This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
And it's more dangerous than F1. It says so in the New York Times, about half way down:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/automobiles/a-horrific-crash-spurs-soul-s...
I don't see it as a major sport, personally, although unlike other activities with it's participation rate I guess it's in the public conciousness more. Any comments?
(Thoughts with Bianchi of course, lets hope for a full recovery)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/automobiles/a-horrific-crash-spurs-soul-s...
I don't see it as a major sport, personally, although unlike other activities with it's participation rate I guess it's in the public conciousness more. Any comments?
(Thoughts with Bianchi of course, lets hope for a full recovery)
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Why isn't it a sport? Hemingway would obviously disagree, but that isn't the point. I find with these sorts of threads people tend to narrow their definitions for whatever reason.
Why isn't it a sport? Hemingway would obviously disagree, but that isn't the point. I find with these sorts of threads people tend to narrow their definitions for whatever reason.
In reply to IanC:
Clearly more people take part in mountaineering than F1, possibly Motorsport as a whole. Death / serious injury rates are possibly higher, F1 is pretty safe statistically these days.
Clearly mountaineering doesn't have a huge live and TV audience.
Clearly more people take part in mountaineering than F1, possibly Motorsport as a whole. Death / serious injury rates are possibly higher, F1 is pretty safe statistically these days.
Clearly mountaineering doesn't have a huge live and TV audience.
In reply to The New NickB:
I find that people sometimes seek to reinforce their own personal pigeonholes by trying to get others to adapt theirs.
Clearly climbing/mountaineering is a sport, a pastime, an adventurous pursuit, an activity and a great many other things. Part of it's charm is that it's so multi-faceted and people can choose their own approach within this wide spectrum. To attempt to restrict it to a more limited definition to suit ones personal interest seems self-defeating to me.
I find that people sometimes seek to reinforce their own personal pigeonholes by trying to get others to adapt theirs.
Clearly climbing/mountaineering is a sport, a pastime, an adventurous pursuit, an activity and a great many other things. Part of it's charm is that it's so multi-faceted and people can choose their own approach within this wide spectrum. To attempt to restrict it to a more limited definition to suit ones personal interest seems self-defeating to me.
In reply to The New NickB:
Well how can you call it a sport without providing a definition? Who participates? Is everyone who takes part in the 3 Peaks Challenge for example, mountaineering? Where is the line drawn - at a certain altitude, or steepness, or distance from a road?
EDIT - I don't NEED a definition of mountaineering, but it is required in the context of statistics and comparisons.
Well how can you call it a sport without providing a definition? Who participates? Is everyone who takes part in the 3 Peaks Challenge for example, mountaineering? Where is the line drawn - at a certain altitude, or steepness, or distance from a road?
EDIT - I don't NEED a definition of mountaineering, but it is required in the context of statistics and comparisons.
Post edited at 08:29
In reply to Trevers:
Mountaineering in its broadest sense is a series of activities involved in ascending mountains, or perhaps terrain of mountainous character. So I guess that ranges from an adventurous walk to ED3+ at 8000m.
A lot of it will be self identification, I would consider Helvellyn via Striding Edge an easy mountaineering day, but not walking up Skiddaw via the path from Keswick. Mainly because the former involves more than one activity.
Mountaineering in its broadest sense is a series of activities involved in ascending mountains, or perhaps terrain of mountainous character. So I guess that ranges from an adventurous walk to ED3+ at 8000m.
A lot of it will be self identification, I would consider Helvellyn via Striding Edge an easy mountaineering day, but not walking up Skiddaw via the path from Keswick. Mainly because the former involves more than one activity.
In reply to Removed User:
more of a sport than darts, pool or snooker
> Well it's not a sport at all is it?
more of a sport than darts, pool or snooker
In reply to IanC:
Leaving definitions of sport to one side, it does seem a major activity. The infrastructure for mountaineering in Europe (mountain huts, cable-cars, paths, national parks, hotels etc.) must be comparable to those provided for other activities like cycling or squash or sailing.
Leaving definitions of sport to one side, it does seem a major activity. The infrastructure for mountaineering in Europe (mountain huts, cable-cars, paths, national parks, hotels etc.) must be comparable to those provided for other activities like cycling or squash or sailing.
In reply to The New NickB:
Because it doesn't have a governing body that determines the rules by which participants compete, instead there is a loosely defined code of ethics that has evolved through the years and is continually open to interpretation and debate. Competitive climbing is a sport, as are darts and snooker. Mountaineering is not.
> Why isn't it a sport?
Because it doesn't have a governing body that determines the rules by which participants compete, instead there is a loosely defined code of ethics that has evolved through the years and is continually open to interpretation and debate. Competitive climbing is a sport, as are darts and snooker. Mountaineering is not.
In reply to Removed User:
Sport doesn't have to be competitive. Mountaineering isn't generally, but certainly can be in a general sense. Many sports are played out of competition. I know lots of runners who don't race, they all still take part in the sport. I cycle, but I don't have a race license.
Sport doesn't have to be competitive. Mountaineering isn't generally, but certainly can be in a general sense. Many sports are played out of competition. I know lots of runners who don't race, they all still take part in the sport. I cycle, but I don't have a race license.
In reply to IanC:
Well, what is a sport, then? I think I agree with the definition that sport is some physical activity that has no particular purpose from a survival point of view - something we do, well, for the sport of it.
I don't think that the presence of a governing body is particularly necessary, it's just something that a lot of sports have because (by their very nature) they involve making up some arbitrary rules that you follow when you do your sport. If a bunch of kids put four jumpers down on a field and all agree not to use their hands but only to kick the ball, we'd all agree they were doing sport, and they don't need FIFA to do this. If I decide to run round the field every morning, and try to do it faster every time, again I'm clearly doing sport - I've made up my arbitrary rules.
Things like darts, snooker and chess present a challenge to this, I guess, because the physicality is much diminished. If we count snooker, which is basically walking round a table tapping some balls, as sufficiently physical, do we allow chess? Do we allow sudoku?
Anyway. I think that makes mountaineering a sport. Major? In terms of participation, bigger than motorsport, I'd have thought. Not so in terms of coverage or renumeration though.
