D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
AFL requires more fitness than rugby in my opinion. It's a more athletic sport.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Greg Norman is a legend at choking, you are an Aussie?
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
What a pitiful venomous comeback. When did I say that golf doesn't require any skills? The hate is so strong here that it turned off your reading comprehension.
Here's the definition of "sport" taken from the Oxford dictionary:
"An ACTIVITY involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment"
Ergo, golf is NOT a sport. I can easily imagine 70 year olds winning major tournaments in golf. Now imagine Nastase coming back on tour and competing against the top 100, heck anyone with an ATP point even. I'm not saying 70-year olds winning in golf is a common phenomenon but it's definitely possible. Just looking at the top 10 official rankings in golf 5 out of 10 players are 35 or older, the no 2 in the world is exactly 39 years old and there's one player who's 45. For comparison it's like Agassi or Sampras being in the top 10 now. They'd get bludgeoned.
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
No, it's not. It lacks the physical part. Unless you think that swining a golf club once every 30 minutes is physical enough to call golf a sport.
Last edited:
AFL is only the name of one league, the sport is called Australian Rules Football.
As for fitness, Australian Rules requires a greater combination of aerobic and anaerobic fitness than any form of rugby, soccer/football or American football. Players run 12-20km (7-10 miles) per match (which doesn't happen in rugby or american football) depending on the position they play. On top of that they need to be heavy enough to withstand continual high impact (something soccer/football players don't need to worry about). It's a more demanding mix of athleticism.
K
King Fed WW
Guest
OP,here is the original thread, all 64 pages.
Darts is a sport, but I understand the debate. However to say golf is not a sport is just embarrassing. Regarding Phil Taylor and his physique, it is said he is the perfect height for darts while his weight helps his balance. Some have attributed his 2003 World Championship defeat due to being slimmer than normal, distorting his balance. All inflicted by a crash diet.
Yes, swinging a club is physical exertion. What else would it be, imaginary? Since when was sports all about power and endurance, skill has always been important. From what I have read, you are a Nadal hater and maybe a Federer fan. Quite bizarre you place such a precedent on pure physicality.
You can easily imagine a 70 yo winning a major? LOL, the oldest major was like 48. No way a guy is his 70s could win one. Yeah a guy in his 50s could and probably will. The fact players can still compete at an old age actaully just increases the strength and depth of the sport.
So I presume soccer isn't a sport, many older players beyond tennis age in that. While in Boxing Bernard Hopkins was world champion aged 49.
Darts is a sport, but I understand the debate. However to say golf is not a sport is just embarrassing. Regarding Phil Taylor and his physique, it is said he is the perfect height for darts while his weight helps his balance. Some have attributed his 2003 World Championship defeat due to being slimmer than normal, distorting his balance. All inflicted by a crash diet.
Yes, swinging a club is physical exertion. What else would it be, imaginary? Since when was sports all about power and endurance, skill has always been important. From what I have read, you are a Nadal hater and maybe a Federer fan. Quite bizarre you place such a precedent on pure physicality.
You can easily imagine a 70 yo winning a major? LOL, the oldest major was like 48. No way a guy is his 70s could win one. Yeah a guy in his 50s could and probably will. The fact players can still compete at an old age actaully just increases the strength and depth of the sport.
So I presume soccer isn't a sport, many older players beyond tennis age in that. While in Boxing Bernard Hopkins was world champion aged 49.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
So you've gone and tried it now, then?
How did you go?
Where's the jacket, come on, let's see it.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
It requires a different set of skills to tennis.
Is tennis more athletic? Absolutely. No contest.
But golf is very, very much a sport.
Try playing golf without very strong arms, shoulders, and back.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
is snooker a sport?
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
yes agree
snooker and darts = game
golf = sport
by the way Phil Taylor never liked his arrogance
was he able to do this ever? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGNZ3GqYrVY
van gerwen GOATing here
snooker and darts = game
golf = sport
by the way Phil Taylor never liked his arrogance
was he able to do this ever? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGNZ3GqYrVY
van gerwen GOATing here
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Damn, watch out or you'll get tired, lol. Going this route even slightly moving my index finger is physical exertion. I guess chess should be considered a sport on the same base because you move your arm from time to time.
Sport = physicality, period. Regarding Federer - yeah you think he's relying on talent alone? The guy works his *** off in training, he just makes it look easy (BECAUSE he trains so hard).
