36:00 - Mark's right to say that 'sport' has to have an element of competition about it, but it can be a bit of a grey area. Darts, despite its pub, pork-pie-and-a-pint image is clearly a direct contest between opponents. The result is decided by skill or luck or perseverance; there are no points for style or artistry. A win is a win. Darts is definitely a sport. Snooker is a sport. So's bowling. And rally driving. Archery is, too: hit the target or you lose. Arguably, CHESS is more of a sport than gymnastics, diving, dressage, ballroom dancing, trampolining, artistic ice-skating and synchronised swimming - activities which are decided by judges for looking nice. To me, such endeavours have very little to do with sport. There's no question of there being skill, dedication and training involved in doing them well - there certainly is - but you could apply the same criteria to writing poetry. Or mixing cocktails. Or Muffin the Mule. Or baking cakes. Baking is not a sport. (Muffin' the mule is a crime, by the way.) Racing against the clock, or scoring point or goals directly against an opponent is far less controversial. It helps if you get out of breath, but even something as apparently clear-cut as boxing frequently comes down to a judge's decision. Is boxing a sport if the outcome can be decided by judges? If you need three experts to say whether a punch landed and 'scored' or not, that's getting into bell-ringing territory. Mood. Feel. Style. Expectation. Execution. What? Yep. Boxers wear padded gloves not brass knuckles, so there's not necessarily a knockout. There's a lot of room for 'style and technique' (footwork, ducking, diving, slipping punches) to triumph over hitting the other guy in the face when a boxer comes up against a brawler. How's that fair? How's that sporting? Lose the gloves, lose the judges, lose the clock and the bell [campanology? Ha!), and THEN you'd have a sport. [Just kidding.] I trained in several of the nastier martial arts for over 25 years (my parents got me into self-defence as a 'growing girl' when they saw which parts of me were growing and realised what I could expect to encounter in later life. Hint: at school my nickname was Eleanor WatermEleanor). Some people reject things like jiu-jitsu, karate or judo as sports because they see the matches being judged by referees looking for clean technique and the correct use of yadda, yadda, yadda. But they're missing the point. Unlike boxing, traditional martial 'arts' were developed for killing people in battle. For. Killing. People. In. Battle. That's what they're for. Proper fighting, last-man-standing stuff. Oh, not now, no. Killing people is frowned upon. The stuff I learned was all banned because ALL of it would be called ABH or GBH [actual/grievous bodily harm] in modern Britain. Actually, the first thing I learned was that you NEVER use what you've been taught and your first move is always to turn and walk away from a confrontation. Anyway, in a 'sporting' context the judges are there to see fair play and to ensure that a submission-hold is released before a coroner is required. Striking with full power is forbidden; choke-holds are not held to the point of death. Digits and limbs are not broken; rabbits are not punched; joints are not dislocated; eyes are not gouged; private parts remain private. Is that still more of a sport than competitive bell-ringing? I was taught all the stuff that they banned before judo replaced jiu-jitsu. Nasty, dirty stuff. Effective, but definitely not 'sporting' in the Saturday afternoon or Olympic sense, because its goal was to maim and cripple people. So, going back to Mark's objection to bell-ringing and other 'subjective' non-sports: although there are judges present in a martial arts contest and a fighter may indeed be awarded points for demonstrating correct technique - and those subjectively-awarded points may decide who wins a contest - I don't think that makes martial arts less of a sport than snooker or darts. Because the alternative means taking the apparently pointless throws, holds and pulled-punches to their original conclusion. And people don't like that. It's not sporting. 🤭
wah!!! i suppose that says it all. Sport is anything that is a contest between 1 or persons. doesn't make it olympic unless there's some commercial value. boxing is not a sport when it is fixed and that line is blurred by professional marketing and dark money and is becoming more and more sophisticated as spot fixing is replaced by PPV antagonist lining the pockets of promoters. food for thought.i wonder if this is a sport
this episode is brilliant. my ideal panel is susan calman , jeremy hardy, andy hamilton and rich hall. no one asked .. but i thought i'd just let you all know.
i would hire Miles just to sit in the chair in the corner to laugh whenever i wanted him to...
DM me if youre his agent 🤣
Love holly!
