Yes
No
On planet X we play with cheese
With the nomination of 15 times world darts champion Phil Taylor into the top 10 shortlist for sports personality of the year the debate on whether darts is a sport is reopened.
Here is your chance to take to the oche and have your say.
skb
Yes, it is a game of physical skill.
When my granddad who was a pretty competitive darts player in his day succumbed to cancer he lost strength and could no longer play darts. His dominoes game did not diminish. That's the difference between a game and a sport. If your physical condition affects your ability it's a sport.
Yes. Much more so than say Ice Dancing or Rhythmic Gymnastics.
Originally Posted by chaggle
Or Cheerleading. Now a popular "sport" at many UK schools. It fits Matt's definition but I still say "no".
Sorry the definition I gave was incomplete. I still maintain that a sport is a type of game which requires physical ability.
However I left the definition of "Game" open. For me a game requires a scoring system or win condition. Where I feel sports such as rhythmic gymnastics or cheerleading are somewhat lacking is that their scoring systems involves subjective judging rather than objective measurement. Yes, there's still a scoring system so it is still a type of game and therefore qualifies as a sport, but only just, it occupies a lower rank in my opinion.
After all if I said that despite Arsenal scoring no goals vs Manchester United's one, I'm awarding the win to the former team for superior possession and flair you'd think I was either barmy or a Gunner.
I may well be both but ignoring the matter of line calls and the blatant bias of Howard Webb, football has an objective system of scoring and the result is not up for debate.
What about diving?
I heard someone on the radio this morning tying to define 'real' sports as those you played at school. So, snooker, pool, darts, boules, bowls, diving, archery, all forms of motor racing, etc etc etc aren't sports?
Of course darts is a sport.
Suppose you're playing Solitaire?
It's a game, but if you win, who has lost?
According to Wikipedia:
So I guess darts qualifies by those criteria.A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful physical activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means.
It has an objective win condition so is a game. Winning doesn't require a loser.Suppose you're playing Solitaire?
It's a game, but if you win, who has lost?
Tom Daly's event? The judging aspect puts in in the lower rank in my view. - Now the plunge dive on the other hand has an objective comparison.What about diving?
I agree with you regarding sports like cheerleading because of the subjectivity in judging, but IMO the requirement of a game to have a scoring system or win condition makes the definition too narrow. Suppose you're kicking a ball against a wall; it seems to me that this is a game, and you COULD set up a scoring system (for example, you lose points if the ball gets past you), but there's no requirement that you do so in order for it to be a game. Wikipedia defines game as "a recreational activity with a set of rules", which seems right to me. Adding the competitive element makes it a sport. Would it be fair to say that every sport is a game but not every game is a sport?
I stand corrected on the recognised usage. I wouldn't think of kicking a ball against a wall as a game myself but I guess I'm just out of step with the agreed definition.
Agreed. It wasn't a very good example, it's certainly a recreational activity but where are the rules? something of a borderline case, if that. Perhaps if you add the requirement that you should kick the ball before it bounces, that would make it more of a game.
Just thought of another "sport" which shouldn't really qualify: Synchronised swimming.
Sounds pretty close to adding a win condition..
No dead animals? It ain't a sport, it's a game.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks