dd_decker
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Total posts
- 453
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #101
If Poker is a sport, how come they never gave Phil Helmuth a 15 yard penalty for "unsportsmanlike conduct"? 
PoKeRFoRNiA
Legend
Bronze Level
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Total posts
- 1,331
- Awards
- 1
- Poker Chips
- 118
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #102
N.D. said:
All I'm saying is, ANY couch potato and ANY unskilled/inexperienced player can knock out a pro but not a single couch potato or unskilled/inexperienced player will stand a chance against REAL sports player, such as Kobe Bryant, Cristiano Ronaldo, Chuck Liddell, etc or even mental sports games such as Anand, Bobby Fisher, Russian chess players, or even starcraft players like Lim Yo Hwan, Bertrand Grospellier. This is why poker cannot be considered a sport. Back then, the big topic was, "Is poker a skill game or a luck game?" Now, the topic is changing from "is poker a skill game or luck game?" to "is poker a sport?" ? Poker is definitely a skill-based game but not a sport.
We can teach our parents how to play poker, they will stand somewhat of a chance against any full tilt pros in one game or short-term period. To determine who's a better player, it can only be proved by long-term period, which is something Patrik Antonius and Tom Dwan are doing right now for million dollar challenge. Whoever wins that is officially considered better player than the other with no excuses.
Makwa
Undesirable Predator
Silver Level
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Total posts
- 6,080
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #103
In answer to OP, given my waistline since taking up online poker,, I would have to say No!
Salacious
Enthusiast
Silver Level
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Total posts
- 26
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #104
I'm a curler, (shuffleboard on ice for all you non-Canadians). Back in the bad old days, I used to play with a cigarette hanging out of my face, against old people, trying to sweep one handed because I was holding onto my beer with the other.
This sport is included in the winter olympics.
Poker qualifies as far as I'm concerned.
This sport is included in the winter olympics.
Poker qualifies as far as I'm concerned.
StormRaven
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Total posts
- 2,510
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #105
http://www.seattlepi.com/othersports/347676_sportornot17.html
What defines a sport? Like a ping-pong match, the debate goes back and forth
By DAVID ANDRIESEN
P-I REPORTER
Search for "cup stacking" on YouTube, and you can watch more than 1,000 videos of people taking nested stacks of plastic cups and arranging them into pyramids and back again so quickly the whole thing is almost a blur.
· From bobsledding to ballroom dancing, how 31 competitive activities score on criteria to decide if they're sports -- or not
It's impressive. It takes skill and agility. But is it a sport?
Stacking supporters think so. In 2005, the governing body changed the name officially to "sport stacking."
"When people challenge me on whether it's a sport, I usually turn it around on them," said Matt Reed, executive director of the World Sport Stacking Association. "I ask them, 'What's your definition of sport?' Invariably many of the things they mention are involved in our sport."
ESPN shows poker, cheerleading, arm wrestling and, yes, sport stacking.
Bass fishing events offer million-dollar purses.
AP Takeru Kobayashi won Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Competition six years in a row. But is the event an actual sport?Mainstream newspaper sports sections report on hot dog eating world records.
The Olympics offer medals for kayaking and bobsled, but not for golf or football (at least not the American kind).
Some school districts classify chess as a sport.
So how, in this age of media saturation and fringe activities clamoring for legitimacy, can we define "sport"?
It's one of the great barroom debates, usually triggered by the sight of billiards or the X Games on TV at a watering hole. But while fans have argued over it for decades, there hasn't really been any official effort to define sport.
Rodney Fort, a professor of sport management at the University of Michigan who taught for more than two decades at Washington State University, uses a discussion about the definition of sport as an exercise to get students thinking about the field.
Fort has narrowed his definition to three parameters:
There are many factors to consider, but most arguments end up centering on a few common factors.
Who's got the ball?
A ball helps a lot. Most things with a ball (or ball-like object, such as a puck) are generally considered to be sports. Heck, America's three top pro sports have "ball" right in the name.
If there are two people or teams on a playing surface at the same time competing with a ball, particularly the same ball, it's almost certainly a sport. Dozens of sports fit under this umbrella.
Who's racing?
A footrace is the simplest form of sport, and most racing under human power is inarguably a sport. Whether people are racing over hurdles, through the woods or in a pool, they're engaged in sport.
The question becomes what level of human power you require, and what other implements you accept.
For instance, horse racing might be "the sport of kings," but is it a sport?
"It's a sport for the horse," Fort said. "They're the ones doing the racing. Certainly the jockey has something to do with it, but it's hard to conclude that that's a sport in the same way, say, the 100-meter dash is."