Well, what is a sport, then? I think I agree with the definition that sport is some physical activity that has no particular purpose from a survival point of view - something we do, well, for the sport of it.
I don't think that the presence of a governing body is particularly necessary, it's just something that a lot of sports have because (by their very nature) they involve making up some arbitrary rules that you follow when you do your sport. If a bunch of kids put four jumpers down on a field and all agree not to use their hands but only to kick the ball, we'd all agree they were doing sport, and they don't need FIFA to do this. If I decide to run round the field every morning, and try to do it faster every time, again I'm clearly doing sport - I've made up my arbitrary rules.
Things like darts, snooker and chess present a challenge to this, I guess, because the physicality is much diminished. If we count snooker, which is basically walking round a table tapping some balls, as sufficiently physical, do we allow chess? Do we allow sudoku?
Anyway. I think that makes mountaineering a sport. Major? In terms of participation, bigger than motorsport, I'd have thought. Not so in terms of coverage or renumeration though.
Post edited at 10:05
In reply to IanC:
It certainly contains some elements but the main one is missing. "Individuals or teams competing against one another". Indeed I took climbing up specifically because I did not consider it to be a sport.
It certainly contains some elements but the main one is missing. "Individuals or teams competing against one another". Indeed I took climbing up specifically because I did not consider it to be a sport.
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
All of these things involve some element of physicality. Everything does ( everything has to ), it's just a matter of degrees. Your brain needs calories to work, as do your muscles.
Your rules can be as arbitrary as you like, but at least you have them. What rules does mountaineering have?
> Things like darts, snooker and chess present a challenge to this, I guess, because the physicality is much diminished. If we count snooker, which is basically walking round a table tapping some balls, as sufficiently physical, do we allow chess? Do we allow sudoku?
All of these things involve some element of physicality. Everything does ( everything has to ), it's just a matter of degrees. Your brain needs calories to work, as do your muscles.
Your rules can be as arbitrary as you like, but at least you have them. What rules does mountaineering have?
In reply to planetmarshall:
The way I see it the difference is whether the physicality is a significant determinant of success, rather than just a prerequisite. So for example to be a chess grandmaster you only need to be able to move the pieces across the table and it doesn't matter how well you do it physically as long as it happens (ignoring the fact that some chess players may be paraplegic and get others to move the pieces for them). A good opposite example would be shooting, which requires you to do absolutely nothing except pull a trigger but the act of doing nothing else is apparently extremely hard physically and the better you are at it the higher you're likely to score.
Darts and snooker are therefore very much sports as they require critical physical control.
The way I see it the difference is whether the physicality is a significant determinant of success, rather than just a prerequisite. So for example to be a chess grandmaster you only need to be able to move the pieces across the table and it doesn't matter how well you do it physically as long as it happens (ignoring the fact that some chess players may be paraplegic and get others to move the pieces for them). A good opposite example would be shooting, which requires you to do absolutely nothing except pull a trigger but the act of doing nothing else is apparently extremely hard physically and the better you are at it the higher you're likely to score.
Darts and snooker are therefore very much sports as they require critical physical control.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Well, that's easy. 'Can I get from the bottom of this boulder/crag/hill/mountain, to the top, using only this arbitrarily imposed route?' *
You are the one imposing the rules (though we do have a habit of getting together and collectively agreeing on lots of little sets of such rules, and publishing them as guidebooks).
If there was actually some point - some real advantage - to getting to the top of Stanage, we could just walk around the side. But we choose not to. Just like it'd be much easier to just pick the ball up and chuck it between the jumpers, or for me to cut the corners off when I run around the field.
* or, in some cases, can I get up there and down again safely at all?
Well, that's easy. 'Can I get from the bottom of this boulder/crag/hill/mountain, to the top, using only this arbitrarily imposed route?' *
You are the one imposing the rules (though we do have a habit of getting together and collectively agreeing on lots of little sets of such rules, and publishing them as guidebooks).
If there was actually some point - some real advantage - to getting to the top of Stanage, we could just walk around the side. But we choose not to. Just like it'd be much easier to just pick the ball up and chuck it between the jumpers, or for me to cut the corners off when I run around the field.
* or, in some cases, can I get up there and down again safely at all?
Post edited at 10:51
In reply to planetmarshall:
Some with more thought and consensus than others.
"Just" also being an important word in my post.
> All definitions are made up.
Some with more thought and consensus than others.
"Just" also being an important word in my post.
Post edited at 10:48
In reply to john arran:
'very much' is pushing it, I'd say, though there is an undeniable physical element.
A more basic test is to imagine the scenario 'I played [passtime] so hard I threw up'; if it can't reasonably fit in that sentence, it ain't a sport
> Darts and snooker are therefore very much sports as they require critical physical control.
'very much' is pushing it, I'd say, though there is an undeniable physical element.
A more basic test is to imagine the scenario 'I played [passtime] so hard I threw up'; if it can't reasonably fit in that sentence, it ain't a sport
In reply to planetmarshall:
Your definition of sport is absurd. "Competitive Sport" I would agree requires a formal set of rules but Mountaineering has been called a sport since the 19th century at least, certainly during the "Golden Age".
I remember it well
Your definition of sport is absurd. "Competitive Sport" I would agree requires a formal set of rules but Mountaineering has been called a sport since the 19th century at least, certainly during the "Golden Age".
I remember it well
In reply to nufkin:
That would rule out all sports which aren't also effectively athletic events, and also some actual athletic events such as high jump. I think your rule of thumb is of very limited use.
That would rule out all sports which aren't also effectively athletic events, and also some actual athletic events such as high jump. I think your rule of thumb is of very limited use.
In reply to wercat:
It's one of the criteria used by the IOC to admit sports to the Olympic Games. Without an element of competition you may as well define any arbitrary physical activity as a sport.
> Your definition of sport is absurd.
It's one of the criteria used by the IOC to admit sports to the Olympic Games. Without an element of competition you may as well define any arbitrary physical activity as a sport.
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
So if I had to don boots, crampons etc to climb a mountain simply to get from A to B, I wouldn't be mountaineering? What would I be doing, then?
