Idle Thoughts

Say “sport” to most people and they’ll think of running, or jumping or some other activity that requires physical effort. Just where do the boundaries lie - what makes one activity a sport, but another one not?

This one came about after a news item about pidgeon-fanciers who wanted their hobby classified as a sport - should it be?

The first attribute that a sport should have is competitiveness, there must be a winner and where there’s a winner: losers, too. Things that follow on from this are that sports must have rules and a means of scoring to assess who’s in the lead, so when the sport finishes the winner can be declared. I reckon the scoring system must be objective, partly so that there’s consistency and fairness and partly so that future competitors in the same sport at can judge themselves against past acheivements. This does rule out activities where a panel of judges assign marks - such as ballroom dancing, beauty contests or synchronised swimming.

There must be physical exertion. This seems to me to be one of the basic tenets of sport: physical fitness should be (along with level of skill) one of the defining attributes of the activity. If two players, or teams, have the same level of skill, the fitter of the two should win. Likewise, if they both have the same physical fitness then the more skillful should succeed. Where does this leave the non-physical “sports” such as darts, snooker, golf, even shooting? Firmly outside the sports arena (pun intended) as far as I can see. I’m not denying that these all take skill and require practice to maintain, it’s just that you won’t exactly break a sweat no matter how much you play them - unless of course your caddy doesn’t turn up and you have to carry the golf bag yourself.

The equipment should be immaterial
This wipes out activities where the participants are steering, guiding or otherwise controlling something else: whether it’s an animal or machinery. I can’t see horse-riding/racing as a sport, no matter how much of a sweat you get into, simply because so much of the outcome is dependent on the horse. Likewise, motorsports don’t cut it, no matter how physically exhausting they might be, as too much of the outcome is decided by the technical prowess of the cars’ mechanics, designers and other people (not to say the amount of money the teams have). Without this qualifier, you could class macro-economics as a sport.

One area that seems to me to be borderline is cycling. The technological advantage that richer or better sponsored cyclists have is obvious, with the more advanced bicycles and clothing they have. However the individual themselves still have to make the physical effort to compete. If I was interested in cycling, I would be keeping a careful eye on the technological gaps between the best and worst competitors.

When all is said and done, what matters is that the participants get pleasure from what they do - whether it’s a sport or not. Our culture tends to deify sports personalities (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and drives people towards a sports-obsessed existance. This pressures people into trying to turn everything into a sport - or at least a competitive situation. If it’s not a sport, accept that and just take the simple pleasures your chosen activity provides.