[ggwhiz]

microcap, on 2015-October-16, 10:19, said:

The best definition of a "sport" versus a "game" was given to me by a Canadian chum of mine while discussing curling during the last Olympics. He said, "If you can gain weight while playing it, it's not a sport!" And we all know where bridge falls LOLL

You'd be amazed at the quantity of beer and doughnuts you can consume while chasing that whirling thing down the ice...

I set a goal this year to lose 10 pounds. Only 20 pounds to go!

[Zelandakh]

microcap, on 2015-October-16, 10:19, said:

The best definition of a "sport" versus a "game" was given to me by a Canadian chum of mine while discussing curling during the last Olympics. He said, "If you can gain weight while playing it, it's not a sport!" And we all know where bridge falls LOLL

This would seem to exclude (inter alia) all motorsport and riding disciplines, archery and shooting, snooker, bowls and some forms of sailing. I think someone already said that the real difference is based on cultural attitudes and that seems to me to be the real truth of the matter. What holds as a sport in Canada might well not be taken so seriously in, for example, China and vice versa.

[helene_t]

Can't be bothered with sematics.

What is the reason for not charging VAT on athletic sports? Does that argument, whatever it is, apply to bridge? It may well do, even if we don't think of bridge as a sport. Then again, it might not, even if we do think of bridge as a sport.

[gwnn]

Not sure you're right there Zel. Motorsport for instance definitely burns a lot of calories. Plus the rules on weight of the cars include the drivers in F1 so you never see fat pilots. @helene: of course semantic debate tend to be a bit dull and pointless but some people find them fun (I am one of those people some of the time).

[helene_t]

gwnn, on 2015-October-28, 04:15, said:

@helene: of course semantic debate tend to be a bit dull and pointless but some people find them fun (I am one of those people some of the time).

Yes, agree. Linguistics is one of my favorite academic diciplines. But some discussions become muddy because it is unclear if it is about substance or about semantics.

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2015-October-28, 04:15, said:

Plus the rules on weight of the cars include the drivers in F1 so you never see fat pilots.

Huh. I would have thought they have a minimum weight, rather than a maximum. Maybe it is both? Eh, I know pretty much nothing about auto racing.

[Zelandakh]

The definition was about being able to gain weight whilst doing it rather than about being lighter (or fitter) an advantage. In bridge it may well be that being fitter conveys an advantage but you could easily gain weight whilst playing by eating or drinking. Similarly for motorsport - drivers often drink during a race and for endurance racing will also usually eat between stints. It is irrelevant that being lighter conveys a small advantage - not because of the car+driver being lighter incidentally, as Bill points out there is typically a minimum weight, but less driver weight allows for more freedom in distributing the other parts and that can often mean a better centre of gravity. Riding is an even better example where being lighter is an advantage and here it is more difficult to gain weight during an event. Nonetheless possible if you wanted to, for example by entering a competitive eating competition between races!

[gwnn]

I wasn't just talking about being lighter being an advantage. I specifically stated that you lose a lot of calories during a race. Given that we have descended into basic questions in linguistics here, I should mention that that was my main point, one that you ignored. The second ponit was preceded by "plus," i.e., it is not as important as the first point (in fact, I completely got this second point wrong, oops). So, if you are going to reply to my post, first reply to the first point, then to the secondary point. Anyway, yes, archery and a few more of these "sports" are also questionable in my eyes.

Yes you can also gain weight during the marathon if you eat a thousand hot dogs after every mile, but that doesn't make marathon running a non-sport, only this hotdog-marathon combo a non-sport.

[gwnn]

@Zel:
http://www.telegraph...son-Button.html

Quote

Don’t be fooled by the fact that Formula One drivers get to sit on their backsides at work. Today’s racing drivers are highly-conditioned athletes whose bodies are carefully primed for the unique physical stresses of their sport. Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and co. manoeuvre 691kg cars at top speeds of 300kph, endure forces of 5g, burn 1,400 calories and lose up to 3kg of body weight in sweat during a race. What's more, they do it 19 times over an eight month period.

Oops.

(for the record: I haven't watched F1 in almost 10 years. I find it less exciting than watch paint dry. But to me it is definitely a sport.)