> If there was actually some point - some real advantage - to getting to the top of Stanage, we could just walk around the side. But we choose not to. Just like it'd be much easier to just pick the ball up and chuck it between the jumpers, or for me to cut the corners off when I run around the field.
So if I had to don boots, crampons etc to climb a mountain simply to get from A to B, I wouldn't be mountaineering? What would I be doing, then?
In reply to john arran:
Obviously that therefore means they're not sports then
Well, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But considerable physical effort seems to be an important element, which to my mind puts darts and snooker in the 'games' category, rather than 'sports'. Doesn't mean they're inferior, just different
> That would rule out all sports which aren't also effectively athletic events
Obviously that therefore means they're not sports then
> I think your rule of thumb is of very limited use
Well, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But considerable physical effort seems to be an important element, which to my mind puts darts and snooker in the 'games' category, rather than 'sports'. Doesn't mean they're inferior, just different
In reply to planetmarshall:
"All definitions are made up. "
That depends on how you define a definition.
"All definitions are made up. "
That depends on how you define a definition.
Post edited at 11:17
In reply to planetmarshall:
If you run for a bus or ride a bike to work I'd say you aren't taking part in a sport, so similarly I'd say that if you climb over a mountain because it's the easiest way to go where you want to be then no, you aren't taking part in a sport.
I think Jamie's stab at a definition is a pretty good start, actually. Note that traditionally hunting and fishing for pleasure rather than survival are referred to as "sport" as well. My initial stab would be:
i) physical effort as a significant determinant of success
ii) trying to push yourself in some capacity
iii) no immediate practical purpose.
> So if I had to don boots, crampons etc to climb a mountain simply to get from A to B, I wouldn't be mountaineering? What would I be doing, then?
If you run for a bus or ride a bike to work I'd say you aren't taking part in a sport, so similarly I'd say that if you climb over a mountain because it's the easiest way to go where you want to be then no, you aren't taking part in a sport.
I think Jamie's stab at a definition is a pretty good start, actually. Note that traditionally hunting and fishing for pleasure rather than survival are referred to as "sport" as well. My initial stab would be:
i) physical effort as a significant determinant of success
ii) trying to push yourself in some capacity
iii) no immediate practical purpose.
Post edited at 11:22
In reply to The New NickB:
I'm pretty sure it does.
I'm not sure that I'd agree that runners and cyclists who don't race are necessarily participating in a sport. They're just going for a run, or a cycle.
> Sport doesn't have to be competitive.
I'm pretty sure it does.
> Many sports are played out of competition. I know lots of runners who don't race, they all still take part in the sport. I cycle, but I don't have a race license.
I'm not sure that I'd agree that runners and cyclists who don't race are necessarily participating in a sport. They're just going for a run, or a cycle.
In reply to planetmarshall:
I'm intrigued. Given that sport as a word has been used for centuries to describe many activities with an element of physicality combined with either competition or challenge, what would you be hoping to gain if it were now redefined to include only the subset of these which are overtly competitive between competitors or teams such as feature in more recent Olympic games?
I'm intrigued. Given that sport as a word has been used for centuries to describe many activities with an element of physicality combined with either competition or challenge, what would you be hoping to gain if it were now redefined to include only the subset of these which are overtly competitive between competitors or teams such as feature in more recent Olympic games?
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Incidentally, chess is officially recognised by the IOC as a sport. As definitions go, that's good enough for me.
> do we allow chess?
Incidentally, chess is officially recognised by the IOC as a sport. As definitions go, that's good enough for me.
In reply to planetmarshall:
The IOC don't decide if something is a sport, they decide if it is an Olympic Sport.
The IOC don't decide if something is a sport, they decide if it is an Olympic Sport.
In reply to john arran:
I don't think it's been 'redefined', as such, but the concept has certainly evolved. I doubt many of those who referred to mountaineering as a sport in the 19th century would consider many of our modern sports to be such, or indeed find the behaviour of their participants particularly sporting.
Sponsorship? Professional coaches? Training? Well, that just wouldn't be cricket.
I don't think it's been 'redefined', as such, but the concept has certainly evolved. I doubt many of those who referred to mountaineering as a sport in the 19th century would consider many of our modern sports to be such, or indeed find the behaviour of their participants particularly sporting.
Sponsorship? Professional coaches? Training? Well, that just wouldn't be cricket.
Post edited at 11:26
In reply to planetmarshall:
Why am I not surprised. British Cycling and UK Athletics would disagree.
> I'm not sure that I'd agree that runners and cyclists who don't race are necessarily participating in a sport. They're just going for a run, or a cycle.
Why am I not surprised. British Cycling and UK Athletics would disagree.
In reply to The New NickB:
British Cycling and UK Athletics can determine something is a sport but the IOC cannot?
> Why am I not surprised. British Cycling and UK Athletics would disagree.
British Cycling and UK Athletics can determine something is a sport but the IOC cannot?
In reply to planetmarshall:
>In reply to wercat:
>> Your definition of sport is absurd.
>It's one of the criteria used by the IOC to admit sports to the Olympic Games.
The IOC is absurd, so that fits.
>Without an element of competition you may as well define any arbitrary physical activity as a sport.
You may, but you don't have to.
>In reply to wercat:
>> Your definition of sport is absurd.
>It's one of the criteria used by the IOC to admit sports to the Olympic Games.
The IOC is absurd, so that fits.
>Without an element of competition you may as well define any arbitrary physical activity as a sport.
You may, but you don't have to.
In reply to planetmarshall:
See my earlier post about the IOC. I hardly think they can stand up as a paragon of sense and reason.
> Incidentally, chess is officially recognised by the IOC as a sport. As definitions go, that's good enough for me.
See my earlier post about the IOC. I hardly think they can stand up as a paragon of sense and reason.
In reply to planetmarshall:
So here's a corner case - does 'sport' have to involve people? If I play against a computer, is it sport? If I have two computers and I play them against each other, is it still a sport? If they just make do without me and play between themselves, is it still a sport? If nobody observed them (or the result), was it still a sport?
Or was the 'sport' the writing of the chess-playing program rather than the execution of it? So how is that different from writing any other program/algorithm (e.g., share trading)?
> Incidentally, chess is officially recognised by the IOC as a sport. As definitions go, that's good enough for me.
So here's a corner case - does 'sport' have to involve people? If I play against a computer, is it sport? If I have two computers and I play them against each other, is it still a sport? If they just make do without me and play between themselves, is it still a sport? If nobody observed them (or the result), was it still a sport?
Or was the 'sport' the writing of the chess-playing program rather than the execution of it? So how is that different from writing any other program/algorithm (e.g., share trading)?
In reply to planetmarshall:
I think this is our fundamental difference. I'd argue that they are. They are arbitrarily making things more difficult for themselves for no benefit (I'm ignoring increased lifespan due to cardiovascular gains obvs) - and, for me, that's a sport.
If you have no choice but to cross a mountain to get from A to B, then you may well be mountaineering in the sense of the activity, but you aren't doing it as sport. If I have to run like hell to catch my bus, that's not sport. OTOH, if I deliberately set out late so it's a race between me and the bus, it is a sport.
The IOC is a red herring. They don't define sport, they just pick some sports that will look good on TV.
> I'm not sure that I'd agree that runners and cyclists who don't race are necessarily participating in a sport. They're just going for a run, or a cycle.
I think this is our fundamental difference. I'd argue that they are. They are arbitrarily making things more difficult for themselves for no benefit (I'm ignoring increased lifespan due to cardiovascular gains obvs) - and, for me, that's a sport.
If you have no choice but to cross a mountain to get from A to B, then you may well be mountaineering in the sense of the activity, but you aren't doing it as sport. If I have to run like hell to catch my bus, that's not sport. OTOH, if I deliberately set out late so it's a race between me and the bus, it is a sport.
The IOC is a red herring. They don't define sport, they just pick some sports that will look good on TV.
In reply to IanC:
Many of the things described above are better classified as 'games' and this is the essence of the Hemingway quote, differentiating all these things, Olympic or not, as games and only bullfighting, motor racing and mountain climbing as sport.
The difference?
Not just a set of rules - those are for games.
Not just competition - again, games are often organised competitions.
Not just physicality - plenty of games require that.
The essence that differentiates sport is more intangible.
There is an element of chance.
There is an element of risk - there must be something important at stake - usually one's life.
There is an element of learned skill - to be able to take on that risk beyond everyday levels
It must be unnecessary - in true life or death utilitarian situations (war, work, survival) anything goes. The very uselessness of sport allows one to entertain and practice a degree of fairness and grace that fighting for one's survival or livelihood would not. Thus eye gouging is fine to defend yourself in war, but not in boxing. Bottled oxygen is fine for going into space, but not on mountains.
There is an element of fairness ("he's a good sport", "a sporting chance") that need not rely on rules or authorities, but on shared or established cultural or community values. Being able to appreciate the innate justice and quality of the unwritten rules and abide by them is part of being 'sporting'.
Sport enables one to show that you have evolved beyond craven survival and sustenance and can exhibit the development of your character in other ways, ways that are serious and testing - and beyond mere games.
Many of the things described above are better classified as 'games' and this is the essence of the Hemingway quote, differentiating all these things, Olympic or not, as games and only bullfighting, motor racing and mountain climbing as sport.
The difference?
Not just a set of rules - those are for games.
Not just competition - again, games are often organised competitions.
Not just physicality - plenty of games require that.
The essence that differentiates sport is more intangible.
There is an element of chance.
There is an element of risk - there must be something important at stake - usually one's life.
There is an element of learned skill - to be able to take on that risk beyond everyday levels
It must be unnecessary - in true life or death utilitarian situations (war, work, survival) anything goes. The very uselessness of sport allows one to entertain and practice a degree of fairness and grace that fighting for one's survival or livelihood would not. Thus eye gouging is fine to defend yourself in war, but not in boxing. Bottled oxygen is fine for going into space, but not on mountains.
There is an element of fairness ("he's a good sport", "a sporting chance") that need not rely on rules or authorities, but on shared or established cultural or community values. Being able to appreciate the innate justice and quality of the unwritten rules and abide by them is part of being 'sporting'.
Sport enables one to show that you have evolved beyond craven survival and sustenance and can exhibit the development of your character in other ways, ways that are serious and testing - and beyond mere games.
1
In reply to Marek:
Quite. They probably think golf and cricket are sports, too
> See my earlier post about the IOC. I hardly think they can stand up as a paragon of sense and reason.
Quite. They probably think golf and cricket are sports, too
In reply to Marek:
I'm not sure that this is a helpful diversion, so I'm just going to say yes. There are plenty of competitions in the computer programming arena, and I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to classify them as sport.
> So here's a corner case - does 'sport' have to involve people?
I'm not sure that this is a helpful diversion, so I'm just going to say yes. There are plenty of competitions in the computer programming arena, and I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to classify them as sport.
In reply to planetmarshall:
I really didn't say that, but you do not accept that they are the national governing bodies for two sports (didn't governing bodies form part of you definition earlier).
> British Cycling and UK Athletics can determine something is a sport but the IOC cannot?
I really didn't say that, but you do not accept that they are the national governing bodies for two sports (didn't governing bodies form part of you definition earlier).
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
I don't think we disagree here - but what if you just go for a run, not for training for a race, but just for a recreational run? There's no competitive element, are you participating in a sport, or are you just going from A to B?
> If you have no choice but to cross a mountain to get from A to B, then you may well be mountaineering in the sense of the activity, but you aren't doing it as sport. If I have to run like hell to catch my bus, that's not sport. OTOH, if I deliberately set out late so it's a race between me and the bus, it is a sport.
I don't think we disagree here - but what if you just go for a run, not for training for a race, but just for a recreational run? There's no competitive element, are you participating in a sport, or are you just going from A to B?
In reply to The New NickB:
My working definition has two elements
1. Rules that govern participation. These don't necessarily have to be defined by a governing body ( the 'jumpers for goalposts' example works fine )
2. A competitive element between participants.
I don't think that mountaineering in general satisfies either of these ( though obviously there are subsets that do such as competitive sport climbing ). I'm perfectly happy to accept football, cricket, chess, bridge, dominoes and Quake as sports, but not mountaineering.
> but you do not accept that they are the national governing bodies for two sports (didn't governing bodies form part of you definition earlier).
