Winter Olympics as a game of chance

Originally posted by newmastersswimmer Besides Luck being involved, and whether or not judging is involved, there must be other important criteria associated to being a real sport as well......For example, Chess is a game that is based on pure strategy and skill for the most part....so there is no judging involved (like in figure skating).....To win you must checkmate your opponent or have your opponent resign.....There is also very little luck involved in chess.....Unless your unlucky enough to accidently place a piece on the wrong square and let your hand off before you realize your mistake, your choices in chess are quite deliberate.....Many consider chess to be a real sport for these and other similar reasons.....but I would argue that it is not a real sport because of the lack of physical activity involved......but what about other sports that are lighter in the physical activity department.....like professional bass fishing for example.....curling and golf both require physical coordination and skill....hence they have higher degrees of physical activity IMHO than bass fishing (and billiards also requires physical coordination and physical skill as well...not to mention bowling)....and certainly all of these examples I've mentioned of accepted sports require more of the physical element than chess does.....what about automobile racing?.....where do we define what constitutes enough of the physical element in order to be considered a real sport?....whether that be physical skills based more on coordination and balance....or more based on strength and stamina?...What other criteria (besides the ones already mentioned) should we also require for a real sport as well? Newmastersswimmer All very valid questions and points. I for one think a sport should be called one when you have to exert some physical stamina (golf and auto racing can require a lot of physical strength), as well as there being a distinct winner and loser as evidenced by winning or losing on the field (or whatever location) of play. Not some judge who based on the participants past performances, the judges past experiences, or some sort of bribery (insert boxing decisions here) determines the result. Boxing is the one sport where it can be a toss up. Very clearly someone can win or lose, but there have been countless times where the fix is in based on some back room payoffs, etc.

Originally posted by newmastersswimmer Besides Luck being involved, and whether or not judging is involved, there must be other important criteria associated to being a real sport as well......For example, Chess is a game that is based on pure strategy and skill for the most part....so there is no judging involved (like in figure skating).....To win you must checkmate your opponent or have your opponent resign.....There is also very little luck involved in chess.....Unless your unlucky enough to accidently place a piece on the wrong square and let your hand off before you realize your mistake, your choices in chess are quite deliberate.....Many consider chess to be a real sport for these and other similar reasons.....but I would argue that it is not a real sport because of the lack of physical activity involved......but what about other sports that are lighter in the physical activity department.....like professional bass fishing for example.....curling and golf both require physical coordination and skill....hence they have higher degrees of physical activity IMHO than bass fishing (and billiards also requires physical coordination and physical skill as well...not to mention bowling)....and certainly all of these examples I've mentioned of accepted sports require more of the physical element than chess does.....what about automobile racing?.....where do we define what constitutes enough of the physical element in order to be considered a real sport?....whether that be physical skills based more on coordination and balance....or more based on strength and stamina?...What other criteria (besides the ones already mentioned) should we also require for a real sport as well? Newmastersswimmer All very valid questions and points. I for one think a sport should be called one when you have to exert some physical stamina (golf and auto racing can require a lot of physical strength), as well as there being a distinct winner and loser as evidenced by winning or losing on the field (or whatever location) of play. Not some judge who based on the participants past performances, the judges past experiences, or some sort of bribery (insert boxing decisions here) determines the result. Boxing is the one sport where it can be a toss up. Very clearly someone can win or lose, but there have been countless times where the fix is in based on some back room payoffs, etc.