The Lemon Fool

Following on from Tedx's post about whether snooker and darts are sports in the 'Darts' thread: viewtopic.php?p=637611#p637274

I thought I'd post my ideas on the subject.

After much consideration, I think that, to be a sport, it must involve either physical skill and/or precision.

So athletics are sports, there's no debate there.

I consider snooker and darts to be sports because both require physical precision to play - and win.

Bridge and Chess, however, require neither strength nor precision to play, so they are games. Neither have a place in the Olympics, IMHO, although Bridge tries to make a case for inclusion.

What does the panel think?

Watis

A friend of mine used to have a strong opinion on this. His theory:

To qualify as a sport an activity must include the following:
1) It may have an umpire who adjudicates fair play. But they must not decide the outcome.
2) Participants must at least break sweat. (And not just from studio lights)

Personally, I think the olympics are now ridiculously huge. Makes it impractical for any but the richest countries to host. They should kick out sports who already have bigger international competitions of their own, especially the team sports. Football, Rugby, Tennis, Golf...
Remember, poetry was an olympic "sport" until 1952!

Gryff

I'm not really a sports fan, so my opinion isn't worth much, but I've never thought that target shooting really made it as an athletic pursuit. Oh, sure, the ancient Greeks would have found a place for archery, but surely a quarter inch of trigger doesn't really cut it in quite the same way?

YMMV. but it's e-sports that really push the boundaries, at least for me. Not just because they bear no direct relationship whatever to the real physical world, but because so many of them are so bloody hyper-violent. OK, that's my warped and bigoted personal view, but you did ask.

BJ

If I win, it is a Sport.

If I lose, it's only a game.

Paul

I had an English teacher, long ago, who claimed that sports were things like fox hunting, dog or cock fights and bear baiting. Things that involved blood, including boxing, while all the rest were pastimes.

I'm not involved in the religion that is football, but question if the term sport can be applied to something that you simply watch. You know, what are called "spectator" sports.

If we do adopt that as a description of sport, then yes, computer games are a sport.

What we know as the Olympics can not be viewed as a sport. Anything about modern events, originally they use to contain poetry events. That was dropped in 1948, and others like it later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_compe ... r_Olympics

Then again, paintings about physical effort. Isn't that a "spectator" sport?

Watis wrote:So athletics are sports, there's no debate there.

I consider snooker and darts to be sports because both require physical precision to play - and win.

Bridge and Chess, however, require neither strength nor precision to play, so they are games. Neither have a place in the Olympics, IMHO, although Bridge tries to make a case for inclusion.

Watis

My understanding is that the event is named the "Olympic Games", not the "Olympic Sports"

--kiloran

I would have liked to have seen darts as an Olympic sport - but with the players from the 80s

https://youtu.be/vqxXNZcIdwM?si=xDcJyc-vZowC-nh9

Some minority sports I think are undervalued.

sweat.

heart rate.

the potential for injury.

amongst I am sure a plethora of other nuances.

didds

Urbandreamer wrote:I'm not involved in the religion that is football, but question if the term sport can be applied to something that you simply watch. You know, what are called "spectator" sports.

but surely somebody is actually DOING the sport, for it to be viewed?

CliffEdge wrote:Some minority sports I think are undervalued.

Most definitely.

Back in the 70s and 80s when it seemed the home nations/UK/GB were international whipping boys there were UK/GB world champions in several sports that never EVER got reported. Mike Hazelwood springs to mind.

In more modern times, when principally through lottery funding, GB/home nations have become far more successful especially in sitting down sports, there have been outstanding international class athletes that haven't made much national coverage... Chrissie Wellington anyone ? (I am expecting SOME here to have heard of that person!)

didds wrote:

CliffEdge wrote:Some minority sports I think are undervalued.

Most definitely.

Back in the 70s and 80s when it seemed the home nations/UK/GB were international whipping boys there were UK/GB world champions in several sports that never EVER got reported. Mike Hazelwood springs to mind.

In more modern times, when principally through lottery funding, GB/home nations have become far more successful especially in sitting down sports, there have been outstanding international class athletes that haven't made much national coverage... Chrissie Wellington anyone ? (I am expecting SOME here to have heard of that person!)

Water-skiing and ironman triathlon!

I'm very excited that a proper sport, squash, has finally been added to the games for 2028 in LA. Hopefully it will be a hit and will stay in.

BigB wrote:Water-skiing and ironman triathlon!
I'm very excited that a proper sport, squash, has finally been added to the games for 2028 in LA. Hopefully it will be a hit and will stay in.

10/10 for BigB

Squash certainly deserves a place if tennis and badminton do!

BigB wrote:I'm very excited that a proper sport, squash, has finally been added to the games for 2028 in LA. Hopefully it will be a hit and will stay in.

Granted squash is a proper sport by any standard. It's a lousy sport for Tv though. Like fencing, all the action happens too fast for TV cameras.

Gryff

gryffron wrote:

BigB wrote:I'm very excited that a proper sport, squash, has finally been added to the games for 2028 in LA. Hopefully it will be a hit and will stay in.

Granted squash is a proper sport by any standard. It's a lousy sport for Tv though. Like fencing, all the action happens too fast for TV cameras.

Gryff

They've covered some of the technical aspects of TV coverage difficulty, for example they now have balls with paint that gets picked up by the camera so the ball is visible. They also have decent video review tech for lets and double-bounces, but poorly governed/used.

But you're right there are various aspects of squash that make it a poor spectator/tv sport - they'll need to do some work on refereeing/camera angles/commentary if it's to have a broader appeal.

I've sneered at Sky Sports many a time in the last 30 years, probably unfairly, but they could do with the Sky Sports treatment for squash where they package the whole product.

BigB wrote:

gryffron wrote:Granted squash is a proper sport by any standard. It's a lousy sport for Tv though. Like fencing, all the action happens too fast for TV cameras.

Gryff

They've covered some of the technical aspects of TV coverage difficulty, for example they now have balls with paint that gets picked up by the camera so the ball is visible. They also have decent video review tech for lets and double-bounces, but poorly governed/used.

But you're right there are various aspects of squash that make it a poor spectator/tv sport - they'll need to do some work on refereeing/camera angles/commentary if it's to have a broader appeal.

I've sneered at Sky Sports many a time in the last 30 years, probably unfairly, but they could do with the Sky Sports treatment for squash where they package the whole product.

Same with ice hockey. I catch sight of the puck on the odd occasion, but generally I just have to believe what the commentators are saying.