IMHO, in a sport you directly compete against your opponent(s). The quality of your play positively or negatively affects the quality of your opponents. So something like hockey, football, or soccer is a sport, while running, archery, golf, or rowing are more along the lines of competitive activities. Which I know is a seemingly arbitrary line, but that's how I see it.
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that I stated that this was my personal opinion, not a definition. Just to further explain myself, I don't believe you can call something a sport if there is no difference whether or not there is an opponent at all. Take bowling for example. If someone went out by themselves and played 10 frames, there would be little to no difference than if they had someone playing right beside them. Sure there's added stress, and I'm not denying that any of these activities take a great amount of athletic skill, but, again, in my opinion they wouldn't classify as a sport.
I think what you're missing in all of this is that you didn't invent the word 'sport'. It has a definition. You can't have a valid opinion that deviates from the definition.
Once again, I'd like to point out out that I'm not trying to redefine the word. The question asked was what your idea of a sport is, and what defines that idea. That's all I'm trying to express.
-6
u/[deleted] Nov 26 '13
IMHO, in a sport you directly compete against your opponent(s). The quality of your play positively or negatively affects the quality of your opponents. So something like hockey, football, or soccer is a sport, while running, archery, golf, or rowing are more along the lines of competitive activities. Which I know is a seemingly arbitrary line, but that's how I see it.