Once and for all, the proper jeffinition of "sport"

All I know is that a couple of years ago the college track I sometimes use had the infield all roped off and sign posted that said, "field being reseeded, No sports or golf allowed."

get off my lawn wrote:

All I know is that a couple of years ago the college track I sometimes use had the infield all roped off and sign posted that said, "field being reseeded, No sports or golf allowed."

lol

gotta love a good non-chalant dig

There is only one jeffRule: Sub 20 min 5k.

theJeff wrote:

Change my mind.

I think you're letting darts in - that's a problem in my mind.

compressed wrote:

theJeff wrote:

Change my mind.

I think you're letting darts in - that's a problem in my mind.

And even worse: video games

Curling

dafadf wrote:

compressed wrote:

I think you're letting darts in - that's a problem in my mind.

And even worse: video games

To avoid this I would want to add some axiomatic quality (that does not count for 2 of 3) for physical performance, but do not know how to "jeffine" this.

However I would also want shooting competitions to qualify. Maybe darts and shooting do not qualify as sport but as something else, though still equally impressive (in my opinion). Though that does not mean I want to watch them.

Spectator interest is an essential quality of sport.

Video games should be in no category other than the trash.

theJeff wrote:

To be a Sport, at least 2 of the following 3 must be true:

1. Outcome is decided by athletes, not judges

2. The athlete must do the majority of the work (not a horse or a car)

3. You must be able to actively play defense

Examples

Soccer is a sport (1, 2, & 3)

Running is a sport (1 & 2, but not 3)

Gymnastics is not a sport (2, but not 1 or 3)

Change my mind.

Most field events are decided by judges.

Racket wrote:

Most field events are decided by judges.

Not in the way that you are implying. Judges in field events do not assign points like in figure skating or gymnastics. Their funciton is closer to a referee in soccer, basketball, baseball, etc in that they ensure the athletes are adhering to the rules of the competition.

If you can casually smoke a cigarette while doing it, then it's not a sport, it's a game.

So golf and baseball are games.

Not so fast bro wrote:

If you can casually smoke a cigarette while doing it, then it's not a sport, it's a game.

So golf and baseball are games.

I love when people so readily reveal themselves as ignoramuses by making fun of baseball athleticism.

That's all well and good Jeff, but can you define what an Old Sport is?

dafadf wrote:

compressed wrote:

I think you're letting darts in - that's a problem in my mind.

And even worse: video games

No.

1) The outcome isn't decided by athletes, as no athletes are involved. It is decided by the participants, but that isn't the criteria.

2) The player does not do the majority of the work. A computer does.

3) Actively playing defense I guess would depend on the game, but even if the game involves defense, you only have 1 out of 3 criteria met.

Gatsby wrote:

That's all well and good Jeff, but can you define what an Old Sport is?

It is between an old chum and a mate. Much like a pal, but with a slightly condescending, if well meaning, connotation.

Anything with a horse is a sport. The horse is the main athlete, assisted by a human.

not really wrote:

2) The player does not do the majority of the work. A computer does.

3) Actively playing defense I guess would depend on the game, but even if the game involves defense, you only have 1 out of 3 criteria met.

Certainly I would not want video games to count for anything like a sport, but...

I really don't think you can say the computer is doing the majority of the work, especially talking about player-vs-player games (and I don't think anyone plays player-vs-computer games under the guise of sport). Without the player nothing happens, the game is on the same tier as bat, ball, pitch, hurdle, goal, etc.

And as for defense it is difficult to describe to someone who has not played but there is a significant element of defense in certain games

What about technological advances making the difference like bikes and swimsuits. How is that much different from the Moto GP riders or the massive G forces on the formula one drivers?

(Though I generally do agree with you).

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

What about technological advances making the difference like bikes and swimsuits. How is that much different from the Moto GP riders or the massive G forces on the formula one drivers?

(Though I generally do agree with you).

I'd argue MotoGP and Formula 1 drivers do plenty of active defense too and thus satisfy 1 and 3.

crosscounts wrote:

not really wrote:

2) The player does not do the majority of the work. A computer does.

3) Actively playing defense I guess would depend on the game, but even if the game involves defense, you only have 1 out of 3 criteria met.

Certainly I would not want video games to count for anything like a sport, but...

I really don't think you can say the computer is doing the majority of the work, especially talking about player-vs-player games (and I don't think anyone plays player-vs-computer games under the guise of sport). Without the player nothing happens, the game is on the same tier as bat, ball, pitch, hurdle, goal, etc.

And as for defense it is difficult to describe to someone who has not played but there is a significant element of defense in certain games

I think the computer does the majority of the work in the same way that the car does the majority of the work in NASCAR.

I don’t think most races (foot, car, horse, or otherwise) should be classified as playing defense, since you aren’t supposed to actually contact the opponent. (You could make the case that impeding progress is “defense”, but I think the term implies physical contact.)