Obama affirms teh gay.

[d0zer]

nice try, trying to bait me into a boring semantics debate

Darts still isn't a sport brits!

[Lukie]

nice try, trying to bait me into a boring semantics debate

Darts still isn't a sport brits!

It really isn't semantics. You can't possibly come up with a reasonable criteria for sport and then exclude baseball. Maybe someone else will do it though. Not trying to get the last word in but.... ok I'm trying to get the last word in.

put darts through my ringer

1. not a ball per se, but a throwable object is kind of the same idea. Let's call it 1/2
2. yes
3. not to any meaningful degree
4. no

1.5/4

the verdict: not a sport

[Lukie]

I might develop that system a bit further. As of right now we will call it a preliminary rough draft and the threshold to be considered a sport is 2.5/4.

[Savy]

Let's make up our own definitions of words, woooo!

.

[d0zer]

Now we're getting into the semantics of the word semantics. how meta or something.

Getting back to athlete fatasses, MMA is my favorite 'sport', and this guy is a top10 heavyweight:



I can't help but cheer for him, but I don't think he'll ever be a top3 heavyweight unless he gets that gut down.

[Lukie]

MMA

ball: no
skill: yes
human speed/power/strength : yes
opponent actively contesting your moves: yes

3/4 - it's a sport! (in the future there will be some sort of disctinction or at least acknowledgement between recreational and combat activities.)

[Lukie]

.

I admit this seems wholly ridiculous, but if there is some sort of agreed upon consensus on these things, I would just go with that instead.

[Lukie]

soccer, handegg, baseball, basketball, tennis, hockey etc. all get 4/4

[Lukie]

Now we're getting into the semantics of the word semantics. how meta or something.

Getting back to athlete fatasses, MMA is my favorite 'sport', and this guy is a top10 heavyweight:



I can't help but cheer for him, but I don't think he'll ever be a top3 heavyweight unless he gets that gut down.

he probably just needs to go to the doctor and get HRT to max out testosterone within allowable levels (very common and allowed in UFC), get some HGH (most sports don't even test for it), etc etc etc. That would make it much easier on the guy, just going on looks

[surviva316]

It really isn't semantics. You can't possibly come up with a reasonable criteria for sport and then exclude baseball.

That is exactly what arguing semantics is. It's kinda silly that it gets such a bad connotation (whereas something like arguing common sense somehow has a good connotation) because knowing what the words that you're arguing means is extremely important. If only people were more willing to argue semantics in "Power Ranking" debates or even theology, this world would be so much further along intellectually.

It's only silly when you're just arguing over technicalities or losing the forest from the trees.

[surviva316]

But to throw my hat in the ring, I would say the only 3 criteria are:

-Competition
-Use of the human body (pretending that the "mind" is something separate from the body)
-Objective criteria for who wins the competition of physic feats

Things like ice dancing and gymnastics are debatable because it's basically a judged art competition. The more objective the criteria get, the more out of sync the whole thing becomes with people's ability to use their bodies to bedazzle; the more subjective it becomes, the more it's like reviewers arguing over who had the best premiere at the opera the past weekend.

Things like NASCAR become debatable. Sure it takes physical feats (hand-eye coordination, reaction time, ability to keep hands steady, precision of operation of heavy machinery, etc), but whatsoever argument you can make for NASCAR drivers being athletes you can also make for video game players.

By this definition, things like baseball, curling, darts, etc. seem to quite clearly qualify; I can't really see an argument against it.

But that's a fairly prescriptive argument. Lukie's made up criteria actually seems to do a better job of satisfying the more descriptive uses of the word.

[wufwugy]

Baseball is both a game and a sport. It has exertion, skill, and competition. Odd ones like track and field and ping pong qualify. Darts is on that line where it could be a full sport or a subsport. Bowling is another example of that

Baseball probably caught on because out-of-shape men and boys can play it and have fun.

[d0zer]

That is exactly what arguing semantics is. It's kinda silly that it gets such a bad connotation (whereas something like arguing common sense somehow has a good connotation) because knowing what the words that you're arguing means is extremely important.

Semantics are incredibly important when you're debating incredibly important topics. They are not particularly important when responding to those trolling baseball fans.

[Galapogos]

Things like NASCAR become debatable. Sure it takes physical feats (hand-eye coordination, reaction time, ability to keep hands steady, precision of operation of heavy machinery, etc), but whatsoever argument you can make for NASCAR drivers being athletes you can also make for video game players.

I recall hearing that nascar drivers have to be some of the most physically fit people to do what they do. I have no idea what they do beside press a gas pedal and turn a steering wheel since I could care less about it, but apparently what they're doing in there is way more taxing than a lot of us believe it is.

[Savy]

I recall hearing that nascar drivers have to be some of the most physically fit people to do what they do. I have no idea what they do beside press a gas pedal and turn a steering wheel since I could care less about it, but apparently what they're doing in there is way more taxing than a lot of us believe it is.

As you don't care, it's just due to the incredible force of gravity that they have basically ripping their body apart as they are accelerating

[surviva316]

Semantics are incredibly important when you're debating incredibly important topics. They are not particularly important when responding to those trolling baseball fans.

Well, yes, obviously. "Semantics" could be replaced with just about any word there though.

[BennyLaRue]

how do your hands work

Correctly.

[d0zer]

so...how about them gays?

I know this lesbian chick who does jiu-jitsu, and she was telling me about this trans chick (M to F) who grapples in the ladies class. She has ambivalent feelings about this trans chick, feeling like she was too masculine to be in the female class, and that made her feel guilty because she considers transgenders part of "her community", and she wants to be accepting of everyone etc.

Interesting timing, because Joe Rogan has recently got some flak for saying that a M to F trans shouldn't be allowed to compete in female MMA leagues because despite hormone replacement and surgeries, the body still does retain a masculine frame that gives advantages. I'm inclined to agree with him and I think the flak he got was based on the assumption that he was being bigoted. I'm generally a fairly liberal-minded thinker, but the super-PC crowd starts to go too far when they ignore everything else in favor of some unattainable ideal of 'equality'.

I got no time for ideologues.

[wufwugy]

If women want to sign to fight Fallon Fox, they should be allowed to. There doesn't need to be a rule that recognizes that Fox has an inherent advantage despite her new hormone treatment. This is an area where the market works very well and ideologies simply get in the way

[d0zer]

If women want to sign to fight Fallon Fox, they should be allowed to. There doesn't need to be a rule that recognizes that Fox has an inherent advantage despite her new hormone treatment. This is an area where the market works very well and ideologies simply get in the way

The obvious extension to that is to say that if women want to sign to fight men, they should be allowed to. It won't happen anytime soon because it's a PR nightmare for any fighting league.

The ideology against dog fighting has gotten in the way of the dog-fighting market, and I for one am perfectly fine with it. I realize that is a flawed analogy because willing participants and such, but if MMA wants to further legitimize itself, it can't just hold the position "whatever people sign up for and draws an audience is fine".

[Pascal]

MMA

ball: no
skill: yes
human speed/power/strength : yes
opponent actively contesting your moves: yes

3/4 - it's a sport! (in the future there will be some sort of disctinction or at least acknowledgement between recreational and combat activities.)

fucking toughness for getting battered in the face constantly: yes

[wufwugy]

The obvious extension to that is to say that if women want to sign to fight men, they should be allowed to. It won't happen anytime soon because it's a PR nightmare for any fighting league.

The ideology against dog fighting has gotten in the way of the dog-fighting market, and I for one am perfectly fine with it. I realize that is a flawed analogy because willing participants and such, but if MMA wants to further legitimize itself, it can't just hold the position "whatever people sign up for and draws an audience is fine".

Women should be able to sign to fight men. Allowing that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen or be accepted in the rare case that it does. Nobody wants to watch that shit and no respectable company will ever promote it. That's the market at work. The "willing participants" aspect is essential for it to work, and why rules about something like dog fighting should be different.

I'm not sure it's possible to find an example where consenting adults should not be allowed to do what they've consented to unless there is a demonstrable problematic externality (like a father should not be allowed to gamble his house even if he and the casino consent. This is because of an externality like his social contract with his family). Gaming and sport is one of the areas in which the free market works incredibly well and regulations tend to just cause problem

[a500lbgorilla]

I'd lick Obama's butthole.

[BennyLaRue]

Anti-semantites ITT.

[Lukie]

so...how about them gays?

I know this lesbian chick who does jiu-jitsu, and she was telling me about this trans chick (M to F) who grapples in the ladies class. She has ambivalent feelings about this trans chick, feeling like she was too masculine to be in the female class, and that made her feel guilty because she considers transgenders part of "her community", and she wants to be accepting of everyone etc.

Interesting timing, because Joe Rogan has recently got some flak for saying that a M to F trans shouldn't be allowed to compete in female MMA leagues because despite hormone replacement and surgeries, the body still does retain a masculine frame that gives advantages. I'm inclined to agree with him and I think the flak he got was based on the assumption that he was being bigoted. I'm generally a fairly liberal-minded thinker, but the super-PC crowd starts to go too far when they ignore everything else in favor of some unattainable ideal of 'equality'.

I got no time for ideologues.

I am not familiar with the whole situation or what Joe Rogan said but my feeling is that anyone who is a man, or once was man (however you want to define it) should be considered a man for fighting/athletic purposes.

I don't see how it would be logical to see it any other way.

[d0zer]

Women should be able to sign to fight men. Allowing that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen or be accepted in the rare case that it does. Nobody wants to watch that shit and no respectable company will ever promote it.

I think you could definitely get a non-trivial subset of the MMA fanbase to watch M v F fights.

When I say "shouldn't be allowed", I don't mean that there should be government regulation preventing it, I mean it in the same way that featherweights aren't allowed to fight heavyweights in the (current) UFC. As entertaining as the early UFCs were at times, weight classes and gender segregation is good for the legitimizing the sport.

The transgender situation is more of a gray area than male vs female, but I think the same arguments against male vs female apply.

[Lukie]

Personally I would like to see interesting matchups, like 2 featherweights vs 1 top heavyweight. I'm not saying that it would be good for the sport or even that it is necessarily a good idea, just that I would personally find it interesting and would watch it.

