The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I don't care about women's basketball at all.  I don't care about women's soccer.  I don't care about women's anything, when it comes to sports. 

Do you think that says something about me?

The one case where I can see myself watching women's sports is either fighting or driving.

No.  No one cares about women's sports. 

It isn't sexist...just logical.

Women's sports are just flat-out boring to me. Even the highest level of female athletics just makes me yawn.

Why is that?  I'd honestly rather watch pick up basketball than the WNBA.

I think it depends on the sport and what exactly you're looking for to be entertained.  For example, if you enjoy a competitive match, game or fight because of the equal competition of the athletes then gender doesn't really matter.  I enjoy a female MMA match that is EVENLY matched just like I would men's.  

Now, if you only enjoy sports because of how big, fast, and how high they can jump/dunk/throw a ball, then you obviously enjoy sports for a different reason.  I wouldn't say it really makes you sexist.  You're more interested in the athletics, abilities or even skill rather than the competition itself.

I do find it funny that people enjoy college or even high school sports more than the pros.  If you enjoy lower levels of competition because of "heart" and "they don't play for money" then you should shut up and watch WNBA.   ;)

Women's beach volleyball is awesome.  I'll always stop to watch that.

What I like even less is when there are fake women's sports, like football, but they're wearing lingerie.

It's not sexist, but I do think it's narrow minded.  I actually enjoy a lot of women's sports including Soccer, Softball and Volleyball. How is it any different for women to compete against other women than having men compete against other men? It's competitive within the sport.  It would be like saying you don't enjoy watching little league baseball, pee-wee football or college sports because they don't play at the same level as the pro's.

Next chance you get, please go watch Marta from Brazil play soccer. You might just get a new found appreciation for women's soccer. She's nearly as good as the men and I dare say she's better than some of the men on the US National team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Vieira_da_Silva

I actually thought about making a thread on this a day or two ago when someone brought up Women's World Cup Soccer.

What pro female sports are actually popular? The only two I can think of are tennis and golf.

In the US or in the world?

Women's soccer is quickly gaining a foothold in the world as a popular sport. Some of the stars are Marta whom I mentioned above, Kelly Smith from England and Abby Wambach from the US. They are all well known outside of the US, not so much in the US just because soccer itself is not that popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Wambach

I don't think it's narrow minded, because it's not like I don't care out of principle or out of ignorance.  When the WNBA is on, after 5 minutes, I'm done watching.  It's not from lack of trying.


Now that we're on the subject, I don't watch those other things either.  I watch some college football, but I think what makes it interesting is that you have a very wide range of quality on the field (the pros are all very, very good players), so there are crazy matchups that make for interesting and nutty plays.  I prefer the pro level of sports over those below it every time, however.


There's just no way that this is true.  I'm sure that she's a great player and deserves to be commended for it, but there's no way that she's better than any of the men on the national team.  I've heard this kind of discussion before with other things -- some sports anchor was trying to make a point that the Tennessee women's basketball team could beat the Knicks when they were terrible.  As good as this Brazilian player is, she just can't run as fast, jump as high, or use her body size like the men.  She would get completely worked at that level of play.

If they lowered the rim in WNBA to 9 feet, would it be more interesting, less interesting, or equally boring?

If the U.S. women's basketball team could beat the English men's basketball team, would that give you a new found respect for the WNBA?

Beating the U.S. in soccer is not really something to be proud of.

Well I prefer to watch professional sports on TV, but I certainly enjoy a good little league baseball game, pee-wee football game or even a college game. I guess the difference with me is that I'm more concerned with the actual competition itself rather than the players playing it. I don't really care whether or not it's Michael Jordan playing or my grandson, if the game is well played and competitive at that level, it's just as fun for me to watch.

Have you ever seen her play? How can you be so sure without having ever seen her play? Did you watch Bornstein play the other night against Mexico?

Soccer isn't all about size or speed like some sports are, it's more about technical ability. Speed is important, but not really flat out speed, speed with the ball at your feet is more important most times and quickness rather than speed is usually what seperates players. I've seen lots of select level girls soccer players that were better than rec boys soccer players. They would run rings around them. Not because they were faster or stronger, but because they were more talented.

But you're probably right, the men on the US men's team could probably outplay her, that was an exaggeration on my part and partly due to my frustration with watching the USMNT play against Mexico the other night. It was embarrasing at times. I'm pretty sure my son can outplay Bornstein at least on that night. LOL

is mud wrestling a sport?! lol

Not sexist at all. In THIS country Men cannot support every sport. If "women's" sports are gonna take off its up to the female population to support it.

