[RunemPard]

Yes...this is the word we have been looking for!

[Zelandakh]

There is not a significant factor of chance in bridge? We already have the term "Mind Sport" for this - why would we need to invent a new word? Indeed, using his rules one might come to the conclusion that football is not a sport since the referee has to interpret what goes on on the field which is not objective. Was the video posted in April?

[PhilKing]

You will never get back that six and a half minutes if you click the link.

It's a load of Pollocks.

[barmar]

Do we really want to take language advice from someone who doesn't know how to pronounce "corollary"?

And how about using golf as an example of a sport that fits Q2. If you consistently get holes-in-one, you can't get any better. But I suppose if this ever happened, they could just start increasing the size of golf courses, so there can always be something further to strive for.

I don't think referees contradict his point. There's a big difference between a judge assigning a subjective score, and a ref making determinations of fact (did a player cross over a line, was the ball in or out, etc.).

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-December-10, 09:26, said:

I don't think referees contradict his point. There's a big difference between a judge assigning a subjective score, and a ref making determinations of fact (did a player cross over a line, was the ball in or out, etc.).

But football referees do not simply make determinations of fact. They decide whether that contact was ok or crossed the line to being a foul. In particular, diving is something of an art for a good forward. There is little difference between being able to "con" a referee by a good diving technique than being able to score a good mark in figure skating by a good technique on spins. Indeed one could argue that the figure skating is more objective since the judges are more often in agreement than football referees.

In sports where referees do generally deal with matters of fact, such as tennis, this is easier to accept. But even here there are levels of subjectivity, the Mcenroe effect if you like, where officials may be more ready to make a close call one way than the other. There are very few sports involving human officials that do not have at least some form of non-objective decision under certain circumstances.

[f0rdy]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 05:16, said:

But football referees do not simply make determinations of fact. They decide whether that contact was ok or crossed the line to being a foul. In particular, diving is something of an art for a good forward. There is little difference between being able to "con" a referee by a good diving technique than being able to score a good mark in figure skating by a good technique on spins. Indeed one could argue that the figure skating is more objective since the judges are more often in agreement than football referees.

In sports where referees do generally deal with matters of fact, such as tennis, this is easier to accept. But even here there are levels of subjectivity, the Mcenroe effect if you like, where officials may be more ready to make a close call one way than the other. There are very few sports involving human officials that do not have at least some form of non-objective decision under certain circumstances.

Once you include determining whether the rules have been followed, I imagine there are zero sports which don't involve subjective decision making. Even in running a mile, surely one of the 'purest' sports, I think it's relatively common for a judge to have to decide whether the fall that brought down the leader was due to a foul or a 'racing incident'. Once you separate "judges required to enforce the rules, however complicated that might be" from "judges required to assess technical/artistic merit" I think you get a fairly clear distinction between sports, and pursuits I would consider competitive artistic endeavour.

This isn't a complete definition, of course; it still includes all the mind sports, speed eating, and probably some competitive activities I haven't thought of. This came up in conversation quite a lot during the summer (Synchronised swimming? Rhythmic gymnastics??), and I think it's hard to produce a definition of sport which encompasses all the things you want it to, and excludes all the right things.
Competitive activity requiring high levels of physical skill? Solo violin competitions. (and arguably close to excluding something like powerlifting?)
Requiring high levels of fitness/power? Includes ballet, probably excludes archery (or possibly one of the other "shooting" sports, I'm not an expert)
Competitive activity requiring high levels of physical skill, and special footwear? Organ competitions...

To return to the quoted post, the fact that football condones/encourages extensive deliberate rule-breaking may be distasteful, but I don't think it quite excludes it from being a sport. The point of my original definition is that a group of honest players could play a game of football without a referee, and any difficulties arising would be minor, and would be resolvable with better information (eg a video replay); when they finished the game they would know the winner. In contrast, when a diving/figure skating/piano competition finishes, in general nobody can tell who the winner was until the judges announce the result: crucially not even a computer with 'perfect' information could.

[kenberg]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-10, 09:19, said:

You will never get back that six and a half minutes if you click the link.

It's a load of Pollocks.

Depends on how you approach it. I usually don't care all that much for British satire but I found this clip hilarious.

[jillybean]

I like it,it's fun. The first BBF'er to broadcast on forums?

[barmar]

Isn't it way too late to make a definition of "sport" that excludes all the ones that are judged subjectively? Figure skating and gymnastics are very popular, and just about everyone considers them sports because of the intense physical effort that they require. This floodgate has been open for decades, you're not going to turn it back now. Since then, they've added diving, synchronized swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, dressage, and other similar activities. I think chearleading may be coming soon. I'm surprised they haven't opened up to musical competitions (performing in a marching band or drum corp is quite physical).

Mind games, on the other hand, have only recently been trying to get accepted into sports competitions. So far they've been unsuccessful, due primarily to the expectation that sports must be physical. In that regard, your treatise fits the mainstream, and the only thing you've added is a new word to describe them.

Notice that there isn't even a word or phrase that distinguishes the sports that are scored objectively versus subjectively. That suggests that the distinction isn't important to most people.

[kenberg]

In 1972 there was the Fischer-Spassky chess match. The sportscaster Warner Wolfe was on a Washington D.C. station at the time and devoted a portion of his broadcast to covering it. It was a kick. He did his best but it's a chess game. WW got ever more frustrated as the match went on and at one point I recall he said something like "They do the World Series in seven games. That's it. I say they need to give these guys seven games and whoever wins four first they call him the champ and it's over."

There is sort of a point there. I enjoy the VuGraph shows a lot, but I play bridge. My wife does not play bridge and would never watch a televised bridge game. Occasionally I explain an impressive hand to her and she politely feigns interest. We can both enjoy watching diving even though it has been a long time since either of us was on a diving board.

Calling bridge, poker, chess, etc mind sports is fine. It's reasonably descriptive, it probably is not really an oxymoron, just don't expect to sell out the stadium. But smort? No. Very much no.

[barmar]

Don't forget that a few decades ago Sports Illustrated regularly covered bridge.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2012-December-11, 18:21, said:

Don't forget that a few decades ago Sports Illustrated regularly covered bridge.

Written by Goren, in fact. Which makes it quite a while back. Maybe it continued with someone else?

At one time I had a published collection of the Goren SI articles but I think it is no longer around. If I remember correctly it was in an SI article that CG announced his conversion from playinging 1♠-3♠ as forcing to playing it as invitational.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2012-December-11, 18:21, said:

Don't forget that a few decades ago Sports Illustrated regularly covered bridge.

If by regularly you mean once a year, you are correct. There was one bridge article each year.

Also, whenever there was a new youngest life master it was reported in "Faces in the Crowd."

[kenberg]

I remember it as being monthly, but maybe I am wrong. I am sure I also had a book sized collection of Goren articles from SI, which seems to suggest more than once a year. I was never a big SI reader, so I might be wrong.Naturally, I think I am right.