[d0zer]

Personally I would like to see interesting matchups, like 2 featherweights vs 1 top heavyweight. I'm not saying that it would be good for the sport or even that it is necessarily a good idea, just that I would personally find it interesting and would watch it.

I would watch the shit out of that. Let's throw a wildcard like a rhino or a croc in the mix and see how it plays out.

[Lukie]

I would watch the shit out of that. Let's throw a wildcard like a rhino or a croc in the mix and see how it plays out.

Excellent idea.

[BennyLaRue]

I would watch the shit out of that. Let's throw a wildcard like a rhino or a croc in the mix and see how it plays out.

After 3 or 4 consecutive Republican PsOTUS, pretty sure we could do this.

[d0zer]

relevant meanwhile in russia:

[wufwugy]

2 FW would stomp any HW on the planet

[kiwiMark]

that's why he gets a rhino

[Lukie]

2 FW would stomp any HW on the planet

what about flyweight? I will be honest, I have a hard time keeping track of all of the goofy lower weight classes.

How far down do you have to go where it would be a relatively equal match between 2 skilled UFC fighters and a very good heavyweight?

[wufwugy]

what about flyweight? I will be honest, I have a hard time keeping track of all of the goofy lower weight classes.

How far down do you have to go where it would be a relatively equal match between 2 skilled UFC fighters and a very good heavyweight?

Not sure. At least below 5 ft tall, probably significantly below.

John Dodson and Demetrious Johnson would have Cain Velasquez tapping within one round. If the flyweights are just random untrained wannabes then Velasquez could drop like ten of them in two minutes or something crazy. But if the flyweights are high caliber, the first problem for Velasquez would be an inability to land any significant shot on either due to not being able to square off because the moment he does so, the other one is at a prime angle for attack. The fight would enter clinch range almost immediately upon any significant contact, and the flyweights would be looking for a takedown, which they would get. Even with Velasquez's size and strength advantage, it wouldn't be enough to keep the flyweights from leveraging him to the ground. They could both simply attack a leg each and he'll be down in seconds. At all times, at the very least, Velasquez will be significantly slowed by one opponent encumbering him as the other looks for a submission or to land strikes

It wouldn't take too long for one of the flyweights to get his back, and then it's only a matter of time before Velasquez gets RNC'd. He couldn't scramble because he'd be too encumbered, and he couldn't defend the choke that well since the flyweight not on his back could just go two-on-one on his hand while the other sinks the sub in. There are probably better ways for the flyweights to win this, but the bottom line is that the tools at their disposal would be significantly greater due to having two bodies instead of one. 125 pound professional fighters are still putting up some significant weights in the gym, so it's not like they'll just be chickens in a pen for Cain to kick around

[wufwugy]

It is a much more interesting idea if it's kickboxing. Then I don't know if I'd pick the flyweights to win. The reason is that Velasquez would be able to square off and land some severe attacks, and he could absorb many of the worst of the worst shots because of the significant difference in size of his facial bone structure and the power of the flyweights' punches

If you'll notice, the light weight classes rarely get KOs. This is due to reduced punching power due to low weights behind them, while their skull bone structure can take heavier shots due to being similar to that of a larger man. WMMA is a fantastic example of this. Even Cyborg doesn't get KOs, her wins are all beatdown barrages stopped by the ref, never clean KOs. Women just don't have the power to put lights out the way men do, and small men don't have the power the way big men do, and that effect is enhanced if it's a small man punching a big man's face.

This is why Jon Jones is not losing at LHW. He has the bone structure of a HW and he can take every shot from every LHW except the most perfect ones. Velasquez's bone structure dwarfs the power that Dodson or Johnson can produce

So if it's a kickboxing match of 2 flyweights vs 1 HW, I'm pretty sure I'm picking the HW to win by devastation. Unless it's in the Octagon. Then I don't know. Because I hate the 8-sided piece of shit. It forces one fighter to push the action while allowing the other to retreat, and this puts the fighter pushing the action in a fundamentally weaker spot, but without him there would be no fight in the first place since the other is retreating. This is why fighting arenas need to be 4-sided. Honestly, I think Mark Hunt would have beaten JDS if the fight had been in a 4-sided cage. Cutting off and cornering is such a big fucking deal, but you can't do it much in the Octagon

[boost]

grunching a little bit:

Ping Pong and most (probably all) forms of motosports are more pure forms of sports than baseball ever will be.

I'm glad motosports got mentioned. I really despise Nascar, but a lot of ignorant people think it's the same as bowling. People who hold this opinion about motorcycle racing irk me even more. Pretty much all forms of motorcycle racing require the highest levels of fitness, concentration, endurance, agility, finesse, etc to be competitive. I know you think it's like driving your car to the local McDonalds drive through, but please, if you ever get a chance to even race proper go karts-- try doing it for more than a couple of 15 lap races(were talking proper race karts here, not go-karts at a carnival), and see how you feel. Then imagine how much more complex and intense piloting a motorcycle is.

[Lukie]

grunching a lot

It seems to me that the most important human physical attribute in go-kart racing is low bodyweight. Yes there is an aspect of mental conditioning and all that but I pose the question: what is the difference between go-kart racing and playing a really good racing video game/simulator?