And in horse racing, at least it's the horse that gets the glory. Most people can name horses that have won the Triple Crown, but not jockeys who have done it.
But what about auto racing? NASCAR is one of the most popular sports in America, but it's the cars that are providing the power, and the fastest car usually wins, even if it's not driven by the most skilled driver on a particular day. Purists would reject all motorized racing, though they'd get a powerful argument south of the Mason-Dixon line.
What about human-powered racing in disciplines where differences in the equipment can affect the outcome, such as cycling and crew? Fort rejects these under his "simple machines" provision, but if you set the standard at the conveyance being primarily human powered, pedaling and rowing qualify.
Whose turn is it?
Then there is the question of whether participants must compete head-to-head. In a footrace, first one to the finish wins. But what about races like downhill skiing, in which competitors are theoretically racing each other but really just racing a clock?
Golf and bowling also are turn-based. In the case of bowling, it's to assure two competitors have the same lane conditions, but in golf a field of 144 can experience vastly different conditions on the same course -- some might play a hole early or late, with or without wind or rain. People often complete the same round on different days.
Are the golfers truly competing against each other? And if you could get the same results by having golfers drop by and play four rounds at a certain course at their leisure, and then comparing scores to determine a winner, can a golf tournament be said to be a sporting event?
What's the score?
When the results of a competition are a matter of opinion, it's tough for many to accept it as a sport.
If a judge scores an athlete higher or lower based on politics, or loving or hating a certain move, or, heaven forbid, whether he likes his outfit, the notion of competition goes down the drain quickly.
We like to know for certain whether someone won a contest. The ball went in the net or it didn't. The runner beat the throw to the plate or he didn't. Our most popular sports have this in common, even though human error is sometimes a factor.
"We have to all know what constitutes you getting a point," Fort said. "This causes a problem for some people, because they confuse the existence of an objective scoring definition with the human fallibility of recognizing it when they see it.
"They say, 'Well, what about when a ref blows a call in the end zone?' But that's not the point. We all know what constitutes a touchdown. We're just arguing about whether the ref saw it correctly or not."
Women often argue against the insistence on objective scoring, because it eliminates several sports most closely identified with women, or most popular when women are competing: figure skating, gymnastics, cheer.
But its sweep is much wider than that. Diving, out. Most extreme sports, out. Many rodeo events, out.
Even boxing, considered one of the most basic and pure sports, goes by the wayside if we insist on objective scoring. Are you ready to throw out boxing?
If you want boxing, you pretty much have to accept figure skating.
Getting physical?
Even if you insist on humans doing the competing, head-to-head competition and objective scoring, you're still left with a lot of things that don't pass muster. Pinball. Poker. Darts. Which of your frat brothers can eat the most jalapeno poppers.
There has to be some level of physical effort. But where do you draw the line?
Golf looks pretty easy, but the average person might change his mind on that after playing 18 holes on foot carrying his own bag.
You could argue that throwing a 15-pound bowling ball for a few hours requires more physical strength than swinging a golf club, but a trip to the local bowling alley doesn't exactly turn up a lot of world-class athletes.
Tennis is a sport, but how about table tennis? It's pretty much the same thing, only on a smaller scale -- and if you watch an international match you see that there's some physical effort involved.
Curling is an Olympic medal sport, but requires about the same level of effort as sweeping the back porch.
The question of what is or is not a sport will continue to be argued, and the only point of agreement likely to be reached is that we'll never agree.
What combination of factors must exist to make something a sport is up to you. Or maybe it's like the famous definition of art: You know it when you see it.
"Are we going to be in the Olympics? I don't know about that," cup stacking, er,sport stacking chief Reed said. "We're never going to be one of the major sports, but we feel like we're legit."
For Reed, whether sport stacking is classified as a sport is less important than people having fun doing it.
After all, that's the point, isn't it?
What defines a sport? Like a ping-pong match, the debate goes back and forth
By DAVID ANDRIESEN
P-I REPORTER
Search for "cup stacking" on YouTube, and you can watch more than 1,000 videos of people taking nested stacks of plastic cups and arranging them into pyramids and back again so quickly the whole thing is almost a blur.
· From bobsledding to ballroom dancing, how 31 competitive activities score on criteria to decide if they're sports -- or not
It's impressive. It takes skill and agility. But is it a sport?
Stacking supporters think so. In 2005, the governing body changed the name officially to "sport stacking."
"When people challenge me on whether it's a sport, I usually turn it around on them," said Matt Reed, executive director of the World Sport Stacking Association. "I ask them, 'What's your definition of sport?' Invariably many of the things they mention are involved in our sport."
ESPN shows poker, cheerleading, arm wrestling and, yes, sport stacking.
