Purely mental, I'd say not. It is a game, but for me not a sport. Of course, there will be people that see any game as a sport I suppose. So, Chess, Scrabble, Monopoly, etc could all be considered sports by some. I'd say Twister is more of a sport than those![]()
They used but too many spectators got stamped on.…and with pastimes we generally don’t compete…competitive philately anyone?
Besides…the Red Button will be giving a huge variety of options to watch.Just playing devil's advocate, you don't have to watch any of the sports you don't like. Chances are most of the minority sports will barely get any screen time.
I had to google wiffleball. Never heard of it.When I did A Level Sport Studies many, many years ago we did a module called the analysis and classification of sports. It looked at 3 major things that an activity required to be considered a sport.
1 it is competitive- there is a winner, a loser and a means of differentiating between the 2.
2 it involves physical activity. The degree of this is almost certainly the most challenging aspect of the process.
3 it is an institution- this means a degree of development of the activity, structures, rulings, recognition by the masses etc. possibly a tough one to call as to when an activity becomes a sport, particularly in terms of recognition. You could look this one up but as an example I’d think there will be a relatively recent recognition as a sport for the likes of pickleball, footgolf or wiffleball.
Not sure where you have got the idea that this an argument, I think it is one of the better discussions we have had recently on the forum - and not just because I started the threadDoes it matter? Do we need an argument about my sport is bigger than your sport? If someone wants to call darts, or even dominoes, a sport, hey crack on if it makes you feel better.
Do marathon runners look down their noses at someone who runs 100m in 9.8 seconds? For me, it’s a non-argument.
Not sure where you have got the idea that this an argument, I think it is one of the better discussions we have had recently on the forum - and not just because I started the thread![]()
Who brought this up as an argument?Does it matter? Do we need an argument about my sport is bigger than your sport? If someone wants to call darts, or even dominoes, a sport, hey crack on if it makes you feel better.
Do marathon runners look down their noses at someone who runs 100m in 9.8 seconds? For me, it’s a non-argument.
What does it matter whether certain sports have massive and bigger prizes to be won outside of the Olympics? Or, why does the Olympics have to be the pinnacle prize in that sport? What if it is almost 50/50 whether an Olympic Prize or another prize is the biggest trophy in that sport? What would happen if Athletics or Gymnastics somehow developed a competition outside the Olympics that really took off, creating a huge fan base, and became the No. 1 prize to win in that sport? Would you then scrap Athletics or Gymnastics off the Olympics?I think the Amateur and Professional argument about a sports inclusion is outdated. It should be if the Olympic version of that sport is the pinnacle for the competitors.
For me it's, if you ask the question to the top competitors in a sport, "Would you rather win the Olympics or XYZ Cup/Tournament", if they answer XYZ, then to me that sport is not needed in the Olympics
ie Football (Champions League or Olympic), Golf (The Masters or Olympic) & Tennis (Wimbledon or Olympic), these should not be in the Olympics
Boxing is a difficult one, but because it's been a traditional Olympic sport in it's short form, and only open to Boxers who haven't progressed to the longer/professional version, it is still the pinnacle for these boxers.
I think the Amateur and Professional argument about a sports inclusion is outdated. It should be if the Olympic version of that sport is the pinnacle for the competitors.
For me it's, if you ask the question to the top competitors in a sport, "Would you rather win the Olympics or XYZ Cup/Tournament", if they answer XYZ, then to me that sport is not needed in the Olympics
ie Football (Champions League or Olympic), Golf (The Masters or Olympic) & Tennis (Wimbledon or Olympic), these should not be in the Olympics
Boxing is a difficult one, but because it's been a traditional Olympic sport in it's short form, and only open to Boxers who haven't progressed to the longer/professional version, it is still the pinnacle for these boxers.
Not sure where you have got the idea that this an argument, I think it is one of the better discussions we have had recently on the forum - and not just because I started the thread![]()
What does it matter whether certain sports have massive and bigger prizes to be won outside of the Olympics? Or, why does the Olympics have to be the pinnacle prize in that sport? What if it is almost 50/50 whether an Olympic Prize or another prize is the biggest trophy in that sport? What would happen if Athletics or Gymnastics somehow developed a competition outside the Olympics that really took off, creating a huge fan base, and became the No. 1 prize to win in that sport? Would you then scrap Athletics or Gymnastics off the Olympics?
Surely all that matters is that the Sport's governing body wishes to be part of the Olympics, and the IOC accept it as a suitable sport? If the sports governing body feel that their athletes and fans have no interest in the Olympics, and they have bigger prizes to contend for, then they can always opt out of the Olympics. I don't think anyone is forcing them to be there? I'm pretty sure footballers, golfers and tennis players have some pride in representing their country in the Olympics, and certainly have a sense of pride if they win a medal.
My counter arguments:I guess my counter argument would be that there is not room for every sport and do there has to be a selection process and I would focus at least part of that on whether an Olympic medal would be the highest echelon in that sport or, if not and has been done with other sports, introduce age or other restrictions on the field. On the example of Golf, I actually think it would be a far more interesting if the entrants were from the amateur ranks as, at the moment, it is just like any other tour even. Now amateurs will not bring money into the Olympics but it would be a great experience for those involved and it would also probably be the pinnacle of their career in the amateur ranks.
You are right 1980, It doesn't matter and what the IOC wants is all that matters. This was just my opinion and what I would like to happen and how I rate certain sports in the Olympics, I don't mind wall climbing, moguls, rhythmic gymnastics etc.. as most of the competitors train and give it the all to peak every 4 years in the hope of being crowned Olympic Champion. I know it might just be me, but I have no interest in who wins the football, I'm not sure if we even enter, but If GB won the gold would the manager be held in esteem like Sir Alf or Sir AlexWhat does it matter whether certain sports have massive and bigger prizes to be won outside of the Olympics? Or, why does the Olympics have to be the pinnacle prize in that sport? What if it is almost 50/50 whether an Olympic Prize or another prize is the biggest trophy in that sport? What would happen if Athletics or Gymnastics somehow developed a competition outside the Olympics that really took off, creating a huge fan base, and became the No. 1 prize to win in that sport? Would you then scrap Athletics or Gymnastics off the Olympics?
Surely all that matters is that the Sport's governing body wishes to be part of the Olympics, and the IOC accept it as a suitable sport? If the sports governing body feel that their athletes and fans have no interest in the Olympics, and they have bigger prizes to contend for, then they can always opt out of the Olympics. I don't think anyone is forcing them to be there? I'm pretty sure footballers, golfers and tennis players have some pride in representing their country in the Olympics, and certainly have a sense of pride if they win a medal.