[surviva316]

Ping Pong and most (probably all) forms of motosports are more pure forms of sports than baseball ever will be.

I'm not sure what about baseball seems so impure as a sport. I'd agree that it involves the least athleticism of any of the big 4 sports (or at least, that there are a fair amount of positions that don't require as much athleticism as most of the positions in the other sports), there have only been 6 players in the history of the game who played into their 50s. Out of the 17,000+ players to have ever played in the MLB only 35 total played at 45-years-old+ (many of whom were either knuckleballers, steroids players or just outright terrible at that age so I don't know if it should count [eg: Pete Rose]). Almost all players (don't feel like looking up the actual graphs and stats on it) decline once they hit their 30th birthday, and it takes a true outlier for them to be all-star players at 35+. I can't really see how such consistent trends would make sense unless being at physical peak is necessary to play on the professional level.

I'm also not really sure how anabolic steroids is of any use to a group of dudes just playing a game of dominoes. It seems to me it would only help people who use their body to perform abnormal feats with the human body.

[Lukie]

Not sure. At least below 5 ft tall, probably significantly below.

John Dodson and Demetrious Johnson would have Cain Velasquez tapping within one round. If the flyweights are just random untrained wannabes then Velasquez could drop like ten of them in two minutes or something crazy. But if the flyweights are high caliber, the first problem for Velasquez would be an inability to land any significant shot on either due to not being able to square off because the moment he does so, the other one is at a prime angle for attack. The fight would enter clinch range almost immediately upon any significant contact, and the flyweights would be looking for a takedown, which they would get. Even with Velasquez's size and strength advantage, it wouldn't be enough to keep the flyweights from leveraging him to the ground. They could both simply attack a leg each and he'll be down in seconds. At all times, at the very least, Velasquez will be significantly slowed by one opponent encumbering him as the other looks for a submission or to land strikes

It wouldn't take too long for one of the flyweights to get his back, and then it's only a matter of time before Velasquez gets RNC'd. He couldn't scramble because he'd be too encumbered, and he couldn't defend the choke that well since the flyweight not on his back could just go two-on-one on his hand while the other sinks the sub in. There are probably better ways for the flyweights to win this, but the bottom line is that the tools at their disposal would be significantly greater due to having two bodies instead of one. 125 pound professional fighters are still putting up some significant weights in the gym, so it's not like they'll just be chickens in a pen for Cain to kick around

It is a much more interesting idea if it's kickboxing. Then I don't know if I'd pick the flyweights to win. The reason is that Velasquez would be able to square off and land some severe attacks, and he could absorb many of the worst of the worst shots because of the significant difference in size of his facial bone structure and the power of the flyweights' punches

If you'll notice, the light weight classes rarely get KOs. This is due to reduced punching power due to low weights behind them, while their skull bone structure can take heavier shots due to being similar to that of a larger man. WMMA is a fantastic example of this. Even Cyborg doesn't get KOs, her wins are all beatdown barrages stopped by the ref, never clean KOs. Women just don't have the power to put lights out the way men do, and small men don't have the power the way big men do, and that effect is enhanced if it's a small man punching a big man's face.

This is why Jon Jones is not losing at LHW. He has the bone structure of a HW and he can take every shot from every LHW except the most perfect ones. Velasquez's bone structure dwarfs the power that Dodson or Johnson can produce

So if it's a kickboxing match of 2 flyweights vs 1 HW, I'm pretty sure I'm picking the HW to win by devastation. Unless it's in the Octagon. Then I don't know. Because I hate the 8-sided piece of shit. It forces one fighter to push the action while allowing the other to retreat, and this puts the fighter pushing the action in a fundamentally weaker spot, but without him there would be no fight in the first place since the other is retreating. This is why fighting arenas need to be 4-sided. Honestly, I think Mark Hunt would have beaten JDS if the fight had been in a 4-sided cage. Cutting off and cornering is such a big fucking deal, but you can't do it much in the Octagon

I pretty much agree with this, but there is basically no precedent to any of this so it's hard to say. The only real nit pick I have is the very first sentence, of having to go below 5 feet tall, perhaps significantly so. By the time you get to (relatively) lightweight 5 foot males, I am fairly sure that Velasquez could easily handle 2. Not only is there a fairly extreme difference in size and strength, there will also be a significant skill gap since the 5 footers are drawing from a much smaller talent pool. Usually you see the reverse in sports... take basketball for example. The backup point guard at the local community college is probably pretty damn talented, but guys who are 6'9" without shoes are so much more rare that they don't have to be nearly as skilled to play at the same level. This is conveniently ignoring the effect of height on coordination but the other point is sound.

I'm not sure where I would put the cutoff at though.

Also if we were going down this road, I would assume that for the one there would be better fighting techniques than the typical MT/BJJ combo or something similar.

As long as we are on the topic, how meany heavyweights do you think would be favored against Jon Jones? That is, JJ fighting at 205 and the heavyweights up to 265.

[eugmac]

lol at considering baseball to be one of the "big 4 sports" whatever that means when basically only americans and japanese play it.

