OTIWTPTAOTA: Ice Dancing Not a Sport?
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/fivering_circus/2014/02/_2014_olym…
Sic 'em, MGoMafia.
(Note: OTIWTPTAOTA = Off-Topic, I Want To Punch The Author of This Article)
February 18th, 2014 at 6:26 PM ^
Certainly we see cases where the former ref commentator or the replay guy sees the same thing and calls it something else.
When the former ref commentator says "I disagree with that call" it doesn't have any bearing on the game. And replay has no place in this discussion because replay is never used to change what you are calling a subjective call. It is only used in the most absolutely objective cases. Did a guy step out of bounds, did a knee hit the ground, did the ball cross a line, etc. It corrects errors in objective decisions, so it has no place in your argument.
Opinion does not sway a ball/strike call or a safe/out call. Errors in perception do. That is the fundamental difference that you're not grasping. The strike zone is very, very clearly defined. Either the ball passes through it or it doesn't. It is black and white and by its nature, objective. The umpire does not offer his opinion on whether the ball passes through the strike zone; he tells you whether it did or not. He doesn't give his opinion on whether the tag was applied in time, he tells you whether it was or not. The fact that they are sometimes wrong does not make it subjective. It just makes them wrong. The fact that technology exists to electronically call balls and strikes is proof positive that there is no subjectivity there.
I do not have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how modern judged sports actually operate." You have a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument. I think you've invented a logical conclusion that fits your narrative. In fact I think it's you that is misunderstanding the word "subjective." Whether the ball passed through the strike zone, whether the defender got in place before the ballcarrier "rises up" for the shot, whether the tag was applied in time, whether the ball was loose before the runner hit the ground - these are facts, provable and verifiable, "belonging to the object of thought rather than the thinking subject," per the dictionary definition of objective. If the referee is incorrect, then he's incorrect, but he's not applying an opinion. Whether a double somersault is in fact a double somersault per the definition in the rulebook is objective as well; whether that double somersault is worth 9.2 points or 9.1 points is subjective - i.e., "belonging to the thinking subject rather than the object of thought."
February 18th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
I'm not sure I understand her premise. Why is ice dancing not a sport but figure skating is? The silly costumes? Because "twizzle" is a silly sounding word?
I honestly don't follow her arguments.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^
I think in the author's mind, that "jumping" with the risk of falling is the differentiating factor?
February 18th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
She's taking a Mitch Albom type "feeling" and making a column out of it.
Let's put the author on the ice and throw things at her. Now THAT'S a sport!
February 18th, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^
This is the kind of argument I stopped having in middle school.
The word "sport" has a definition that varies by just about everyone you ask. So why waste time arguing over something that means nothing?
February 18th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
Because the internet, that's why.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^
Eh, when I think of a sport I think of an event where you are directly competing against someone on the same playing field and are not just competing against a clock or judges. A lot of those events require a ton of athletisism but they just aren't sports in my mind. YMMV.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
I don't understand why everyone gets all in a fit over whether you want to label something as a sport or not. It means absolutely nothing.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
The ladies are in fantastic shape, really, top notch, so, SPORT(!)
February 18th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
This is a very important discussion!
February 18th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
Slate is the ultimate buzz kill of the internet. There was an article yesterday from one of their columnists over-analyzing "Cool Runnings" and basically calling people out for enjoying it. They are that friend you have that has to be contrarian and basically hate everything.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
It's funny, I like a couple of their podcasts; the Culture Gabfest is good for really pretentious cultural discussions and I used to Hang Up and Listen for an interesting take on sports stories, but their site is unreadable. It seems like every once in a while, I'll think "why don't I see what's going on over at Slate...oh right."
February 18th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
but is instead a waste of a nice afternoon fruitlessly trying to propel a tiny dimpled ball into an impossibly small hole from a ridiculous distance.
February 18th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
in any world where bowling and auto racing are considered "sports" there is really no point in having this argument.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^
Agree. I am an avid bowler and love the game. Ain't a sport
February 18th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^
Eh, why is baseball a sport but bowling isn't? Because you can drink beer and be fat while bowling? Clearly you've never seen a corporate softball league (or Babe Ruth). BTW I have no skin in the game here as I regularly watch neither.
