a golfer does? Just another point against golf being a sport!]
Are golf, poker, et al., competitive? Yes. Do these activities require a high level of skill? Yes, with the possible exception of “competitive eating.” Are they athletic? Absolutely, positively, NOT!
Car/boat racing and equestrian are similar in this regard – people riding in, or on, the actual competitor, as in a car, boat, or horse. No doubt a certain amount of skill is required for all of these. But the human involved need not be athletic in the traditional sense of the word. Why equestrian is an Olympic activity is beyond me. It’s the horse that is doing all of the running and jumping, not the rider. If this is a sport, then why not add NASCAR to the Olympics? In both activities, you have a person competing by riding something.
For a further distinction, I’m open to considering polo as a sport, as the polo rider has to perform in a more athletic manner than the equestrian rider does.
Finally, to wrap this up, please don’t suggest that poker is a sport. Regardless of its coverage on ESPN (why?) and the skill it may require, sitting in a chair while looking at something in your hands is not athletic. Any serious student or avid reader could tell you that.
comments (26) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
You left out "competition". Throw that in the mix and you're covered.
3 months ago
"Such things as running, jumping, throwing, lifting, and hitting with or swinging an implement, to name just a few. All of these imply a certain amount of physical exertion."
doesnt golf involve swinging or hitting with an implement??
from 3 months ago
nvm...i didnt read the whole thing...my bad :/
3 months ago
Dear Sir, have you ever tried horseback riding? I do not mean riding a nice pony in a park, a real horse 6 days of the week and then try completing a jumping course or a dressage test and beleive me you won't be able to handle it.
To actually complete an Olympic level equestrian competition such as Grand Prix Dressage, a 1.60 meters jumping course, or a kilometers long cross country competetion you need a lot of athletic ability. A rider must be athletically fit, in every aspect, healthy, strong and have stamina.
You have no idea the work a rider's muscles do to control a 500 pound living-breathing-intelligent animal to have it do what you command.
If you bother to write this at least do some research and actually READ how it is that equestrian sports became part of the Olympics.
Most people like you are ignorant of the physical effort it takes to be a competitive rider. It is not at all just skill that is necessary as in such games as golf and poker. You cannot classify equestrian sports as just games of skill. Please do not write about a subject you know nothing about, also your editors are not responsible for allowing you to do so.
Try reading about Olympic Equestrian sports, in many countries such as Mexico it is equestrian sports that have brought the most Olympic medals.
Explore the internet for example the site of the US Equestrian Federation (USEF) or the International Equestrian Federation (FEI).
I invite you to try an equestrian sport for real. No, I challenge you to do so. Please write to me at gennyllp@gmail.com and you can come and try it out with me, I invite you to my home and to try horseback riding in the true sense. You do not have to run any expenses.
from 3 months ago
Hi Eugenia, thanks for taking the time to respond. While I have ridden horses a number of times, I haven't done anything like competitive riding, such as equestrian. I readily admit I'm not an expert in this matter. What I am an expert in is how the human body works - physiology, kinesiology and the like. Your passionate defense of equestrian sports notwithstanding, to me it is still not a sport. It may be more physically taxing than some other activities, but that still does not qualify it as a sport. I'm sure there are NASCAR fans who will vouch for the physical demands of high-speed car driving. But I still don't think that elevates it to the level of sport either. Doing yard work is physically demanding - riding a lawn mower in the heat of day is tough, as is working on a oil rig. That doesn't make these activities sports, however.
3 months ago
Good article, but I disagree with you about golf.
3 months ago
Mr. Zawrotny: I wish to further discuss the issue with you; I tried sending you an e-mail to your posted address here, but it did not pass. I sent you an e-mail to the address on your website.
By the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary a sport is:
1) an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
2) a particular form of this, especially in the outdoors. 3) diversion recreation; pleasant pastime.
There are another further 22 definitions, but they don't apply to activities of a physical nature.
These definitions apply to equestrian sports. One can argue that skiing, ice skating or hockey are sports.
So are the three equestrian disciplines.
I repeat to you sir, since you are a person who has studied the human body, make the experiment of emulating an equestrian rider. There are many scientific studies of riders as athletes, I'm sure since you are a scholar you can understand them better than me. Go to equisearch.com, or google it.
Please if you are curious I'd love to invite you to see for yourself how equestrian sports are very much that. The downside is that I live in Mexico, so I don't know if you would come all the way here whilst you can do this somewhere nearer to your home.
If you check out the Olympic web page you shall see named the sports recognised by the Olympic Movement. Hey even shhoting is a sport, and it certainly is less taxing than dressage, jumping or eventing.
Even further sir, as I am certain you already know, civilization was created on horse-back.
Just to name a few: Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Hernan Cortez, & so on.