[Lukie]

lol at considering baseball to be one of the "big 4 sports" whatever that means when basically only americans and japanese play it.

Nowhere did I rank the popularity of sports, only that it was a sport-- just like cricket for example.

I challenge somebody to make a better objective criteria of what constitutes a sport than I made earlier in the thread. It shouldn't be that hard. It only took about 5 minutes.

[kiwiMark]

he was responding to surviva

[Lukie]

Oh.. makes sense. I was going to say that surviva's criteria was pretty good. I just reject the notion that because the players are not constantly moving, and that one can be out of shape and play the game, that somehow baseball is not a sport.

[Lukie]

google: arguing on the internet

[kiwiMark]

does your criteria break for, say, cycling?

[Lukie]

Cycling would be a no. I'm sure most would disagree with that, cyclists vehomently so. This is probably a good time to mention that this is supposed to be a friendly classification, and in no way does it imply one activity is better than another. For example I think chess is a great game, no way do I consider it a sport (of course that word carries its own set of history and connotations)

Cycling competition really comes down to human power and stamina. It is no doubt a far more grueling activity than baseball for example. Anyway...

Ball: no
Finely tuned skills: not really
Human power/strength/speed: yes, and should probably get bonus points
Opponents actively contesting your moves: not really.. I understand there is going to be some jockeying for position and what not but that isn't really what I had in mind, unless it's an absolutely critical part of a race.

[Lukie]

I admit that having both -ball and -opponent disqualifies a lot of otherwise popular activities. Might have to work on that.

[surviva316]

lol at considering baseball to be one of the "big 4 sports" whatever that means when basically only americans and japanese play it.

Sorry, "the big 4 sports" is a very standard way of referring to Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey. I am obviously not in anyway whatsoever trying to argue that these are the 4 biggest sports in the world or anything because that would be ridiculous. I just mean the 4 main things that make up the sports ticker on American broadcasts of ESPN. Actually, I don't even mean that much. I'm just blindly using terminology that's so standard in sports arguments where I'm from that I didn't really put any thought into it.

[Lukie]

What are the most popular sports in the world?

Soccer/association football is #1.

After that I'm not really sure. I would imagine basketball is pretty high on the list. What about cricket, baseball, tennis, and golf?

[BennyLaRue]

What are the most popular sports in the world?

Soccer/association football is #1.

After that I'm not really sure. I would imagine basketball is pretty high on the list. What about cricket, baseball, tennis, and golf?

Define popular. Number of amateur players? Paid attendance to professional leagues?

[d0zer]

all comes back to semantics

[wufwugy]

I pretty much agree with this, but there is basically no precedent to any of this so it's hard to say. The only real nit pick I have is the very first sentence, of having to go below 5 feet tall, perhaps significantly so. By the time you get to (relatively) lightweight 5 foot males, I am fairly sure that Velasquez could easily handle 2. Not only is there a fairly extreme difference in size and strength, there will also be a significant skill gap since the 5 footers are drawing from a much smaller talent pool. Usually you see the reverse in sports... take basketball for example. The backup point guard at the local community college is probably pretty damn talented, but guys who are 6'9" without shoes are so much more rare that they don't have to be nearly as skilled to play at the same level. This is conveniently ignoring the effect of height on coordination but the other point is sound.

I'm not sure where I would put the cutoff at though.

Also if we were going down this road, I would assume that for the one there would be better fighting techniques than the typical MT/BJJ combo or something similar.

As long as we are on the topic, how meany heavyweights do you think would be favored against Jon Jones? That is, JJ fighting at 205 and the heavyweights up to 265.

I have Jones as a favorite against every HW. The only HW who *could* have a physique advantage is JDS, but they're really close. Then there's Overeem who would be too slow and gassy. Then there's every other HW who is either too short (like Nelson, Barry, Hunt, sorta Velasquez) or overweight (Velasquez, Cormier, Nelson, Hunt). JDS, Travis Browne, and Struve are probably the only HWs in the UFC that couldn't make the cut to 205

Jones' muscle mass is a little less than JDS', but is equal to possibly more than Velasquez's. What this means is that even if Jones weighs in at 205, his physique is basically on par with everybody else at HW. Hence the fights boil down to other aspects like skill, of which Jones is tremendous. While Jones would be running about even with JDS and Velasquez, I give a slight edge to Jones because he's a freak in ways nobody else is and he's shown that he has no weaknesses because everything is his strength

Jones is the one and probably only example where I want a fighter to move up. Because HW exists, a lot of the top guys who are natural LHWs don't move down, and what ends up happening is that most of the top LHW guys cut less weight than normal and are shorter than normal. Jones simply started out really lean and never thought of himself as a HW, but he still has a significant physique advantage at the class. If there was no HW, Jones would be facing Velasquez, Cormier, and Nelson. I think everybody agrees these are tougher fights than any current LHW, and could dethrone Jones

[Galapogos]

What are the most popular sports in the world?

Soccer/association football is #1.

After that I'm not really sure. I would imagine basketball is pretty high on the list. What about cricket, baseball, tennis, and golf?

http://www.clicktop10.com/2013/03/to...-in-the-world/

I don't know how definitive this list is but I was surprised to see basketball and baseball so high on the list since I generally think of them as American.