Bass fishing events offer million-dollar purses.
AP Takeru Kobayashi won Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Competition six years in a row. But is the event an actual sport?Mainstream newspaper sports sections report on hot dog eating world records.The Olympics offer medals for kayaking and bobsled, but not for golf or football (at least not the American kind).
Some school districts classify chess as a sport.
So how, in this age of media saturation and fringe activities clamoring for legitimacy, can we define "sport"?
It's one of the great barroom debates, usually triggered by the sight of billiards or the X Games on TV at a watering hole. But while fans have argued over it for decades, there hasn't really been any official effort to define sport.
Rodney Fort, a professor of sport management at the University of Michigan who taught for more than two decades at Washington State University, uses a discussion about the definition of sport as an exercise to get students thinking about the field.
Fort has narrowed his definition to three parameters:
- It must use a "large motor skill."
- It must have an objective scoring system.
- It must use nothing more complicated than a "simple machine," such as a baseball bat or vaulting pole.
There are many factors to consider, but most arguments end up centering on a few common factors.
Who's got the ball?
A ball helps a lot. Most things with a ball (or ball-like object, such as a puck) are generally considered to be sports. Heck, America's three top pro sports have "ball" right in the name.
If there are two people or teams on a playing surface at the same time competing with a ball, particularly the same ball, it's almost certainly a sport. Dozens of sports fit under this umbrella.
Who's racing?
A footrace is the simplest form of sport, and most racing under human power is inarguably a sport. Whether people are racing over hurdles, through the woods or in a pool, they're engaged in sport.
The question becomes what level of human power you require, and what other implements you accept.
For instance, horse racing might be "the sport of kings," but is it a sport?
"It's a sport for the horse," Fort said. "They're the ones doing the racing. Certainly the jockey has something to do with it, but it's hard to conclude that that's a sport in the same way, say, the 100-meter dash is."
And in horse racing, at least it's the horse that gets the glory. Most people can name horses that have won the Triple Crown, but not jockeys who have done it.
But what about auto racing? NASCAR is one of the most popular sports in America, but it's the cars that are providing the power, and the fastest car usually wins, even if it's not driven by the most skilled driver on a particular day. Purists would reject all motorized racing, though they'd get a powerful argument south of the Mason-Dixon line.
What about human-powered racing in disciplines where differences in the equipment can affect the outcome, such as cycling and crew? Fort rejects these under his "simple machines" provision, but if you set the standard at the conveyance being primarily human powered, pedaling and rowing qualify.
Whose turn is it?
Then there is the question of whether participants must compete head-to-head. In a footrace, first one to the finish wins. But what about races like downhill skiing, in which competitors are theoretically racing each other but really just racing a clock?
Golf and bowling also are turn-based. In the case of bowling, it's to assure two competitors have the same lane conditions, but in golf a field of 144 can experience vastly different conditions on the same course -- some might play a hole early or late, with or without wind or rain. People often complete the same round on different days.
Are the golfers truly competing against each other? And if you could get the same results by having golfers drop by and play four rounds at a certain course at their leisure, and then comparing scores to determine a winner, can a golf tournament be said to be a sporting event?
What's the score?
When the results of a competition are a matter of opinion, it's tough for many to accept it as a sport.
If a judge scores an athlete higher or lower based on politics, or loving or hating a certain move, or, heaven forbid, whether he likes his outfit, the notion of competition goes down the drain quickly.
We like to know for certain whether someone won a contest. The ball went in the net or it didn't. The runner beat the throw to the plate or he didn't. Our most popular sports have this in common, even though human error is sometimes a factor.
"We have to all know what constitutes you getting a point," Fort said. "This causes a problem for some people, because they confuse the existence of an objective scoring definition with the human fallibility of recognizing it when they see it.
"They say, 'Well, what about when a ref blows a call in the end zone?' But that's not the point. We all know what constitutes a touchdown. We're just arguing about whether the ref saw it correctly or not."
Women often argue against the insistence on objective scoring, because it eliminates several sports most closely identified with women, or most popular when women are competing: figure skating, gymnastics, cheer.
But its sweep is much wider than that. Diving, out. Most extreme sports, out. Many rodeo events, out.
Even boxing, considered one of the most basic and pure sports, goes by the wayside if we insist on objective scoring. Are you ready to throw out boxing?
If you want boxing, you pretty much have to accept figure skating.
Getting physical?
Even if you insist on humans doing the competing, head-to-head competition and objective scoring, you're still left with a lot of things that don't pass muster. Pinball. Poker. Darts. Which of your frat brothers can eat the most jalapeno poppers.
There has to be some level of physical effort. But where do you draw the line?
