People get so emotional about this debate. It is not that these activities don't require strength, stamina, hard work, and talent. They do!!
It is just how can you call them sports when a judge determines the winner. There not!
Diving, synchronized swimming, gymnastics, etc are all ARTS and NOT Sports. In a sport you should be able to see your competition...race or game.
Sorry this is how I feel. Again, I respect these talents...but there not sports.
Boxing's not a sport then?
A judge certainly is not needed to kick your a$s out of a spelling bee.
A sport is a competition between two or more groups / individuals that requires both skill and physical exertion. I agree with OP, I don't think the competition is real when winners and losers can depend entirely on judges who may have biases, etc. There is no clear category for a winner. It is not most goals scored or first person to finish, it is points assigned by a person observing.
Mr Chomondley Warner wrote:
Boxing's not a sport then?
This isn't quite on the same page given that in boxing, either KOing the opponent or rendering him unable to fight will give you the victory, regardless of the scores granted by a judge.
fastrunnerBen wrote:
People get so emotional about this debate. It is not that these activities don't require strength, stamina, hard work, and talent. They do!!
It is just how can you call them sports when a judge determines the winner. There not!
Diving, synchronized swimming, gymnastics, etc are all ARTS and NOT Sports. In a sport you should be able to see your competition...race or game.
Sorry this is how I feel. Again, I respect these talents...but there not sports.
Your definition of sport is not common. This does not invalidate your opinion, but consensus rules. The masses overrule you.
They're sports; sorry.
Why do you care anyway?
Seyta wrote:
Mr Chomondley Warner wrote:Boxing's not a sport then?
This isn't quite on the same page given that in boxing, either KOing the opponent or rendering him unable to fight will give you the victory, regardless of the scores granted by a judge.
But any time there is no KO then it IS on the same page.
A vast majority of boxing decisions come down to judging. So boxing is an art?
Jumping no longer a sport.
Running no longer a sport (Judges deciding whether adverse contact was made, or someone stepped out of bounds)
Basketball no longer a sport.
The list goes on.
fastrunnerBen wrote:
People get so emotional about this debate. It is not that these activities don't require strength, stamina, hard work, and talent. They do!!
It is just how can you call them sports when a judge determines the winner. There not!
Diving, synchronized swimming, gymnastics, etc are all ARTS and NOT Sports. In a sport you should be able to see your competition...race or game.
Sorry this is how I feel. Again, I respect these talents...but there not sports.
You just don't understand that's all. Bias is known in these sports hence in sports like diving they have a system where not all the judges' scores are counted for each dive/routine, they discard outliers.
Plus, these judges have a criteria to go on they don't just completely make it up. Certain moves have set difficulty levels etc.
Boxing can be the most wishy washy to be honest sometimes. But it is still often quite clear who has won the fight if you watched carefully.
Besides as someone else pointed out, athletics has officials that can and do affect the outcome, just like in boxing. Just recently Churundi Martina appeared to clearly win the Euro 200m but was later disqualified for stepping on the lane line once after about 3-4 strides.
Bro, it is the Olympic Games not the Olympic Sports. No one said they were sports.
You realize that any of those little girl gymnasts are FAR stronger than you'll ever be, right? And far more skilled?
I think if you can't say "I play _____" where ______ is the activity you are trying to say is a sport, then it is not a sport.
I play track and field. No.
I play rugby. Yes.
I play gymnastics. No.
Now, this is not a sufficient condition.
E.g., I play hide-and-seek.
I hate swimmers ok wrote:
But any time there is no KO then it IS on the same page.
A vast majority of boxing decisions come down to judging. So boxing is an art?
When the fight ends without a knockout, then yes. It's subjective, this makes it art.
Beauty pageants require judges yet we often refer to them as sporting events. So tell me, Mr. Man, how do you explain that inconsistency?
gotta go with OP on this one, though I will argue that those that participate in said events are indeed athletes - often some of the best athletes.
Watching last night no one could explain why Ali Rysman had a lower score on the floor than Simone Biles. Why 1.134 in deductions? Just cuz? Even the announcers had no clue why.
At least in other things like track when you get DQd for stepping out of bounds, that at least could be seen and understood by general public.
in figure skating the Canadians missed out on a gold medal because one judge lowered their score just because. No reason other than their opinion on the performance.
Sports have referees and that adds an element of human error, but at the end of the match you do not need to be told who won, you know for yourselves by watching.
My criteria:
1. Do you need a judge?
2. Can you play defense?
3. Does the human do the majority of the work?
If there are two "NOs", then it is not a sport. Come at me.
fastrunnerBen wrote:
People get so emotional about this debate. It is not that these activities don't require strength, stamina, hard work, and talent. They do!!
It is just how can you call them sports when a judge determines the winner. There not!
Diving, synchronized swimming, gymnastics, etc are all ARTS and NOT Sports. In a sport you should be able to see your competition...race or game.
Sorry this is how I feel. Again, I respect these talents...but there not sports.
So they're "not sports." So what? Who are you, Adam? And God is having you name all the animals? Give it rest, why don't you?
Isn't every sport "judged"?
Any sport with a referee. Soccer, basketball, football, hockey, etc. The referee judges the players on the their ability to follow the rules. They have bias, too. Don't tell me they don't have bias.
Swimming is a sport right? Head to head competition? Yet they touch a board that judges them. It is a little more cut and dry than say gymnastics or boxing, but the timer judges them none the less, right?
https://static01.nyt.com/images/blogs/olympics/phelpscavic533.jpg
Did Phelps really beat Milorad Cavic in the 100m butterfly? The computerized mat may have JUDGED him wrong.
What did track and field officials do before race finish cameras? They JUDGED the athletes based on who they thought won. And most likely were wrong in some very close races.
To say a sport that is judged is not a sport, means you don't understand sport and competition.
thejeff wrote:
My criteria:
1. Do you need a judge?
2. Can you play defense?
3. Does the human do the majority of the work?
If there are two "NOs", then it is not a sport. Come at me.
Running is out because of your #2.