[kiwiMark]

I like the opponent criteria, the ball one not so much

[boost]

grunching a lot

It seems to me that the most important human physical attribute in go-kart racing is low bodyweight. Yes there is an aspect of mental conditioning and all that but I pose the question: what is the difference between go-kart racing and playing a really good racing video game/simulator?

The same difference between playing tennis and playing Wii tennis.

Not sure if you're just trolling me, but most people really don't get how physically demanding racing is.

[Lukie]

[BennyLaRue]

Not sure if you're just trolling me, but most people really don't get how physically demanding racing is.

You mean the only one where the girls are on the field with the guys?

[boost]

There are certainly forms of racing which don't require much fitness, afaik. Drag racing you can be pretty out of shape. But any sort of racing with speed, corners, and enough required time on the track is going to be extremely demanding physically. Countering G-forces while muscling the car around the track is a serious work out. Not to mention you're likely doing this in >100° heat.

Then motorcycle racing takes it to the next level. You're entire body is involved in throwing a several hundred pound machine from side to side as gravity, gyroscopic effect, and g-forces are fighting against you.

So yeah, not every form of racing has the same demands, but check out Moto GP, F1, motorcycle enduro races, SuperMotoCross, and find a fat slob who is competing. If you want to continue to post funny reaction pictures and sleep in your bed of ignorance, so be it... not much more I can say to enlighten you.

[boost]

You mean the only one where the girls are on the field with the guys?

Are you making a point? Because I'm not seeing it.

[Lukie]

There are certainly forms of racing which don't require much fitness, afaik. Drag racing you can be pretty out of shape. But any sort of racing with speed, corners, and enough required time on the track is going to be extremely demanding physically. Countering G-forces while muscling the car around the track is a serious work out. Not to mention you're likely doing this in >100° heat.

Then motorcycle racing takes it to the next level. You're entire body is involved in throwing a several hundred pound machine from side to side as gravity, gyroscopic effect, and g-forces are fighting against you.

So yeah, not every form of racing has the same demands, but check out Moto GP, F1, motorcycle enduro races, SuperMotoCross, and find a fat slob who is competing. If you want to continue to post funny reaction pictures and sleep in your bed of ignorance, so be it... not much more I can say to enlighten you.

I don't know that I have ever seen a team pull a winning driver out of the car, and the winner collapses to the ground out of sheer exhaustion... like you might see after a marathon.

Likewise I'm not so sure that I have ever seen a racer's arm put into a sling because it is so tired after muscling the car around for a couple hours (was that some kind of joke, or do those cars really not have power steering?)

On hot days cold air is being pumped directly into the drivers' helmets and suits.

It is possible, maybe even probable, that every single person that has responded in this thread, with some training, has the physical skills necessary to compete at the highest levels of NASCAR. Or at least they could be trained. 100 pound females and 70 year old men have the physical ability to compete at the highest levels of racing, something that would be virtually impossible in other sports where physical ability is of utmost importance.

No I think NASCAR is mostly about MENTAL prowess and conditioning. That is the performance enhancing drugs of the sport are not anabolic steroids and related substances, they are amphetamines.

Motorcycle racing seems somewhat unique, as it is a blend of human and machine performance. There is obviously tremendous physical skill required in manipulating a motorbike at competition levels.

For what it's worth, your comparison of wii tennis:real tennis to my comparison of simulating racing:real racing was deserving of the Cosby confused meme. I would compare wii tennis:real tennis to more like madden:real football.

I am not trying to disparage racing drivers. And there is a certain point to be made that there is an overlap between body and mind. One extension of this is that extremes of mental "decision fatigue" can wear you down physically. I have personally experienced this in games like poker and chess, where playing for long periods of time tend to be very draining. That is much different than sitting down and watching TV. I know that Brian Townsend and Patrik Antonius were big on physical fitness for poker players to help remain sharp despite long and tiring sessions. You see the same thing in chess, or professional starcraft competition. It obviously applies to racecar driving as well.

[surviva316]

So yeah, not every form of racing has the same demands, but check out Moto GP, F1, motorcycle enduro races, SuperMotoCross, and find a fat slob who is competing. If you want to continue to post funny reaction pictures and sleep in your bed of ignorance, so be it... not much more I can say to enlighten you.

[Savy]

I don't know that I have ever seen a team pull a winning driver out of the car, and the winner collapses to the ground out of sheer exhaustion... like you might see after a marathon.

Pros no, but people have passed out at the wheel before. A 70 year old man would put himself into an early grave if he was constantly racing F1 cars.

Also most people have the required physical skills to compete at the highest level of most sports. I could get as fit and strong as a professional rugby player. It'd take a few years of work, but there's no reason I couldn't do it if I put the work in. So that point is a bit null.

This whole thing about sports requiring some physical element is complete bullshit and just comes around as when people think of the most popular sports (football in england for example) they require physical fitness.

[surviva316]

This whole thing about sports requiring some physical element is complete bullshit . . ..

Really? You just consider any old organized competition to be a sport? I'm not criticizing, just wondering. Certainly the etymology of the word (~to dick around) isn't nearly as taxing a category as contemporary use of it.

[Savy]

Really? You just consider any old organized competition to be a sport? I'm not criticizing, just wondering. Certainly the etymology of the word (~to dick around) isn't nearly as taxing a category as contemporary use of it.

Depends what you mean by organized competition.

Is Darts a sport? yes
Is Chess a sport? yes
Is Baseball a sport? yes

[jackvance]

And poker?

[Savy]

And poker?

Poker is a strange one because the variance is very high. So although it's a game of skill I could sit down a session with Phi Ivey and win, whereas I couldn't do that with any sports I could think of. So I'd go no.

[surviva316]

Depends what you mean by organized competition.

Is Darts a sport? yes
Is Chess a sport? yes
Is Baseball a sport? yes

Those are all very organized games of competition, yes.

I don't really understand how requiring a physical element is "complete bullshit," though, outside of the fact that it doesn't fall under your personal perception of it. Both prescriptive and descriptive arguments heavily favor it involving physical prowess. I granted you the traditional interpretation of the word (where basically a "sport" is any non-productive pastime; ie: anything that isn't farming, caretaking, hunting for food you wouldn't otherwise be able to eat, or reading literature), but this would make your exclusion of poker extremely arbitrary.

So if it's not a criteria for you personally, then well enough, but I don't see how it's complete bullshit. But maybe this requires a semantic argument over what the phrase "complete bullshit" means :P

[Savy]

Chess is a recognized sport. So whatever governing body decides what a sport is has decided that chess is.

The reason I say it's complete bullshit is because I haven't come up with my own definition of what sport should be, which is what most people do and is what creates whole a sport requires physical fitness, which jutstthe fact that chess IS a sport proves it doesn't. Which was my original point far back in the thread, it's not up to people to come up with their own personal definitions.

As for poker I said it's a strange one and I gave reasons why I didn't think it was. I'm not saying my opinion is right in this case though. I gave it about 30 seconds worth of though.

[Pascal]

Sport is anything of physical/mental exertion according to the courts of England. Of course, the courts aren't right about everything, and more importantly there's a lot of background reasoning behind their decision (i.e. classification of charities).

That said, in my PERSONAL opinion anything which doesn't involve physical exertion is probably a game rather than a sport. That's just the way I perceive the word; sport = football/rugby/etc. That makes poker a game for me

[surviva316]

As far as I can tell, the only way that chess is formally recognized as a sport is by the International Olympic Committee. On the one hand, that's probably the most legitimate sports body on earth, but on the other hand, these people have no linguistic qualification, and I feel as though their decisions reflect little more than what is instrumentally good for the olympics. Their criteria probably has much more to do with what drives interest for the games as a whole, fairness to the international field, the protection of the dignity of their games as a whole (as close as they're gonna come to caring about the semantic argument, but the fact that Chess is a highly revered, internationally recognized game that's as old as dirt might alone be essential to protecting the dignity of the olympic games), etc, than it has to do with calling in Doctors of Linguistics and asking their opinion on whether it satisfies the definition and use of the english word "sport."*

*But maybe looking at it that way is offering an unwarranted pretension to linguistics. I guess? I mean, surely this conversation is purely linguistic. What the hell are we talking about if we're not talking about linguistics?

Anyway, I don't support the logic of: Chess is "officially" recognized as a sport; viz. chess is a sport; viz. physical prowess is not a necessary criteria of "sport." The jump from the first premise to the second is where I take the greatest issue.

[boost]

I don't know that I have ever seen a team pull a winning driver out of the car, and the winner collapses to the ground out of sheer exhaustion... like you might see after a marathon.

Likewise I'm not so sure that I have ever seen a racer's arm put into a sling because it is so tired after muscling the car around for a couple hours (was that some kind of joke, or do those cars really not have power steering?)

You're cheating here. The same could be said for almost all sports you consider to be true sports. Also, we aren't typically seeing the true aftermath, after the podium, when the Adrenalin stops pumping and the cameras stop rolling.

I personally have been out on the track on a motorcycle. I am certainly not terribly out of shape, and I was absolutely exhausted by the end of the day.

As for power steering, yes, but it's not the same as what you have in your couch-of-a-car Buick. It allows the driver to overcome the tremendous grip provided by the massive race tires, but the higher the power steering ratio, the less precise the input. So they have just enough to make it possible for them to pilot the vehicle, but little enough that they retain as much road feedback and input precision as possible. And then there's G-forces. Four or five G's in a corner-- it's not the same as a Sunday afternoon cruise. They most certainly are muscling the car around the track.

On hot days cold air is being pumped directly into the drivers' helmets and suits.

You're cherry picking again. You are correct, some forms of racing do have a form of A/C which pumps into the helmet, but not the rest of the body. Some forms. Most certainly no form of motorcycle racing.

It is possible, maybe even probable, that every single person that has responded in this thread, with some training, has the physical skills necessary to compete at the highest levels of NASCAR. Or at least they could be trained. 100 pound females and 70 year old men have the physical ability to compete at the highest levels of racing, something that would be virtually impossible in other sports where physical ability is of utmost importance.

No I think NASCAR is mostly about MENTAL prowess and conditioning. That is the performance enhancing drugs of the sport are not anabolic steroids and related substances, they are amphetamines.

Why are you just spewing nonsense out of your ass? Find a 100 lb person competing in the top levels of Nascar, F1, MotoGp, etc. Find a 70 year old doing the same. Oh, wait, you can't. Derp. Different motorsports certainly require different levels of fitness, same goes for all sports.

[quote]
Motorcycle racing seems somewhat unique, as it is a blend of human and machine performance. There is obviously tremendous physical skill required in manipulating a motorbike at competition levels.
[quote]

Certain forms of motorcycle racing, such as Enduro, Motocross, and Rally, are among the most physically demanding and require the most fit competitors of all sports. But you see, I'm not just talking out of my ass...

http://www.racerxvt.com/virtual_trai...eart_rate.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_does...hysical_sports

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...dered-athletes

For what it's worth, your comparison of wii tennis:real tennis to my comparison of simulating racing:real racing was deserving of the Cosby confused meme. I would compare wii tennis:real tennis to more like madden:real football.

That's great that you assert this as fact, but you back it up with nothing. You clearly have a fundamental ignorance of motorsports. Since we are giving weight to unsupported opinion.. I have played baseball, soccer, football, basketball, etc. They are all physically demanding. I have also driven put in track time on a motorcycle, road demanding trails in the desert, and piloted racekarts. Have you? Why would your comprehensive opinion trump mine? Think about it.

I am not trying to disparage racing drivers. And there is a certain point to be made that there is an overlap between body and mind. One extension of this is that extremes of mental "decision fatigue" can wear you down physically. I have personally experienced this in games like poker and chess, where playing for long periods of time tend to be very draining. That is much different than sitting down and watching TV. I know that Brian Townsend and Patrik Antonius were big on physical fitness for poker players to help remain sharp despite long and tiring sessions. You see the same thing in chess, or professional starcraft competition. It obviously applies to racecar driving as well.

Yes, mental fitness, which is tied to physical fitness is very important. But highlighting the importance of mental fortitude and it's ties to physical fitness doesn't take away from extreme physical demands of most motorsports. A quarterback must maintain his mental sharpness, and this is helped by how physically fit he is, but it does not follow that his roll in the sport is therefore not physically demanding.

[Savy]

As far as I can tell, the only way that chess is formally recognized as a sport is by the International Olympic Committee. On the one hand, that's probably the most legitimate sports body on earth, but on the other hand, these people have no linguistic qualification, and I feel as though their decisions reflect little more than what is instrumentally good for the olympics. Their criteria probably has much more to do with what drives interest for the games as a whole, fairness to the international field, the protection of the dignity of their games as a whole (as close as they're gonna come to caring about the semantic argument, but the fact that Chess is a highly revered, internationally recognized game that's as old as dirt might alone be essential to protecting the dignity of the olympic games), etc, than it has to do with calling in Doctors of Linguistics and asking their opinion on whether it satisfies the definition and use of the english word "sport."*

*But maybe looking at it that way is offering an unwarranted pretension to linguistics. I guess? I mean, surely this conversation is purely linguistic. What the hell are we talking about if we're not talking about linguistics?

Anyway, I don't support the logic of: Chess is "officially" recognized as a sport; viz. chess is a sport; viz. physical prowess is not a necessary criteria of "sport." The jump from the first premise to the second is where I take the greatest issue.

I don't think it's perfect, but it's as good as we can go off. Listen to them, or listen to whatever makeshift definition someone comes up with on the day? I think it's obvious which will be better. Especially as I've already stated the reason people think sports should have a physical element is because they think of the most popular sports which do all require physical fitness, whereas it just takes one example to prove otherwise.

[boost]

I laughed.

Pros no, but people have passed out at the wheel before. A 70 year old man would put himself into an early grave if he was constantly racing F1 cars.

While I agree with the first part, unless what we consider constant, in regards to F1 racing, is immensely divergent, then I'd have to say there's not chance a 70 year old man ever reaches such a status. I would think a man in the fittest half a percentile for 70 year old men would be unlikely to finish a lap, much less a race, at competitive speeds.

Poker is a strange one because the variance is very high. So although it's a game of skill I could sit down a session with Phi Ivey and win, whereas I couldn't do that with any sports I could think of. So I'd go no.

This is a very interesting criteria, and one I'm not sure I'm in disagreement with. But then we have to look at sports like American Football, with it's 16 game regular seasons. The variance is insanely high in any given season, and winning the Super Bowl is not a definitive indication for who the best team is.

[Lukie]

Why are you just spewing nonsense out of your ass? Find a 100 lb person competing in the top levels of Nascar, F1, MotoGp, etc. Find a 70 year old doing the same. Oh, wait, you can't. Derp. Different motorsports certainly require different levels of fitness, same goes for all sports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Patrick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hylton


Maybe they aren't the best in the world, but find me a small female or a 78 year old man who is within miles of playing in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc.

I will save you the trouble. There aren't any. Brittney Griner isn't even close, and wouldn't even be competitive in division 1 men's college basketball.