My working definition has two elements
1. Rules that govern participation. These don't necessarily have to be defined by a governing body ( the 'jumpers for goalposts' example works fine )
2. A competitive element between participants.
I don't think that mountaineering in general satisfies either of these ( though obviously there are subsets that do such as competitive sport climbing ). I'm perfectly happy to accept football, cricket, chess, bridge, dominoes and Quake as sports, but not mountaineering.
In reply to Damo:
Without having read Hemmingway, it seems the element of chance is somewhat spurious. Most sports try to eliminate chance as a determining factor. Although thinking about it, it really depends on whether the sport is against a human opponent (chance is generally deprecated) or is a competition against one's own limits (e.g., mountaineering) where perhaps 'dealing with chance' (good or bad) is part of the inherent attraction and a 'test of character' (testing your real self against your imagined self).
> Many of the things described above are better classified as 'games' and this is the essence of the Hemingway quote, differentiating all these things, Olympic or not, as games and only bullfighting, motor racing and mountain climbing as sport.
> The difference?
> Not just a set of rules - those are for games.
> Not just competition - again, games are often organised competitions.
> Not just physicality - plenty of games require that.
> The essence that differentiates sport is more intangible.
> There is an element of chance.
> There is an element of risk - there must be something important at stake - usually one's life.
> There is an element of learned skill - to be able to take on that risk beyond everyday levels
> It must be unnecessary - <SNIP>
Without having read Hemmingway, it seems the element of chance is somewhat spurious. Most sports try to eliminate chance as a determining factor. Although thinking about it, it really depends on whether the sport is against a human opponent (chance is generally deprecated) or is a competition against one's own limits (e.g., mountaineering) where perhaps 'dealing with chance' (good or bad) is part of the inherent attraction and a 'test of character' (testing your real self against your imagined self).
In reply to planetmarshall:
As Damo suggests, you are really defining games, not sport. Sport is something much broader.
As Damo suggests, you are really defining games, not sport. Sport is something much broader.
In reply to planetmarshall:
I could be argued that something like mountaineering satisfies the above requirements in that in many ways it is a competition between you real self and your imagined self. You head off for that peak because you think you can climb it and something internal is driving you to prove it - at least to yourself. It really no different that competition between two individuals.
> My working definition has two elements
> 1. Rules that govern participation. These don't necessarily have to be defined by a governing body ( the 'jumpers for goalposts' example works fine )
> 2. A competitive element between participants.
> I don't think that mountaineering in general satisfies either of these ( though obviously there are subsets that do such as competitive sport climbing ). I'm perfectly happy to accept football, cricket, chess, bridge, dominoes and Quake as sports, but not mountaineering.
I could be argued that something like mountaineering satisfies the above requirements in that in many ways it is a competition between you real self and your imagined self. You head off for that peak because you think you can climb it and something internal is driving you to prove it - at least to yourself. It really no different that competition between two individuals.
In reply to Damo:
I'd say this fits in well with the 19th century definition that I alluded to earlier. Our notion of sportsmanship has evolved to allow professional competition, but we still have some sense of fair play such as in disallowing certain training aids - though some might argue that this is a bit arbitrary ( ie, endurance runners can train at altitude but can't take drugs to achieve the same effects ).
Mountaineering may be a sport as Hemingway would define it, but I don't think it fits in well with the modern concept.
I'd say this fits in well with the 19th century definition that I alluded to earlier. Our notion of sportsmanship has evolved to allow professional competition, but we still have some sense of fair play such as in disallowing certain training aids - though some might argue that this is a bit arbitrary ( ie, endurance runners can train at altitude but can't take drugs to achieve the same effects ).
Mountaineering may be a sport as Hemingway would define it, but I don't think it fits in well with the modern concept.
In reply to Marek:
Yes. There is a far greater element of chance in bullfighting than in football.
> ...a competition against one's own limits (e.g., mountaineering) where perhaps 'dealing with chance' (good or bad) is part of the inherent attraction
Yes. There is a far greater element of chance in bullfighting than in football.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Yes, I'd absolutely say that was sport.
If there were no competitive element to it whatsoever - if you weren't timing yourself, or repeating the same route to see if today is faster or slower or easier or harder... perhaps there's a grey area there. But even then, if you're just running around the field for the sheer hell of it, I think that's sport.
Of course, if you're doing this because you think it will extend your life then we've broken the 'no appreciable benefit' criterion. Which makes me think that it's less what you do and more why you do it. Is the guide repeating a route for the hundredth time for his clients doing sport? I'm not sure he is; he's just doing his job. The clients are doing sport, though.
Incidentally, I don't think the quote that's always misattributed to Hemingway helps much. I think it's too short and pithy to be of use (I've always wondered why boxing wasn't included) and simply out off date.
Yes, I'd absolutely say that was sport.
If there were no competitive element to it whatsoever - if you weren't timing yourself, or repeating the same route to see if today is faster or slower or easier or harder... perhaps there's a grey area there. But even then, if you're just running around the field for the sheer hell of it, I think that's sport.
Of course, if you're doing this because you think it will extend your life then we've broken the 'no appreciable benefit' criterion. Which makes me think that it's less what you do and more why you do it. Is the guide repeating a route for the hundredth time for his clients doing sport? I'm not sure he is; he's just doing his job. The clients are doing sport, though.
Incidentally, I don't think the quote that's always misattributed to Hemingway helps much. I think it's too short and pithy to be of use (I've always wondered why boxing wasn't included) and simply out off date.
In reply to The New NickB:
According to Hemingway? Yes, but Hemingway died in 1961. I think our definitions of what constitutes a sport have moved on somewhat.
> As Damo suggests, you are really defining games, not sport. Sport is something much broader.
According to Hemingway? Yes, but Hemingway died in 1961. I think our definitions of what constitutes a sport have moved on somewhat.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Hemingway didn't provide a 'definition', he provided - as do we all - an 'opinion'. To provide a definition you have to start by acknowledging an relevant authority on the matter and there isn't one in this case.
> According to Hemingway? Yes, but Hemingway died in 1961. I think our definitions of what constitutes a sport have moved on somewhat.