Golf looks pretty easy, but the average person might change his mind on that after playing 18 holes on foot carrying his own bag.
You could argue that throwing a 15-pound bowling ball for a few hours requires more physical strength than swinging a golf club, but a trip to the local bowling alley doesn't exactly turn up a lot of world-class athletes.
Tennis is a sport, but how about table tennis? It's pretty much the same thing, only on a smaller scale -- and if you watch an international match you see that there's some physical effort involved.
Curling is an Olympic medal sport, but requires about the same level of effort as sweeping the back porch.
The question of what is or is not a sport will continue to be argued, and the only point of agreement likely to be reached is that we'll never agree.
What combination of factors must exist to make something a sport is up to you. Or maybe it's like the famous definition of art: You know it when you see it.
"Are we going to be in the Olympics? I don't know about that," cup stacking, er,sport stacking chief Reed said. "We're never going to be one of the major sports, but we feel like we're legit."
For Reed, whether sport stacking is classified as a sport is less important than people having fun doing it.
After all, that's the point, isn't it?
StormRaven
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Total posts
- 2,510
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #107
StormRaven
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Total posts
- 2,510
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #108
From an ESPN writer back in 2004:
Does poker qualify as a sport?
By Jay Lovinger
Page 2
Is poker a sport?
Before I attempt to answer that question, here's another one: What difference does it make?
A couple of times in the past few weeks, Tony Kornheiser of "Pardon The Interruption" has questioned whether the current poker boom will have legs. Kornheiser obviously believes it will not, based on the notion that people who watch poker on TV cannot expect to see any spectacular physical feats and so will necessarily become bored and stop watching.
In other words, in Kornheiser's opinion, poker is not a sport.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that Kornheiser knows absolutely nothing about poker, doesn't have the slightest interest in whether or not the poker boom will continue, and is "concerned" about the future of poker only to the extent that it provides a chance to tweak Norman Chad, ESPN's poker color man and a former colleague of Kornheiser at the Washington Post.)
(In the interests of full full disclosure, I should also mention that Kornheiser and I not only worked together at the Washington Post but went to the same school -- Harpur College in bucolic Binghamton, N.Y. -- and that Kornheiser is largely responsible for my journalistic career, such as it is, because he introduced me to the man who gave me my first real editing job. Therefore, under the Fairness In Commentary Act of '99, I am obligated to publicly insult and demean Kornheiser whenever I have the opportunity.)
Vote: Sport or Not a Sport?Poker requires agility, strength and stamina -- well, of the mental variety. It's on ESPN. But is it a sport? Click here to vote on poker and nine other activities.
OK, let's see if, just this once, Kornheiser might be right about something.
When it comes to proving a dubious point, dictionary definitions are often the last refuge of a scoundrel. So, according to "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language," here are the first two definitions for "sport":
1.) An active pastime; diversion; recreation.
2.) A specific diversion, usually involving physical exercise and having a set form and body of rules; a game.
So far, so good ... except for a teensy bit of a problem with the phrase "physical exercise." Now, if one defines "physical exercise" as something involving:
1.) Strength; or
2.) Speed; or
3.) Coordination; or
4.) Reflexes; or
5.) Physical endurance; or
6.) Ability to play through pain; or ...
Okay, poker doesn't require any of those, unless you consider the strength needed to push large piles of chips into the middle of a pot, or maybe the manual dexterity necessary to see your hole cards without letting anybody else at the table get a clean look.
Ask Jackpot Jay!Got a poker problem or want more details about Jay's Vegas adventure? Send in your questions and comments. However, we have a major out -- the adverb "usually," which, if taken literally, means "sometimes not."
Plus, let's be fair: How much more "physical exercise" is required to play, say, bowling or golf or pool than poker? And nobody would question whether bowling or golf or pool are sports.
Another thing poker has going for it, sports-wise, is that ESPN and the Fox Sports Network both cover it regularly, and magazines like ESPN The Magazine and Sports Illustrated both write about it. (Of course, SI once regularly covered bridge and yachting, too, but it seems unkind to make too much of that.)
In any case, is it really true, as Kornheiser contends, that most people watch sports on TV to see incredible physical feats?
While incredible physical feats are a regular feature of some popular sports -- notably basketball -- there are many popular sports in which incredible physical feats are quite rare, and even those seldom determine the outcome of an event. Just two of many in this category would be baseball and auto racing.
While it is true that baseball has its share of web gems, for example, most of the key moments in a game are noticeable only because of the results. The difference between a swing by Barry Bonds and a swing by, say, Rey Ordonez is perceivable primarily because of the results of those swings -- in Bonds' case, often a home run; in Ordonez's case, almost always, at best, a weak ground ball.
