(01-14-2023 10:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm actually enjoying the discussion about what constitutes "sport." Overall, the posters are being civil in this thread (regarding transgender people), so I vote to keep the thread going.

As to chess, as Bullet noted (and I had not considered) the physical component that could be required — particularly in a time-consuming match — is stamina related to breathing, posture and eye strain. True, it's not "major stamina," as is needed in, say soccer. But it could be a factor.

Still, I don't consider chess an "athletics sport" overall because a highly physically unfit person could be a master chess player. You simply don't see that in, again and for example, soccer. Just because chess is competitive, it is not a "sport" at the highest level of physical skills required.

Now, to be fair, there are lots of sports that don't require multiple physical skills (billiards is a fine example).

But I can see Bullet's point and have amended my original comment (ignorantly made, no less) of chess requiring "no physical skill" to "possibly requiring stamina" (again, depending on the length of the match).

You can be unfit and be a great bowler or at rifle.

(01-14-2023 03:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 10:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm actually enjoying the discussion about what constitutes "sport." Overall, the posters are being civil in this thread (regarding transgender people), so I vote to keep the thread going.

As to chess, as Bullet noted (and I had not considered) the physical component that could be required — particularly in a time-consuming match — is stamina related to breathing, posture and eye strain. True, it's not "major stamina," as is needed in, say soccer. But it could be a factor.

Still, I don't consider chess an "athletics sport" overall because a highly physically unfit person could be a master chess player. You simply don't see that in, again and for example, soccer. Just because chess is competitive, it is not a "sport" at the highest level of physical skills required.

Now, to be fair, there are lots of sports that don't require multiple physical skills (billiards is a fine example).

But I can see Bullet's point and have amended my original comment (ignorantly made, no less) of chess requiring "no physical skill" to "possibly requiring stamina" (again, depending on the length of the match).

You can be unfit and be a great bowler or at rifle.

I don't get this argument. Are you trying to say that Chess is a sport? It's a board game.

(01-14-2023 03:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 10:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm actually enjoying the discussion about what constitutes "sport." Overall, the posters are being civil in this thread (regarding transgender people), so I vote to keep the thread going.

As to chess, as Bullet noted (and I had not considered) the physical component that could be required — particularly in a time-consuming match — is stamina related to breathing, posture and eye strain. True, it's not "major stamina," as is needed in, say soccer. But it could be a factor.

Still, I don't consider chess an "athletics sport" overall because a highly physically unfit person could be a master chess player. You simply don't see that in, again and for example, soccer. Just because chess is competitive, it is not a "sport" at the highest level of physical skills required.

Now, to be fair, there are lots of sports that don't require multiple physical skills (billiards is a fine example).

But I can see Bullet's point and have amended my original comment (ignorantly made, no less) of chess requiring "no physical skill" to "possibly requiring stamina" (again, depending on the length of the match).

You can be unfit and be a great bowler or at rifle.

That is correct. And it is one reason that many people don't give full props to the sports that can be played effectively despite the participant not having multiple physical skills (or even being rather unfit): for example, bowling, rifle, chess, billiards, curling, archery, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with that mindset, but I can fully see why some folks have it.

This is worth a look:

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

(01-14-2023 04:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 10:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm actually enjoying the discussion about what constitutes "sport." Overall, the posters are being civil in this thread (regarding transgender people), so I vote to keep the thread going.

As to chess, as Bullet noted (and I had not considered) the physical component that could be required — particularly in a time-consuming match — is stamina related to breathing, posture and eye strain. True, it's not "major stamina," as is needed in, say soccer. But it could be a factor.

Still, I don't consider chess an "athletics sport" overall because a highly physically unfit person could be a master chess player. You simply don't see that in, again and for example, soccer. Just because chess is competitive, it is not a "sport" at the highest level of physical skills required.

Now, to be fair, there are lots of sports that don't require multiple physical skills (billiards is a fine example).

But I can see Bullet's point and have amended my original comment (ignorantly made, no less) of chess requiring "no physical skill" to "possibly requiring stamina" (again, depending on the length of the match).