It IS technically possible for a 70 year old to win a major championship in golf. In tennis, at least since it became more and more about endurance, winning big tournaments past the age of 35 is very rare.
1) Soccer isn't an individual sport.
2) There are substitutes.
3) Older guys, that is 35 or older usually play on positions which don't require a lot of running unless they are physical freaks of course.
So don't play smart on me. I didn't start the debate because of age but the physical part of golf. Work on your reading comprehension.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
So you've gone and tried it now, then?
How did you go?
Where's the jacket, come on, let's see it.
Yeah you're right I'd be EXHAUSTED after swinging that golf club a couple of times in 1 day.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
So an average Joe could swing like a pro golfer?
Er, no.
So golfers don't train at all, then?
Woods will be interested to hear that, I am sure.
It IS technically possible for a 70 year old to win a major championship in tennis (and in this mug field I feel it may even happen).
Both are about equally likely mate.
You're beaten here mate.
Golf is a sport, so deal with it.
Or show me your jacket from Augusta, and then I will concede in full.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Golf is not a proper sport, but a game. There is no running or jumping and the ball even stands still. It does not involve physical exertion. In fact, pro chess is much, much more physically exerting.
The modern notions of competitive sports comes from the greek games. What the sports were/are about is really celebrating certain athletic virtues, much like the gods/heroes that exemplified the physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina).
Proper sports measure and celebrate athletic virtues, and require at least some serious physical movement (running, jumping etc).
There is no problem in liking games, but they shouldn't be compared alongside athletic sports. That's a category mistake.
The modern notions of competitive sports comes from the greek games. What the sports were/are about is really celebrating certain athletic virtues, much like the gods/heroes that exemplified the physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina).
Proper sports measure and celebrate athletic virtues, and require at least some serious physical movement (running, jumping etc).
There is no problem in liking games, but they shouldn't be compared alongside athletic sports. That's a category mistake.
K
King Fed WW
Guest
Re Chess, no it isn't a sport. Moving the piece requires no physical skill, someone else could move the piece for you.
I am aware Fed trains very hard, my issue is you seem to be focusing purely on the physical side of sport. But you also seem to lack understanding of the physical nature of golf.
I am aware Fed trains very hard, my issue is you seem to be focusing purely on the physical side of sport. But you also seem to lack understanding of the physical nature of golf.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Swinging it properly requires very good arms, back, and shoulders.
It's not enough to swing the club, you have to hit the ball properly.
Golfers have surgeries you know.
I don't know why I'm replying to this 6/10 trolling, though.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
But golf is athletic, swinging that club properly is darn hard and puts a lot of strain on your arms, shoulders, and back.
The ball stands still in shot put too, but that's definitely a sport.
Chess and snooker are good examples of games.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Don't make me laugh.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Okay, fine.
Try playing golf and not get a quadruple bogey without very strong arms, shoulders, and back.
You probably think golf is just putting, right?
Most people do.
In case it wasn't already extremely obvious, I actually get quite p!ssed at the disrespect shown to golf by many people.
In your case I will assume ignorance or lack of knowledge/interest in the sport, but some folks just bag it to no end.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Working an office-job puts a lot of strain on back, shoulders and wrists as well.
But, no. Golf requires some modicum of bodily capability, but so does a lot of stuff that isn't athletic sport. In no way is it "darn hard", not even close when compared to real sports. And only the drives requires some explosiveness anyways. Most of the time, one is slacking around trying to put a little ball into a whole. And yes, I've played the game. I like it, but it isn't an athletic sport and it isn't exerting.
It doesn't measure the virtues that sports are supposed to, plain and simple. It's a recreational game.
Again, pro chess is more physically exerting than golf.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Pro golf is a lot more physically demanding than having a hit on the weekend though.
Most golfers who do well on the PGA have a ripped upper torso and arms.
Also the mental aspect is off the charts.
I believe Pro Golf has more than enough physicality to be considered a sport, although obviously not all sports are equal.
I can believe the bit about chess.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Of course you require training to be good in any sport. But it still lacks the physical part. Unless you're telling me that pro golfers work out in the gym, lawl.
You think a statistical 70-year old tennis player is as likely to win a major as a statistical 70-year old golf player?
I'm done with you.
What does this have to do with anything? Man, you're getting owned in this discussion.
I'll throw you a bone, though. Golf is recognized as a sport just because it's very popular and played my millions of people. But it's not technically a sport. Look at this - chess is an OFFICIAL sport (Olympic Committee).
