This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why esports will never be considered sports.

#81libertangoPosted 7/15/2014 7:39:55 AM(edited)
How do we decide if something is athletic?


By seeing if it fits the definition of athletic. (EDIT, i'm dumb and can't read.)

athletic: involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina

Without some sort of line between how much strength, agility, or stamina is required to be considered athletic, then all activities are athletic...and the word has no function.

How do we decide how much skill or physical prowess is required?


We don't, the definition you just provided doesn't say anything about a minimum level.

In that case, so many activities are sports that it has become a meaningless term. Personally, I'm not going to make the writer of the dictionary the ultimate decider. There was a time before dictionaries...and the first dictionary writers tried to nail down what exactly the definitions and rules of societal concepts were. The definitions weren't always perfect.

The definitions started as natural usage in language, before being written down in dictionaries... I don't think people would naturally refer to taking the subway as a sport (they might do so as a metaphor), so I think that natural usage has more validity than the dictionary definition.



The make that argument if you can support semantically how it fits the definition.


If you accept the dictionary definitions as absolute, then it is athletic, as it requires stamina, strength (pushing), and agility (navigating and squeezing) through bodies. It is competitive, in that I am competing with other passengers to get on the train.

But as I said before, I think this illustrates a problem with the dictionary definition.
---
My goal now is to play a lot more Doom. I feel I haven't played enough Doom. - Bobby Fischer
Favorite released games of 2014: Tower of Guns, Titanfall
#82Worknofun370Posted 7/15/2014 7:44:40 AM
libertango posted...
Without some sort of line between how much strength, agility, or stamina is required to be considered athletic, then all activities are athletic...and the word has no function.


Yes, pretty much all activities are athletic. That doesn't mean the word has no function... it just means it fits a wider range of tasks then you apparently thought it should.

libertango posted...
Personally, I'm not going to make the writer of the dictionary, the ultimate decider. There was a time before dictionaries...and the first dictionary writers tried to nail down what exactly the definitions and rules of societal concepts were. The definitions weren't always perfect.


Kinda sounds like you're doing exactly what you've been accusing me of?

Hey, if you don't like the definition.. push to get it changed. But just because you don't like the definition doesn't in-turn invalidate it. The great thing about definitions is they can and do change over time as the use of the term changes. (See... ugh, literally).

libertango posted...
If you accept the dictionary definitions as absolute, then it is athletic, as it requires stamina, strength (pushing), and agility (navigating and squeezing) through bodies. It is competitive, in that I am competing with other passengers to get on the train.


While I disagree with the competitive portion of this. Hey.. more power to you if you want to make that argument. Welcome to the wonderful world of semantics.
#83Colonel_RomeoPosted 7/15/2014 8:02:45 AM
Worldwide esports, may be a sport to a very small base of people, but it won't be a real sport to the world until the day cars are flying and people can teleport to work.
---
FC 4656-7990-9205
Ign Gabe
#84libertangoPosted 7/15/2014 8:07:44 AM(edited)
Yes, pretty much all activities are athletic. That doesn't mean the word has no function... it just means it fits a wider range of tasks then you apparently thought it should.

If drinking a glass of milk is technically athletic (requirement of strength, agility, and stamina), then I would say that the word doesn't have any function.

libertango posted...
Kinda sounds like you're doing exactly what you've been accusing me of?

I don't follow your meaning. I don't believe there is an objective definition out there. I think that there is some general overlap between the various personal definitions we have....and from that, we can carve out a rough idea of what most people categorize sports. This rough idea gets especially fuzzy on the perimeter, when it comes to something like golf or figure skating. But that is the best we can do.... a rough idea of the "popular" definition of sports. Not an objectively true one.

Hey, if you don't like the definition.. push to get it changed. But just because you don't like the definition doesn't in-turn invalidate it. The great thing about definitions is they can and do change over time as the use of the term changes. (See... ugh, literally).


Where does one apply for a change of definition? Is there a central governing body? If public usage of a term changes in the streets, does the definition itself not change until the next edition of Webster?

While I disagree with the competitive portion of this. Hey.. more power to you if you want to make that argument. Welcome to the wonderful world of semantics.


You could say that it fits the book definitions of competitive, by saying it is a strife/struggle for an advantage. If you are rigidly following the dictionary definitions, how can you say that taking the subway isn't a sport?