36:00 - Mark's right to say that 'sport' has to have an element of competition about it, but it can be a bit of a grey area. Darts, despite its pub, pork-pie-and-a-pint image is clearly a direct contest between opponents. The result is decided by skill or luck or perseverance; there are no points for style or artistry. A win is a win. Darts is definitely a sport.
Snooker is a sport. So's bowling. And rally driving. Archery is, too: hit the target or you lose. Arguably, CHESS is more of a sport than gymnastics, diving, dressage, ballroom dancing, trampolining, artistic ice-skating and synchronised swimming - activities which are decided by judges for looking nice. To me, such endeavours have very little to do with sport.
There's no question of there being skill, dedication and training involved in doing them well - there certainly is - but you could apply the same criteria to writing poetry. Or mixing cocktails. Or Muffin the Mule. Or baking cakes. Baking is not a sport. (Muffin' the mule is a crime, by the way.)
Racing against the clock, or scoring point or goals directly against an opponent is far less controversial. It helps if you get out of breath, but even something as apparently clear-cut as boxing frequently comes down to a judge's decision.
Is boxing a sport if the outcome can be decided by judges? If you need three experts to say whether a punch landed and 'scored' or not, that's getting into bell-ringing territory. Mood. Feel. Style. Expectation. Execution.
What? Yep. Boxers wear padded gloves not brass knuckles, so there's not necessarily a knockout. There's a lot of room for 'style and technique' (footwork, ducking, diving, slipping punches) to triumph over hitting the other guy in the face when a boxer comes up against a brawler.
How's that fair? How's that sporting? Lose the gloves, lose the judges, lose the clock and the bell [campanology? Ha!), and THEN you'd have a sport. [Just kidding.]
I trained in several of the nastier martial arts for over 25 years (my parents got me into self-defence as a 'growing girl' when they saw which parts of me were growing and realised what I could expect to encounter in later life. Hint: at school my nickname was Eleanor WatermEleanor).
Some people reject things like jiu-jitsu, karate or judo as sports because they see the matches being judged by referees looking for clean technique and the correct use of yadda, yadda, yadda. But they're missing the point. Unlike boxing, traditional martial 'arts' were developed for killing people in battle.
For. Killing. People. In. Battle.
That's what they're for. Proper fighting, last-man-standing stuff. Oh, not now, no. Killing people is frowned upon. The stuff I learned was all banned because ALL of it would be called ABH or GBH [actual/grievous bodily harm] in modern Britain.
Actually, the first thing I learned was that you NEVER use what you've been taught and your first move is always to turn and walk away from a confrontation.
Anyway, in a 'sporting' context the judges are there to see fair play and to ensure that a submission-hold is released before a coroner is required. Striking with full power is forbidden; choke-holds are not held to the point of death. Digits and limbs are not broken; rabbits are not punched; joints are not dislocated; eyes are not gouged; private parts remain private.
Is that still more of a sport than competitive bell-ringing?
I was taught all the stuff that they banned before judo replaced jiu-jitsu. Nasty, dirty stuff. Effective, but definitely not 'sporting' in the Saturday afternoon or Olympic sense, because its goal was to maim and cripple people.
So, going back to Mark's objection to bell-ringing and other 'subjective' non-sports: although there are judges present in a martial arts contest and a fighter may indeed be awarded points for demonstrating correct technique - and those subjectively-awarded points may decide who wins a contest - I don't think that makes martial arts less of a sport than snooker or darts.
Because the alternative means taking the apparently pointless throws, holds and pulled-punches to their original conclusion.
And people don't like that. It's not sporting. 🤭
If sport had to be about competition, then it would be called competition, not sport.
wah!!! i suppose that says it all. Sport is anything that is a contest between 1 or persons. doesn't make it olympic unless there's some commercial value. boxing is not a sport when it is fixed and that line is blurred by professional marketing and dark money and is becoming more and more sophisticated as spot fixing is replaced by PPV antagonist lining the pockets of promoters. food for thought.i wonder if this is a sport
Morris Blast😂😂
seen
this episode is brilliant. my ideal panel is susan calman , jeremy hardy, andy hamilton and rich hall. no one asked .. but i thought i'd just let you all know.
GOOD CALL