Hemingway didn't provide a 'definition', he provided - as do we all - an 'opinion'. To provide a definition you have to start by acknowledging an relevant authority on the matter and there isn't one in this case.
In reply to Damo:
You haven't seen me playing football!
> Yes. There is a far greater element of chance in bullfighting than in football.
You haven't seen me playing football!
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
According to Hemingway? Yes, but Hemingway died in 1961. I think our definitions of what constitutes a sport have moved on somewhat.
and he didn't say it anyway...
According to Hemingway? Yes, but Hemingway died in 1961. I think our definitions of what constitutes a sport have moved on somewhat.
and he didn't say it anyway...
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Excellent.
Mountaineering doesn't have to be a sport but it can be. Like you say, even people climbing the same route may be doing it for sporting and non-sporting reasons. One person might choose to go for a training run (sport) while a much better runner comes along just for a chat (leisure).
One climber might lead Flying Buttress Direct to push his grade (sport) while the next might solo it for the 87th time just for the fun of it (pastime).
With the possible exception of organised team sports very few activities are always undertaken for the purposes of sport. Therefore the question "Is x a sport" is usually ambiguous if not plain meaningless.
> it's less what you do and more why you do it.
Excellent.
Mountaineering doesn't have to be a sport but it can be. Like you say, even people climbing the same route may be doing it for sporting and non-sporting reasons. One person might choose to go for a training run (sport) while a much better runner comes along just for a chat (leisure).
One climber might lead Flying Buttress Direct to push his grade (sport) while the next might solo it for the 87th time just for the fun of it (pastime).
With the possible exception of organised team sports very few activities are always undertaken for the purposes of sport. Therefore the question "Is x a sport" is usually ambiguous if not plain meaningless.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Well gold medals were awarded by the IOC for Mountaineering at the 1924 Winter Games for the 1923 Everest Expedition so I guess they considered mountaineering as a sport.
Well gold medals were awarded by the IOC for Mountaineering at the 1924 Winter Games for the 1923 Everest Expedition so I guess they considered mountaineering as a sport.
In reply to planetmarshall:
You'd be mountaineering, but not 'for sport'
> So if I had to don boots, crampons etc to climb a mountain simply to get from A to B, I wouldn't be mountaineering? What would I be doing, then?
You'd be mountaineering, but not 'for sport'
In reply to IanC:
Shoes.
If you have to take your shoes off (swimming, diving, etc.) or wear "special" shoes (climbing, cricket, rugby etc.) it's a sport.
If you don't, it's not.
Shoes.
If you have to take your shoes off (swimming, diving, etc.) or wear "special" shoes (climbing, cricket, rugby etc.) it's a sport.
If you don't, it's not.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
This thread has almost been like something out of The Ascent Of Rum Doodle.
It's got certain quality to it, brow furrowed Englishmen debating whether it's a sport...
(My apologies to any posters from overseas)
()
This thread has almost been like something out of The Ascent Of Rum Doodle.
It's got certain quality to it, brow furrowed Englishmen debating whether it's a sport...
(My apologies to any posters from overseas)
()
Post edited at 14:22
In reply to Timmd:
Englishmen???
> It's got certain quality to it, brow furrowed Englishmen debating whether it's a sport...
Englishmen???
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Fair point, but I think we've decided that the IOC doesn't get to decide what's a sport.
> Well gold medals were awarded by the IOC for Mountaineering at the 1924 Winter Games for the 1923 Everest Expedition so I guess they considered mountaineering as a sport.
Fair point, but I think we've decided that the IOC doesn't get to decide what's a sport.
In reply to Oceanrower:
'Necessary' but not 'sufficient'. I can't think of a sport which doesn't require non-normal footware but I can think of non-sports (e.g., ballet) which do.
Hmm. So what's the difference between mountaineering and ballet? Both physical, have rules, competitive (to much the same degree), pointless (pardon the pun in both cases)...
> Shoes.
> If you have to take your shoes off (swimming, diving, etc.) or wear "special" shoes (climbing, cricket, rugby etc.) it's a sport.
> If you don't, it's not.
'Necessary' but not 'sufficient'. I can't think of a sport which doesn't require non-normal footware but I can think of non-sports (e.g., ballet) which do.
Hmm. So what's the difference between mountaineering and ballet? Both physical, have rules, competitive (to much the same degree), pointless (pardon the pun in both cases)...
Post edited at 15:21
In reply to mh554:
Incorrect. Sport has an accepted definition, the exact wording will vary depending where you look (and i cant be bothered to find a quote). But a sport has to be competative, have a well defigned set of rules laid out by some form of governing body, have a defigned 'playing area' and be officiated by neutral parties. there is a diference between active recreation and sport.
you can partake in sports in a non sporting way (ie recreation) but you are then not 'doing sport', eg going for a run or bike ride. equally aspecs of mountaineering have become sports but that doesnt make mountaineering a sport.
at the end of the day this is all semantics, a definition is simply a bunch of words describing another word, the interpretation of which is open to the individual. all that maters is that you enjoy whatever you are doing reguardless of what you choose to call it (sport, recreation, past time...)
> more of a sport than darts, pool or snooker
Incorrect. Sport has an accepted definition, the exact wording will vary depending where you look (and i cant be bothered to find a quote). But a sport has to be competative, have a well defigned set of rules laid out by some form of governing body, have a defigned 'playing area' and be officiated by neutral parties. there is a diference between active recreation and sport.
you can partake in sports in a non sporting way (ie recreation) but you are then not 'doing sport', eg going for a run or bike ride. equally aspecs of mountaineering have become sports but that doesnt make mountaineering a sport.
at the end of the day this is all semantics, a definition is simply a bunch of words describing another word, the interpretation of which is open to the individual. all that maters is that you enjoy whatever you are doing reguardless of what you choose to call it (sport, recreation, past time...)
In reply to Marek:
Wheelchair basketball.
> 'Necessary' but not 'sufficient'. I can't think of a sport which doesn't require non-normal footware but I can think of non-sports (e.g., ballet) which do.
Wheelchair basketball.