It is getting hard to figure out what your position is, since you want to have semantic interpretation, but also believe single, accepted defintion, which changes over time.
---
My goal now is to play a lot more Doom. I feel I haven't played enough Doom. - Bobby Fischer
Favorite released games of 2014: Tower of Guns, Titanfall
#85KURRUPTORPosted 7/15/2014 8:12:30 AM
E-sports are e-sports.

Sports are sports.

They are all games.

Qq about it if you want to, no one cares.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#86Worknofun370Posted 7/15/2014 8:12:44 AM
libertango posted...
If drinking a glass of milk is technically athletic (requirement of strength, agility, and stamina), then I would say that the word doesn't have any function.


Again, just means it doesn't have the function you thought it did. But yes, technically drinking a glass of milk require athletic activity. Don't see the issue there.

libertango posted...
Where does one apply for a change of definition? Is there a central governing body? If public usage of a term changes in the streets, does the definition itself not change until the next edition of Webster?


Start a movement.

libertango posted...
It is getting hard to figure out what your position is, since you want to have semantic interpretation, but also believe in a rigid definition.


You mean you don't just want to assume what my position is still?
#87libertangoPosted 7/15/2014 8:22:40 AM
libertango posted...
It is getting hard to figure out what your position is, since you want to have semantic interpretation, but also believe in a rigid definition.


You mean you don't just want to assume what my position is still?


I make warranted assumptions based on your own words.

Based on your statements, you appear to believe the following:

1. Sports "are" a certain thing, regardless of what we think they are.
2. The definition of sports is as it says in the dictionary. (if it does not say there is a certain minimum level of physical exertion, then there is no minimum level). This definition of sports is agreed upon.
3. We can change definitions. (Society as a whole does this). Definitions change over time.
4. There is no definite interpretation of the definitions. You can interpret the definitions differently.
(I use the word "definite" instead of "correct", because I think it highlights the paradox of the idea.)

It seems to me that 1 and 4 are in conflict.
---
My goal now is to play a lot more Doom. I feel I haven't played enough Doom. - Bobby Fischer
Favorite released games of 2014: Tower of Guns, Titanfall
#88Worknofun370Posted 7/15/2014 8:26:02 AM
libertango posted...
I make warranted assumptions based on your own words.


Sure you do.

libertango posted...
Based on your statements, you appear to believe the following:

It seems to me that 1 and 4 are in conflict.


Maybe you should stop assuming then eh?
#89SinisterSlayPosted 7/15/2014 8:34:51 AM
CommonJoe posted...
According to SportAccord (which governs most international sport federations):

SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:

have an element of competition
be in no way harmful to any living creature
not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)
not rely on any "luck" element specifically designed into the sport

They also recognise that sport can be primarily physical (such as rugby or athletics), primarily mind (such as chess or go), predominantly motorised (such as Formula 1 or powerboating), primarily co-ordination (such as billiard sports), or primarily animal-supported (such as equestrian sport).


Gaming can in fact fall well within those parameters.

The problem is the games themselves, as very, VERY few games have the status of say, Chess. Only Starcraft and Counter Strike come close. This is because game rules vary from game to game and because even in non-moddable games the structure of the game can vary by quite a bit. There's seldom any fixed amount of players or any real rules other than no cheating. There's also seldom any one playing field.

This is why RTS and FPS games tend to be the most competitive because they're the only games that offer that kind of structure that traditional games (be they physical or otherwise) follow. But even so, the real lack of rules stops them from being easier to call a sport, even though games like Starcraft or Counter Strike can potentially call for a level of strategy and skill that's required by the likes of Chess, which is in fact considered a sport.


Creeps move randomly
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#90libertangoPosted 7/15/2014 8:48:15 AM
Worknofun370 posted...
libertango posted...
I make warranted assumptions based on your own words.


Sure you do.

libertango posted...
Based on your statements, you appear to believe the following:

It seems to me that 1 and 4 are in conflict.


Maybe you should stop assuming then eh?


Would you like to point out a fault in any of the assumptions?
---
My goal now is to play a lot more Doom. I feel I haven't played enough Doom. - Bobby Fischer
Favorite released games of 2014: Tower of Guns, Titanfall