Sports vs. Athletics: A DP-Inspired Exploration

This morning on the Dan Patrick Show, DP and the Danettes rekindled a debate that has raged far and wide throughout the world of physical exertion and organized competition. It started with the announcement that Jimmie Johnson was being named AP's male Athlete of the Year, and the question was basically: what is a sport and what isn't?

The debate kicked into high gear when Paulie took exception to McLovin's assertion that NASCAR was definitely NOT a sport, or more specifically, that NASCAR drivers (and runners) aren't athletes.

I am somewhere between Paulie and George Carlin ("If there ain't a ball, it ain't a sport") on this. I've had this debate about any number of "sports" with any number of people, so without further ado, let's go one-by-one here:

For me, you have to distinguish between "sport" and "athletic activity," and for some reason, people who are relegated to the "athletic activity" seem to take it as a personal affront, even though some of the most physically-demanding activities (weight-lifting, running) belong in that category for me.

BASEBALL, FOOTBALL, SOCCER, BASKETBALL are SPORTS

These are all sports, mainly because they have a ball. You can throw hockey in here, too, because it's got a ball-substitute in the puck. Also, you have two teams competing against one another, with one team having the direct potential to affect the other team's chances of winning, which is also very important to me in qualifying something as a sport.

GOLF is an ACTIVITY

Yes, it has a ball. But if a 50-year-old can beat a 20-year-old at it, it's not a sport. Sorry, it's just not. Additionally, golf is primarily a competition against yourself. You can play golf by yourself. Can't do that with basketball, football, baseball, or hockey.

NASCAR is an ACTIVITY

Again, Paulie seems to have taken this part really personally; I agree that it takes tremendous physical stamina and baseball-caliber coordination to be a race-car driver, and they are indeed athletic. But you could say the same of a fighter pilot. I wouldn't call them an athlete. Another important consideration for NASCAR is that there is a machine involved. The human, unlike cycling, is not providing the sole source of power. And on that note...

CYCLING and RACING are ACTIVITIES

Great athletes? Yes, no doubt. Are they sports? No, they are not. Someone whose name escapes me once said, "Running is what you do to train for a sport," and I tend to agree with that. Doesn't mean that the world's fastest runner isn't a great athlete. Another of my important considerations for a sport is direct competition, along with having a chance to directly affect the opponent(s)' chance to win. Even in NASCAR, you can swap paint and cut off your opponents; can't do that in track and field.

Other SPORTS

• Volleyball

• Lacrosse

• Rugby

• Ultimate frisbee (that's right, I said frisbee is a sport and NASCAR isn't)

Other ACTIVITIES

• Cheerleading

• Bobsledding

• Skiing

• Snowboarding (most winter sports, let's say, in the interest of saving time)

I welcome any and all debate.

'Burgh Sports Wrap: One-Fourth of the NFL Season is Already Gone, and I've Only Won the Pool Once...

Go 'head, Brent... too bad no one could score a single facking goal to back you up

PENGUINS

Admittedly, I've only seen one Pens game so far, and they had to go and lose it, 3-0. Although I'll also admit that my attitude going into it was, "The Phoenix Coyotes? What the fuck is a hockey team doing in a city that couldn't ever possibly have natural ice?" This, of course, is a vain hope in the modern NHL, with squidders in Florida and Cali. Anyway, turns out the 'Yotes are one of the fastest teams in the league, and it certainly looked that way last night. True, it's early in the season, and the Pens are 3-1, but it was kind of an ugly loss. I paid absolutely zero attention during the off-season, which led to blatant ignorance on my part about Scuderi and Big Hal Gill being gone. I also didn't know about this Brent Johnson cat. Can't really put the loss on him, though. There weren't any bad goals (hell, Prucha scored one flat on his back with his leg all bent backwards and shit!).

I'll certainly give 'em a few more games to gel, but the scoring lines are pretty much the same; they weren't getting it done last night. They were just giving the puck away time and again. Philly tonight... phuck the Phlyers.

STEELERS

I'll call this a satisfactory recovery from last week's testicle-shriveling loss to the Bungles, WHO LET THE GAWDDAMN BROWNS DROP 20 ON 'EM THIS PAST WEEKEND, BY THE WAY. San Diego is a decent team with hardly any D. I'm still not happy with where the defense is, but that can still be chalked up to Polamalu being gone. Hopefully they let him sit out the Lions game so he can come back full-strength two weeks from now. It was nice to see Mendenhall have a breakout game. Hate to say it, but I'd also like to see him replace Willie Pee if he keeps it up. I love me some Fast Willie, and I'll love him forever for Super Bowl XL, but since the injury he's just not the same. Not his fault, but Mewelde Moore has been nothing but good for this team since they picked him up, and a Mendenhall/Moore attack is a throwback to the Bettis/Random Third-Down Back Days (Oh you don't think so? Let's do the rundown: George Jones, Fred McAfee, Richard Huntley, Amos Zeroue, Chris Fu'amatu Ma'afala... that's just '97 to '99) when the Steelers ran it straight up everyone's cornhole every week.

This is actually about the best schedule you could hope for when it comes to a team that is having some defensive difficulties. Lions, Browns, Vikings, Broncos, Bengals again, then Chiefs. The Vikings are gonna be tough, but I'm convinced the wheels are gonna fall off Denver any week now. It's gonna suck playing the Ravens twice in less than 30 days, but there's still the Raiders (greatest Dan Patrick Show caller of all time: "Can JaMarcus Russell throw it 70 yards? Sure! Ain't nobody gonna catch it."), Dolphins, and another game against the Browns.