Many of you seem to be trying to define sports by requiring an activity to require athleticism. Isn’t this circular though? I’m not about to break out the OED, but I have a feeling that “athleticism”, as ambiguous as it is, denotes nothing more then a set of skills common to athletics. Athletics is nothing more then sport… and athletes are nothing more then sportsmen. So to say “sport requires athleticism” is to say nothing more then “sport requires sport-like qualities”, or something… Even old Suits does better then that…
See pg. 13 to 15:
Although, if you don’t like Suits I think about the best you can do is to admit that the notion of “sport” is at best a family resemblance derived from an inconsistent common use of the word. In other words, whatever people want to call sports are sports, and no one else can really tell them otherwise…
[quote]Ronsauce wrote:
Being in the Olympics or recognized by the IOC doesn’t make it a sport. Chess is a board game, not a sport.
[/quote]
It is a game played on a board and it’s a recognised sport. Just like football which is a game played on a pitch and is a recognized sport.
Look…if you don’t think things such as bowling, chess, or billiards are sports, do you at least have an argument to make other than denial ? I’ll say it again: the Intenational Olympic Committee, which speaks for every major country on earth recognizes these sports as sports. So does ESPN the largest sports media channel on earth and every sporting goods store on the planet. In the face of all this evidence you’re seriously still bringing “no it’s not” to the table ?
Look…if you don’t think things such as bowling, chess, or billiards are sports, do you at least have an argument to make other than denial ? I’ll say it again: the Intenational Olympic Committee, which speaks for every major country on earth recognizes these sports as sports. So does ESPN the largest sports media channel on earth and every sporting goods store on the planet. In the face of all this evidence you’re seriously still bringing “no it’s not” to the table ?
[/quote]
What evidence? Appeal to authority or popularity? Unless you’re ready to concede that sport is merely a pragmatic concern, this is no evidence.
What evidence?[/quote]
Just a whole bunch of facts that these activities have documented histories as “sport” on historical, social, and economic levels.[quote]
Appeal to authority or popularity? [/quote]
There is no appeal. The fact that these activities are internationally categorized as “sports” is well documented. [quote]
Unless you’re ready to concede that sport is merely a pragmatic concern, this is no evidence. [/quote]
There is nothing for me to concede; I’m not theorizing.
What evidence?
Just a whole bunch of facts that these activities have documented histories as “sport” on historical, social, and economic levels.
Appeal to authority or popularity?
There is no appeal. The fact that these activities are internationally categorized as “sports” is well documented.
Unless you’re ready to concede that sport is merely a pragmatic concern, this is no evidence.
There is nothing for me to concede; I’m not theorizing.
[/quote]
Well then what you’re doing is quite different then most of the others. Your historical approach might be the only reasonable one, given the ambiguous nature of the term, but it isn’t interesting. In asking “what makes a sport” I doubt the OP was simply looking for a list of things that are commonly held as sports.
Common opinion often isn’t a good judge. If someone asked what makes good art or music, would you really appeal to common opinion?