December 19, 2003
Where would you draw the line between a sport and a pastime? This is a question I have been playing with for a little while and my working theory is as follows: 1) A pastime is like a sport, but has no 'free' physical contact. For example, in baseball, you can't touch another player unless you have the ball in your glove. The ball grants special powers to its beholder. Conversely, in football and basketball you are allowed to be physical without special permission as a block. 2) No free clock. Baseball and Cricket are games with theoretically infinite play length (please correct me if I am wrong about Cricket, all i know comes from Lagaan). Football, hockey and rugby are subject to a menacing clock, counting down the seconds until victory. 2.1) Some games are not infinite, such as bowling and golf. Are these a subset of pastimes or is pastime a general enough concept to allow for such variety? And that is all I can think of right now. What do you monkeys think about this? What sports/pastimes am I missing? How would you further clarify the border between the two? Many thanks.
-
For me, a "pastime" is something I do to pass the time pleasurably, while a sport is something one watches on tv, or one of the pastimes that one participates in which involves physical challenges, some degree of competition, and, usually, balls. My pastimes include cooking, reading, shopping, swimming (not competitively), surfing the 'net, and reading Monkeyfilter.
-
Sport: 2. pastime, game; outdoor pastime, e.g. hunting, fishing, racing, cricket, football; these collectively. Pastime: recreation; game, sport. (Oxford.) Hope this helps!
-
Cricket is finite, FYI. The two international forms are one-day (self-explanatory ;) and test (5 day, unless a result happens earlier)......
-
I think a sport has what I'd call 'direct competition' - at least two opposing sides are carrying out the activity within the same playing time (be it limited time or potentially infinite), and each competing entity can, through their actions, make the opposition less likely to win. So, while you can have, say, dancing or fishing or snowboarding or cooking or writing competitions, each competitor can't directly affect the chances the opposition have of winning (other than by being good). And not all of them need necessarily be undertaken at the same time. It's late and I'm tired and I have a deadline at 10 this morning, so my mind doesn't work - but is this in some way analogous to the idea of 'zero sum' and 'non-zero sum' games? Is there a game theorist in the house? Oh, and where does my definition leave golf? (Indeed, does anybody care where golf is left?)
-
I can't be bothered defining them, but I would consider sports as a pastime.
-
test (5 day, unless a result happens earlier) Or enough people pray to the rain gods.
-
Here's the acid test, you can play defence in a sport. Baseball and cricket are definately sports.
-
Along the lines of what path said, I tend to think of pasttimes as less competitive. If you lose at chess with your little brother - tch, oh well. But to call it a sport - well, something's at stake. It could be a national championship, or a $10 bet among your golf buddies. Either way, you're competitive and seeking victory.
-
How about ballroom dancing? I believe it's going to be a "sport" at the next Olympics.
-
Tennis is another activity that doesn't have a time limit, but I certainly consider it to be a sport. I guess I think of sports as being 'physical activity + competition' and pasttimes as more like hobbies. Some activities can be both, depending on the context. Biking is a sport but you could go for a bike ride and consider that activity to be a pasttime.
-
Or enough people pray to the rain gods. Hey, don't control my pleasure!
-
Followup question: is controlling Wolof's pleasure recreation, a pasttime, or a full-on sport? sorry Wolof, but enquiring minds want to know