Blogging? NOT a Sport!

The sport/not a sport debate is one that has both enthralled and infuriated, solidified and divided, clarified and perplexed. To date, however, I have not been privy to a satisfactorily lucid, comprehensive criteria with which sports fans may distinguish sports from leisure activities, performance art, and simple athletic competitions.

Let’s start with a disclaimer or two – I’ve made a real and honest effort to keep my preferences from getting in the way. Some sports that I really despise will, indeed, be determined to qualify as sports. Some activities that I love won’t make the cut. To be dubbed a “sport”, then, is not necessarily to be judged qualitatively “better” than something that doesn’t make the cut, it’s simply the proper application of the criteria. You can disagree, but don’t be offended. In other words, I ain’t hatin’. Also, I’m aware that anybody can look up “sport” wherever they want and find a definition. Fine. What I’m trying to do is NOT conform to what something else says – dictionary, opinion, or otherwise. I AM trying to crystallize MY OWN understanding of what SHOULD constitute a good definition of a sport, and then impose it upon you! Again, however, feel free to disagree.

But before we dive into the criteria, let’s also debunk a couple of common but completely bogus arguments that are often heard when somebody’ favorite activity is determined to not be a sport:

1) “Those participants are athletes!” and the common variation “You have to be in shape to do that!” Ok, good, but that doesn’t necessarily qualify their activity as a sport. Maybe road construction workers, astronauts, or corn de-tasselers (that’s “corn jerkers” to our friends in Hoopeston Illinois) are as athletic as the participants in the activity for which our hypothetical arguer is lobbying.

2) “It’s really hard!” and its equally logically challenged sister, “Well then I’d like to see you do it!” Let’s see here . . . reading Chinese, performing calculus, and having babies all meet this criteria. Who wants to argue that they’re sports?

That out of the way, here we go. There are two sets of criteria: positive and negative. The positive criteria must be met . . . all of them. Conversely, meeting even a single one of the negative criteria is grounds for failure. Again, it doesn’t mean that activity X isn’t noble and enjoyable and wholesome, it just won’t qualify as a sport. So let’s get on with it already, eh?

Positive Criteria: There Must Be. . . .

1) Objective Scoring. If there are judges who assign a point value based on how good something looked or how well something was done, you’re looking at an art form, not a sport. Here’s what I mean – if William Perry takes a hand-off from the 1, trips over his own ankle, and falls forward into the end zone crushing his own left guard in the process, his team is awarded six points. If Peyton Manning executes a picture-perfect play-action fake, rolls right, and delivers a strike to the back of the end zone, their team is awarded the same six points. Beauty makes no difference because the scoring is objective – bringing the football into the opponents end zone is worth exactly six points every time. There are no style points. Style points – or “deductions” for lacking style or otherwise not looking pretty – will disqualify an activity from being a sport. It’s performance art, which is fantastic if you dig it, just call it what it is. Also disqualified would be anything that doesn’t have scoring at all, such as rock climbing. Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: slam-dunk competitions, diving, cheer-leading, rock climbing, most “x-treme sports” (bad grammar would NOT engender style points, even if they did count).

2) Contingent Competition. What I mean by this is that there must be two or more competitors or teams simultaneously pursuing a common goal in a fluid action-reaction manner. In basketball, there is one ball that both teams are simultaneously trying to get through their basket while preventing their opponent from doing the same. In football there is one ball that each team is attempting to move toward their opponent’s goal line. In baseball they take turns batting, but the hitter is trying to hit the ball that the pitcher is throwing, and then the fielders will chase that same ball. Fluid action-reaction. There is a certain action-reaction in turn-taking activities such as golf, bowling, or curling, but my contention is that anything “you go, and then I’ll go” is a leisure activity or athletic competition. Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: golf, bowling, curling, jumping rope, most “field” (as in “track and field”) activities.

3) The Practice/Train Co-Existence. To achieve a high level in a sport, one should have to both practice and train. In other words, there should be a competitive advantage in achieving higher levels of both skill and athleticism. A great athlete might be able to take over a pick-up football game against a bunch of weekend warriors based purely on speed, but he could be much better if he were to practice the disciplines of throwing, catching, covering, and tackling. Similarly, a skilled shooter may be the best basketball player at the park, but she could be much better if she was able to run up and down the court quickly and repeatedly. To excel at a high level there must be substantial levels of skill and athleticism; you must have to both practice and train. A special note here is in order in the case of baseball. John Kruk was once quoted something to the effect of “Look lady, I’m not an athlete, I’m a baseball player.” While it’s true that he (and others) were not great athletes, it remains that he would have been even better had he been more athletic. Imagine Kruk legging out infield singles, scoring from first on doubles, and leaping to snag rising line-drives! Sure, he was able to get by on skill alone, and the athletic element in baseball is admittedly downplayed in comparison to football, basketball, or hockey. Nonetheless, higher levels of athleticism in baseball players should result in greater effectiveness. Now although I love it, ping-pong is an example of a game of skill where athleticism simply does not produce a significant competitive advantage, and must be disqualified. Running, regardless of distance, is an example of an athletic contest where skill does not produce a competitive advantage. (Yes, I realize there is technique etc., but maintaining proper form etc. isn’t the same as practicing a jump-shot or hitting a curve ball. I have completed a marathon personally – and loved it – but while I trained like mad, I didn’t “practice.” Make sense?) Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: Ping-pong, billiards, running, power lifting, competitive eating, quarter-bouncing.

4) A “Ball Object”. I say “ball object” rather than just “ball” because, for instance, hockey revolves around a puck and badminton a shuttle-cock, but the concept is the same.

Negative Criteria: An Activity Is Not a Sport If:

1) Operating a Machine Is the Chief Activity. Hey – no disrespect to race car drivers, archers (yes, a bow is a simple machine), or skeet shoot people. What they do is difficult, yada yada yada, but there’s no objective, qualitative difference between what they do and operating a brake press. If you’re pushing a button or a pedal, turning a wheel, pulling a trigger, or probably any of several other activities in which a mechanical advantage of any kind is employed, it’s just something other than a sport. I know this is a really, really tough one for a lot of you. I’m ok with that. Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: any kind of driving, cycling, shooting, etc.

2) There Is Nothing More Than a Race. Racing, in any number of forms, is an honorable and challenging task, but it seems that to truly have what I would call a “sport” there should be something in addition to just being fast. Being fast can be an advantage in a sport, but there should be another element there somewhere -- you "play" a sport, but nobody "plays" a race, right? So whether on foot, ski, cycle, or vehicle, whether pushing, pulling, rowing, or anything else, arriving first makes you the winner of the competition. Congratulations! But it doesn’t make what you did a sport. I know, you’re hating this one, too. Guess what? I’m still ok with that.

3) It’s a Fight. A fight is a fight, not a sport. Boxing, UFC, martial arts, whatever – they’re all well and good, but they’re fights. The object of a sport is to defeat the competition – sometimes with violent elements present to be sure – but the object is not to bring your opponent to a point of literal physical submission. We have another category for that, and we call it fighting. I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m just saying that it’s something different.

4) The Athlete Isn’t Human. In yachting the athlete is the wind. In polo the athlete is the horse. In auto racing, the athlete is the car. You get the idea.

What are we left with? Still a good bit, actually. Of course there’s the obvious: baseball, football, basketball, and hockey. We have racket sports like tennis, racquetball, and badminton. There’s field hockey, water polo, and soccer (even though I can’t stand it, there’s no question that it qualifies). Probably cricket (like I know anything about cricket!). And an insanely long blog. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful and respectful hate mail, I’ll be doing one of my favorite non-sports . . . sleeping.