Question: If they're all "games", why do they keep score? Answer: They keep score to determine a "winner" of the "game" Question: How do they determine the highest "score" to be the winner? Answer: (1)If it's an objective "game" (eg basketball, timed swimming), the highest score wins as determined by the objective points/time achieved (2) If it's a subjective "game" (e.g. diving, gymnastics[in all its variations] etc, the best score is arrived at by a committee that, for all practical purposes, guesses.
One clearly wins gold on his/her/their defined verifiable achievement in the tested skill/game. There is also defined 2nd best and third best.
The other(s) gets consensus gold for the best "performance" in the "game", as such the so-called "game" never really resolves itself, except judges give three performers medals for appearing to be the best and everyone walks away Just my opinion Mike
from betenoirThey're called the Olympic Games, not the Olympic Sports.
To me, the outcome of a sporting event should be measurable and determined objectively; anything that can be judged subjectively according to one's personal opinion of a performance is not a sport but more of an art form. Of course, there are those who will argue that art itself can be measured objectively and therefore be judged good or bad, but in my opinion, the success of art is subjective and not objectively quantifiable.
Is the Olympics evolving into a glorified talent contest?
Josh,
I refer you to my dilemma over boxing, above. Undoubtedly a sport, but often decided subjectively. Also, gymnastics and diving involve levels of difficulty according to the elements attempted, so a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity.
I maintain that synchronised anything, however, is dance, not sport.
To return to your definition, darts, pool and snooker would be included. None of us wants that!
While I do think that sporting events should be objectively measurable (else they veer into the realm of art form), I certainly don't think that all objectively measurable events should be considered sports.
Boxing is nothing more than a full-contact dance contest!
MusicMaker, you make some very good points. Food for thought, in fact, and here are one or two of mine, which may be added to when I get more time.
Boxing is a well established Olympic sport. In the event of a knock out, the winner is very clear. In the absence of a KO, the bout is decided subjectively by judges. No other way of doing it - and the participants are fit, strong and athletic - but this may not be a sport by your definition.
Motor racing - no matter how fit they are (and they are, as you very ably point out) my instinctive reaction is that it may well be a sport but the drivers could only be athletes if (like cyclists) they powered their own vehicles themselves, without the benefit of engines. I can't see Hamilton and Button in pedal cars, so sorry guys - you're amongst the fittest of sportsmen, but I think you're drivers, not athletes.
Excellent posts, MusicMaker, and I enjoyed reading them much as I can recall enjoying any posts of recent times. More discussion required and to follow!
TG
Thanks, TG. I usually just lurk and read around here, so it's nice to know when I'm contributing something interesting for someone else.
RE: Boxing... The non-KO bout may be decided subjectively, but (as I understand it) it's still done on objective terms. Meaning that the judges aren't evaluating how well one fighter fought over another, but are merely counting blows landed. That's objective. The only subjective part is whether or not they count (or even saw) a punch as having successfully landed. You check with all 3 judges, to make sure one specific judge's errant call(s) on a "hit" or "miss" doesn't throw the overall result out-of-whack. To me, this is just like the subjective judgments about objective rules made by officials and referees in most sports (i.e. was it a ball or strike, was the handball intentional or not, was the slidetackle from behind, or was the hit/tackle made on a receiver in a "defenseless" position, etc.). I'm OK with all of those. Theoretically, if humans were perfect in these judgments, the outcomes would always be made the same way since they are based on objective rules. Same with boxing results, if they really are scoring the number of punches landed.
RE: Motor Racing I see what you're saying, but for me it's easy to include motor racing as "sports." Just like sailing (America's Cup, or other regatta forms), where sometimes sails and rigging trims, changes and adjustments use motorized grinders (rather than purely human crank power, which even then is still done using mechanical advantage). Or equestrian, where the "work" is done by the horse (but under the control, feel, influence, and guidance of the rider), which seems to be a direct parallel to motor racing. Where do you draw the line on what constitutes an acceptable tool or equipment piece and what is too much technology doing the work? For me, motor sports are definitely in. What about when Nigel Mansell collapsed back in the day trying to push his car across the finish line (South Africa, I think? In any case, it was ridiculous)?
RE: the "All Games or Competitions are Sports" crowd... Well, clearly the whole point here is that different people see this differently. Is Chess a sport? I don't think so, but others disagree. If all competition is sport (regardless of its physicality level or some of the other things I listed in my original post), or even if you further limit "sport" to "organized" competition (where certain rules or boundaries apply and an objective must be achieved between competitors), then this opens the door for "sport" definitions that *I* consider to be ridiculous. If one person beats out another for a work promotion (in fair competition), is that a sport? If one person writes an essay that wins a contest over another entrant, is that a sport? Is the upcoming US Presidential election a sport? If 10 school choirs compete at a festival (with awards given and such), are those singers athletes? Is choral singing now a sport? It seems some of you would say so.
I don't think that you can eliminate all contests in which judgments need to be made from the category of sports. Baseball, football, basketball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, hockey, etc. all have referees/umpires/officials, and the results of games often depend upon their judgments. Ball or strike? Fair or foul? Charging? Traveling? On the line or outside the line? Just ask the U.S. basketball team that lost the gold medal to the Russians whether or not judgment calls had any effect on the game. So then we're talking about the ratio of objective elements in the sport vs. judgmental elements. Even things like gymnastics aren't all judgment. You either stick the landing or you don't; you hold the iron cross on the rings for two seconds or you don't, you stay on the beam or you fall off, you do three somersaults or two.
Just adding a follow-up note to this thread from more than 5 years ago...
I saw this today at ESPN.com, and immediately thought of this conversation about what is and is not sport. My personal opinions on the matter haven't changed from earlier in this thread, and I mostly agree with the perspective held by the article's author.
For those who need a film/music tie-in, the whole article seems to have been prompted by the author's reaction to some scenes in the current Margot Robbie figure-skating movie I, TONYA.
A few actual quotes from actual figure skaters prior to the 2014 Olympic winter games in response to a proposal that their "sport" move to using national uniforms (as opposed to costumes):
From skater Marissa Castelli: "We bring an artistry to the sport by wearing costumes and, with the music, that makes it more exciting to watch."
From skater Simon Shnapir: "It's all about the whole package -- from the hair and the makeup to the outfits and the music to the personality and the emotion you bring."
From ice dancer Charlie White: "In theater, a lot of times you use your outfit to get the story across. And that's certainly what I feel like we're doing. We're not just trying to look nice, we're really trying to be the characters we're trying to embody."
From ice dancer Maryl Davis: "I personally think [uniforms] would be a huge drawback from the performance. There's no denying that figure skating as a whole and ice dance in particular are very much based on performance as on athletics. I don't think figure skating sport [would be the same] without the performance, without the glitz and the glamour."
MusicMaker's response: If I was ever in doubt (I wasn't), these quotes pretty much seal the deal for me. Figure skating is definitely an art/drama/dance/theater event, and not a sport.
Whoever thinks Olympic ice-skating is not a sport needs to wake up, have you seen these athletes spin, jump, there's a lot of training involved 1 little Blip in competition its all over, I don't like ice-skating but its a skilful sport.
Whoever thinks Olympic ice-skating is not a sport needs to wake up, have you seen these athletes spin, jump, there's a lot of training involved 1 little Blip in competition its all over, I don't like ice-skating but its a skilful sport.
A "sport" kinda implies competition where there's a "winner" and "loser" which isn't subjective. Your faster than everyone else, (Racing, skiing, running) you have more points, (football, baseball, hockey, etc) For decades body builders have been lobbying to get into the Olympics. So getting really huge, ripped, and posing in front of a crowd is a sport too?
Whoever thinks Olympic ice-skating is not a sport needs to wake up, have you seen these athletes spin, jump, there's a lot of training involved 1 little Blip in competition its all over, I don't like ice-skating but its a skilful sport.
A "sport" kinda implies competition where there's a "winner" and "loser" which isn't subjective. Your faster than everyone else, (Racing, skiing, running) you have more points, (football, baseball, hockey, etc) For decades body builders have been lobbying to get into the Olympics. So getting really huge, ripped, and posing in front of a crowd is a sport too?
Yeah. But you have Mr Universe for over bulging muscle show, kind of Olympics already, when you get old that muscle gonna hurt, lol. Plus the Olympic committee don't fancy feeding dinosaur appetites all day, these guys can eat.
The original meaning of a 'sport' had nothing to do with competing: it was a 'fun' activity, a play, a pursuit. Hunting and fishing were sports.
My gripe with the Olympics is the arbitrariness of the selection criteria. Fencing is apparently a sport, whilst HEMA, (historical European martial arts), a more varied swordplay is not. Why? Someone above mentioned bodybuilding. That ties in with the original Greek aesthetic.