In reply to Webster:
From Cambridge and Oxford dictionary
Mountaineering : "the sport or activity of climbing mountains"
From Encyclopædia Britannica: "mountaineering, also called mountain climbing , the sport of attaining, or attempting to attain, high points in mountainous regions, mainly for the pleasure of the climb. "
So according to the dictionary it's a sport. That settles it I guess.
> Incorrect. Sport has an accepted definition, the exact wording will vary depending where you look (and i cant be bothered to find a quote). But a sport has to be competative, have a well defigned set of rules laid out by some form of governing body, have a defigned 'playing area' and be officiated by neutral parties. there is a diference between active recreation and sport.
From Cambridge and Oxford dictionary
Mountaineering : "the sport or activity of climbing mountains"
From Encyclopædia Britannica: "mountaineering, also called mountain climbing , the sport of attaining, or attempting to attain, high points in mountainous regions, mainly for the pleasure of the climb. "
So according to the dictionary it's a sport. That settles it I guess.
Post edited at 15:34
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
No, we decided the IOC doesn't get to decide what isn't a sport. An Olympic sport is a sport, a non-Olympic sport is still a sport. Keep up.
> Fair point, but I think we've decided that the IOC doesn't get to decide what's a sport.
No, we decided the IOC doesn't get to decide what isn't a sport. An Olympic sport is a sport, a non-Olympic sport is still a sport. Keep up.
In reply to john arran:
I think you have hit the nail on the head there. sport doesnt define the activity, rather the concept. doing an activity under one set of circumstances can be sport, and doing the exact same activity the next day under a different set of circumstances can be not a sport (leisure, recreation, past time, neccesity to survive).
it is the wrong way of thinking about it to say is x or y activity defined as a sport full stop. better would be to say is this senario an example of sport or not. e.g the worl championship snooker event is a sport, playing pool down the pub with mates isnt. incidently you can be training for a given sport without actually 'doing sport'. if i go for a run on tuesday as training for my hockey game on saturday, the sport is the game on saturday, the training in the week is just training. so to reword what i sadi above, sport is the event, not the activity.
> Excellent.
> Mountaineering doesn't have to be a sport but it can be. Like you say, even people climbing the same route may be doing it for sporting and non-sporting reasons. One person might choose to go for a training run (sport) while a much better runner comes along just for a chat (leisure).
> One climber might lead Flying Buttress Direct to push his grade (sport) while the next might solo it for the 87th time just for the fun of it (pastime).
> With the possible exception of organised team sports very few activities are always undertaken for the purposes of sport. Therefore the question "Is x a sport" is usually ambiguous if not plain meaningless.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there. sport doesnt define the activity, rather the concept. doing an activity under one set of circumstances can be sport, and doing the exact same activity the next day under a different set of circumstances can be not a sport (leisure, recreation, past time, neccesity to survive).
it is the wrong way of thinking about it to say is x or y activity defined as a sport full stop. better would be to say is this senario an example of sport or not. e.g the worl championship snooker event is a sport, playing pool down the pub with mates isnt. incidently you can be training for a given sport without actually 'doing sport'. if i go for a run on tuesday as training for my hockey game on saturday, the sport is the game on saturday, the training in the week is just training. so to reword what i sadi above, sport is the event, not the activity.
In reply to RomTheBear:
i would emphasise the OR
but yes you have a ligitimate arguement
> Mountaineering : "the sport or activity of climbing mountains"
> So according to the dictionary it's a sport. That settles it I guess.
i would emphasise the OR
but yes you have a ligitimate arguement
In reply to IanC:
Some amazingly silly replies, of course its a sport...... just look at the dictionary .....
Sport n. Recreaction, pastime: dalliance, amorous behaviour: play: a game, esp one involving bodily exercise: mirth: jest: contemptuous mirth: a plaything: a laughing stock: field diversion: success or gratification in shooting, fishing, or the like: a sportsman: a person of sportsmanlike character, a good fellow: an animal or plant that varies singularly and spontaneously from the normal type: (in pl.) a meeting for races and the like.
Most of those fit what I do, one time or another
Some amazingly silly replies, of course its a sport...... just look at the dictionary .....
Sport n. Recreaction, pastime: dalliance, amorous behaviour: play: a game, esp one involving bodily exercise: mirth: jest: contemptuous mirth: a plaything: a laughing stock: field diversion: success or gratification in shooting, fishing, or the like: a sportsman: a person of sportsmanlike character, a good fellow: an animal or plant that varies singularly and spontaneously from the normal type: (in pl.) a meeting for races and the like.
Most of those fit what I do, one time or another
Post edited at 16:18
In reply to IanC:
So having chewed over the 'sport' part, what do we think about the 'more dangerous' part? Very difficult to count (or even decide what to count).
As a starting point: 22 drivers x 19 races/season x 20 years since the last death = 8000 participations per death. But I'm off to work so can't take this further right now.
So having chewed over the 'sport' part, what do we think about the 'more dangerous' part? Very difficult to count (or even decide what to count).
As a starting point: 22 drivers x 19 races/season x 20 years since the last death = 8000 participations per death. But I'm off to work so can't take this further right now.
In reply to Oceanrower:
This had me pondering an alternative - if it's fun to watch, then it can count as a sport. If it's not, it can't
> Shoes.
This had me pondering an alternative - if it's fun to watch, then it can count as a sport. If it's not, it can't
In reply to Webster:
>... doing an activity under one set of circumstances can be sport, and doing the exact same activity the next day under a different set of circumstances can be not a sport...
I think that would be a better approach to the whole thing - the event, not the activity.
Or rather the intent, not the activity.
My long post above was really only to elucidate the 'Hemingway' quote and outline some of the intangibles in the argument, which I think are worthwhile considering in a climbing/mountaineering context. I've never particularly agreed with, nor cared for, the quote.
Chess is an interesting one. I don't play it and would not normally call it a sport. It has very strict rules and a very restricted physical arena and is one-on-one competitive, like many games. But the scope for tactics and style give it a very sporting potential and though it's far from risky, it's a civilised proxy whose genetics derive from the much more lethal battles to take down kings and their armies.
And I don't like bullfighting.
>... doing an activity under one set of circumstances can be sport, and doing the exact same activity the next day under a different set of circumstances can be not a sport...