3 months ago
Hi Eugenia, I appreciate your passion for equestrian! That something is an Olympic "sport," however, is not a convincing argument for me. I agree with you that shooting is less physically demanding than riding a horse and not at all athletic. I don't think it should be an Olympic event. I think where the confusion comes in on this issue is that many people think that because something is physically demanding and competitive, it is a sport. I strongly disagree. To be a sport, I think an activity should have some level of athletic activity integral to it, as I defined this above. That's what separates something like horse or car riding from say, track and field. Perhaps equestrian is more athletic than I am allowing for, so, while I'm not planning any trips to Mexico in the near future, I can do some more research on this matter as you have suggested. And, if I find that I have understestimated the HUMAN athletic component of equestrian, I will say as much in this public forum.
about 1 month ago
Nice article, however totally disagree with your golf comments.
Golf is a sport, it uses more muscles and muscle groups than running, football, tennis, and many more.
The physical exertion is far greater than many sports such as bowling, badminton etc...
18 holes of golf can be very draining and very tiring, it takes effort, skill and a good mind to master a game of golf, do you play golf? You seem very uneducated about it...
Anyway, I like the article and I give it 5 stars, but Golf is deffo a sport!
about 1 month ago
Ryan, thanks for taking the time to write. I have played golf quite a lot over the years, and very poorly at that! But I have played enough to be familiar with the game and its demands. Yes, 18 holes can be very tiring. But that's because of all the walking you do, not the golf itself. It's sort of like saying baseball is very draining because you have to run out to your position and back every inning! No doubt golf takes "effort, skill, and a good mind" to master, but so does playing poker or chess, and nobody is claiming either of those games is a sport!
And I disagree with you on at least two of your examples: tennis and football. The metabolic demands of these sports are far greater than for golf. In golf, you have a brief moment of exertion or activity (swinging a very light implement) followed by several minutes of rest (walking to your ball). Yes, many muscles are used to swing a golf club, but that level of effort, even at the highest level of the game, pales when compared to what athletes in the NFL or pro tennis have to expend with each play. In tennis, there's a powerful serve (similar to a golf drive off the tee) then, potentiality, a number of volleys back and forth that can take a while to conclude. Mixed in with the volleying can be much sprinting back and forth across the court. When the volley finishes, players immediately begin the process again. This level of activity can and does last for hours. Again, comparing players at the highest levels of the game, tennis is far more physically demanding than golf. I'm sure you'd agree that sprinting is more challenging that walking!
Football is similar, with the added dimension of the potential for serious physical injury on every play. Few sports have to deal with that. The exertion required to play football varies by position, but again, unless you are substituted for, you're making that maximal effort with little rest time (40 seconds or less, depending on time-outs, etc) plus the added factor of violent collisions with your opponent. The exertion required of golf simply doesn't compare to that of football.
Again, my thanks for your comments Ryan!
from about 1 month ago
I totally agree, football requires much more physical exertion, however, I said Golf uses more muscles and muscle groups than football, the physical exertion is far greater in football. I compared the exertion of golf to bowling and badminton.
And I can hardly talk actually, cause I use a golf buggy most of the time, haha i'm so lazy!
about 1 month ago
Your conclusion about golf is a non sequitur. I may not be able to convince you that golf is a sport, but it is easy to find fault in your reasoning. If a sport is an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and of a competitive nature, and swinging an implement is an athletic activity, then golf must be a sport. If some other athletic ability is required, then it should be stated in the definition. Otherwise you are logically inconsistent. You compared baseball and golf. That's evidence as to why golf should be a sport. Everyone thinks baseball is a sport. The only thing that makes baseball more physically demanding is running around the bases or pitching several innings. A sport does not necessarily have to test your endurance. And mini-golf is obviously not the same as golf. It isn't competitive because no one takes it seriously and it only requires the use of one type of shot while Tiger Woods could perform 117 distinct shots for you on a driving range with the 13 non-putter clubs in his bag.
about 1 month ago
"If a sport is an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and of a competitive nature, and swinging an implement is an athletic activity, then golf must be a sport. If some other athletic ability is required, then it should be stated in the definition."
Point taken. So I amend my original definition above to read, "Swinging an implement at, in an attempt to hit or make contact with, a MOVING object (usually some kind of ball)."
In your golf/baseball comparison, you forgot fielding and throwing, both of which are essential components of baseball and require much greater athleticism than anything a golfer is required to do. Three examples: turning a double play at 2B, a 3B charging in to field a bunt while throwing to 1B, and an OF running down a fly ball and making a throw back in to a base to get a runner.
I agree that endurance is not a necessary component of my game vs. sport definition, and is certainly not required to play either baseball or golf.
