Sure, it's a "sport".

Common sense dictates that one not jump into the kiddie pool.

More seriously, I think you've come to an important distinction. In things like war, sure, it may be a good idea to vilify the opposition, but in a game (whether it's your profession or not)? I know companies do do this. "Let's pound X Co. into the ground!" or "Let's show Y Corp. what a bunch of losers they are!" But I've always felt ambivalent, at best, about such practices. Such practices lead to Enron-like environments...

That's the problem with over-incentivising aggression and ruthlessness: it destroys a group from the inside.


Once again: sport is about skill, primarily, and only tangentially about physical prowess.

The difference being that the latter is in no way similar to "playing a game". I specified several times that it's not about any literal similarities or differences in the activity itself, but the idea that playing one game that doesn't matter is not more important than playing another game that doesn't matter.

You say it's not a question of being physically demanding, then immediately say it's to psych yourself up for physical challenge and punishment. If that were literally all it were than yes, it wouldn't make sense in non-physical competition. Yet some of the most aggressive trash-talkers are the fans of a sport, who literally aren't doing anything but watching. Fans of one team will scream at the fans of another as if this has any impact on the people playing hundreds of miles away, or affects the odds of the game. This is seen as normal and acceptable, certainly more so than for "outsiders" seeing the same behavior from videogamers, even the ones actually playing.

Psyching yourself up does nothing to improve your actual ability. It's about protecting yourself from distraction and fear, to keep yourself from losing focus, coming into the competition with lack of confidence hindering you, and setting up your own fall. Likewise, antagonizing the opponent isn't about any actual impact on their skills, but an effort to try and inflict those same distractions on them. Neither of these are physical things. Skill in a fighting game depends heavily on reflexes, which can be messed up by distraction. The question remains, what makes it more "legitimate" in one competition over another? Actual danger to be involved? That seems like the worst time for people to be distracting each other.

yesss, i like people who keep things simple.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Depends on the context you are using the word "sport". At its most basic, sport pretty much means "amuse oneself" or "pastime". So, in a way, twiddling your thumbs could be considered a "sport", as it would be an activity in which you engage to amuse yourself or pass the time.

But there is a distinctive line that most people (or at least people who engage in activities which require a certain level of physical prowess) draw when it comes to defining an activity as a "sport" as basically: there has to be sweat, blood, tears, and the chance for physical harm for an activity to be considered a "sport".

You can sport a sports coat, but that doesn't make you an athlete

Chess is a recognized Olympic sport.

But really, if it's a game, it's a game whether it be monopoly, football, rugby or a video game. And when playing a game it is expected that you will show good sportsmanship. That would include treating your opponent with respect win or lose and not cheating. Shaking hands both before and after a game. And if the game you play requires skill, improve your skill not your mouth.

An athlete however doesn't need to play a game or organized sport. An athlete may participate in any number of activities such as running, hiking, mountain climbing, and many, many other non-competitive sports and activities.

You are just going around in circles trying to prove your point.

You want to know what makes it more legitimate? what makes it more legitimate, is that it takes cojones to go out there and get in a ring knowing you are going to get as much as you are going to give. It takes cojones to put up a football helmet that has a big sticker in the back that says "playing football may cause death". That sometimes, your commons sense is telling you one thing, and you need to tell yourself another because of the task that's in fornt of you. Playing video games, not so much. It takes nothing but a bit of dexterity in your thumbs. So this whole idea of sixism, bravado, and trash talk within a "culture" or competition in which the participants aren't exactly what you call men's men, to me, is ridiculous, and laughable.

My 9 year old boy has been playing Modern Warfare since he was 8, and he constantly beats kids much older than him in multiplayer. The kid has off-the-charts pattern recognition and finger dexterity (actually documented because of a minor physical condition). He sees a litany of taunts, insults, etc (again, anonymous taunts from punks sitting in the safety of their homes) while playing, but his harshest taunt?: "I am 9 years old". So pardon me for not seeing the "professional gamer" scene as anything more than what it is: kids sitting on a couch mashing buttons hoping they can mash them faster than the other guy.

As for fans trash talking, I can understand a sport like football or soccer inspiring passion amongst the fans, because there are other things involved in following a sports franchise which usually has your school, city, state or country included in its name, etc.. but I just don't see Call of Duty of Battlefield inspiring that kind of passion, and if they do for anyone, I'd feel sorry for them.

*reads the thread title* Mhm. Mhm. *reaches the word "sixism"*

We don't allow sixist posts here either.

Since I already cautioned against inappropriate and sixist or racist remarks...it's now a closed discussion.