>> |
Anonymous
>>307930 The problem is popularity is still completely objective. How popular does something have to be? Be covered on national television? Or how about very popular in a local township? For instance, over in the UK there is a township which every year, chases a circle of cheese down a hill, it is a very popular event there, is that a sport then?
I also disagree with your #2. You say running a mile is not a sport but somehow if you add additional runners in it becomes a sport? Those runners have no effect on what any other individual competitors are doing, everyone is just running their hardest. In fact, what if each individual runner ran the track by himself and his time was recorded. Best time wins. Is that a sport? IMO it is not, and neither is running everyone at the same time, because it is the exact same thing. A true sport should rely heavily on the existence of an "opponent" to even make sense.
Ex. In basketball, if you take away the opposing team, the game reduces to triviality. If we said okay, we are going to determine the winner by the following, For the first 30 minutes, the lakers get the court by themselves and can try to score as many baskets as possible. In the 2nd 30 minutes, Celtics get the court by themselves and try to score a many baskets as possible. Whoever scores more in that time wins. Is this game representitive of basketball? No, not even close. Same with hockey, football, soccer, etc. Without an opponent the game cannot be played and still be considered the same game. But with running, swimming, diving, gymnastics, golf, etc, if I take away the existence of an opponent, the game remains the exact same. There is still a clear definition of good and bad (Running faster / Better executed dives / taking less strokes in 18 holes), where as in true sports, removing the opponent reduces any goal in the game to a triviality (You could score 1000 times on an empty, undefended net in an hour, but that is meaningless).
|