As for mini-golf, it is not the same as golf, because there are no long hits. Mini golf is a condensed version of regular golf. For golfers who ride around in a cart, mini-golf is only slightly less physically demanding. True, tee and iron shots use body parts that putting does not. So regular golf is more physically demanding than mini-golf, but not by much.
A golf swing takes what, a half second or less to complete? So let's do some simple math. Every golfer who plays 18 holes makes 18 tee shots, therefore, 9 seconds of actual physical activity. For our case here, let's say our mythical golfer is on every green in two shots, so we'll add 18 more iron shots (9 more seconds of activity). Once on the green, he's basically playing mini-golf. It would not be unusual for a golfer to spend more actual playing time on a green, putting, than elsewhere on the course.
And while there is no professional mini-golf tour that I am aware of, no doubt there are some who take it very seriously and consider it to be real competition.
Finally, that Tiger Woods can hit 117 distinct shots on a driving range with any combination of clubs doesn't make this activity athletic in my mind. Pool players can do amazing, unusual things with a cue and balls on a table, but I don't think that makes them athletes either.
about 1 month ago
"If a sport is an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and of a competitive nature, and swinging an implement is an athletic activity, then golf must be a sport. If some other athletic ability is required, then it should be stated in the definition."
Point taken. So I amend my original definition above to read, "Swinging an implement at, in an attempt to hit or make contact with, a MOVING object (usually some kind of ball)."
In your golf/baseball comparison, you forgot fielding and throwing, both of which are essential components of baseball and require much greater athleticism than anything a golfer is required to do. Three examples: turning a double play at 2B, a 3B charging in to field a bunt while throwing to 1B, and an OF running down a fly ball and making a throw back in to a base to get a runner.
I agree that endurance is not a necessary component of my game vs. sport definition, and is certainly not required to play either baseball or golf.
As for mini-golf, it is not the same as golf, because there are no long hits. Mini golf is a condensed version of regular golf. For golfers who ride around in a cart, mini-golf is only slightly less physically demanding. True, tee and iron shots use body parts that putting does not. So regular golf is more physically demanding than mini-golf, but not by much.
A golf swing takes what, a half second or less to complete? So let's do some simple math. Every golfer who plays 18 holes makes 18 tee shots, therefore, 9 seconds of actual physical activity. For our case here, let's say our mythical golfer is on every green in two shots, so we'll add 18 more iron shots (9 more seconds of activity). Once on the green, he's basically playing mini-golf. It would not be unusual for a golfer to spend more actual playing time on a green, putting, than elsewhere on the course.
And while there is no professional mini-golf tour that I am aware of, no doubt there are some who take it very seriously and consider it to be real competition.
Finally, that Tiger Woods can hit 117 distinct shots on a driving range with any combination of clubs doesn't make this activity athletic in my mind. Pool players can do amazing, unusual things with a cue and balls on a table, but I don't think that makes them athletes either.
about 1 month ago
The fact that the baseball is moving doesn't make baseball more physically demanding. A golf ball isn't moving, but it must be struck more accurately than a baseball is struck or thrown. The whole time argument is an extension of endurance. A golf swing takes closer to a second, but that is irrelevant. Golf is athletic because of the strength required to compete in golf. There is a reason why the best women golfers in the world can't compete with men. They aren't strong enough to reach the greens in regulation. Professional golfers don't just hit the ball farther then the "weekend golfer" because they are more skilled. They have stronger golf muscles then people who don't play golf frequently. There is physical strength required to play COMPETITIVE golf. Of course anyone can play 18 holes. That's not a sport. To hit the ball as far as professional golfers do or to hit it as far as they can from the thick rough they sometimes face requires physical strength. In competition, having more physical strength is an advantage. Surely you will agree that competitive golf requires more physical strength than pool.
about 1 month ago
"The fact that the baseball is moving doesn't make baseball more physically demanding."
For hitting a baseball vs hitting a golf ball, true. But baseball has other aspects to it that make it both more physically demanding (but not to a huge degree) yet far more athletic - fielding a moving ball, and catching/throwing a moving ball. Fielding and throwing are essential aspects of baseball that have no parallel in golf.
"A golf ball isn't moving, but it must be struck more accurately than a baseball is struck or thrown."
Debatable. I know a miss-hit golf shot can result in a hook or slice and perhaps an errant ball placement. Miss-hitting a baseball (or swing and miss it entirely) usually means an out - fly ball, ground ball, or strike out. The margin for error for both is pretty small. And it is rare even for hack golfers to swing and miss their golf ball. It commonly happens in baseball.
In our "moving vs in-place ball" difficulty debate, consider that golfers never have to deal with velocity (fastballs) change in velocity (off-speed pitches) and location (inside, outside, high and low). Wind affects golfers and ball players roughly equally.
