Skip to main content

Awesome night card, pt. 162


Moving through year 5 on this blog, I feel like I am constantly repeating myself. So if I've mentioned this before, feel free to move on to the next blog. You won't hurt my feelings.

I have this very loose rule about what makes an athletic activity a "sport." I know there is already a definition for "sport" that goes like this:

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

That's all well and good, but it's too vague for my needs. I oversee a section of a publication in which the word "Sports" is printed in big, red letters at the top of the page. And what you find on that page and the pages inside are indeed "sports." Nothing else.

But there is a limited amount of pages and space. And every day it seems like someone is inventing a new sport. Periodically we have certain folks affiliated with those more obscure sports demanding coverage. They believe they deserve coverage on par with football or basketball or, you know, stuff that people actually want to watch.

So I have this rule. I don't apply it to the publication, because I'd have to scrap certain known "sports" with allegedly big followings. I don't need those kinds of phone calls. But the rule is a quick-and-easy answer to the question I get a lot, which is "is this a sport?"

Here is the rule: "It's a sport if you are able to win the game/activity through your own merit." That means, you or your team must be the only ones who determine who wins the game. There is no judge. The player or players on the field control the outcome.

It's not a perfect rule by any means. But when I think of which sports that rule eliminates, I'm happy about it. I have a problem with sports in which judges decide who wins and loses. So by this definition, figure skating, gymnastics, diving and cheerleading are not sports. I'm OK with that.

People often say, "what about boxing?" Well, in boxing there is something called a "knockout." You don't want to win by a judge's decision? Knock the guy out. And for me, that's good enough to declare boxing a "sport."

I still like this definition, and it amuses my co-workers. But I know that it would not please everyone, and it's far from perfect.

I thought of all this when I was looking at the night card of Rafael Furcal from 2004 Upper Deck. It's a terrific image of one shortstop, Furcal, retiring another shortstop Rey Ordonez. Furcal is completely airborne. A good couple of feet off the ground. And then I thought ...

"What if 'getting airborne' makes it a sport?"

I started thinking of the moments when a player is airborne in respective sports.

Baseball: A play at second. An infielder diving for a line drive. An outfielder diving for a ball. A collision at the plate. A batter diving out of the way of an inside pitch.

Football: A wide receiver or defensive back leaping for a pass. A linebacker leaping for the quarterback. A defender trying to block a pass or a kick. A running back diving for more yardage.

Basketball: Easy one. Almost any attempted shot.

Hockey: Doesn't happen a ton. Bobby Orr's famous Sports Illustrated photo illustrates it though. And there are a lot of airborne moments on checks.

Soccer: Headers. Save attempts.

Lacrosse: Lots of diving attempts at the goal.

Tennis: Again, not a lot, but there are diving attempts at the net.

Wrestling: Surprisingly, it happens often. (And even more often in pro wrestling).

Skiing: You can't stay on the ground going over some of those hills.

Volleyball: The most awesome airborne sport I know.

Auto racing: Well, they try to avoid it, but if you're in a spectacular wreck, you might be airborne.

And I could go on and on.

I sort of like this definition, too, because it eliminates golf and pool and bowling. But it also eliminates swimming (obviously), rowing and running. And I'd have to include sports ruled out by the previous rule, like gymnastics and figure skating (in fact, just about all of them).

So, that's not perfect either.

Maybe some combination of the two.

Or maybe I'll keep looking.

At any rate, I think I definitely prefer sports in which you can get airborne. And you can win on your own merit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Card Binder candidate: Rafael Furcal, 2004 Upper Deck, #145
Does it make the binder?: Unfortunately, no. Mick the Quick is blocking it.

Comments

I like your definition. I also have issues with winners being determined by judges, like Mary Lou Retton winning because the Romanians couldn't match her smile.

One of my friends came up with my favorite definition of a sport. He defined what is not a sport by saving "it can't be a sport if you can gain weight during the duration of the activity". It was his way of ruling out things like golf, which I love, and bowling.
Jeff said…
'.... There is no judge."

Yes. Just, yes
Captain Canuck said…
while I like the premise of your rule, I find that it is not specific enough.
Perhaps if we take your rule ;
"It's a sport if you are able to win the game/activity through your own merit."
and on an ending to it.

"It's a sport if you are able to win the game/activity through your own merit, while the opposition does it's best to stop you."


Pitchers try to strike you out, baasketball players play defence and block shots, football games feature offence and defence, hockey players will try to remove your head, etc....

this will eliminate all "Leisure Activities" like golf, bowling, etc...
Ana Lu said…
In football (your soccer) when you have fouls you sure can see them all going airborne and diving.

What about table tenis? They move a lot in short amount of space. And they kind of dive sometimes.
Spankee said…
You left off an important part of the rule. Not only is the possibility of being airborne required, but you can't be sitting, either. That gets rid of auto racing, which is definitely not a sport.

One addition I'd like to make with an asterisk is horse racing. It's an animal sport. It's not a human sport, but the horses are most definitely athletes.

Popular posts from this blog

That was easy

   My approach on 2021 Topps, after seeing the cards, empty shelves and the tales of inflated prices, was that I could last the entire year without buying any.   The effort wasn't worth it. I'll just take my Dodgers and go home.   I went to Target once after the release date a couple weeks ago, I don't really remember what day I went, and saw empty shelves and shrugged.   So, move forward two weeks and it's birthday season. Those who have read this blog for awhile know I have a lot of birthdays in my family in March and it's the primary shopping time of the year, besides Christmas. I went to Target yesterday for a few items and I made sure to check the card aisle, just in case. I didn't expect to find anything, but I think you know me by now, I have to buy my first packs of the season if I have the opportunity. It's worth a look. The shelves seemed fairly empty as I approached. But they weren't. When I got there, I saw maybe six or seven 2021 Topps baseb

Reliving my childhood isn't easy

  My favorite part of collecting cards doesn't have to do with collecting current players, rookie cards or prospecting.   Although I pay attention to and buy modern cards and also seek out cards from before I was collecting or even before I was born, none of those cards are why I'm doing this.   The best part of collecting for me -- where the warm fuzzies reside, what I'd save for myself after chucking the rest of my collection -- is any card that was released when I was a child or young teen. I don't think I'm special in that way. A lot of collectors probably feel that way. But, unlike, say, the adult who grew up during the junk wax era, who can open pack after pack of 1990 Donruss and get that nostalgic rush without fear of packs ever disappearing, it's a little more difficult for me. I can go to a discount store a couple of miles away in town and grab some 1988 Donruss packs (I think I can still do that, who knows with the hobby weirdness lately). But there&#

G.O.A.T, the '80s: 20-11

  Big news at the night owl nest today. I subscribed to MLB.TV. Finally, I can watch any game I want this season. I no longer have to suffer with seeing the Mets play the Marlins for the 197th time or grit my teeth through Michael Kay because there's no baseball to watch anywhere else. I can ignore the Yankees for 162 games if I want! And that's what I plan to do. The Phillies-Orioles spring training game is on right now and then I'll search out something even more obscure later. I know, I know, I'm late to the party. That's the way it's been when it comes to entertainment viewing for most of my life. Taking years to land an MLB subscription was more of a cash-flow issue, but when I was younger, I'd miss out on the popular movies all the time because of a relatively sheltered existence. While high school classmates were quoting lines from Caddyshack and Stripes in the lunch room and on the school bus, I knew mostly Star Wars movies and E.T. HBO was the big t