The Flash
08-06-2004, 08:29 AM
I just finished reading this article based on Paul Mulholland's book, "Is it a sport"
http://www.pjstar.com/sports/gensports/b3p9fj6t083.html
I am sure that this book is going to start a huge debate as to it's validity.
No 1: "There must be activity. Activity implies action or motion. If you aren't moving, you are not engaged in a sport." The explanation continues, but you get the point. It's hard to argue this, but it really says very little at the same time. Bobsledding, which Mulholland says is not a sport, is one of the few potential sport categories that failed in this criteria. Mulholland says, "The activity required in bobsledding is equal to trying to catch a bus as it begins to pull away from the stop." Those quips are what keeps this book interesting and perhaps increase the reader's anger level if disagreement is involved.
No. 2: Athleticism must be involved. Another no-brainer, but Mulholland defines athleticism as "strength, endurance, agility, and speed. All sports must have athleticism as the primary ingredient to be considered a sport." One could play with aspects of that definition perhaps adding or tweaking some parts of it. But, yes, athletes are involved in sports. Race-walking is eliminated because it doesn't meet this criteria. Mulholland says, "The primary element in race-walking is an activity everybody does every day. It's as natural as breathing. It doesn't require athleticism." Race-walking met the other four criteria. I won't fight for race-walking since I can't remember our sports department ever covering it as a serious sports many cared about. P.S. Shuffleboard also got eliminated only because of this criteria. There went my dreams of the golden years of perhaps finally finding my area of competence where I could start my trophy collection.
No. 3: Competition. There must be an engaged contest with other participants. If there is nobody else around, it isn't a sport, according to Mulholland. Archery doesn't make the cut because there is no head-to-head engagement. As civilization developed the gladiator categories softened, I guess. Once again, I haven't covered any archery "competition" in my 37 years of sportswriting.
No. 4: There must be a winner. "If there is no winner, it's not a sport." Mulholland states if competition can end in a tie, then it is not a sports. That's why he eliminates field events but not track events. He states "the high jump and pole vault events are the only two events which have tiebreakers, so field events don't make the cut." I would fight for field events to be called a sport and conclude some faulty reasoning says otherwise. This is one place where the criteria as applied doesn't always work.
No. 5: Scoring method. "True scoring is completely objective. If scoring is determined subjectively by either a participant or an observer, that's an opinion, and thus open to interpretation." What about umpires and other officials? There is no subjectivity in any of those calls? Excuse me! Wrestling doesn't make the cut for that reason. If you're talking pro wrestling, I certainly would agree. I have covered that and always thought an advanced script determined the outcome. But I also have covered high school wrestling, including the state wrestling tournament at the University of Illinois, and I know there is an objective scoring procedure and it is a sport and meets all of Mulholland's criteria, so at best some differentiation between different levels of wrestling is only fair.
http://www.pjstar.com/sports/gensports/b3p9fj6t083.html
I am sure that this book is going to start a huge debate as to it's validity.
No 1: "There must be activity. Activity implies action or motion. If you aren't moving, you are not engaged in a sport." The explanation continues, but you get the point. It's hard to argue this, but it really says very little at the same time. Bobsledding, which Mulholland says is not a sport, is one of the few potential sport categories that failed in this criteria. Mulholland says, "The activity required in bobsledding is equal to trying to catch a bus as it begins to pull away from the stop." Those quips are what keeps this book interesting and perhaps increase the reader's anger level if disagreement is involved.
No. 2: Athleticism must be involved. Another no-brainer, but Mulholland defines athleticism as "strength, endurance, agility, and speed. All sports must have athleticism as the primary ingredient to be considered a sport." One could play with aspects of that definition perhaps adding or tweaking some parts of it. But, yes, athletes are involved in sports. Race-walking is eliminated because it doesn't meet this criteria. Mulholland says, "The primary element in race-walking is an activity everybody does every day. It's as natural as breathing. It doesn't require athleticism." Race-walking met the other four criteria. I won't fight for race-walking since I can't remember our sports department ever covering it as a serious sports many cared about. P.S. Shuffleboard also got eliminated only because of this criteria. There went my dreams of the golden years of perhaps finally finding my area of competence where I could start my trophy collection.
No. 3: Competition. There must be an engaged contest with other participants. If there is nobody else around, it isn't a sport, according to Mulholland. Archery doesn't make the cut because there is no head-to-head engagement. As civilization developed the gladiator categories softened, I guess. Once again, I haven't covered any archery "competition" in my 37 years of sportswriting.
No. 4: There must be a winner. "If there is no winner, it's not a sport." Mulholland states if competition can end in a tie, then it is not a sports. That's why he eliminates field events but not track events. He states "the high jump and pole vault events are the only two events which have tiebreakers, so field events don't make the cut." I would fight for field events to be called a sport and conclude some faulty reasoning says otherwise. This is one place where the criteria as applied doesn't always work.
No. 5: Scoring method. "True scoring is completely objective. If scoring is determined subjectively by either a participant or an observer, that's an opinion, and thus open to interpretation." What about umpires and other officials? There is no subjectivity in any of those calls? Excuse me! Wrestling doesn't make the cut for that reason. If you're talking pro wrestling, I certainly would agree. I have covered that and always thought an advanced script determined the outcome. But I also have covered high school wrestling, including the state wrestling tournament at the University of Illinois, and I know there is an objective scoring procedure and it is a sport and meets all of Mulholland's criteria, so at best some differentiation between different levels of wrestling is only fair.