You can be unfit and be a great bowler or at rifle.

I don't get this argument. Are you trying to say that Chess is a sport? It's a board game.

The debate is open-ended, to an extent, because it depends upon how one defines "sport." My connotative definition of sport is "an activity that requires a certain degree of physical skill(s)/athleticism and that involves competition."

So, and for example, hunting and fishing are not a "sport" because there is no competition (and because you can weigh 400 pounds and be a walking heart attack waiting to happen and successfully fish and shoot a rifle accurately). Poker and chess, though competitive in nature, are not "sufficiently sport" because the level of physical skill required is very modest (and some would argue essentially nil). Juggling and double dutch rope jumping at the highest levels involve big-time athleticism but generally no competition (and, thus, are considered activities and not sports).

Obviously, others see it differently and would disagree with me. It's rather subjective.

lmmfao at this thread …. just fk’n wow…

(01-14-2023 04:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 04:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 03:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 10:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm actually enjoying the discussion about what constitutes "sport." Overall, the posters are being civil in this thread (regarding transgender people), so I vote to keep the thread going.

As to chess, as Bullet noted (and I had not considered) the physical component that could be required — particularly in a time-consuming match — is stamina related to breathing, posture and eye strain. True, it's not "major stamina," as is needed in, say soccer. But it could be a factor.

Still, I don't consider chess an "athletics sport" overall because a highly physically unfit person could be a master chess player. You simply don't see that in, again and for example, soccer. Just because chess is competitive, it is not a "sport" at the highest level of physical skills required.

Now, to be fair, there are lots of sports that don't require multiple physical skills (billiards is a fine example).

But I can see Bullet's point and have amended my original comment (ignorantly made, no less) of chess requiring "no physical skill" to "possibly requiring stamina" (again, depending on the length of the match).

You can be unfit and be a great bowler or at rifle.

I don't get this argument. Are you trying to say that Chess is a sport? It's a board game.

The debate is open-ended, to an extent, because it depends upon how one defines "sport." My connotative definition of sport is "an activity that requires a certain degree of physical skill(s)/athleticism and that involves competition."

So, and for example, hunting and fishing are not a "sport" because there is no competition (and because you can weigh 400 pounds and be a walking heart attack waiting to happen and successfully fish and shoot a rifle accurately). Poker and chess, though competitive in nature, are not "sufficiently sport" because the level of physical skill required is very modest (and some would argue essentially nil). Juggling and double dutch rope jumping at the highest levels involve big-time athleticism but generally no competition (and, thus, are considered activities and not sports).

Obviously, others see it differently and would disagree with me. It's rather subjective.

Reading your comments about hunting and fishing made me think of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsman

And when playing chess one hopes the players exhibit good sportsmanship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsmanship

I think what's tripping people up on defining it is that a sport used to be any leisure activity (with the connotation that the results of which could be measured in some way), but now it tends to be used more - in the US at least - more for outdoor competitive athletics.

Consider the term of endearment "old sport" - which usually indicated a friend who was a "man of leisure". (and often involved imbibing alcohol : )

So to come all the way around the fence, sport is pretty much whatever we want to use it for.

If wanted, there is no reason there couldn't be competitive fishing in the olympics. Though I suppose the viewers in the stands should bring a lunch : )

(01-13-2023 11:20 AM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  I would rather see more of a focus on mental health than the catering to mental illnesses.

/closethread

(01-13-2023 03:48 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  Genders?
What about the furries? NCFAA?

#snicker

(01-14-2023 06:28 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  lmmfao at this thread …. just fk’n wow…

The only comments of any note IMO involved treating the mental illness of gender dysphoria and pandering to less than 1% (or whatever the figure is) of the population. Any discussion beyond that only lends credence to those who are delusively trans-supportive.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone whose little Tommy or Sally is confused about their biology/sexuality. You must have seen it coming. As a responsible parent it was your duty to get your child the psychiatric care he/she/it/ze/zhe/zhim/they/them/whatthefuqever needed for their mental illness.

What a screwed up world we allowed to be created for our kids.