[1eyedjack]

Interested to know how all y'all define "sport". Until relatively recently in generational terms there were only three true sports: hunting, shooting and fishing. Times move on. So, what collection of features are the minimum requirements of a sport? And if those features are present, does that necessarily mean that the activity is a sport?

I ask because at the outset the OP expressed the opinion that Bridge is not a sport. That is also the view held by the UK VAT authorities, although as far as I can tell that interpretation has not been tested by the judiciary. UK VAT law is subservient to EU VAT law, but neither defines "sport" as far as I can tell although they grant VAT exemptions to those activities.

I suggest that among the requirements are
1) an organised activity
2) as a competition
3) requiring skill

There may be other requirements, for example to distinguish it from pure gambling.

A popular requirement as perceived by some is the physical element (whether speed, strength, endurance, or dexterity) as opposed to a skill that solely relies on the exercise of mental acuity. That would certainly be a convenient distinction drawn by those who seek to exclude Bridge.

Normally in law where terms are undefined we look to the common English usage (I know a load of lawyers are reading this so tread carefully!), although context can also be influential.

Looking at a couple of free online dictionaries (dictionary.com and Webster's online) is not a great help. They provide multiple definitions although the first listed does in each case require athleticism or physical exertion, but not in all cases.

Part of the problem is that the vast majority of activities which are uncontested as regards falling within the definition are indeed physical activities. So there is a temptation to extrapolate from that fact that this is a requirement and, once that is accepted, so the minority are then excluded by definition despite that in all other respects they pass the "elephant test".

It is a moving goalpost as time progresses, and the boundaries are perhaps being stretched all the time. As I said at the outset, we are no longer restricted to hunting, shooting and fishing. Among the activities which the VAT authorities DO accept as "sport" are snooker, billiards, pool, and competitions involving flying model aircraft. But not Bridge. And if you try to find out what features HMRC deem to be of relevance via their manuals that are available online to the public you will find that they have been "withheld due to exemptions granted in the Freedom of Information Act". I ask you, what national interest or security issue is served by concealing these principles?

If someone who knew nothing of either Bridge or Golf were to wander around a bridge club and a golf clubhouse when there is no activity taking place, they will see a remarkably similar scene: Cabinets full of trophies, noticeboards listing captains and competitors in forthcoming events, and the walls festooned with veneered plaques listing competition winners going back over the ages.

Well, there is a lot of money riding on the issue, if only someone were to have the courage to test it.

[dicklont]

Swimming
Speed skating
Snooker
Soccer

Really, I don't deliberatelly choose sports that begin with S.

Chess
Athletics
And don't forget to mention ballroom dancing

[kenberg]

1eyedjack, on 2011-February-26, 09:30, said:

Interested to know how all y'all define "sport". Until relatively recently in generational terms there were only three true sports: hunting, shooting and fishing. Times move on. So, what collection of features are the minimum requirements of a sport? And if those features are present, does that necessarily mean that the activity is a sport?

I quote from Cole Porter's Too Darn Hot (1948): "According to the Kinsey report every average man you know, much prefers to play his favorite sport when the temperature is low."

Now of course this is humor, but if hunting, fishing and shooting were ever the only true sports it must have been quite a while back.

Mostly I enjoy watching sports that I actually play or have played in the past. Tennis and skiing fit that bill. I like to bike ride and I have watched the Tour De France but I can't say that it is riveting TV. Growing up, I watched baseball, football (OK American football), and boxing. I listened to radio broadcasts of prize fights. I have come to think of it as wrong to pay people to beat the crap out of each other. I can get caught up in it, but I would rather not.

My granddaughter played soccer from when she was quite young and all the way through high school. In college she says she lacks the time. Largely this reflects my attitude. Sports are great, but they are for fun when you have the time.

And no, bridge is not a sport. Monopoly isn't a sport. Solve the financial issues as appropriate, but these are not sports.

[babalu1997]

Jlall, on 2006-March-10, 09:30, said:

To play:

1) Soccer
2) Baseball
3) Basketball
4) Table Tennis
5) Tennis

To watch:

1) CRICKET!!! I rarely get to watch it anymore, but I used to live, sweat, and bleed cricket. On my recent trip to India I spent a lot of my time watching cricket rofl. Also in Australia. What a great game.
2) Baseball.