Any line you draw for "athleticism" as definition of sport is going to be inherently arbitrary. Is football not a sport because they only go for 10 seconds at a time and sit on the bench half the game or more? Is soccer not a sport because they aren't allowed to hit each other? Is hockey not a sport because they use so much equipment? Are skiing and luge not sports because the athletes don't provide their own propulsion?
Most "is X a sport" arguments are essentially dick measuring contests between participants or fans of sport X vs. sport Y. Which is especially funny because I think one thing we can all agree on is that being a spectator is definitely not a sport - so why do fans get so hung up on whether what they sit in front of is a sport or not?
February 18th, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^
Good post, but I had to neg for one reason: The oft-used argument that "Babe Ruth played baseball and he was fat and drank and whateva."
The vast majority (like 95%+) of baseball players are in excellent physical shape in this day and age. I'd say the number of "overweight" baseball players is comprable to the number of "overweight" football players. I'm looking at you, Sebastian Janikowski.
Otherwise, I agree with your post :) I just really hate the Babe Ruth point as he played the game nearly a hundred years ago.
February 18th, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
I was thinking about a similar thing the other day. How many winter olympics sports are true, head to head competition without judges? I sort of get bobled and skeleton and luge b/c they are time-based and you cant have them all on the same track at the same time. Contrast this with the Summer Olympics. It's just an interesting mental-masturbation debate I was having with myself.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
Mental masturbation is NOT a sport.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
You're not doing it right then.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
Don't you mean I'm not NOT doing it right?
February 18th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
First off, if Davis and White didn't go to Michigan I would have zero interest in ice dancing. Their ties to Michigan make me pull for them, just as I pull for our solar car to do well.
Whether ice dancing's a sport or not depends (duh) on how you define "sport". Ice dancing seems difficult, and they seem athletic, so calling it a sport bothers me not a whit. But it sure doesn't smack of sport the same way, e.g., hockey does.
So why the hell did I reply? Because I saw a tweet today that noted that Meryl Davis looks like a Disney Princess. I thought that's ridiculous, and then I saw the photo below. Holy cripes!
February 18th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
Being a Disney princess proves it is a sport.
February 18th, 2014 at 11:24 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
Define "sport," go. This thread is basically one long boring argument about semantics. Do judges matter? If something is physically challenging and requires lots of hard work and dedication is it automatically a sport? These questions are pointless. Define "sport" however you want to, it has no impact on the people actually doing it.
As far as this article is concerned, I don't have too much of a problem with it. It seems to me that the authors is less trying to make a semantic point about what is and is not a sport, and rather point out that in the ever more exciting and X-Games-y Winter Olympics, ice dancing is seeming more and more out of place. And I have to say I broadly agree with that point.
Ice Dancing is challenging, physical, requires a lifetime of training, and is excruciatingly boring to watch. I realize that many people will disagree with me on that point, because it is a completely subjective personal opinion, which is exactly what this author was trying to convey. Her personal opinion of ice dancing is that it's boring and anachronistic, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
It's Slate. It exists to troll people exactly in this manner.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^
+1
Stop reading Slate and you'll be a happier person. Trolling, click-baiting headlines, regurgitated news that broke elsewhere. The worst is 'analysis' from journalists that have 5 minutes of experience (if that) on their subject material.
February 18th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^
At least ice dancing is over in 7 minutes. Nordic 50 km skiing takes forever.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
You can call ice dancing a sport if you want. Makes no difference to me. I even enjoy watching it . . . took a small nap in front of the TV last night. Beautiful
Having said that, I will always enjoy sports where there is a clear winner, and minimal involvement from referees.
- Football
- Basketball
- Hockey
- Baseball
- Soccer
There are many other sports which I generally don't watch, but which are competitions where typically, someone clearly "wins."
