Mathman said:
Well, not exactly, RD. When it comes to the meanings of words in standard English, it is
not true that each individual can define a word to suit himself. Words have meaning. If this were not the case we could not talk to each other.
Here's what my dictionary says about
sport: "An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature."
MM
Of course, words have meaning. What you say is true. However, in this particular situation where one word refers to a group of "things" (for lack of a better word), the line can sometimes get blurry. Sometimes there are "special cases" where it is unclear which category one fits. "Sport" is a word that refers to a group of items. What exactly qualifies something as a sport? It goes beyond dictionary meaning at times. Why else would there be all these debates as to whether figure skating (or gymnastics for that matter) is a sport? Or whether Pluto is a planet? Or whether...
Even different dictionary meanings tend to vary slightly (but mostly in wording). People have different interpretations as to what fits the definition of what
in unique cases.
To me, an event where the participants don't at least have SOME control over the outcome of the event- I just don't see it as a sport.
OK. The way I see it is this: Sports (like football, baseball, basketball, etc.) have rules, and those rules determine the outcome of the game (who wins). You either score the most points, make the fastest time, or whatever. But I see a pattern- the outcome of such an event is
objective. That is, no one or group decides the outcome of the game- in most cases, anyway.
One may argue that the referees in team sports determine the outcome of a game. But I see a difference. You see, the refs are there to make sure people are following the rules of the sport correctly. Occasionally you will get bad calls, but that's what instant replay is for.
In "judged" events, the judges have FULL control over the outcome of the event. Of course, you have rules, too, but once you finish your routine, the result is TOTALLY out of your hands. At least in said team sports, the players have control (can come back, can score, etc.) and in individual sports such as track, your time IS the result.
Just about everyone else here I bet would object. But I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The result should be clear and objective, assuming the rules of the sport are followed. How many threads do you see here that says, So-and-so should have won? Or posters who make logical arguments as to who could have won?
I will admit that switching to a point system is moving Figure Skating in the right direction, assigning certain points to certain moves. This supposedly makes the event more "objective". But there's still a big problem in that you still have judges deciding the outcome of the event. Will this be fixed anytime soon? It's doubtful.
Oh yeah- in exhibitions, do you talk about who "won" the event? You can still win an exhibition game in team sports. Sport should always have a winner (it's competitive, right?). Ice (figure) skating to me seems more like a form of entertainment. It's like ballet, or dancing. Sure you can make it competitive, but does this automatically turn it into a sport? Maybe it does, I don't know (and don't think so).
:scratch:
