Definition: Game vs. Sport

[NewfieMike]

I've been having this debate with several people over the past 6 months or so. So, I'm curious: what do you define the difference between a game and a sport? I'm interested in arguments that uses examples to explain the difference in the definition.

[kylamonkey]

Can't resist:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyO6ayCb5rE

[yamahac]

Game: golf, pool, darts, bowling, curling

 

Sport: soccer, hockey, football, basketball

[Charon]

I feel like poker, chess, pool, darts or esports are games because players don't have to train physicaly.

[DanInVan]

Bowling and curling should be considered sports since they are more active but even then, being a professional bowler or curler isn't going to impress anyone, lol.

 

I might not be a professional, but playing an exhibition game at the Olympics sure was fun.

[Charon]

It's not because I consider some as sports that they are less fun. Neither they should be taken back from the Olympics.

 

It's just that the choice of word seems strange to me.

[bpp]

i think the main difference between a game and a sport, is that a sport requires athleticism to be played well, whereas a game just requires mental skill or dexterity. obviously it is not a clear cut definition, but examples of games are pool, darts chess etc. some things that,too me, are a game/sport hybrid are skateboarding and bowling.

[jp.mylittlepwny]

I had this conversation with a friend of mine over a few beers one time.

One point he brought up was

"It's not a sport if a woman can beat a man at it."

Though as sexist as that sounds, I couldn't think of one example to counter his point.

[Jamer]

If physical training (working out, whatever you want to call it) is beneficial, it's a sport, IMO

 

Not sports: Poker, pool, darts

 

Borderline, but I'd consider sports: curling (the brushers actually have to be in reasonable shape), bowling

 

Is a sport: Figure skating, gymnastics, golf

 

Just some examples

[mattg]

i find it ridiculous that people are now calling poker a sport (not bashing poker, i play a ton)... i guess they started calling it a sport because espn started broadcasting it, but c'mon...

[jp.mylittlepwny]

Well that depends. I know female basketball players can beat me at their game as well as hockey and any other sport. But if its a top level male vs a top level female, I'd say that if a female can win, she's some freak of nature and I have yet to see it unless its like curling or something which requires less athleticism lol.

 

In no-gi Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (basically submission grappling), I've seen women tap out men bigger than them but this usually happens if the male has less experience and the size difference isn't too significant.

 

That's due to your lack of technical training in the area.

Take a man and a woman who play the same respective level of their individual sports (ie NBA, wNBA, top 145lb mma female Cyborg Santos vs Aldo), and the man will more than likely win due to the biological difference between the sexes.

[Apixaban85]

i find it ridiculous that people are now calling poker a sport (not bashing poker, i play a ton)... i guess they started calling it a sport because espn started broadcasting it, but c'mon...

 

This ALL happened because the NHL had to go on lockout for that one year. And in that year poker boomed like crazy, to the point where even in high school we were playing it a lot during lunch and spares

[thatonekid]

I had this conversation with a friend of mine over a few beers one time.

One point he brought up was

"It's not a sport if a woman can beat a man at it."

Though as sexist as that sounds, I couldn't think of one example to counter his point.

Fencing is considered a sport and women can easily beat men at it.

 

so how about curling?

doesn't seem to be much physical training involved...

I take it you've never curled before. It's more physically demanding than people give it credit for.

 

 

As for sports vs. games, I think games is a broad category defined by rules and where you play to get to an ending (win or lose). I think sports are a specific subset of games, where the end (winning or losing) depends on the competitors' physical skills.

[jp.mylittlepwny]

This was totally my point. But I'd love to see Cyborg compete in the men's 145 (or 135/125, since she's a girl to have some advantage). She'd still lose without a doubt but I'd cheer for her just because its never been done before and never will be done again.

I don't know. I'd give her a chance against one of the lower to middle tier fighters.

[kylamonkey]

It's been speculated that women will best men in ultrarunning. Many races have been won by women outright- Ann Trason was the first, i think.

 

A major gap in a few sports, ultras included, seems to be the encouragement/opportunity given to boys vs girls. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

 

I am not sure if I agree with the idea that women are naturally stronger than men in ultramarathons or not, but there is definitely an idea within the ultra community that once the distance gets longer than a marathon, women might have an advantage. I'm too pressed for time to look up links now.

 

My dad will always beat my best marathon time (he ran a 2:46, I don't think I can touch that) but I have faster PRs in a few different ultras that we have both run. Not sure if it's a good comparison, but it's something.

 

Hm, I have to add... I've also done a lot of 24+ training/racing events (bushwhacking, mtn biking, canoe and the like) and there is generally a pretty good consensus that women are more alert on the 2nd night of a 36-hr race. I usually take over as lead navigator during adventure races on the 2nd night because my 3 male teammates are sleepy.

 

Sorry if I sound stuck up or something. Again, this is just my anecdotal experience. I'm not sure if I actually believe that women are naturally better ultrarunners than men, but for sure it's a lot closer than, say, an 800m race.

 

I don't think anyone can argue that ultrarunning is not a sport.

 

Oh, and I highly recommend the book "Born to Run"- Chris McDougall

[thatonekid]

Oh, and I highly recommend the book "Born to Run"- Chris McDougall

+1

 

I read it (last month I think) and it was an excellent book.

[NLengr]

I have a few buddies who have curled at the provincial, national and/or international level. We have this debate constantly.

 

We settled it down to curling is either a physically demanding highly skilled game or an easy going sport. It's fun either way.

 

I usually default to the position of if it's in the Olympics it's a sport.

[RyanMaverick]

I play a number of sports that include hockey, baseball, golfing, curling, tennis, soccer, etc.

 

I've curled at a very high level and I believe it certainly is a sport. It may not be as physically demanding as a hard-hitting hockey game, but it requires at least the same level of commitment, skill, and perfomance under pressure to compete at a high level. You could even argue the physical aspect when you look at what a "good sweeper" is required to do. Sure the skip doesn't require this physical attribute as much, but the strategy they are required to know basically makes them the "coach" of the team. A parallel could be drawn between a skip and a quarterback of a football team. The quarterback isn't necessarily as physical as the running back or wide receiver, but they call the shots of the team and require other attributes besides physical ability.

[jp.mylittlepwny]

I play a number of sports that include hockey, baseball, golfing, curling, tennis, soccer, etc.

 

I've curled at a very high level and I believe it certainly is a sport. It may not be as physically demanding as a hard-hitting hockey game, but it requires at least the same level of commitment, skill, and perfomance under pressure to compete at a high level. You could even argue the physical aspect when you look at what a "good sweeper" is required to do. Sure the skip doesn't require this physical attribute as much, but the strategy they are required to know basically makes them the "coach" of the team. A parallel could be drawn between a skip and a quarterback of a football team. The quarterback isn't necessarily as physical as the running back or wide receiver, but they call the shots of the team and require other attributes besides physical ability.

 

same can be said for darts and I don't consider darts a sport.

Yes a QB needs to be able to think and make judgement calls, but physical ability is a component of being a top tier QB. How many average guys can throw a football 50+ yards, be able to take a hit, and still perform at near the same level? Not many I would say. How many guys can curl a rock (not sure what it's called) all the way down the lane, practically everyone.

[RyanMaverick]

same can be said for darts and I don't consider darts a sport.

Yes a QB needs to be able to think and make judgement calls, but physical ability is a component of being a top tier QB. How many average guys can throw a football 50+ yards, be able to take a hit, and still perform at near the same level? Not many I would say. How many guys can curl a rock (not sure what it's called) all the way down the lane, practically everyone.

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Are you suggested that "sport" is equivalent to "level of strength required" alone? Wouldn't "World's Strongest Man", "Olympic Weight Lifting", or "Ultra Distance Running" be considered THE prototypical sport in your definition then?

 

How many average guys can skate and shoot a puck? Practically everyone. Does that disqualify hockey as a sport?

 

You're right, not many people can throw a football that far while taking a hit; however not many people can throw a triple raise angle takeout or execute a delicate raise from behind cover on fudging ice either.

 

The distinction between something like curling and golf and that of darts, chess, or the like is that they DO require physical ability. And if you don't believe me - try it sometime. Sure, it may not be at the level of a marathon runner or a weight-lifter, but there are also other components involved.

[jp.mylittlepwny]

My point was you cannot separate physical ability from the definition of what a sport is.

I know we live in Canada, and Hockey is our national sport but your average guy cannot put on a pair of skates and shoot a puck at the same time, unless you consider slapping the puck in a random, inadvertent direction shooting it.

I can barely skate >_<

 

I did not mean throwing a football while taking a hit. I meant be able to throw a football as a QB, take a hit, and be able to shake it off and perform at the similar level on the next play. Generally you need you be in good physical shape to be able to withstand a tackle from a 200+ pound linebacker (unless he targets a joint).

 

Does curling take skill? Without a question. I'd consider curling more of a game than a sport because it is a game heavily favouring skill over physical ability. Games such as chess, esports, darts fit into this criteria. How many of the top curlers would you consider an athlete?

Take two people who curl and are on equal levels in term of skill where one is in top physical shape and the other just fit. Would one gain a significant advantage over the other? I would argue no.

 

Change the game to any of your classic definition of a sport, and the individual with a higher physical ability will have a significant advantage.

This in my opinion is why people are on the fence about consider such games as golf, darts, chess, curling as sports.

[hking03]

i base my decision on the fact that tsn- the sports network- lists curling and golf as sports.

 

even if tsn didn't have these listed on its site i would still think of them as sports.

[RyanMaverick]

Does curling take skill? Without a question. I'd consider curling more of a game than a sport because it is a game heavily favouring skill over physical ability. Games such as chess, esports, darts fit into this criteria. How many of the top curlers would you consider an athlete?

Take two people who curl and are on equal levels in term of skill where one is in top physical shape and the other just fit. Would one gain a significant advantage over the other? I would argue no.

 

Change the game to any of your classic definition of a sport, and the individual with a higher physical ability will have a significant advantage.

This in my opinion is why people are on the fence about consider such games as golf, darts, chess, curling as sports.

 

I see what you're saying - and to be honest I agree with it. I think that's a fair definition of "sport" for the purposes of this argument. I think that makes sense as a rationale for excluding chess, darts, e-sports from the term sport; however I'd still disagree regarding golf and curling.

 

Having played both I can certainly tell you that physical strength/endurance is very important to translating skill into performance. Curling might *look* easy, but I still challenge you to try it - sweeping a rock in particular. There's a hell of a lot more to it to do it well then what you might have seen on TV. And I don't think I need to defend golf either. There's a reason there's more and more top pros looking like Tiger Woods then like John Daly these days. And if you look historically, many sports in their "early" days had out of shape people playing them (hockey is a glaring example - think smoking and drinking the locker room between periods). As they become more popular the need for physical fitness to play at the upper tier is essential. Curling may not be at that point yet, but it's certainly well on it's way to getting there.

 

So in conclusion - I agree with your definition, I just simply think you're applying it wrong to golf and curling.

[hking03]

+1

10 char

I see what you're saying - and to be honest I agree with it. I think that's a fair definition of "sport" for the purposes of this argument. I think that makes sense as a rationale for excluding chess, darts, e-sports from the term sport; however I'd still disagree regarding golf and curling.

 

Having played both I can certainly tell you that physical strength/endurance is very important to translating skill into performance. Curling might *look* easy, but I still challenge you to try it - sweeping a rock in particular. There's a hell of a lot more to it to do it well then what you might have seen on TV. And I don't think I need to defend golf either. There's a reason there's more and more top pros looking like Tiger Woods then like John Daly these days. And if you look historically, many sports in their "early" days had out of shape people playing them (hockey is a glaring example - think smoking and drinking the locker room between periods). As they become more popular the need for physical fitness to play at the upper tier is essential. Curling may not be at that point yet, but it's certainly well on it's way to getting there.

 

So in conclusion - I agree with your definition, I just simply think you're applying it wrong to golf and curling.

[NewfieMike]

i base my decision on the fact that tsn- the sports network- lists curling and golf as sports.

 

even if tsn didn't have these listed on its site i would still think of them as sports.

 

by your definition, poker is a sport.