Similarly, what's the difference between a slow curve from Mets' lefty Tom Glavine and a similar pitch from the Yankees' Gabe White? One winds up in the catcher's glove, and the other in outer space; but until those fateful moments, to the naked eye, they look pretty much the same.
In auto racing, everybody goes round and round and round and round, and the only thing that differentiates one guy who goes round and round from another who goes round and round is which one arrives at the finish line first. True, an occasional driver will show an occasional flash of other-worldly reflexes in avoiding a multi-car pileup, but I doubt whether that's why people tune in to watch. In fact, you can make a better case that they tune in to watch, hoping to see multi-car wrecks. In other words, if the vast majority of race-watchers appreciate anything that has to do with incredible physical feats, it is most likely the absence of them.
No, people watch sports for one reason: to see who won, to see who can exhibit the most grace under the most intense pressure, and then to celebrate the winners, often by cashing a bet. (Yes, football fans, I'm talking 'bout you. Be honest now -- would you rather see a week's worth of incredible physical feats, or collect on one meaningful wager from your local bookie?) And the reality is that big-time poker provides just about the most intense pressure the fertile mind of man can create -- not to mention an endless stream of meaningful wagers.
Coaches have to make lots of intense decisions -- poker players do, too.
First of all, the money is huge. Greg Raymer, the winner of this year's world series of poker, took home $5 million; and to do so, he had to play thousands of hands that took 60-plus hours over six days -- without making a single major mistake.
(In that sense, I suppose, great poker players resemble great coaches more than great athletes -- they have to make constant choices, any one of which could cause the entire enterprise to collapse. Consider, for example, Larry Brown's options at the end of the second game of the NBA Finals: Guard the inbounds pass? Foul Shaq? Foul Looooo-ke Walton? Foul Kobe? Double-team Kobe? Play Kobe straight up? Poker players have to make decisions like that hundreds of times in a tournament -- and there's no third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh game if they are wrong.)
Second of all, in poker, if you don't win, not only do you not get paid -- unlike baseball and football and basketball players -- but they take money out of your pocket. (The entry fee for playing in the wsop, for example, was $10,000, so you can sit there for four or five days and go home with only a huge hole in your bank account to show for it.)
Third of all, in major tournaments, there can be 2,500-plus players trying to be the last man standing -- or sitting -- and they all will do almost anything, including lie viciously and repeatedly (in poker, we call it "bluffing"), to send you home a broken husk of a man (or woman).
In other words, win and be a champion toting a life-changing roll of bills big enough to choke Shrek, or lose and go home a chump with a giant hole blown through your life savings. As the Clint Eastwood character -- a lone gunfighter, the ur-American sports figure -- tells the Scofield Kid in "Unforgiven": "It's a helluva thing, killing a man. You take away everything he's got in life, and everything he'll ever have."
Now what can be more pressure-filled, more sporting than all that? And does anybody believe the American public will ever tire of watching?
I say, "No way." What do you think?
Jay Lovinger, a former managing editor of Life and a founding editor of Page 2, is writing on his poker adventures for ESPN.com and also writing a book for HarperCollins. You can watch the 2004 World Series of Poker starting July 6 at 9 p.m. ET on ESPN.
Does poker qualify as a sport?
By Jay Lovinger
Page 2
Before I attempt to answer that question, here's another one: What difference does it make?
A couple of times in the past few weeks, Tony Kornheiser of "Pardon The Interruption" has questioned whether the current poker boom will have legs. Kornheiser obviously believes it will not, based on the notion that people who watch poker on TV cannot expect to see any spectacular physical feats and so will necessarily become bored and stop watching.
In other words, in Kornheiser's opinion, poker is not a sport.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that Kornheiser knows absolutely nothing about poker, doesn't have the slightest interest in whether or not the poker boom will continue, and is "concerned" about the future of poker only to the extent that it provides a chance to tweak Norman Chad, ESPN's poker color man and a former colleague of Kornheiser at the Washington Post.)
(In the interests of full full disclosure, I should also mention that Kornheiser and I not only worked together at the Washington Post but went to the same school -- Harpur College in bucolic Binghamton, N.Y. -- and that Kornheiser is largely responsible for my journalistic career, such as it is, because he introduced me to the man who gave me my first real editing job. Therefore, under the Fairness In Commentary Act of '99, I am obligated to publicly insult and demean Kornheiser whenever I have the opportunity.)
Vote: Sport or Not a Sport?Poker requires agility, strength and stamina -- well, of the mental variety. It's on ESPN. But is it a sport? Click here to vote on poker and nine other activities.
OK, let's see if, just this once, Kornheiser might be right about something.
