A few days ago, I heard someone describe poker as a sport. Don’t get me wrong; I love playing cards (my opponents generally appreciate it as well), and there certainly is a lot of skill and intense competition in Texas Hold ‘Em. Yet calling this activity a sport places it in the same category as, say, basketball, and anyone who has played either knows that there is a vast difference between these two activities. For example, I only embarrass my self once in a while playing cards, and I almost never pass out from exhaustion. Basketball, not so much.

Image Credit: Alexander Kalina

That got me thinking. What makes something a sport? I tinkered with it for a while, and here is my proposed definition.

A sport is a direct, athletic competition.

This definition has some interesting implications. For example, according to this, golf is not a sport. Neither is figure skating or gymnastics. Boxing a sport only sometimes. The big popular sports of football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer, all qualify as sports. Although this definition will but deeply into ESPN’s programming lineup, it does prevent the use of the word to describe just any activity that involves skill or competition.

Let’s examine each part of the definition.

Direct

This means that in order for something to qualify as a sport, there must be an objective way of determining who wins. Furthermore, the method of determining the victor should be available to the casual observer. Most sports accomplish this by having a score or keeping time. In football, or baseball, or soccer, you can immediately tell who won by looking at the score. Aha! That team has more points, so they win.

This also works in a race, whether it’s a hundred meter dash or a marathon. That guy got to the finish line first, so he wins.

Events like figure skating or gymnastics require tremendous athletic ability, but they lack an objective method for determining a winner. Instead, they have a panel of judges. This presents several problems. The judges are often biased, and prone to error. In addition, a fan watching the competition cannot tell who won, until the judges decide for him. Reasonable people can disagree about who won the contest. If an event is subject to judging, it becomes a matter of opinion or preference, which is antithetical to the idea of competition.

This brings up an interesting point about boxing. Sometimes boxing has a very direct method of determining the victor. One guy is still standing at the end, and the other guy isn’t. The one still standing wins. There’s no argument, no disagreement about who won, and any casual observer can look and immediately know who was victorious.

On the other hand, boxing often comes down to a decision by a panel of judges. The judges often do not agree, and have very different scores. There have been many times where I have watched a match, thinking that one fighter one because he punched his opponent harder and more often, only to have the judges award the bout to the other fighter based on scoring.

I am not fond of ties. The idea of a competition is to have a winner and a loser. That said, there are rare occasions where the two competitors are even enough that it is impossible to determine a victor. A tie is still an objective measure, just not one that adheres to the nature of competition. An occasional tie doesn’t disqualify a sport, but it’s not something they should be proud of.

Having a competition means having a clear winner and loser. If the winner is determined subjectively, it becomes a popularity contest, not a sport.

Athletic

There are several games that have the opposite problem from figure skating and gymnastics. These are games that have an objective measure for determining a winner, but don’t require a great deal of athleticism to play. To me, athleticism involves speed, strength, endurance or agility, and usually involves running, jumping, throwing or lifting.

There are some simple examples. Poker, chess, and video games all take skill, and it is very clear who wins and loses. However, they don’t take any kind of athletic talent or exertion whatsoever. Therefore, they are not sports (although chess boxing definitely is).

Almost everyone would agree that figure skating and gymnastics are athletic, and poker and chess are not. There are other games that fall into a gray area. Games like bowling and pool require physical skill, but there is not a lot of physical exertion, so they are not sports.

Golf is tricky. The players have to walk, which is exercise, and they swing a club, which is a kind of physical exertion, but can the activities of a golfer really be put in the same realm as a football, soccer or basketball player? I don’t have a perfect definition of what is or is not athletic competition, but I do have a few rules of thumb. First, if I can play a game without getting tired or hurting myself, it is probably not very athletic, considering I can run for maybe 3 minutes before I keel over. Secondly, if my grandmother can play it, it’s probably not athletic, and she loves to golf.

Accordingly, golf is out. It is not a sport simply because it does not require sufficient athleticism.

Similarly games based on eating and drinking are excluded, since chugging a beer is not an athletic gift, even though I have heard suggestions that there should be scholarships for it.

Horse racing is a sport–for the horses. They’re the ones doing most of the work. Ditto for dog races, and I suppose, cock fights. If this bothers anyone, I suppose we could include ‘human’ in the definition, but this would leave out the aliens and their scintillating game of Zarfleball.

Competition

This almost goes without saying, but for it to be a sport, there has to be a winner and a loser. I’ve heard people describe surfing or snowboarding as sports. If there’s a race or a tournament (with objective criteria) then it’s a sport, but just going out surfing with your friends is not a sport. There’s no competition to it, so it doesn’t count.

On the other hand, if you and a friend decide to have a competition to see who can hop the farthest on one leg while wearing high heels, that is a sport, albeit a very silly one. It is a direct athletic competition. There is an objective method to determine who wins, it requires agility and endurance, and there is a winner and loser. It fits the definition.

Conclusion

Saying something is or is not a sport is not a value judgment. Figure skating requires tremendous dedication and skill, but is not a sport. Racing someone down the street is a sport, but that doesn’t mean it’s overly challenging, especially if you have slow friends. Non-sport competitions can be elegant or exciting, and real sports can be boring. It’s not a question of enjoyment, it’s a question of competition.

In our culture, the word ’sport’ has come to be used for anything that anyone plays, from poker to judged dancing. This linguistic laziness lessens the precision of our language. There are plenty of other words for those other competitive activities. Find one that fits and use it.