« It's the little things... | Main | Refactoring for Fun and Profit »
September 01, 2004
The Puritan's Olympics
I might be reinforcing an erroneous stereotype here, but I like to think of myself as being slightly atypical for your typical geek in that I'm a big sports fan. Regular participant until recent years and still avid watcher and generally a fairly active person - the 8+ hours of sedentary coding I perform daily notwithstanding.
So I've been as happy as a pig in mud over the last two weeks watching the Athens Olympics, and in particular those sports in which Australian's perform well, which is coincidentally pretty much all you get to see televised by the principal broadcaster in Australia. Needless to say, if you're not a swimming fan, Channel 7 would have been a fairly bleak option these last two weeks.
But I digress.
Whilst indulging in the games, I was reminded of how much I disagreed with what is included in the current definition of "sport" and how I'd attempted to address this imbalance by codifying what I'll now term Andy's Compliance Test for Sport, or ACTS or short.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that the principal reason for devising the following rules was to explicity exclude golf from the sporting world. Don't get me started on what it is about golf that I don't like in particular, but it's a lot. Suffice it to say that if you're the kind of person who needs a little buggy to save the only real form of physical exertion involved, think nothing of wearing truly hideous clothes for several hours each weekend, perhaps whilst enjoying a few quiet beers on the back nine and still consider yourself a sportsperson... then I have nothing but pity for your empty little life.
Mark Twain was more poetic, but I think my summary takes the points in the venom stakes.
Anyways, personal grudges against golf aside - here are the rules for ACTS. As with most such things, "the judges decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into". If you disagree, feel free to comment, but don't pin your hopes on changing my mind as (to paraphrase my local milk bar's policy on credit) "refusals may offend".
- Requirement 1: The Naked Test. The participants at the top level of the sport being tested must, when completely starkers, be able to convince a randomly selected group of people, that they are indeed world class athletes.
Exclusions: Golf, darts, chess, shooting, archery
- Requirement 2: Competition. A sport must be able to be conducted in a head-to-head competitive form, thus resulting in a winner and a, for the PC amongst us, non-winner.
Exclusions: Most man/woman against the elements activities (e.g., mountaineering, rock climbing, etc)
- Requirement 3: Objective Achievement. The outcome of the competition (see Requirement 2) must be decided by objective criteria. In other words, the result should be dictated by the value judgement of either an individual or a group of individuals.
Exclusions: Pretty much anything with a "stylistic" element to the judging - all gymnastics, diving, boxing, wrestling, martial arts. Probably also walking as well, given the seemingly arbitary nature of rule enforcement.
Aside: I'm a little nonplussed by the implications of this section as my intention was to exclude rhythmic gynmastics and boxing, the former because it's too much like dancing and the latter because of the ease with which bribery can influence the result. As a side effect, I've also excluded sports that I really believe to be legitimate like the rest of the gymnastics family. Oh well, collateral damage.
- Requirement 4: Occupational Training Hazards. It should by likely that some form of physical injury could be incurred as a result of training for the potential sport.
Exclusions: Golf, chess, darts, shooting, archery - pretty much the same set as with Section 1. I might scratch this one unless it adds some extra value.
And whilst it's true that you could loose an eye as the result of a poorly aimed dart, that's more factor of participant dexterity than the nature of the training itself.
So anyone wanting to apply ACTS to a potential sport can just use these criteria. A sport can only be considered such if it passes each of the four criteria. And for those that don't pass ACTS? Call it a pastime, a hobbie, an artistic endevour, whatever. Just don't call it sport!... at least not in my presence.
Posted by Andy Marks at September 1, 2004 12:49 PM
Comments
My beloved wife has a better definition of what sports should be in the Olympics.
Only those activities that can benefit from illegal performance enhancing drugs should be considered candidates.
Exclusions: Diving, Synchronised Swimming, Anything with a horse (unless the rider injects horse steriods), shooting, etc.
It's much simpler than the 4 tests that you have ;-)
Basically anything that doesn't involve teams or individuals running, hitting or swimming _against each other in a competitive manner_.
Posted by: Jon Eaves at September 1, 2004 01:31 PM
Well, with the archery and shooting exclusions, you've missed the points of the Olympics. :) The Ancient Olympics were all about demonstrating the prowess of the various champions of each city-state in endevours that all had a lot of applicability to the art of warfare. Archery and javelin throwing were key parts (and _their_ javelin throwing had an accuracy requirement as well). The high jump, for example used to have a requirement that you land on your feet (though you could vault the wall); landing on your back was just a good way to get a sword through your belly when you're jumping the stockade wall.
I'd also say that most archers are fairly fit; it's hard to shoot an arrow if you don't have strong arms, and frankly, a beer gut gets in the way.
The modern pentatholon is an excellent example of this applied to the modern Olympics. It's devised to capture the best elements of an all-round 19th century officer: they can ride, shoot, swim, and run: the very requirements of a courier on the battlefield.
So... if there's no violence (simulated or otherwise) involved, it's not an Olympic-class sport. :) Of course, that would include both boxing and fencing.
(Hey, what about competitive rock-climbing? First to the bottom wins... as long as they can walk to claim the medal afterwards)
Posted by: Robert Watkins at September 1, 2004 06:10 PM
I've heard lots of people say this sort of thing before and it annoys me when people overlook english to impose their own definitions of words on others. I've played competitive 8-Ball at very high levels, and it clearly falls outside of the bounds of your definition.
Well sorry mate, but english got here before you did, and sport was already defined. Its not constrained to people that look buffed when naked or activities that can cause training injury. It does include physical skill (so chess is still out in my mind) and competition.
You might only be interested in some subset of sport where these rules apply. Make up whatever name you like for that subset, but the word "Sport" is already taken...
Posted by: Marty Andrews at September 4, 2004 02:00 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)