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Those 331 weeks must have hurt for you.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
My definition of a sport is requiring some degree of physical exertion in addition to skill. Darts doesn't meet the physical exertion part of it...golf requires a full body swing...and while it's more on the "skill" side of things, the fact that you would probably work up a sweat and playing it and that it requires full body movement in "open space" makes me think it's fair to be considered a sport.
It's definitely not as "athletically" based as many sports, even including tennis. But one still needs full body coordination and you are exerting yourself in some way especially when driving/hitting irons or woods. Of course, fat out of shape guys can still be great golfers so it is low on the athletic scale.
This is all somewhat subjective. I would probably consider darts a game and bowling as well, golf a sport but borderline.
I think the greatest sportsman of the 20th century was probably Jim Thorpe or Michael Jordan.
It's definitely not as "athletically" based as many sports, even including tennis. But one still needs full body coordination and you are exerting yourself in some way especially when driving/hitting irons or woods. Of course, fat out of shape guys can still be great golfers so it is low on the athletic scale.
This is all somewhat subjective. I would probably consider darts a game and bowling as well, golf a sport but borderline.
I think the greatest sportsman of the 20th century was probably Jim Thorpe or Michael Jordan.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Why do you have a problem with golf not being recognized as a sport by many people? It's not like we're saying that golf doesn't require any skill - it does, maybe even more than tennis as every milimeter matters when swinging a golf club. It just shouldn't be called a sport but a game instead.
There's some common misconception that "it's not a sport = doesn't require any skill". Completely false.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
It is physical.
You could not be a pro golfer without a serious upper torso, back, and arms.
You are kidding yourself if you think this is not the case.
I never said it was even close to being as physical as tennis, but it's a sport all the same.
As for the gym part:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/tiger-woods-working-out-2014-9
Neither are at all likely.
They are not happening.
I thought I made that obvious.
The Masters didn't turn out as you planned, did it?
Maybe you should work out your arms and shoulders more like Woods does.
But this discussion is a joke anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
There is sufficient physicality for it to be a sport.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/tiger-woods-working-out-2014-9
Tiger works out. Too much, apparently.
It's because folks keep saying golf requires no physicality.
That's quite disrespectful to golfers who put in a lot of hard work.
Last edited by a moderator:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
You're not gonna convince me.
People work out for everything these days to maximize their chances even if it's not neccessary (they don't wanna take any chances). Things have gotten so crazy I even read somewhere that Korean computer games pros have special diets.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
You're not gonna convince me.
People work out for everything these days to maximize their chances even if it's not neccessary (they don't wanna take any chances). Things have gotten so crazy I even read somewhere that Korean computer games pros have special diets.[/QUOTE]
lmao
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I feared as much. Agree to disagree it is.
I just feel golf always gets unfairly ****ged for requiring no physical effort, and being a golf fan/part-time golfer myself, it's not nice to hear, as I believe that it clearly does.
I'd believe that in a heartbeat.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
golf certainly requires physical exertion and full body coordination.
MatsPhilander
Legend
What about Sobers & IVA Richards?
MatsPhilander
Legend
Hard to say-it is more a game of tactics & mental strength than physical. Having said that the majority of players have kept themselves trim & I do believe weight has stopped some players from achieving more-Stephen Lee in recent times before his ban & Bill Werbeniuk in the distant past, as it seems to detract from them in the longer tournaments. Also now the tour schedule is hectic so a physical edge probably helps greatly.
vanioMan
Legend
Eh, wrong. Ali was incredible off the ring. And he did more than 99,9% of the sportsmen have ever done off the field, including Federer and Nadal.
I mean, he actually did something. He wasn't just a "PR guy".
He's top 3 for sure.
K
King Fed WW
Guest
Don't let Mustard hear that, sex offender Taylor would struck! Also what are your complaints with Ali? Association with a racist organization?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yes. Barney has 10 wins on TV against Taylor, compared to 31 losses on TV to Taylor. So Barney has had the most match wins against Taylor, on TV or overall, yet has mostly been dominated by Taylor.