- Cricket
- Lacrosse
- Volleyball
- Table Tennis
- Tennis
- Golf
- Bowling
- Softball
There are fighting sports, again, typically with a "winner" who vanquishes their opponent:
- Boxing
- Wrestling
- Karate
- Boxing
- MMA
There are sports where the winner is based on various measurables:
- Skiing (racing, jumping)
- Bob Sled
- Luge
- Track (racing, jumping, pole vaulting, hurdling)
- Cross Country (marathon, etc.)
- Bicycle racing
- Swimming (racing)
- Triathlon
- Auto racing
- Horse Racing
- Boat Racing (motor, sail)
- Dog Racing
It is the sports based on "judging" that get harder. Yes, there are measurables (number of rotations, twists, flips, turns, etc.) But this just is less clear to me.
- Figure Skating
- Gymnastics
- Ice Dancing
- Cheerleading
- Rythmic Gymnastics
- Dancing
- Half Pipe Snowboard, Ski
- Dressage
- Show Jumping
- Synchronized swimming
- Diving
- Ballet
Look, I'll watch these last sports every four years. I enjoy them. But man, they just seem to me to be in a different category than the rest. Call them a sport. Acknowledge how very, very difficult they are. But this whole category is just clearly, much more subjective than the other sports. With the other sports, someone has scored more points, or gone faster, or higher, or deeper, or further, then anyone else. Synchronization of twizzles? Appropriateness of costume to the music? Choice of music? Facial expressions? Lifts? These things are just in a different category than other sports.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:50 PM ^
Did you put football on your list of sports with "minimal involvement of referees"? Football is the most overly-regulated, overly-scripted major sport there is, though I still love watching it (at least the college variety). The rules are far too complex (try explaining pass interference to someone from China; I have); and the referees are constantly involved at a very important and incredibly detailed level. And yes, as others have noted here multiple times, their judgement comes into play as well.
February 18th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^
Obviously, referees are highly involved in football.
Let's try another way to explain this. I could go out with 10 - 20 friends and play a game of football. We'd probably argue about a few things, but generally, we'd agree on who "won." Same thing with any of the other headline sports mentioned (hockey, basketball, baseball, soccer.) You go across the line with the football, you score. It goes through the uprights, you score. You touch homeplate without a ball being caught or getting there before you, you score. You shoot a basket and it goes through the net, you score. You fire off a puck and it goes into the net, you score.
Referees in these sports are very helpful. The teams playing agree to abide by the decisions made by the referees. However, despite the occasional game where a referee determines the outcome, they generally aren't critical to the outcome, and in a pinch, you could manage without them.
Maybe a different way to put it would be: without the referee or judge or judges, could you compete in these other sports? I think not. I'm commenting on sports where you can't compete without highly trained judges (i.e., ice dancing, skating, gymnastics, diving, etc.), and where the judges "decide" who wins the competition.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
I think part of the difficulty with judged sports is the inability for the layperson viewer to have a good grasp of who is winning and why.
Hockey, bobsledding, biathlon, curling - all have a pretty well-definable goal: go fast, score points, etc. Even if you can't understand the strategy or the physical skills involved, it's still accessible.
Now, judged sports do actually tend to have pretty well defined "scoring": do x, get y points, -z deductions for screwups. But the systems are really complex and inaccessible to the average viewer. This is especially tough for events like ice dancing, where the seeming intent of the sport is to do something aesthetically pleasing - so why does some bald old dude get to decide that skater A was better than skater B just because skater B's foot was an inch out of place? Dammit, I still thought B was prettier and did cooler spin things! RABBLE RABBLE NOT A SPORT!
On the actual topic, differentiating between figure skating and ice dance seems particularly dumb. Both are inherently artistic events requiring both athleticism and aesthetic (and to some degree subjective) grace. Both perform to music and have silly costumes (heck, even the announcers do, on the rare times they show Johnny Weir on camera). So one's a sport and one isn't because "salchow" is slightly less goofy sounding than "twizzle"?
February 18th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^
then golf certainly belongs in the discussion.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
Oregon football would like to talk to you.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
I found hilarious was that there was a new 'world record' in one of the figure skating events. Getting a world record in a 100% judged event seems totally illegitmate in my eyes.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^
So gymnastics (judged event), football with its judgment penalties, basketball with judgment penalties, etc., aren't sports huh?
You're belitting the world record set in a sport you don't understand at all. Yes, ice dancing combines sport and art, and so do other figure skating events, as well as other sports like gymnastics.
It's really an insult to two of Michigan's greatest athletes, period (and by that I mean the State of Michigan and the University of Michigan, where both Meryl and Charlie went to college).
February 18th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
February 18th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^
Jaggs actually has a point - the judging system and program for skating have changed numerous times (including quite recently) over the years, so "world record" doesn't have quite the same meaning as it does in "100m dash".
February 18th, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^
I was trying to have an honest discussion with myselves about this. I was leaning toward it being an athletic competition more than a sport (in my twisted mind there is a difference) and I landed on things with goals, a ball-type substances, or timed/measurable outcomes being a sport, and judged events being the former. But then, I got to thinking about my favorite sport; baseball and the role that a "judge" (the home plate ump) plays in the game...and now I am crossed up and don't know which way is up and which way is down. I guess I am trying to say that whenever athletes are athleting it's a sport. IMO.
February 18th, 2014 at 9:47 PM ^
I think you are misunderstanding me. The concept of different judges at different periods of time judging a sport that has changed so much over the years is what I find funny. Who's to saythe recent performance was any better than one done 30 years ago with different equipment, different standards for judging etc....
Basically, how can one hold a 'world record' in a subjective discipline? To me, it would be like putting a panel of judges and awarding a movie the 'best movie of all time'. Sure it's a great movie, and sure lots of people may agree, but how can you definitively say a statement like that?
Also, where do I say it is not a sport?
February 18th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^
Sport or No Sport:
- Broomball
- Quidditch
- Nok-Hockey/Air Hockey
- Fly Fishing
- Shuffleboard
- Foosball
- Cliff Diving
- Whack-A-Mole
- Double Dutch Jump Roping
- Competitive Eating
February 18th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^
as well as farnarkling.
February 18th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^
Hey, now: Broomball is serious business. I bet it's an Olympic sport before I die:
February 18th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^
I kind of understand what the author is saying, though I totally disagree with the attitude and arrogance she uses. Ice Dancing, as compared to singles and pairs skating, never had that wow element for me. It always seemed like "yeah, I could probably do that if I tried" (in the same way I think I could drive a bobsled down the track without killing myself, so no I can't really do that). It doesn't have the brute strength/skill element that the other figure skating disciplines have. In some ways it's like comparing curling to hockey: both take special skills and deceptive strength, but one just looks more difficult to do. That being said, I respect the hell out of all olympic athletes, they are truly the best of the best.
One thing that I think ice dancing has working against it: it's not obvious when someone fails. Unlike skating, gymnastics, the extreme snow sports, there are no spectacular falls. To the uneducated viewer, it basically all looks the same, so we can't appreciate how hard it is.
February 18th, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^
My wish is simple: a differntiation between competitions where the victor is not debatable at the end of the competition and those where there is some sort of 'judgement' involved. I don't deny that the athletes all perform at levels I could not, and when I say that I don't believe things such as figure skating should be sports, I mean no offense.
However, I include figure skating, Ice Dancing, any non-time only snow sports, etc to be competitions, rather than sports. Image if a touchdown's point value was determined by how tight the spiral on the pass was 'judged' to be.
Now if figure skating or the snowboaring half pipe competition were conducted in some fashion like weight lifting, I would have no objection. If you can do the 'triple super toe axel doopity do' and no one else can - then you win. However, I understand why this is no viable, as the next athlete who cannot perform that stunt might be able to do a 'reverse ninja inverted toe grab' .
/soapbox
February 18th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^
but to counter...and in the same light someone else already has...
Pass interference. Judgement call. Even if instant replay indicates that it really wasn't interference, it still is. So, maybe a TD is the result of the ball placed at the one yard line because of such a call.
And one small point, there is a bit of a time limit with most "judged" sports...you can't just sit there and wait to perform when you feel like it. You must complete the movement or whatever the case is within a prescribed period, or begin the action when they tell you. Time is still a factor to a degree.