When it comes to proving a dubious point, dictionary definitions are often the last refuge of a scoundrel. So, according to "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language," here are the first two definitions for "sport":
1.) An active pastime; diversion; recreation.
2.) A specific diversion, usually involving physical exercise and having a set form and body of rules; a game.
So far, so good ... except for a teensy bit of a problem with the phrase "physical exercise." Now, if one defines "physical exercise" as something involving:
1.) Strength; or
2.) Speed; or
3.) Coordination; or
4.) Reflexes; or
5.) Physical endurance; or
6.) Ability to play through pain; or ...
Okay, poker doesn't require any of those, unless you consider the strength needed to push large piles of chips into the middle of a pot, or maybe the manual dexterity necessary to see your hole cards without letting anybody else at the table get a clean look.
Ask Jackpot Jay!Got a poker problem or want more details about Jay's Vegas adventure? Send in your questions and comments. However, we have a major out -- the adverb "usually," which, if taken literally, means "sometimes not."
Plus, let's be fair: How much more "physical exercise" is required to play, say, bowling or golf or pool than poker? And nobody would question whether bowling or golf or pool are sports.
Another thing poker has going for it, sports-wise, is that ESPN and the Fox Sports Network both cover it regularly, and magazines like ESPN The Magazine and Sports Illustrated both write about it. (Of course, SI once regularly covered bridge and yachting, too, but it seems unkind to make too much of that.)
In any case, is it really true, as Kornheiser contends, that most people watch sports on TV to see incredible physical feats?
While incredible physical feats are a regular feature of some popular sports -- notably basketball -- there are many popular sports in which incredible physical feats are quite rare, and even those seldom determine the outcome of an event. Just two of many in this category would be baseball and auto racing.
While it is true that baseball has its share of web gems, for example, most of the key moments in a game are noticeable only because of the results. The difference between a swing by Barry Bonds and a swing by, say, Rey Ordonez is perceivable primarily because of the results of those swings -- in Bonds' case, often a home run; in Ordonez's case, almost always, at best, a weak ground ball.
Similarly, what's the difference between a slow curve from Mets' lefty Tom Glavine and a similar pitch from the Yankees' Gabe White? One winds up in the catcher's glove, and the other in outer space; but until those fateful moments, to the naked eye, they look pretty much the same.
In auto racing, everybody goes round and round and round and round, and the only thing that differentiates one guy who goes round and round from another who goes round and round is which one arrives at the finish line first. True, an occasional driver will show an occasional flash of other-worldly reflexes in avoiding a multi-car pileup, but I doubt whether that's why people tune in to watch. In fact, you can make a better case that they tune in to watch, hoping to see multi-car wrecks. In other words, if the vast majority of race-watchers appreciate anything that has to do with incredible physical feats, it is most likely the absence of them.
No, people watch sports for one reason: to see who won, to see who can exhibit the most grace under the most intense pressure, and then to celebrate the winners, often by cashing a bet. (Yes, football fans, I'm talking 'bout you. Be honest now -- would you rather see a week's worth of incredible physical feats, or collect on one meaningful wager from your local bookie?) And the reality is that big-time poker provides just about the most intense pressure the fertile mind of man can create -- not to mention an endless stream of meaningful wagers.
Coaches have to make lots of intense decisions -- poker players do, too.
First of all, the money is huge. Greg Raymer, the winner of this year's world series of poker, took home $5 million; and to do so, he had to play thousands of hands that took 60-plus hours over six days -- without making a single major mistake.
(In that sense, I suppose, great poker players resemble great coaches more than great athletes -- they have to make constant choices, any one of which could cause the entire enterprise to collapse. Consider, for example, Larry Brown's options at the end of the second game of the NBA Finals: Guard the inbounds pass? Foul Shaq? Foul Looooo-ke Walton? Foul Kobe? Double-team Kobe? Play Kobe straight up? Poker players have to make decisions like that hundreds of times in a tournament -- and there's no third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh game if they are wrong.)
Second of all, in poker, if you don't win, not only do you not get paid -- unlike baseball and football and basketball players -- but they take money out of your pocket. (The entry fee for playing in the wsop, for example, was $10,000, so you can sit there for four or five days and go home with only a huge hole in your bank account to show for it.)
Third of all, in major tournaments, there can be 2,500-plus players trying to be the last man standing -- or sitting -- and they all will do almost anything, including lie viciously and repeatedly (in poker, we call it "bluffing"), to send you home a broken husk of a man (or woman).