I know these forums tend to love head-to-heads, so here's another:
This is the Taylor vs. Barneveld TV head-to-head:
Taylor wins in red
Barney wins in blue
Draws in black
1999 Champion vs. Champion (legs): Phil Taylor 21-10 Raymond van Barneveld (1-0 Taylor)
2005 Masters of Darts RR (sets): Phil Taylor 4-0 Raymond van Barneveld (2-0 Taylor)
2005 Masters of Darts SF (sets): Phil Taylor 5-2 Raymond van Barneveld (3-0 Taylor)
2006 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 7-7 Raymond van Barneveld (3-0 Taylor, 1 draw)
2006 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-6 Raymond van Barneveld (4-0 Taylor, 1 draw)
2006 UK Open QF (legs): Raymond van Barneveld 11-10 Phil Taylor (4-1 Taylor, 1 draw)
2006 Las Vegas Desert Classic SF (sets): Raymond van Barneveld 4-3 Phil Taylor (4-2 Taylor, 1 draw)
2006 World Grand Prix R16 (sets): Phil Taylor 3-1 Raymond van Barneveld (5-2 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 World Championship F (sets): Raymond van Barneveld 7-6 Phil Taylor (5-3 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 Masters of Darts RR (sets): Raymond van Barneveld 3-0 Phil Taylor (5-4 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-6 Raymond van Barneveld (6-4 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-5 Raymond van Barneveld (7-4 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 International Darts League R16G (legs): Phil Taylor 7-4 Raymond van Barneveld (8-4 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 World Darts Challenge RR (legs): Raymond van Barneveld 4-1 Phil Taylor (8-5 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 US Open F (sets): Phil Taylor 4-1 Raymond van Barneveld (9-5 Taylor, 1 draw)
2007 UK Open QF (legs): Raymond van Barneveld 11-4 Phil Taylor (9-6 Taylor, 1 draw)
2008 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-3 Raymond van Barneveld (10-6 Taylor, 1 draw)
2008 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-2 Raymond van Barneveld (11-6 Taylor, 1 draw)
2008 UK Open QF (legs): Raymond van Barneveld 10-9 Phil Taylor (11-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2008 World Grand Prix F (sets): Phil Taylor 6-2 Raymond van Barneveld (12-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2009 World Championship F (sets): Phil Taylor 7-1 Raymond van Barneveld (13-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2009 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-4 Raymond van Barneveld (14-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2009 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-2 Raymond van Barneveld (15-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2009 Las Vegas Desert Classic F (legs): Phil Taylor 13-11 Raymond van Barneveld (16-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2009 World Grand Prix F (sets): Phil Taylor 6-3 Raymond van Barneveld (17-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2009 Grand Slam of Darts SF (legs): Phil Taylor 16-6 Raymond van Barneveld (18-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2010 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-2 Raymond van Barneveld (19-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2010 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-2 Raymond van Barneveld (20-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2010 World Matchplay F (legs): Phil Taylor 18-12 Raymond van Barneveld (21-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2011 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-3 Raymond van Barneveld (22-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2011 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-3 Raymond van Barneveld (23-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2011 Premier League 3rd place (legs): Phil Taylor 8-6 Raymond van Barneveld (24-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2012 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-4 Raymond van Barneveld (25-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2012 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 8-3 Raymond van Barneveld (26-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2013 World Championship SF (sets): Phil Taylor 6-4 Raymond van Barneveld (27-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2013 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 7-3 Raymond van Barneveld (28-7 Taylor, 1 draw)
2013 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 6-6 Raymond van Barneveld (28-7 Taylor, 2 draws)
2013 Premier League SF (legs): Phil Taylor 8-4 Raymond van Barneveld (29-7 Taylor, 2 draws)
2013 Players Championship QF (legs): Phil Taylor 9-2 Raymond van Barneveld (30-7 Taylor, 2 draws)
2014 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 6-6 Raymond van Barneveld (30-7 Taylor, 3 draws)
2014 Premier League RR (legs): Phil Taylor 6-6 Raymond van Barneveld (30-7 Taylor, 4 draws)
2014 Premier League SF (legs): Raymond van Barneveld 8-5 Phil Taylor (30-8 Taylor, 4 draws)
2015 World Championship SF (sets): Phil Taylor 6-2 Raymond van Barneveld (31-8 Taylor, 4 draws)
2015 Premier League RR (legs): Raymond van Barneveld 7-4 Phil Taylor (31-9 Taylor, 4 draws)
2015 Premier League RR (legs): Raymond van Barneveld 7-2 Phil Taylor (31-10 Taylor, 4 draws)
They are both sports. I never wanted this thread to go in the direction of a debate about what's a sport and what isn't. My point is to emphasise how dominant Taylor has been as a champion and as a winner. It's about the winning mentality and the winning ability.
