Recently I had a fascinating conversation with my mother about what exactly constitutes a “sport”. I do not remember exactly how it started, but we got fully onto the topic after we began talking about the NNHS Esports and Chess Teams. I asserted that both of those activities, as well as other competitions like Fishing, were indeed, sports. I then expanded this definition to include other competitive environments like Debate, Model UN, Show Choir, and more. My mother, who was a nationally ranked hammer thrower during her career at Dartmouth College, vehemently disagreed, believing that sports require, to at least some degree, conventional physical activity. We never really settled on a concrete definition, so in an effort to convince as many people as possible of my case, and consequently (hopefully) my mother, outlined below is my argument. I will attempt to do this by performing a proof by contradiction, presenting common counterarguments and then refuting them. 
- “Activities like Debate and Chess cannot be considered sports because there is no exercise involved” – While this may seem like sound logic at first, consider that these competitions do involve exercise, but rather than of the body, the exercise is of the mind. The brain, while admittedly not a muscle, expends a great deal of the body’s energy much like other conventionally exercised parts do. The brain is also trained while participating in or preparing for these activities, exactly as muscles are. The similarities are truly too abundant to consider exercise of muscles and the brain two entirely separate concepts
- “People who partake in these activities are unathletic” – This claim is not only widely offensive and reductive, but it is also flatly wrong. Athleticism comes in many forms, beyond simply cardiovascular endurance or strength. Consider that Esports requires an incredibly high level of dexterity and hand eye coordination, two key components of athleticism. Even speech-based competitions requires an athletic mind, which is crucial to any sport, as outlined by the American Psychological Association (1), stating that “excelling in sports requires more than muscles and physical prowess”
- “Not enough people agree that these activities are sports, nor are there consistent televised events for any of them” – This is a fairly common argument, but it unfortunately falls victim to a common logical fallacy: popularity is not the same as validity. Many people can believe one thing, and it can still be wrong; look no further than the ages of scientific repression, where the majority of people believed in faulty concepts like the four humors or in the Earth-centric solar system. This is all to say that accuracy does not always necessitate agreement amongst everyone. This argument, therefore, supports nothing and is simply an observation. In other words, an activity can be a sport regardless of what individual people think; rather, its classification requires a more quantifiable or observable metric, like those outlined above
- “If something like Model UN is considered a sport, where is the line between a sport and a plain competition?”” The answer to this question, as is the trend for most things, remains up for debate. However, there remain some key factors which can help distinguish the two. In my opinion, a sport must contain two or more of the following elements: a team component, a training period, some amount of exercise (see point #1), a ranking/placing system, and is widely accessible or enjoyable. This is most certainly not a comprehensive list, but the jist is essentially that competitions are typically more individual and one-time focused.
Finally, what is and is not considered a sport is a relatively small part of our social dialogue, but what is important is respecting and validating the interests of everyone. Too often have I seen someone’s genuine passion derided or chastised because it is not a sport and is therefore not serious and worthwhile, myself included. And while I am not an expert by any means, it is my firm belief that expanding our definition of sports could go a long way in legitimizing and destigmatizing many people’s authentic pursuits. Everyone deserves to be passionate about something, and no one deserves to be ridiculed for their passion being unconventional or unique. And for those who still vehemently oppose this idea, I ask: what about sports is so sacred that we cannot be a bit more inclusive in our definition? What do we have to lose by creating a healthier dialogue around people’s interests? And ultimately, who are we to judge anyone else for the things they partake in?
Thanks for sharing Will! I have always found this topic interesting. Personally, I am a player on the chess team and contribute to our math team here at North as well. However, all three of my brothers are multisport athletes. This dynamic between us causes us to have conflicting views on this conflict; however, your logic and reasoning made it even clearer for what I think. I agree with your assessment that activities like chess, Model UN, and scholastic bowl should be considered sports because they have the same aspects of the “typical” sport. They all have competitors, teams, practices, and a goal of winning. Additionally, the exercise level of your sport fails to determine what constitutes a sport and what doesn’t. Furthermore, an ESPN study showed that chess players, no matter how little they move, are found to burn a calorie amount way above the daily average. Certain things like this make it unclear what truly is the line between a sport and a club. Nonetheless, these activities shouldn’t necessarily be excluded from being considered a sport because as you put it “The similarities are truly too abundant to consider exercise of muscles and the brain two entirely separate concepts”.
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27593253/why-grandmasters-magnus-carlsen-fabiano-caruana-lose-weight-playing-chess
Hey Will, interesting blog post! First of all, it’s really cool that your mother was a nationally-ranked hammer thrower. I’ve never heard of that, but it honestly seems pretty fun. I think a significant argument against your point is that the brain is not a muscle; but I see your counterargument that though the brain is not muscular tissue, it expends as much (if not more) energy and is physiologically similar in terms of training. Also, I definitely agree that if we consider activities like Model UN, Speech, etc., as sports, we need to figure out where to draw the line. Generally, I agree with your distinguishing factors, but I do think that a team component isn’t necessarily required; for example, with running, you don’t have to run with a team, but I’d still consider it a sport. Overall, though, I agree with your point that expanding our definition of sports could be incredibly helpful in validating people’s activities and passions that are not “conventional sports.” After all, what do we gain from being exclusive and judgemental about people’s interests?
This post brought up some interesting points of discussion; great job!
This is a long running debate that I have had in my life as well. You have some insightful commentary towards the topic. Thanks for sharing. I have enjoyed reading your blogs this semester.
It was very interesting to read your argument about what defines and qualifies a sport. Many of the competitive activities that you discussed in your post I have never considered or even thought about whether they may be sports, so it was very interesting to read your perspective on this topic. Additionally, I think that you did a great job qualifying your argument on the basis of several different counterarguments, and brought up some great points that address the core of what defines a sport and what the importance of this definition is. I personally think that activities such as chess or debate should not be considered sports because they rely on the brain and small motor skills rather than gross motor skills and muscular strength and endurance. While the brain functions similarly to the muscles, its ability to process information and neurological reactions makes it inherently distinct to train, meaning strength and knowledge in the brain does not translate to strength and coordination of the muscular system. Additionally, I think the use of large muscle groups and motor skills is one of the qualifiers of a sport, as moving the body in ways necessary for conventional sports requires strength and endurance not required for activities such as chess and ESports which require fine motor skills. Overall, it was very interesting to hear your perspective on how sports should be defined and what activities fall under this definition.