In other words, win and be a champion toting a life-changing roll of bills big enough to choke Shrek, or lose and go home a chump with a giant hole blown through your life savings. As the Clint Eastwood character -- a lone gunfighter, the ur-American sports figure -- tells the Scofield Kid in "Unforgiven": "It's a helluva thing, killing a man. You take away everything he's got in life, and everything he'll ever have."
Now what can be more pressure-filled, more sporting than all that? And does anybody believe the American public will ever tire of watching?
I say, "No way." What do you think?
Jay Lovinger, a former managing editor of Life and a founding editor of Page 2, is writing on his poker adventures for ESPN.com and also writing a book for HarperCollins. You can watch the 2004 World Series of Poker starting July 6 at 9 p.m. ET on ESPN.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Total posts
- 6,236
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #109
^^^^
The article hinges on redefineing the word sport (abet the vaguest definition he could find.. this was not the first definition he stumbled upon!).
He takes this vague definition and then applies metaphors to the literal parts of the definition.
He focuses far to much on "physical excercise" when infact sport requires "physical activity".
Golf and bowels are not sports of physical stamina but rather physical coordination.
What I don't understand is why people feel that sports > games.
They are just words, but words with specific meanings. This is both the joy and curse of a vocabulary. Words have specific meanings and specific contexts where they are used.
Write out a sentence or two about anything you want. Then randomly pick a word you just wrote with more than 4 letters. Look in a thesaurus and find a list of words with similar meanings.
Then try and substitute each of those words into your original sentence.
Usually, most words offered by the thesauraus will just "offend the eye", why? because although they have a similar meaning, they don't have the exact meaning of the origional word; hence vocabulay.
People should be intelligent and fluent enough in English to understand this.
Is poker a sport? NO the word sport does not describe poker. Poker is a game or occasionally an orange.
The article hinges on redefineing the word sport (abet the vaguest definition he could find.. this was not the first definition he stumbled upon!).
He takes this vague definition and then applies metaphors to the literal parts of the definition.
He focuses far to much on "physical excercise" when infact sport requires "physical activity".
Golf and bowels are not sports of physical stamina but rather physical coordination.
What I don't understand is why people feel that sports > games.
They are just words, but words with specific meanings. This is both the joy and curse of a vocabulary. Words have specific meanings and specific contexts where they are used.
Write out a sentence or two about anything you want. Then randomly pick a word you just wrote with more than 4 letters. Look in a thesaurus and find a list of words with similar meanings.
Then try and substitute each of those words into your original sentence.
Usually, most words offered by the thesauraus will just "offend the eye", why? because although they have a similar meaning, they don't have the exact meaning of the origional word; hence vocabulay.
People should be intelligent and fluent enough in English to understand this.
Is poker a sport? NO the word sport does not describe poker. Poker is a game or occasionally an orange.
N
navuta
Rising Star
Bronze Level
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Total posts
- 10
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #110
I think poker engages your body... As your brain is inside your body.
So for me Poker is a sport.. That iven very fat big guys can play.. at least they have a body..
So for me Poker is a sport.. That iven very fat big guys can play.. at least they have a body..
N.D.
Visionary
Silver Level
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Total posts
- 930
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #111
navuta said:
You've never been in a bowling alley have you? Now that's physical, requires some amount of strength + hand eye coordination. Plenty of big guys in bowling alleys. What's incredible is that they're playing a sport(physical + hand eye coordination), and do it while being fat, out of shape, and getting full on plastered. Doubt I could bowl 300 without dropping my Budweiser or losing pace with the number of hot wings I was eating. Now overweight bowlers are true f-athletes
.Hug your nearest chunky neighbor and stop calling poker a sport.
I almost refuse to call golf a sport cuz from what I've seen, which is admittedly little, all they do is drive that little car around while drinking and laughing. What saves golf and keeps it a sport is that they're driving the little car around, drinking, and laughing all while hitting a ball with a stick. Hit a ball with a stick and no doubt you're playing a sport.
Add hitting balls with sticks, a race for the ace(to get the button when seated), a race past the bubble, and a race to the final table, now it's a sport. No races, no balls, no sport. Only exception is if your chips weigh at least 1/4 of your total weight and you carry them for yourself.
Now for a more pressing, if random issue. Do David Benyamine and Erica Schoenberg have sex or is he her merkin? It's all this talk of fat guys. David's "Fat Bastard" level big. So big that he probably hasn't seen his willy since winning the Grand Prix of Paris. And Erica seems too froo-froo to go a-huntin' for it.
So now I'm wondering if they even do it. Yeah, I'm that immature. Logistically it's baffling. Surely she's on top(imagine that much man collapsing on top of you and yikes). Still, his stomach's so big. How the devil do they do it? I wonder if there's a "Fat Bastard" channel on Red Tube that could answer my questions.