[Zelandakh]

It is a good example of taking the most extreme conditions and transferring it across inappropriately. Some F1 races are held in extremely hot and/or humid conditions. That does indeed take a considerable physical effort. On the other hand, some motorsport events are sprints held in very comfortable conditions. I find bridge played in a room warmed to the temperatures demanded by a typical LOL very uncomfortable. I daresay that some international events have been played in worse. You could also play bridge in a sauna if you wanted to and probably end up with more extreme numbers than for F1. Would that make it a sport by the given definition?

Perhaps we should go back to what we are talking about here: "If you can gain weight while playing it, it's not a sport!" Not if you will gain weight, not whether lack of weight is an advantage; and not whether you can lose weight. You can gain weight doing either activity. You could lose weight doing either. Physical fitness is an advantage for both. It seems very tentative to use this definition to defend the suggestion that motorsport is sport while bridge is 'merely' a game or pastime.

[gwnn]

You first said "all motorsports" first, and now that I bring a counterexample you said that there are some motorsports that are different? Yes in some motorsports you drive 3 laps in Trabants but I contend that in all top-level motorsports (the ones that people actually pay to watch) races cost the pilots very large quantities of calories. If not, then fine, for the exceptions that definition would apply. You on the other hand specifically said that for *all motorsports* it is true that you can gain weight while practising it.

[Zelandakh]

You can gain weight in F1, IndyCar or Touring Cars if you drink enough and the conditions are cool. You can gain weight at Le Mans if you eat enough between driving stints. Not doing so takes the same level of athletic ability as not eating that piece of cake or drinking a pint of beer at the local duplicate. And as pointed out, we could create a new event where bridge is played in a sauna. Does that make a difference to the sporting level involved? How about if instead of isolated rooms for the electronic environment we put the contestants in centrifuges as used by the astronaut training program? That is sure to make bridge a sport!

[gwnn]

In a Formula 1 race if you stop after every lap and eat 3 hamburgers, you would gain weight. However, pilots do not do it and instead burn about 1200-1400 calories per race (http://www.dailymail...wn-F1-star.html - you are welcome to show a race from the South Pole where actually all the drivers gained 2000 calories if it ever happened). How are we still discussing this? I am talking about Formula 1, the competition where Jenson Button is racing, organized by FIA. It is a gruelling physical endeavor. It is not remotely comparable to bridge under any reasonable conditions. I am also talking about bridge, the game/sport that is regulated by WBF, with frequent bathroom breaks and smoking breaks. I am not talking about NASA-bridge or 'biathlon-bridge' where between every board you have to run a marathon, or kill a bear with your hands, or bridge played where each card actually weighs 10kg so you need serious physical strain to play it. As far as I know, those games/sports do not exist. You are welcome to talk about those if you think it is fun but I will ignore all your pointless hypotheticals from this point onwards. Are we clear about what we are talking about finally? Do you ever admit you are wrong or are you going to continue to force-feed Formula 1 drivers instead?

[cherdano]

Is that bridge, where people discuss online about improving their results by being in good shape, versus Formula 1, where every competitor does serious exercise about 45h per month? Those formula 1 drivers can't be serious about exercise if they aren't discussing it in an online forum!

P.S.: Thanks for the new signature.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-October-28, 04:33, said:

Yes, agree. Linguistics is one of my favorite academic diciplines. But some discussions become muddy because it is unclear if it is about substance or about semantics.

I think that bridge players see this as a question of substance, while the government find it one of semantics, perhaps pretending ignorance about what is really at stake here.

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2015-October-28, 09:01, said:

In a Formula 1 race if you stop after every lap and eat 3 hamburgers, you would gain weight. However, pilots do not do it and instead burn about 1200-1400 calories per race.

How many calories do you think bridge players burnt in the Bermuda Bowl?

Same question for the matches for the world cham,pionship in chess.

And now for golf...

I have a decent suspicion that the golfers burn less calories than the bvridge players or chess players, despite the fact that golf is a physical activity and that they need to walk the golf course.

Rik

[mikestar13]

Sport: Involves enough physical activity that a 70-year-old has no chance to defeat an equally-skilled 20-year-old.

Game: The level or physical activity is such that equally-skilled 20- and 70-year-olds have about equal chances of winning.