How come no one likes croquet?
How come no one likes Bingo?

[babalu1997]

kenberg, on 2011-February-28, 09:05, said:

And no, bridge is not a sport. Monopoly isn't a sport. Solve the financial issues as appropriate, but these are not sports.

When i was in college I remeber a portly gal named Mariann.

Someone told me Mariann was a dancer.

A dancer? I went and asked her, what type of dance?

Ballroom dancing.

But I think she may have been watching.

[Aberlour10]

My favorite sport to play was always basketball, but I was by far better in handball. In my high school & and college time I could not qualify for the school teams under the baskets, so I gave it up, and played only handball since then. Todays I am still active in a hobby U-35 team hehe. Basketball is too fast for us>>>old dudes

[blackshoe]

Never liked "hit the little white ball, chase the little white ball". Too short for basketball. Too short, too light, too slow for football. Too slow for track. I was the kid who always got stuck out in right field. As a swimmer, I always came in second (or worse). Tried wrestling, didn't do well at that either. I like shooting, but was never all that good at it (I fired expert on the M14 in basic training, the day before we fired for record. On the day, I barely qualified.) Some folks just aren't cut out for sports.

[zasanya]

When was beach volleyball invented?

[mycroft]

I've described cricket for baseball viewers as:
Okay, think baseball. Batter ('batsman') only gets one strike, but doesn't have to run if he hits. There's only one base, and you score a run each time you get to the other base. There's no foul balls. The pitcher ('bowler') can't straighten his arm when bowling, but is allowed a runup and encouraged to bounce the ball off the turf ('pitch'). Oh, and "hit by pitch" is just fine, in fact is expected to be attempted deliberately by the faster bowlers (who bowl only slightly slower than MLB fastballs, oh, and the ball is not hollow, but has a wood core).

Stage 2: you get 4 runs for a "ground rule double", and 6 runs for a "home run". The force is always on, because there's always another batsman at the other base. Whichever batsman is opposite the bowler is "on" for the next ball (bowlers switch every 6 legal balls, an 'over'). There are 11 players on a team, and everybody gets a chance to bat, so there are 10 outs in an inning ('innings'). But there are only two innings per team. Oh, and you know the "infield fly rule", and how nobody understands it? Yeah, cricket's got one of those, too. Just assume that when someone's out 'LBW', or 'leg before', they did do something wrong.

Stage 3: To win, you have to get the opponents all out twice. If you reach the time limit and haven't done so, it doesn't matter who's ahead on runs, you don't win - you draw. So sometimes it's best to not bat until all your batsmen are out, but to 'declare' your innings closed, so you have more time to bowl the opponents out. Conversely, if you're way behind in the match, you don't have to go all out to score the runs, you can defend (try not to get out) and hope to run them out of time. That can be the most exciting part of Test cricket.

Stage 3a) everything in stage 3 only applies to "the real game". There are shorter versions; in those, there is only one innings per team, and a limited number of overs in each team's innings. At the end of the game, there's a winner and a loser (or a very rare tie - note, not "draw").

[Aberlour10]

zasanya, on 2011-March-01, 06:19, said:

<br />When was beach volleyball invented

At the same moment in the first bikini suit has been made heh


But seriously... 1915 in Pacific Palisades California, USA

[nigel_k]

Agree with cricket. Second choice is anything but soccer.

[ggwhiz]

On a similar note, if you had a son that was going to be a pro athlete, what sport would you want it to be?

American Football: Nope, you end up in a wheel chair.

Hockey: Nope, no teeth.

Golf: No money in it unless you are near the top.

The winners in our local poll (in the sports bar after the bridge game) were:

Left handed baseball reliever: Pitch to 3 batters per week and eat hot dogs in the bullpen for nearly 1 mil plus per year.

Tennis mixed doubles specialist: Travel and social benefits plus a few 100 K.

[matmat]

ULTIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Elianna]

babalu1997, on 2011-February-28, 10:36, said:

How come no one likes croquet?

I guess Frances and I are no one.