All-time great players like Bristow, Lowe, Anderson and Barneveld are very different in height and physique to Taylor.
There is something in that, but I wouldn't overstate it. Part was in the form of his life and ready to beat Taylor at that time, while Taylor looked vulnerable during the 2003 World Championship, despite winning all the TV events he had played in during 2002.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
In Formula 1, I would go for Ayrton Senna or Jim Clark. Their speed in the car was just out of this world.
In boxing, I think Roberto Duran is up there, especially before the "No Mas" incident. While Duran still had a few vintage performances and wins afterwards, he never had the same intimidation factor after "No Mas" where he seemed indestructible (72-1 record, with the only loss twice avenged by KO).
In boxing, I think Roberto Duran is up there, especially before the "No Mas" incident. While Duran still had a few vintage performances and wins afterwards, he never had the same intimidation factor after "No Mas" where he seemed indestructible (72-1 record, with the only loss twice avenged by KO).
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
I can only assume you are still 15 or 16 by how blatantly you disrespect other sports. The level of your prejudice is really shining through here. To call people who practice the sweet science, "thugs" just shows your own level of appreciation for sport, and how narrow-minded your own view is. Not sure whether I'm supposed to be taking you seriously at all with a comment like that. You are pretty much THAT guy at the tennis club who turns his nose up to any sport you can't play with a polo shirt and an Omega watch. That's really a horrible and elitist outlook on sport. No surprise you are a fan of golf and tennis.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Playing 18 holes is tiring, you clearly don't play/know what you are you talking about. As if that's a prerequisite anyway. Baseball doesn't exhaust you, neither does necessarily a tennis match.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
I don't have a problem with Norman, he was just an epic choker.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Golf can be played recreationally, so can tennis, hockey, basketball, etc. However, that is a far cry from pro golf. I would not argue that golfers are elite athletes. I would also not argue that tennis players are, so who really cares? Running and jumping doesn't make something a sport.
Some of the suggestions here are laughable to say the least. Ice hockey? Baseball? Darts? American Football? Golf? Basketball? Get a grip, please
The only truly global sport is football (real football btw, not that awful circus some call a sport). Do you realize that over a billion people around the world play football, yes over a billion, most just for fun, but they play it anyway. That means when you compare the competition to rose to the very top of world football players like Pele, Di Steffano, Maradona, Cruyff, Messi, Ronaldo, etc faced with the competion that for instance Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan faced, there is no comparison at all. Probably more people play football around the world than all of the other sports combined.
Pele is the greatest, 3 time world champion. But the best is Maradona, that guy was from another galaxy
The only truly global sport is football (real football btw, not that awful circus some call a sport). Do you realize that over a billion people around the world play football, yes over a billion, most just for fun, but they play it anyway. That means when you compare the competition to rose to the very top of world football players like Pele, Di Steffano, Maradona, Cruyff, Messi, Ronaldo, etc faced with the competion that for instance Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan faced, there is no comparison at all. Probably more people play football around the world than all of the other sports combined.
Pele is the greatest, 3 time world champion. But the best is Maradona, that guy was from another galaxy
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Here we go, another sports elitist who fancies his favourite sport and all those who play it, above everyone else.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I can't say I'm a fan of folks beating up other folks.
Outside of the ring, that's a criminal offence, and a serious one at that.
Are they talented? Extremely.
Are they highly skilled and trained athletes? Absolutely.
But at the end of the day they are literally beating each other up.
Not to mention most of them are complete a**holes outside the ring anyway.
Many are convicted criminals (usually assault, surprise surprise), and they're basically making a career out of putting others in hospital.
I absolutely in no way respect that, and I make no apologies for calling them what they are.
Rugby, AFL, fine, the injuries are only a by-product, even if it's still horrible.
But in boxing, the goal is literally to knock out your opponent.
It is literally to assault your opponent.
I don't even understand how it's legal.
Sweet science? Please.
That Fraud Mayweather guy has to be one of the biggest buffoons I've ever seen.
Maybe he's just had his brain cells destroyed by fighting, but the guy is a criminal, a complete a**hole, and yet he is still paraded around as "great".
Would you let that complete loser of a person near your family or children?
Didn't think so.
Federer on the other hand, is a kind, gentle person, and one of the most respected people in the world, and a gentleman.
A far cry from a criminal thug.
Last edited by a moderator:
