[Trinidad]

Antrax, on 2014-February-23, 04:36, said:

You do realize TDs also make what would appear to an outsider to be deciding an outcome based on some unquantifiable merit, right?

That is entirely different. A TD is a referee. All sports at the olympics have referees: to get the contestants started, to time their races, to measure distances, to keep score or to see to it that the rules are followed. The fact that referees are only human is unfortunate but inevitable.

We were dealing with judges. Bridge doesn't have judges, but -to make that clear to you- let's imagine that bridge would have judges and develop a sport, based on bridge with the following characteristics:

50% of your score from the MPs you won, 25% based on the technique that you used to make your contract (a squeeze scores higher than a throw-in, which is obviously better than a finesse. Bonus points are awarded for scoring the beer card) and 25% for your presentation at the table: What you wear, how you sorted your cards, how neatly you fan the cards, how you arranged the tricks won and lost and whether your demeanor presentation at the table matches well with that of your partner.

This is pretty much how e.g. ski jumping works.

We could go a little further and not count those MPs at all. Then we are at synchronized swimming, gymnastics, and figure skating.

Rik

[helene_t]

curling is my favourite spectator sport

[sailoranch]

Boxing (and several other combat "contests") are clearly not sports.

Also, it's not like we've never seen a football (soccer) match determined by a referee's penalty decision. Or a basketball game determined by a foul decision, or a baseball game determined by an umpire's inconsistent strike zone, or an NFL game decided by pass interference, etc. These are all, at least in practice, subjective judgments that have a huge influence on the outcome.

I'm also wary of laying down criteria that give figure skating and gymnastics a lesser claim to being sports than competitive eating and beer pong.

And if the issue is the legitimacy of determining winners and losers based on subjective scoring, why shouldn't we declare things like debating, chili cook-offs, Iron Chef, and the World Livestock Auctioneering Championship not to be valid as contests at all?

If the issue is the prospect of corruption, that seems to be a common problem with governance or sports subculture that isn't limited to subjectively scored sports. (case study: Tour de France)

[1eyedjack]

The question in point does have some financial significance to Bridge, at least here in the UK (and, I suppose, elsewhere in Europe that is under the thumb of Brussels).

H M Revenue and Customs in their lordly wisdom published a list of what, in their view, comprised a "sport". The point is of relevance because it affects an entity's obligation to register for VAT and the manner in which it computes and accounts for said VAT on its income and recover VAT incurred on its expenses. Entities engaged in sporting activities have some privileges in this regard.

There are some borderline cases and some perhaps surprising decisions in those borderline case. For example, darts is a sport, as is the flying of model aeroplanes. Bridge is not, or at least has not been until recently, but there may have been some changes since a tribunal case a year or so ago. Bit out of touch in that field.

To you, I, and the man on the Clapham Omnibus, the common feature which we regard as defining sport is the competitive element. But HMRC have always drawn the line that it requires some physical effort. Thus, projecting a dart from an oche with sufficient force that it should arrive at a dartboard counts as "physical". Presumably, when flying a model aeroplane, you have to take some effort to move that joystick with your thumbs, although personally I think that it is stretching a point. Maybe it is the fresh air that tips it.

Gambling falls within entirely separate rules, which complicates matters somewhat with the Bridge fraternity, what with Bridge having the capacity for a gambling element as well as a tournament element.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2014-February-22, 19:15, said:

To me, both curling and "laying down on a board and sliding down a ramp" are more sports than figure skating is. No event in which the winner is determined by a panel of judges who declare "who did best" should be allowed, especially if "artistic impression" counts for points. Yes, that means no figure skating, trick-based skiing or snowboarding, diving, gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming, etc. Any contest in which you see who goes faster or farther or wins a game based on clearly-defined rules is better.

So what would you call them? While you may not like the way that winners are determined, can you honestly say that they require less expertise and athletic ability than games with mostly objective scoring criteria?

My dictionary says that a sport is:

Quote

an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

All the things you said don't count fit that definition.

[gwnn]

To me, it's an open question why boxing and figure skating are among the most controversial sports when it comes to corrupt judges. I've never heard of ski jumping judges being accused of being bought, nor in gymnastics. For boxing, I can see how there's a lot of money at stake (so it makes sense to try to bribe the judges) and it's a very popular sport amidst less sophisticated people (so the explanation of corruption makes more sense to fans), but I'm not sure any of this applies to figure skating. I haven't seen the women's final this year but more than 2 million people (!) seem to think Kim Yuna was robbed: http://www.change.or...-sochi-olympics

[Bbradley62]

gwnn, on 2014-February-23, 16:55, said:

... I'm not sure any of this applies to figure skating...

It's not like we haven't seen this before:
http://en.wikipedia....skating_scandal

However, it does appear to me that the vast majority of those who are objecting to the recent results are primarily objecting to the current scoring system, which favors jumps over "artistry".

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on 2014-February-23, 16:55, said:

I haven't seen the women's final this year but more than 2 million people (!) seem to think Kim Yuna was robbed

I saw it, and as much as I wanted Kim Yuna to win, I could not deny that the Russian's routine was flawless.

[Cthulhu D]

Isn't curling just lawn bowls for people who don't have the sense to move somewhere warm?

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2014-February-23, 16:28, said:

So what would you call them? While you may not like the way that winners are determined, can you honestly say that they require less expertise and athletic ability than games with mostly objective scoring criteria?

Many activities, including ballroom dancing, ballet, etc. require expertise and athletic ability, but I wouldn't want to see them in the Olympics either.

According to Webster's New World Dictionary (1982 edition, so not really new any more), the first definition of "sport" is: "any activity or experience that gives enjoyment or recreation". All sorts of stuff that doesn't belong in the Olympics fits that definition.

[sailoranch]

gwnn, on 2014-February-23, 16:55, said:

To me, it's an open question why boxing and figure skating are among the most controversial sports when it comes to corrupt judges. I've never heard of ski jumping judges being accused of being bought, nor in gymnastics. For boxing, I can see how there's a lot of money at stake (so it makes sense to try to bribe the judges) and it's a very popular sport amidst less sophisticated people (so the explanation of corruption makes more sense to fans), but I'm not sure any of this applies to figure skating. I haven't seen the women's final this year but more than 2 million people (!) seem to think Kim Yuna was robbed: http://www.change.or...-sochi-olympics

Boxing is easy. There's a lot of money at stake, the oversight is extremely lax (and splintered), and the shadiness doesn't seem to drive away spectators.

In figure skating, a lot has to do with the old scoring system, which was preferential (read: matchpoints). So a judge could easily manipulate the standings without giving ridiculous scores. In the case of the 2002 pairs event, the balance of the nationalities of the judges created a situation where a single judge could expect to be a swing vote, and thus easily bought (in this case, by organized crime figures).

This was relatively recent and it was the Olympics, so figure skating hasn't managed to shed the stink. They changed the system so that the judges have to grade several different elements, so the scoring is a bit more predictable and scores that are out of line with the other judges will get trimmed. On the other hand, they made the judging anonymous in order to protect the judges from pressure from their own countries' federations (or mob bosses), but the lack of transparency doesn't help their case with the general public.

[Cyberyeti]

sailoranch, on 2014-February-23, 18:02, said:

Boxing is easy. There's a lot of money at stake, the oversight is extremely lax (and splintered), and the shadiness doesn't seem to drive away spectators.

Actually a lot of the worst decisions are in amateur boxing. There was a scandal where 3 of the 5 (I think it was 3 of 5, but something like that) judges had to register a tap for a punch to score, and judges from the former Soviet union of which there were many, were refusing to score punches for other non former Soviet countries' fighters opponents and scoring some phantom punches in their favour.

[sailoranch]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-23, 19:04, said:

Actually a lot of the worst decisions are in amateur boxing. There was a scandal where 3 of the 5 (I think it was 3 of 5, but something like that) judges had to register a tap for a punch to score, and judges from the former Soviet union of which there were many, were refusing to score punches for other non former Soviet countries' fighters opponents and scoring some phantom punches in their favour.

Certainly true, but I think it's somewhat of a knock-on effect that's developed alongside the professional ranks. Promoters try to whip up the best amateur talent, and Olympic/amateur success helps to sell fighters early in their professional careers. Also, judges often judge both amateur and pro (or have judged the other in the past).

[sailoranch]

As an aside, AIBA is using its status as gatekeeper of Olympic eligibility to expand into professional boxing. They are reverting to the ten-point-must system and dropping headgear for the top amateur men.

[32519]

1eyedjack, on 2014-February-23, 13:34, said:

To you, I, and the man on the Clapham Omnibus, the common feature which we regard as defining sport is the competitive element. But HMRC have always drawn the line that it requires some physical effort. Thus, projecting a dart from an oche with sufficient force that it should arrive at a dartboard counts as "physical". Presumably, when flying a model aeroplane, you have to take some effort to move that joystick with your thumbs, although personally I think that it is stretching a point. Maybe it is the fresh air that tips it.

Bridge also has "some physical effort." Every time I sit East/West in a Mitchell movement, it takes "some physical effort" to get to the next table.

[gwnn]

Bbradley62, on 2014-February-23, 17:22, said:

It's not like we haven't seen this before:
http://en.wikipedia....skating_scandal

However, it does appear to me that the vast majority of those who are objecting to the recent results are primarily objecting to the current scoring system, which favors jumps over "artistry".

My point was exactly that it is very common in figure skating and not to my knowledge in gymnastics or ski jumping, even though at least gymnastics are similarly popular (well, I come from Romania so maybe I'm wrong about that).

[billw55]

I think the problem is a shortcoming of the English language. We don't have separate, single words for "measured sport" and "judged sport". We might even need a third for "some of both".

Sure, Curling looks strange to people who are rarely exposed to it. But honestly, I don't think it is inherently any stranger than plenty of other well known and acknowledged sports. Using 14 different weird-shaped sticks to whack a little ball hundreds of yards, then chase it and do it again, 18 times over? WTF?

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2014-February-24, 08:06, said:

I think the problem is a shortcoming of the English language. We don't have separate, single words for "measured sport" and "judged sport". We might even need a third for "some of both".

Sure, Curling looks strange to people who are rarely exposed to it. But honestly, I don't think it is inherently any stranger than plenty of other well known and acknowledged sports. Using 14 different weird-shaped sticks to whack a little ball hundreds of yards, then chase it and do it again, 18 times over? WTF?

Actually, I've watched and enjoyed several curling matches but I've never been tempted to watch televised golf except as a means to fall asleep.

[Cyberyeti]

gwnn, on 2014-February-24, 08:12, said:

Actually, I've watched and enjoyed several curling matches but I've never been tempted to watch televised golf except as a means to fall asleep.

Funnily enough, I watched some of the most exciting golf I've ever seen last night.

[barmar]

32519, on 2014-February-23, 21:40, said:

Bridge also has "some physical effort." Every time I sit East/West in a Mitchell movement, it takes "some physical effort" to get to the next table.

"physical effort" seems like much too low a bar. I used the phrase "athletic ability" -- getting up and down from chairs 12 times in 3 hours is hardly athletic.

Also, if you have trouble getting to the next table, you can request a N/S. And if you have trouble holding the cards, you can use a tray or card-holder. So bridge doesn't require physical effort.