Anyway, if you're a female chubby chaser or just a fat guy, lemme know how it's done, cuz I'm completely baffled.
M
MsDonkDonk
Enthusiast
Silver Level
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Total posts
- 75
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #112
It is a competitive game but so is board games and some video games and we do not call them a sport so I say no
M
m2lucky
Rising Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Total posts
- 17
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #113
Wow guys this has been really insightful and all the articles have been very helpful to the arguement.
Nexus6
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Total posts
- 441
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #114
if I ever get to the highest level and play on tv and in the big games then for fun and to promote poker I will call it a sport but right now as a recreational player I don't consider it a sport. I think its unimportant to have to label it a sport or not. Poker needs to keep the rules in place and not let people like hellmuth make it look bad hahahaha... thats about it..
ean
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Total posts
- 171
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #115
Not a "sport", as there is no athletic action involved. But then that would make NASCAR boardering on "not sport" status also.
Poker is a "competition", maybe more along the lines of Chess. But poker has maybe a 25-30% "luck" factor, which is of course a lot higher than Chess would have or the "_ball" sports.
Being on ESPN means nothing, because ESPN is "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network", so poker comes under the entertaining competitions.
The real problem poker has is in getting people to understand that inspite of more of a luck factor than other things, it is still more about SKILL in the long run than about the luck.
Look, even football, basket ball, etc. DO HAVE a luck factor! A ball gets lost in the sun, bounces an odd way at wrong time and costs a game, etc. The thing is that those are very small luck factors, like 1% or less. So the chances of you or I getting lucky and beating Tiger Woods is very small.
Poker has a very appreciable luck factor, and that's why on occasion, a lot of average players can occasionally beat the pros.
Poker is a "competition", maybe more along the lines of Chess. But poker has maybe a 25-30% "luck" factor, which is of course a lot higher than Chess would have or the "_ball" sports.
Being on ESPN means nothing, because ESPN is "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network", so poker comes under the entertaining competitions.
The real problem poker has is in getting people to understand that inspite of more of a luck factor than other things, it is still more about SKILL in the long run than about the luck.
Look, even football, basket ball, etc. DO HAVE a luck factor! A ball gets lost in the sun, bounces an odd way at wrong time and costs a game, etc. The thing is that those are very small luck factors, like 1% or less. So the chances of you or I getting lucky and beating Tiger Woods is very small.
Poker has a very appreciable luck factor, and that's why on occasion, a lot of average players can occasionally beat the pros.
N.D.
Visionary
Silver Level
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Total posts
- 930
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #116
Was watching a show on television and it said that the difference between the winning football team and losing football team on any given Sunday is as thin as a sheet of paper. I'm paraphrasing of course.
I wonder how thick the difference between say Jerry Yang and Phil Hellmuth is. Or any given entheusiast who has more than a passing interest and a pro.
I wonder how thick the difference between say Jerry Yang and Phil Hellmuth is. Or any given entheusiast who has more than a passing interest and a pro.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Total posts
- 6,236
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #117
ean said:
NASCAR is a Motor Sport
In motor sports, the physical competition is seen as being between the machines rather than the drivers. Its a weak one though and Motor Sport definitely sits at the very edge of sport.
N.D.
Visionary
Silver Level
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Total posts
- 930
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #118
I was under the impression that motor sport requires quick reflexes. I just imagine that does make it at least somewhat physical. I also imagine that the faster and tougher to control your car is, the more it takes out of you on a physical level. I could be wrong though.
Plus there's the hazard aspect. I mean, it's a lot tougher to die from handling cards and chips than say a fiery explosion.
Lol why am I even defending it?
Plus there's the hazard aspect. I mean, it's a lot tougher to die from handling cards and chips than say a fiery explosion.
Lol why am I even defending it?
Tonky666
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Total posts
- 322
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #119
no he CHEATED, read..NBA2K9ROCKETS said:
ean
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Total posts
- 171
- Poker Chips
- 0
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #120
Stu_Ungar said:
If it were really about the machines competing, then the same driver should just drive each of the machines and see which one goes the fastest, or whatever. No, the motor sports are about the drivers AND the team of mechanics, etc. that make the cars/motors. It's a competition between PEOPLE as to who can make AND run a machine the best, in the framework of a bunch of rules about how the machine can be made, etc.
Poker is a competition as to who can play and score the best, within the framework of the set of cards, how they come out, rules for betting, etc.
In spite of this really nice thread, to me classifying poker still comes down to how one deals with "competitions" that are not based on athletic actions, but are based on skill.
How do people classify chess? That would be very similar to a headsup poker match, or maybe a long series of such poker matches.