"Professional golfers don't just hit the ball farther then the 'weekend golfer' because they are more skilled. They have stronger golf muscles then people who don't play golf frequently."
It's more complex than that. If not, all any weekend golfer would have to do to become pro quality is go to a gym and become as strong as the average pro golfer. And, to be more precise, it's not simply strength that golfers need and use, but POWER. They are related attributes, but are developed by different training methods. Ultimately, pro golfers attain the level of skill that they do due to their ability to perform a fairly complex physical skill (hitting a golf ball far and pretty straight) while combining the required mental focus to consistently, effectively repeat all of this through 18 holes.
"There is physical strength required to play COMPETITIVE golf."
True, but it is the mental aspect that separates the very best from everyone else. Physical strength is easy to develop. Mental strength, much harder.
"Of course anyone can play 18 holes. That's not a sport."
Now you are being inconsistent. A sport is a sport regardless of the level of play or skill level of the participants. Same with a game.
"In competition, having more physical strength is an advantage."
This is basically true. But no one would confuse Phil Mickelson with Hulk Hogan. Hulk is clearly stronger than Phil. There is far more to the game of golf than physical strength. I'd be willing to bet that you'd find your average pro golfer to be not much stronger than the average male of the same size.
"Surely you will agree that competitive golf requires more physical strength than pool."
Agreed.
about 1 month ago
now I am totally confused
from about 1 month ago
Confused by what?
about 1 month ago
I wasn't singling out men's professional golf as the only part of golf that's a sport. A sport must be competitive. Playing golf on the weekend by yourself is not a sport. The women's game must be considered a sport as well if golf is a sport. I was just making comparisons. At this point you have conceded that golf requires the athletic ability of physical strength. Golf requires skill, golf requires athletic ability, and golf is competitive. Based on your definitions, its a sport. How much athletic ability is required should not be an issue. It's interesting to compare it to something like baseball but a sport does not have to be as athletic as baseball. If athletic ability is required, that should be enough to call it a sport.
from about 1 month ago
"At this point you have conceded that golf requires the athletic ability of physical strength. Golf requires skill, golf requires athletic ability, and golf is competitive. Based on your definitions, its a sport."
In my definition of sport above, I mentioned "lifting." In so doing, I had in mind the two Olympic lifts (Snatch and Clean & Jerk), which require not only strength but much in the way of technique and skill to perform. So, to be clear, my original definition does not define strength as an athletic attribute or ability.
BUT - strength is the basis of ALL sports performance. Athletes need strength, good reflexes, agility, etc., but none of these attributes in and of themselves is athletic. The activity or sport is what is athletic - running, jumping, throwing, lifting, etc.
For the record, I do not consider body-building to be a sport either. Yes, it is competitive, and weights are lifted in preparing for bb contests. But this activity is all about appearance, what I call "cosmetic muscle." Other than the Olympic lifts, there is nothing inherently athletic about lifting weights or getting strong. And PRO bodybuilding, with its rampant drug use, is anything but healthy.
I am enjoying our discussion, yet I suspect I am not convincing you of my idea of golf not being a sport. Regardless, I appreciate your informed and intelligent contributions to this board.
about 1 month ago
Thank you. I enjoy a good debate as well. Personally, I don't think it really makes a difference whether we call something a sport or a game. It would be nice if it was easier to define sport, but it isn't. We choose to define athletic ability differently, so we must define sport differently. I understand where you're coming from. You haven't convinced me, but as consolation I'm now one of your fans. I think we're at the point where it's time to agree to disagree. Thanks for continuing to reply.
from 3 days ago
And my thanks to you, and that I can count you as a fan!
about 1 month ago
I appreciate your attempt to demean things you don't enjoy. You might not enjoy the article I wrote a while back about this. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/41577-golf-doesnt-care-if-you-think-its-a-sport-or-not
from 3 days ago
Where did you get the idea that I don't enjoy golf? Nowhere did I say I disliked the game. And how does my assertion that golf is a game and not a sport "demean" it? You are making unwarranted assumptions. In my mind, as a fairly accomplished former athlete and now as a coach, golf does not meet my definition of what constitutes a sport. I read your article and what you refer to as "neanderthalic standards" I consider as true athletic attributes. For an activity to be considered a sport, it must have (amongst other things) an athletic component as I define this above.
3 days ago
Dictionary definition
Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.
Golf requires all of these.
Physical prowess does not mean violent power or speed.
2 days ago
Then you better define "physical prowess." You can't have it both ways. Your dictionary definition says physical prowess is a part of sport. What is there about golf that requires physical prowess? Remember, you're talking to someone who understands physiology and biomechanics. A golf drive or long iron shot is most definitely physically "explosive," which is another way of saying "violent power or speed."
write a new comment