You can't expect "men" to support MLB, NFL, NBA, Golf, NHL, College Sports....among other things. And then ON TOP OF THAT support "womens sports." If females want these womens sports to be relevant, they gotta get off their butts and support them

No, but only because I don't care for Basketball much. If the US womens national soccer team played say Canada's mens national soccer team and beat them, you bet your ass I'd be impressed.

Well there's more than a few people in the US that would tune in to watch the US Mens National team play in a world cup match, but they wouldn't watch the US womens national soccer team even though there might be a player or 2 more worth watching on the womens national team. Why is that? I don't get it.

Brazil is a soccer-crazy nation.  Their women beating our men would not really be shocking.  Canada doesn't care about soccer either (I think?), so I'm not sure what beating them would prove.

My point is that just because Brazilian women are good at soccer (potentially good enough to beat our men), it doesn't make their sport good.  The Brazilian men would wipe the floor with them.  A poorly played sport is a poorly played sport; our women might be good compared to the Japanese men's basketball team, but that doesn't make the WNBA a good product.

However, I would like to highlight the earlier-mentioned point in this thread: people who bash the WNBA but love college sports are brazen hypocrites.

I disagreed with the point when Guru first posted it, and I still hold that position. Why would my getting enjoyment from watching superior athletes perform be considered brazen hypocrisy?

There is absolutely nothing about the WNBA game that appeals to me, but I absolutely love watching college football, basketball, baseball and even hockey. Part of it is the "heart" and enthusiasm I see with college athletes, but mostly I just dig watching outstanding athletes ply their trade. Please feel free to explain how that makes me a hypocrite...

(I already know it doesn't, but it should be entertaining to hear your explanation)

Also, unless you're a citizen of someplace like Madagascar and mistakenly believe the rest of us are as well, I'll call "bushwah" on this one as well...


There isn't a women's soccer team on the planet that could compete with the US men's soccer team. They don't run as fast, kick as hard or are even in the same neighborhood of athletic ability. If the Brazil women's team beat the US men, it would stand as the single greatest upset in the history of human beings playing with balls.

Quite shocking...

This discussion reminds me of a P.E. class I was took in high school.  We were playing soccer for a couple of weeks.  Our class was split in half and the other team had one of, if not the best, soccer player on the girls team.  When I was on the football team, I could play anything from OLB to DT, so I was pretty athletic, but by no means the most athletic in the school.  I could not only keep up with this girl playing soccer, but half the time get the better of her, and I had never played a lick of soccer my entire life.  There is no way a woman's soccer team could take on a male's soccer team. 

The best college team in the nation would get their faces bashed in by the worst pro team.

If your argument is that you like watching superior athletes play, you should not be watching college sports.

I don't like women's professional sports such as basketball but I'm not a big fan of men's either. If it was an Orlando team I may be more interested.  I do watch women's professional soccer but I coach girls soccer. Sadly my favorite team was purchased by satan and moved to Boca but that is a another story.

Though I'm not a fan of women's basketball I did watch them in the Olympics and found it exciting. I think it's hard not to get behind our national teams when it's USA vs. the world.  I even watch culing for gosh sake!!

I'll let you pick any 3 boys that has never played soccer and put them against three girls I pick and they won't touch the ball. It isn't possible. They would run them into the ground. The more athletic they are the longer it would take but it would happen.

With that said if you put three good boys out there against them they will have no shot. The boys are so much faster that they can't keep up after about 13-14 years of age.

The parents used to play against our girls every year at the end of the season. At 12 they could no longer keep up. Now at U15 they are one of the best teams in the southeast and regurally play against boys 1 year younger who are very good. There is no way a boy who has never played and couldn't even get on a boys club team would out do them. That just isn't reality. 

The other thing in this is High School soccer in general. Well to be honest, it isn't very good for the most part. That goes for boys and girls. Teams are usually made up of a few club players and then many kids who are recreational players at best. If you were to play one of these girls it wouldn't even be close to comparing to a top girls player. There are world's apart between a girl who  plays in a recreational league vs. a girl who plays in regional or national leagues and is in the Olympic Development system. 

I prefer women's basketball to mens basketball.  I am a traditionalist who prefers the passing and shooting game and feel the game was a vastly superior game in the days of old when it was played below the net instead of above the net. 

Yes it would.

Here we go on the Spidey-go-round again... I never said that college athletes were better than professional male athletes. I said they are better than women's professional athletes. I watch male professional sports AND male collegiate sports...for the same reason: They both claim much more gifted athletes, making them more enjoyable to watch (imo) than the fundamentally-sound women superstars of the WNBA.

I'll give the WNBA some credit though... If I was forced to choose between watching a WNBA game or the Special Olympics, I'd begrudgingly watch the superior athletes of the WNBA...unless "turning the TV off" was also an option.