> it is the wrong way of thinking about it to say is x or y activity defined as a sport full stop. better would be to say is this senario an example of sport or not. so to reword what i sadi above, sport is the event, not the activity.
I think that would be a better approach to the whole thing - the event, not the activity.
Or rather the intent, not the activity.
My long post above was really only to elucidate the 'Hemingway' quote and outline some of the intangibles in the argument, which I think are worthwhile considering in a climbing/mountaineering context. I've never particularly agreed with, nor cared for, the quote.
Chess is an interesting one. I don't play it and would not normally call it a sport. It has very strict rules and a very restricted physical arena and is one-on-one competitive, like many games. But the scope for tactics and style give it a very sporting potential and though it's far from risky, it's a civilised proxy whose genetics derive from the much more lethal battles to take down kings and their armies.
And I don't like bullfighting.
Post edited at 23:34
In reply to GridNorth:
And yet we have had competition to get to the top of various mountains/peaks between 'teams' from different countries.
> (In reply to IanC)
>
> It certainly contains some elements but the main one is missing. "Individuals or teams competing against one another". Indeed I took climbing up specifically because I did not consider it to be a sport.
>
> It certainly contains some elements but the main one is missing. "Individuals or teams competing against one another". Indeed I took climbing up specifically because I did not consider it to be a sport.
And yet we have had competition to get to the top of various mountains/peaks between 'teams' from different countries.
In reply to Damo:
It also begs the question: "Is 'professional sport' an oxymoron?" If you are doing something in order to make a living, surely it fails the 'pointless' test? Isn't a professional sportsperson (i.e., a pro footballer rather than a mountain guide - for the avoidance of doubt) an 'entertainer' (e.g., like a stand-up comedian) rather than a 'sportsperson'?
It also begs the question: "Is 'professional sport' an oxymoron?" If you are doing something in order to make a living, surely it fails the 'pointless' test? Isn't a professional sportsperson (i.e., a pro footballer rather than a mountain guide - for the avoidance of doubt) an 'entertainer' (e.g., like a stand-up comedian) rather than a 'sportsperson'?
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
True but I'm sticking with "I don't consider it a sport." If I'm honest I always found that a little distasteful and much of it was hyped by the media and encouraged by the teams to get recognition, notoriety and in some cases sponsorship. In many cases when the sh*t hit the fan the teams combined.
> And yet we have had competition to get to the top of various mountains/peaks between 'teams' from different countries.
True but I'm sticking with "I don't consider it a sport." If I'm honest I always found that a little distasteful and much of it was hyped by the media and encouraged by the teams to get recognition, notoriety and in some cases sponsorship. In many cases when the sh*t hit the fan the teams combined.
In reply to Marek:
Yes, exactly. I think that's an important distinction to understand amid all the scandals and absurd seriousness of modern 'sport' - it's just entertainment, and the business of entertainment.
> Isn't a professional sportsperson (i.e., a pro footballer rather than a mountain guide - for the avoidance of doubt) an 'entertainer' (e.g., like a stand-up comedian) rather than a 'sportsperson'?
Yes, exactly. I think that's an important distinction to understand amid all the scandals and absurd seriousness of modern 'sport' - it's just entertainment, and the business of entertainment.
In reply to IanC:
An activity become a sport when it is approached in a certain way. What most here disagree on is the definition of what that approach is.
An activity become a sport when it is approached in a certain way. What most here disagree on is the definition of what that approach is.
In reply to Trevers:
Then so much the worse for statistics and comparisons. How about trying to give a definition of 'mountain' to begin with?
> EDIT - I don't NEED a definition of mountaineering, but it is required in the context of statistics and comparisons.
Then so much the worse for statistics and comparisons. How about trying to give a definition of 'mountain' to begin with?
In reply to planetmarshall:
I like this very much. Mountaineering's lack of officially established and 'fixed' rules is certainly one of the most salient features distinguishing it from conventionally competitive games and sports, though one could question whether it serves to demarcate mountaineering from sport as such (does any activity which warrants being described as a sport necessarily have a fixed set of officially established rules?). I can't help suspecting that you studied philosophy at some point?
> Because it doesn't have a governing body that determines the rules by which participants compete, instead there is a loosely defined code of ethics that has evolved through the years and is continually open to interpretation and debate. Competitive climbing is a sport, as are darts and snooker. Mountaineering is not.
(In answer to 'why isn't mountaineering a sport?')I like this very much. Mountaineering's lack of officially established and 'fixed' rules is certainly one of the most salient features distinguishing it from conventionally competitive games and sports, though one could question whether it serves to demarcate mountaineering from sport as such (does any activity which warrants being described as a sport necessarily have a fixed set of officially established rules?). I can't help suspecting that you studied philosophy at some point?
In reply to john arran:
Indeed. Where does all this talk of whether or not mountaineering counts as a sport (and hence of what 'sport' is) really get us? Absolutely nowhere I'd say. It's not of the slightest importance. If we were to agree that mountaineering is a sport, what would that tell us about mountaineering? Virtually nothing. Similarly, it is reasonable to describe mountaineering as an 'outdoor pursuit', but what does that tell us about it? Only that it is a pursuit which takes place outdoors. An understanding of the particular 'outdoor pursuit' in question is to be gained by examining what actually takes place under the umbrella of 'mountaineering', not by the futile attempt to establish which broader category it falls into. It's the old trap of essentialism we need to avoid.
> Clearly climbing/mountaineering is a sport, a pastime, an adventurous pursuit, an activity and a great many other things. Part of it's charm is that it's so multi-faceted and people can choose their own approach within this wide spectrum.
Indeed. Where does all this talk of whether or not mountaineering counts as a sport (and hence of what 'sport' is) really get us? Absolutely nowhere I'd say. It's not of the slightest importance. If we were to agree that mountaineering is a sport, what would that tell us about mountaineering? Virtually nothing. Similarly, it is reasonable to describe mountaineering as an 'outdoor pursuit', but what does that tell us about it? Only that it is a pursuit which takes place outdoors. An understanding of the particular 'outdoor pursuit' in question is to be gained by examining what actually takes place under the umbrella of 'mountaineering', not by the futile attempt to establish which broader category it falls into. It's the old trap of essentialism we need to avoid.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...