Bowling is not a sport. –Defining the Criteria for Classifying Sports–

Bowling is not a sport.
–Defining the Criteria for Classifying Sports–
by Matthew Bachmann
Special to the Weekly Eckstra

Bowling is not a sport. Neither is billiards. Golf – not a sport. These are all competitive activities.

I have been working on a theory that proposes a subtle, yet distinct difference between a sport and a competitive activity. Your natural tendency will be to refute the theory, dig for technicalities that expose its flaws, or simply dismiss it as poppycock. That’s a great word. Challenging the theory is expected. It’s never been published for mass critique, and we’ll see if it holds up. Here goes:

Criteria for Sport Status
To be classified as a sport, the contest must meet 2 of 3 criteria. Any two. In any order. It’s that simple:

1. Participants that are physically fit have a clear advantage. (“fit advantage”)
2. Physical contact between competitors is expected during the natural course of play. (“contact”)
3. The contest is governed by time. In other words, it’s a timed event or has a game clock. (“timed”).

Now let’s try it out.

Golf. Not timed. No contact. Fit advantage debatable. NOT a sport.

Swimming. Timed. No contact. Fit advantage is huge. A sport.

Baseball. Not timed. Contact, yes. Fit advantage for sure. A sport.
(Note: Some could debate me here using a “fat baseball guys” retort. My response to that is if physical fitness didn’t give baseball players a clear advantage there would never have been a steroids era.)

Tennis. Not timed. No contact. Fit advantage for sure. NOT a …Yes it is a sport.

Tennis is part of the “net” exception, the one exception that proves the rule (proves the theory). The “net” exception states that if the contest uses a net at the centerpiece of competition, the contest only needs to meet 1 of the 3 criteria for Sport status. That means Tennis and Volleyball are sports as they meet the fit advantage criteria, while Table Tennis and Badminton are not sports as one can’t build a case for a strong fit advantage.

As my sports classification theory was formed, other criteria were considered, but ultimately discarded for a variety of reasons. For the sake of full disclosure, here are the rejected criteria:

1. Has a Hall of Fame
2. Is shown on ESPN
3. Requires participants move within an area greater than X (X still to be defined)
4. Uses a spherical object
5. Has some sort of governing body (“league”) or administrative entity that keeps official statistics or rankings providing participants the ability to evaluate their performance against others.

I encourage your feedback. And let’s not get too technical people. When you stop to think about it, it shouldn’t be that hard. It isn’t rocket science. And rocket science isn’t a sport.


About the Author: Matthew Bachmann develops, shapes and manages creativity for a living. His resistance to blogs, Facebook and all things social media is something he’s working on. Bachmann’s currently working on a 15th Anniversary Director’s Cut of the legendary Turtle Creek Farm video. View the grainy 4:00 trailer at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLNOGEGD_Wc

Notes: The fit advantage criteria was loosely formed by myself and my colleagues. Credit to the “all on the field” blog for defining it in a tighter way. Also, baseball is the most unique of all the major sports as it is the only one where 1) managers wear the uniform, 2) there’s no game clock, and 3) the defense controls the ball, not the offense.