Athletic achivement is a funny thing. I think most athletes that are heavily involved in a sport consider their sport to be "better" than other sports. But is there such a thing as a "better" sport? Which is more prestigeous, a stanley cup or a world cup trophy or an olympic gold? Is a summer olympic gold worth more than a winter olympic one? Is an olympic gold earned in a quasi-event (curling, trampolining etc) worth as much as the 100m title? Can you compare sports?
It would seem that making Team Canada in hockey is a considerably greater achivement than making Team Canada in cricket. Does that make hockey better? What about in other countries, where anyone who has played canadian junior could walk on to the national ice hockey team but making the cricket team is considerably harder? Who is the greatest athlete of all time? Tough questions.
Historically, the things people have used to differentiate one sport from another have been widely varied. However, they do provide a starting point. One of the biggest determinates is the level of competition. Usually this is based on the number of people in a population who play the sport. Soccer is often cited as the world's greatest sport for this reason. More participation makes for more natural skill through sheer chance, it also brings more money, better coaches and more prestige for the winners. Sports traditionally considered as "worse" sports lack these things. Trampolining is a prime example.
The second major determinant of good sports often comes from the level of "athletic" prowess required to excel. The defining feature of a sport as opposed to a game or a contest is that it requires physical exertion. I dont think anyone would deny that running the 800m is considerably more physically taxing than a game of curling. Does this make track a better sport?
Another determinant of good sport is the method of evaluation. In my view there are essentially five categories here. In sport, the object is to beat others. The order of placing is determined in several ways. The first way is primarily through luck. This is often the case is card games, which is why they are not usually considered sports. The second way is by measuring the precision of something. This is the prevailing order in golf, archery etc. The third category is sports where the outcome is decided by judges, such as in diving, figure skating and gymnastics. The fourth, and most prevalent category, are sports where completing a certain action, such as putting a ball in a net, accumulates points. Finally there is the oldest category of sports, those where people simply attempt to go faster, higher or further than their opponents. Track & Field, swimming, horse racing, auto racing and speed skating are the main sports in that category.
I think the first category is inherently less prestigious than the others, but that still leaves a myraid of sports that are not neccesarily equal. To find an order from among them, I think the following criteria have to be evaluated.
1. degree of worldwide participation
2. degree of concentrated participation
3. results come primarily from the differences in athletic skill of ther participants
4. level of knowledge of the sport and its rules among the general population
5. easy to understand and participate in
6. level of national rivalry in the sport
7. level of fitness throughout the sport
8. intensity of training required to excel
9. Use of judges or other subjective methods of evaluation (I believe this inherently worsens a sport, because it becomes a matter of opinion)
...i think these need to be weighted, some are obviously more critical than others, but I think they are all important. I guess this means I do think some sports are "better" than others, but i am not sure if that changes the value of success. I would rather have an olympic gold in swimming or track than one in snowboarding or trampolining, but at the same time, an olympic gold is an olympic gold. Maybe a tenth criteria needs to be added..degree of prevalence at international, multi-sport competitions...a sport that is in the olympics is better than one thats not? im not sure if i agree with that..and what about soccer, its in the olympics, but the olympics is by design not an important tournament.
No comments:
Post a Comment