I consider weight lifting more of a skill. It meets most of the criteria to be a sport, but it doesn't feel like watching a sporting event. I think it may be because stamina is much less important than in other events. I'd consider it beyond a doubt a sport if it was two people pushed up on either end of a see-saw and whoever could keep the gradient in their favour for, say, twenty seconds continuously, wins. The platforms would be adjustable to account for height differences.
Just because it isn't super popular like football doesn't make it not a sport. It involves crazy reflexes and movement. Next thing you know, people will say elephant polo isn't a sport.
Dude, there is direct competition involving physical movement. That makes it a sport. Something like dancing isn't a sport because you're judged, so it's just a competition. There is no inherent two-player-ness in dancing. Two-player-ness is not essential, but the lack of subjective-ness is.
Dance is an art. Dancing in competition can be considered a sport, but it is not fundamentally a sport. Before you bring up running, saying you can run alone, it doesn't count. In order to be a sports runner, you must win actual races against other people under the same conditions and you can't say things like, " well, 6 crosses the finish line first, but I like 4's style more, so I think 4 should win."
In my book, a pure sport must not be subjective, and must be inherently competitive. Dancing etc can only be considered sports under certain conditions, and even then some people don't because the teams do not compete simultaneously. While that is another key aspect of sports, I don't consider it so important to say that dance can never be a sport.
Like i said before, there is a strict criteria when it comes to artistic sports. You don't just win because you have better style. You get judged on very specific techniques (pointy toes, fluidity, etc) that's why most judges will give an almost identical score. And also, all sports must be competitive to be considered a sport so i don't see your point there.
That's ridiculous. Those are some of the oldest sports invented by man. But whatever. You have a strange personal definition of sport, that goes against what the word clearly means. You may not consider those sports but they are.
I do consider them sports. It's just that they have artistic elements, as shown by things other than the final result mattering. I consider things like weight lifting more like skills than sports because they're not really games that test physical prowess, but just shows of said prowess.
I'm pretty sure dancing involves physical movement, and considerable more than table tennis. Plus the judges are highly trained and often look for specific techniques that must be done in a correct manner. Not anyone can be a judge. I think people on amirite need to stfu about artistic sports not being "true" sports. Who made you the god of deciding what a sport is anyway? Dancing meets all the requirements to be under the definition of sport, so it is a sport.
Exactly. In an artistic sport, it is how you get there that matters, not just your end pose. In pure sports, only the final result matters, (who scored the last point, or crossed the finish line first) unless you did drugs or something. That's why I count them in two separate categories of sport.
The main thing is, in a pure sport, people compete together and each has the power to force the other to adapt to the new position of the ball or whatever. In an artistic sport (assuming competitive environment and highly qualified judges) both just do whatever routine they designed and memorised and are judged on it's awesomeness. There is no reason to adapt unless you think the judges might prefer something else. Plus, unless a computer program is the judge, which is impossible with today's tech, a small amount of personal opinion will com into play.
Most artistic competitions have more than one round. I see it as a sport kinda like high jump. The bar gets raised and you have to come out and top it. Even if you have a planned routine, you might decide to take some risks within that routine in order to receive a higher score. Or if you're so far ahead, you might even take fewer risks. So there is adaptation even within the routine. Many sports don't have people competing together, but one by one. High jump, long jump, shot put, javelin, weight lifting, etc. You're also judged by a panel of judges so the effect of personal opinion is greatly reduced.
Oh sorry, I wasn't aware that you were the one who decided what qualifies as a sport.
And table tennis and ping pong are the same thing, idiot.
I have to say that you picked a pretty good Olympic event to insult. I can't even imagine what those weight-lifting chicks would do to you
I consider weight lifting more of a skill. It meets most of the criteria to be a sport, but it doesn't feel like watching a sporting event. I think it may be because stamina is much less important than in other events. I'd consider it beyond a doubt a sport if it was two people pushed up on either end of a see-saw and whoever could keep the gradient in their favour for, say, twenty seconds continuously, wins. The platforms would be adjustable to account for height differences.
Just because it isn't super popular like football doesn't make it not a sport. It involves crazy reflexes and movement. Next thing you know, people will say elephant polo isn't a sport.
Why not?
I feel as if it's more of a skill...like juggling.
Dude, there is direct competition involving physical movement. That makes it a sport. Something like dancing isn't a sport because you're judged, so it's just a competition. There is no inherent two-player-ness in dancing. Two-player-ness is not essential, but the lack of subjective-ness is.
Dance, in a competition, is a sport. It is a sporting competition. Without competition, it is an activity.
Dance is an art. Dancing in competition can be considered a sport, but it is not fundamentally a sport. Before you bring up running, saying you can run alone, it doesn't count. In order to be a sports runner, you must win actual races against other people under the same conditions and you can't say things like, " well, 6 crosses the finish line first, but I like 4's style more, so I think 4 should win."
In my book, a pure sport must not be subjective, and must be inherently competitive. Dancing etc can only be considered sports under certain conditions, and even then some people don't because the teams do not compete simultaneously. While that is another key aspect of sports, I don't consider it so important to say that dance can never be a sport.
Like i said before, there is a strict criteria when it comes to artistic sports. You don't just win because you have better style. You get judged on very specific techniques (pointy toes, fluidity, etc) that's why most judges will give an almost identical score. And also, all sports must be competitive to be considered a sport so i don't see your point there.
Yeah. I also consider those sports somewhat artistic. And more skill-like than sport-like.
That's ridiculous. Those are some of the oldest sports invented by man. But whatever. You have a strange personal definition of sport, that goes against what the word clearly means. You may not consider those sports but they are.
I do consider them sports. It's just that they have artistic elements, as shown by things other than the final result mattering. I consider things like weight lifting more like skills than sports because they're not really games that test physical prowess, but just shows of said prowess.
I'm pretty sure dancing involves physical movement, and considerable more than table tennis. Plus the judges are highly trained and often look for specific techniques that must be done in a correct manner. Not anyone can be a judge. I think people on amirite need to stfu about artistic sports not being "true" sports. Who made you the god of deciding what a sport is anyway? Dancing meets all the requirements to be under the definition of sport, so it is a sport.
Exactly. In an artistic sport, it is how you get there that matters, not just your end pose. In pure sports, only the final result matters, (who scored the last point, or crossed the finish line first) unless you did drugs or something. That's why I count them in two separate categories of sport.
The main thing is, in a pure sport, people compete together and each has the power to force the other to adapt to the new position of the ball or whatever. In an artistic sport (assuming competitive environment and highly qualified judges) both just do whatever routine they designed and memorised and are judged on it's awesomeness. There is no reason to adapt unless you think the judges might prefer something else. Plus, unless a computer program is the judge, which is impossible with today's tech, a small amount of personal opinion will com into play.
Most artistic competitions have more than one round. I see it as a sport kinda like high jump. The bar gets raised and you have to come out and top it. Even if you have a planned routine, you might decide to take some risks within that routine in order to receive a higher score. Or if you're so far ahead, you might even take fewer risks. So there is adaptation even within the routine. Many sports don't have people competing together, but one by one. High jump, long jump, shot put, javelin, weight lifting, etc. You're also judged by a panel of judges so the effect of personal opinion is greatly reduced.