Must serve Nachos and Beer

The Olympics are starting in two days. Given the multitude of crazy things which the IOC deems worthy of giving out medals for, I got to wondering about that oldest of athletic questions:

What is a sport? What isn't?

This "debate" has raged for as long as I can remember. The word "sport" has a special meaning in our culture. We are a sports obsessed society, and so for something to be considered a sport is a badge of honor, a legitimization of hitting a ball with a stick or beating the tar out of a fellow human being. This argument usually has macho undertones, because "sports" are for tough guys and non sports are for little sissy girly men and Europeans.

Putting aside that heavy intellectual argument for a moment, I've heard a lot of answers to this question. Its not a sport until someone gets hit. Its not a sport unless there is defense. It is a sport if its physically hard to do. Its not a sport if girls are playing. Its only a sport if they serve Nachos and beer at the stadium. I've decided to chime in with my two cents on the subject.

First, a huge disclaimer: Personally, I think the whole Sport/not a sport debate is the biggest, stupidest waste of time in the entire domain of sports debates. That's saying an awful lot, based on what I know about sporting debates. Frankly, its doesn't matter one iota whether your chosen activity is labeled a "sport" or not. It doesn't change the activity one bit, doesn't make it more or less popular, challenging, or less valid. Lets face it: all sports, all entertainment, pretty much 99% of human existence is totally meaningless, no matter what labels we put on it. Whatever you call them (Sports, games, activities, competitions, etc) they exist to entertain us, and if you happen to enjoy playing or watching one then bully for you. I don't think NASCAR qualifies as sport, yet tens of millions enjoy it, so salut to them. On the other hand, lots of people think golf isn't a sport, but hundreds of millions (myself included) love to play and watch it.

Whew! Now that I got all the rationality out of the way, time for some good old fashioned judgment and hypocrisy. What is a "sport"? To me, the answer is not clear cut, but there are guidelines which help to determine "sportiness".

1) A sport must involve physical activity with at least a mild level of exertion
2) The outcome of the match or game must rely upon how well the competitors do that activity.
3) The majority of the exertion must be made by the competitors.
4) The outcome must not rely entirely on subjective judgement of judges or referees.

From these 4 principles I believe we can determine which activities deserve that most hallowed (and stupidly meaningless) title of "sport". But what do they mean?

1) This seems obvious. The "mild level of exertion" was added to disqualify video game players from claiming what they do is sport. Sure they can probably make a case, but screw em. Its not a sport if you can play it from a Lazy Boy Recliner.

2) Basically, this means that physical skill must matter in sport. Two people run a race, one runs faster, and is thus the winner. The grey area I see here is for people who (wrongly) claim that Poker is a sport. Sure there are little physical skills which may help or hurt a player's chance of winning, specifically how they handle the cards and whether or not they control their "tells". But really, these are such a small part of the game today. In theory (and practice) poker can be played by proxy, usually through a computer, meaning that these physical skills can be eliminated from the game.

3) Cycling = Sport. NASCAR = Not a Sport. The difference is clear. In cycling the competitor supplies the momentum, the energy which determines how fast or slow they go. In car racing the energy is supplied by Exxon Mobile. NASCAR fans love to claim that racing should qualify as a sport because of how physically hard it is. No argument here about the physical difficulty, but unless they start racing with Fred Flintstone style cars it won't be sport to me.

4) This is, in my mind, perhaps the most important criteria between sport and non-sport. Basically, it means that there needs to be a way to tell who wins without waiting 5 minutes to see what scores a panel of judges doles out. For race style sports this is easy: first one to the finish wins (barring DQ). For ball style sports this is also easy: Most runs, points, goals or fewest strokes wins (see what I did there to sneak in golf?).

Granted, no sport can be completely objective. Even the simplest race can come down to subjective determinations for disqualification. And even activities which are judged are supposedly done so on the basis of well layed out rules and regulations. But in my mind, its all a matter of degree. An umpire may call balls and strikes, but he doesn't solely determine the outcome of the game. In contrast, the judges at a gymnastic competition are the whole determinant of who wins.

Its this last criteria which is probably the most controversial, as it disqualifies activities like gymnastics, figure skating and synchronized swimming. Given that the average 10 year old figure skater is more of an athlete than I'll ever be, and the average 12 year old female gymnast could probably kick my ass around the block, where do I get off saying what they do isn't a sport? Cause this is my blog, that's why. Seriously though, I think these things are in a grey area between sport and non-sport. Gymnastics may be won based on judging, but it isn't the same as a beauty pageant or American Idol. There are (supposedly) clear guidelines that the judges must follow when giving out points. So I make this concession to these types of activties, that they should qualify as psuedo-sports, more than mere games but less than pure sport. I need a new word for this category. Gorts? Spomes?

What about something like boxing or MMA? Boxing outcomes are often determined by judges, yes? This is true, however the judges are the last resort and are a compromise to protect the fighters. Back in the day, boxing matches used to last until one competitor keeled over. Maybe it took 10 rounds, or maybe 60. They finally figured out that this wasn't very healthy for the boxers or the sport, and they decided to put a limit on the number of rounds to be fought. Judges also award points which are (usually) pretty easy to figure out: win the round, get the point. And most boxing matches either end before the judges come into play or are so one-sided that the outcome is not really in doubt. So I think boxing falls just inside the dividing line between sport and non-sport.

Whatever the case, this is just my (meaningless) definition. If you don't mind, my nacho and beer supply is running low. Time for the 100 yard waddle back to the concession stand. On your mark, get set, GO!