Recently on Twitter, there was a bit of an argument over whether or not figure skating was a sport. The definition for “sport” varies, and much of it is based on subjective opinion, to include whatever I might say throughout this blog in regards to it. For the purposes of this discussion let us focus on the noun:

Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.

Click here for the full entry from Dictionary.com

So let us establish a baseline of what the definition actually says vs. what it might imply (we will address that too though):

1. Requires skill
2. Physical prowess
3. Competitive nature

The examples given: racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc…

I really hate the etc.

Racing: First one to cross the finish line, effectively completing the track in the shortest time, wins. Pretty straight-forward.

Baseball: The skills required to catch, throw and hit a ball are a no-brainer. Scoring is also straightforward and singularly dependent on the skills of catch, throw, and hit.

Tennis: Speed, power, precision, straight-forward scoring…

Golf: In spite of its fat competitors and lackadaisical demeanor, the skill, prowess and competition are undeniable.

But what about figure skating?

I tend to think it is a sport, but it flies in the face of what the definition of “sport” implies or indicates whether by strict definition as stated or by omission (what is not stated, but assumed). If we were to be strict and follow the three criteria set by the definition, figure skating is definitely a sport, and the same could be said of competitive cheerleading, but these are hard sells because of people’s opinion regarding judges who decide the winner, instead of two parties giving their best against each other directly. In the same way, if we were to be strict and follow the three criteria set by the definition, figure skating could not be a sport because the scoring is decided by a third party panel of judges, and that takes away the commonly accepted perception of what a sport is in regards to direct competition, which to some is not truly competition if the participants skill and prowess do not directly affect the other. So, if the integrity of competition is compromised in this sense, figure skating, competitive cheerleading, and similar activities cease to be sports. However, to be fair, does “competitive nature” exclude or include scoring-by-judges even if by omission?

Competitive nature in how an activity is determined to be a sport is annoying to one who prefers to stay out of the gray.

The case for figure skating is difficult to determine if one believes that winners and losers should be determined by the participants, and not judges. However, figure skating fits the three criteria set by the definition of “sport”. The definition however does not include “panel of judges” in the criteria, nor does it exclude it. I lean more towards being strict, and if judging is not listed as an acceptable criteria, then any competition that solely requires judges to determine a winner, should not be classified as a sport. However, this presents the debate. No matter how we look at it, the presence of judges and the rules by which figure skaters are scored present an undeniable “competitive nature” that pushes the skaters to peak physical condition, superior skating skill, and that desire to win. The simple fact that it requires a judged competition, and “competitive nature” being one of the three criteria for “sport” there does not seem to be escape from conceding that figure skating is in fact, a sport, if not by the ambiguity of “competitive nature”. However, in light of the examples cited in the definition, figure skating shares NO similarities in that the winner of those sports are clear. Winners in figure skating are determined by judges, which to a small degree but with sizable impact, are subjective. Skaters perform a scripted short program and are judged by their technical skill. How a judge determines scoring is subjective in that the scoring mechanism is very detailed. What separates 5.8 and a 5.9 performance? More recently, they have begun using a cumulative scoring system where technical skill measurement is much more precise and emphasizes the athlete’s need for technical detail. This has curtailed subjective judging quite a bit to where it is not as weighty as before, but still it exists nonetheless when it comes to judging the long program due to the free-style nature of the long program versus the scripted short program. To alleviate subjective point spreads, figure skating uses a panel of judges with the intent that the law of averages would even out any minute disparities in scoring across the board.

The Twitter conversation eventually moved into full-contact activities such as boxing and MMA. Both have judges, but judges are not the sole decision-makers. The ways to win in MMA are: Knockout, Technical Knockout (judgment call made by doctor/referee–interesting point as this can be subjective in regards to bleeding), Submission, and Decision. Boxing has the same thing, except submission would be closer to the fighter simply “throwing in the towel” and would be considered in the TKO category. I tend to think that boxing and MMA are sports because they fit the three criteria we have established, and the scoring by judges is only applied if a clear winner has not emerged, and the time allowed for the match has expired.

Some of you may have wondered, “But wait, does not every sport have a judge that presides over the game/match? What do you call referees?”

Okay. Not the same.

“But John, they make judgment calls that not everyone agrees with and it influences the outcomes of many games!”

Still, not the same. Referees do not determine the winners of a match, no matter how hard they may try. Referees are forced to call the game as they see it, and in sports like basketball, football, soccer, baseball, tennis, etc… the number of close instances vs. clear indicators pretty much rule out the ability of a single referee to run a game one way or the other with the ease that a judge would be able to (get group of referees on it and I will sing a different tune). On top of that, in the sports I mentioned above, the scoring is straightforward and is what it is in spite of how awesome or ugly it was accomplished. A referee will not deduct 1 point from a basketball player’s unexciting dunk on a fast break. A referee will not grant 1 point on a 6 point touchdown because only 1/6 of the football broke the plane. The way basketball, football, baseball, and soccer are played rely solely on the athletic prowess of its members, not judges. Referees are more for the governing of players against cheating.

Basically, it can be argued that any competitive activity where scoring is influenced by how stylish it is, should not be considered a sport. As a guy, I can understand the view shared by many of us that we would rather win because we were better than the other person by proving it not to a panel of judges, but to each other.

What do you think? Is figure skating a sport? Or is just a competitive activity? Should or can competitive activities be considered as sports?

Consider these:

Curling – At least it’s fun to watch.
Synchronized swimming
Competitive eating
Competitive cheerleading
Cheerleading
Gymnastics
Powerlifting
Limited-contact martial arts
Mixed martial arts
Ballet – What!?