(For partnership/team activities, substitute "partnership of" or "team of" as appropriate.)

Before anyone else objects: these are ideals, no activity will conform strictly to either definition. There is a clear continuum--but most activities will fall closer to one end than the other. You will be able to cite some interesting edge cases, I could do so myself if I felt like doing the research. Given this definition I assert confidently that basketball is a sport and bridge is a game.

The question of whether both types of activities deserve government subsides, tax exemptions, etc. is a different question. My own vote is a loud YES for both sports and games.

[Zelandakh]

mikestar13, on 2015-October-28, 17:44, said:

Sport: Involves enough physical activity that a 70-year-old has no chance to defeat an equally-skilled 20-year-old.

This definition also seems to rule out, for example, shooting.

[akwoo]

gwnn, on 2015-October-28, 07:52, said:

Yes you can also gain weight during the marathon if you eat a thousand hot dogs after every mile, but that doesn't make marathon running a non-sport, only this hotdog-marathon combo a non-sport.

The track team at my alma mater traditionally had (or maybe still has) a race right after the end of the competitive season that involved running a mile and eating 3 Whoppers (one after every quarter-mile except the last).

[gwnn]

Trinidad, on 2015-October-28, 17:39, said:

How many calories do you think bridge players burnt in the Bermuda Bowl?

Same question for the matches for the world cham,pionship in chess.

And now for golf...

I have a decent suspicion that the golfers burn less calories than the bvridge players or chess players, despite the fact that golf is a physical activity and that they need to walk the golf course.

Rik

You do realize that that is 1400 calories per 1.5 hours in Formula 1 versus however many calories per (I don't know exactly but let's say) 14 days x 8 hours of play? Are you contesting my claim that it is much more physically straining (in terms of top strain) to drive an F1 car than to play bridge? Zelandakh was implying that you can gain weight while participating in motorsport and I challenged him on this (by bringing up the most obvious counterexample). Do you contest my claim?

Of course, strictly speaking, if you don't eat at all, you will be burning calories no matter what you do, and as long as you're not doing absolutely nothing, you will be burning calories more than the physiological minimum. But agian, bounds of reason. The simple distinction that has been raised is obviously not 100% accurate and if we go down to the absolute bottom of it, then there is no way you can gain weight while strictly speaking only performing a game/sport. It is meant to be a very simple and humorous guideline to decide whether something could even possibly qualify for a sport (it does not make a definitive judgement but it does exclude some activities). No, we should not take it too literally, since it is possible to gain weight during any sport you can name since you could take 100 hamburgers with you and eat them while you are practising the sport (tennis is a prime example, Nadal could eat 10 or 20 bananas instead of 1 per sitting). It is just not something that happens or is likely to. I'm sorry, that is not how you interpret rules, except if you are trying to be deliberately obtuse. There will obviously not be a rule that we can give to a (current, non-AI) computer and press a button and it will give us a 0 (game/non-sport) or a 1 (sport). I am not suggesting that calories/hour be the first and final criterion, but perhaps it could be a first criterion to seriously think of including/excluding certain activities. By applying a little tiny bit of common sense (and lack of nitpicking), we can get somewhere.

I have a decent suspicion that you are wrong about bridge/chess players burning calories. The second answer here
http://skeptics.stac...ries-as-running
gives 68-123 kcal/hour for chess players, while this:
http://www.calorieco...y-watching-a141
gives 70 kcal/hour for sitting and watching TV. For golf, the same number is 315 kcal/hour ("Golf - general", whatever that means.)
http://www.calorieco...urned-golf-a398

Golf does look like a sport to me since you need power and special motor skills to drive the ball where you want it and I would consider it a sport whether or not the players would need to walk between the holes.

I am not sure about snooker (although on caloriecount.com it does give 175kcal/hr and requires some physical strength and motor skills), darts (https://www.youtube....h?v=pgap_CzceBM I know it's not like this right now but I can't rationalise not linking to it), or even curling (some physical strength but not infinitely much). I am prepared to concede to any of the fans of any of those that these games are sports and I am an ignoramus. I am not prepared to do the same for chess or bridge. I suppose chess/bridge players will bring up bullet/speedball to prove that some dexterity (motor skills) is required. OK good luck with that.

edit: added two sentences in the middle.