Agreed.  And it would never, ever, ever happen.  We would beat the mercilessly.

It would shock the hell out me.  I would be surprised if the women's brazilian national team could beat a division I mens college team.  Division II I would bet on the women. 

Two different games. The men's game really is much different once they get past about 15 or 16.  I can't see any women's national team beating a men's college team even at the Div II level.

On a side note I don't know if you guys remember but Heather Mitts played for our club's women's team a while back. It was during AJ stint with Miami. Anyway...  she will make the least soccer dad watch a game!!

I remember. I never made it to see her though.  :'(

Oh yes it would be. Brazil's women's national team isn't even the top rated women's national team, the US women's national team is and the US mens national team is pretty highly ranked, Canada's mens team is not. Even with Marta, Brazil wouldn't beat the US mens national team. However that's not what I said, what I said was that there was 1 player from Brazil (Marta) that might be better than someone on the USMNT. That IS a possibility even if it's remote.

You're missing the point. I was trying to offer a possible scenario where a womens soccer team might beat a mens soccer team. The USWNT beating Canada's mens national team is not that far fetched and if it did happen it damn well WOULD be quite impressive to me. It may or may not be impressive to you. What does it prove? It proves that women CAN play the game at a level equal to some men, not necessarily all men. That's what it proves.

I never said it did. I said that I didn't understand why people automatically assume that any women's team couldn't be as good as a men's team. That's what Dave seemed to imply in one of his posts and that is what I responding to. The US Womens national team is very good. They are ranked #1 in the world for women, yet few people in the US give a damn, they would rather watch the mens national team that is not in the top 20 in the world of mens teams. Is the men's team better than the womens team? Absolutely, but I don't really care. I'd rather watch the US Women's team win the World cup then watch the US Men's team get beat in qualifying.

Yes they would. They would also wipe the floor with the mens national team and yet people still watch the men's team play in the world cup. Dave seemed to insinuate that he only watches mens teams because they are the only teams capable of playing at a high level, well if he'd be willing to watch the US mens national team get smoked by Brazil, why wouldn't he be willing to watch the US womens national team get smoked by Brazil? Better yet why wouldn't he be intrigued to watch the US womens national team play Canada's mens team? That actually might be a pretty good game, the US mens national team against Canada mens national team would be a snoozer.

And here's the real question. Why wouldn't he be interested in watching the USWNT beat Brazil for the womens world cup? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Let me pick the Division I team and they could.

I'll pick Manhatten. 0-16 in Division play. I'd love to see that game. :)

And I said that people who claim not to like the WNBA because of the lower quality of play are hypocrites, because collegiate sports have a significantly lower quality of play than the pros.

Now, if you want to claim that there is a specific (arbitrary) threshold for "quality of play" which college sports meet but the WNBA (or another pro women's sport) does not, fine.  But it's inconsistent to bash the WNBA for the sloppy play and then praise the college game.

Not hypocritical at all, as the men's college game is still played at a significantly higher level of play than the female professionals.


Two points... First, every sports viewer assigns arbitrary thresholds for that sort of thing based on their own preferences, and second, I never said anything about the females being "sloppy play"...to the contrary, I lauded them for being fundamentally sound. They're just too slow, too weak and too boring for me to watch.

Well Stroke, you fall within the group I mentioned that just enjoy faster, stronger more athletic competition.  I wouldn't call you a hypocrite but I agree with Spidey somewhat. 

I would call someone a hypocrite if they enjoy lower levels of competition because of heart or because "pros are in it for money" ... yet don't enjoy women's sports for whatever reason.   

Women's sports are just played at an inferior level to men's sports. I have no doubt that a good high school team can defeat a WNBA team. Even our women's soccer team is great and I feel they can be beaten by the worst professional men's team.

It's not really sexist, just genetics. Men are stronger and faster than women as a whole. Individual cases can be made, but on average it isn't even close.

Women's golf and tennis are easier to watch because the inferior level of play isn't as noticeable, unlike basketball where it is obvious the Timberwolves could destroy an All-Star team from the WNBA. I don't mean 5 on 5 either, I am talking about the whole 12 women roster against 5 Wolves.

Now that I have watched the USWNT beat Brazil, I don't think I've ever watched a men's soccer game that was more thrilling.

^^ it was certainly the most thrilling sports game i have ever seen in a long, long time.

I have zero interest in the USWNT, but there is a larger buzz than I thought surrounding them right now.

So you are saying that the WNBA teams are across the board better than the same number of top NCAA men's basketball teams?
I would love to have seen Lisa Leslie try and take it to the rim at 6'5 against Alonzo Mourning when he was at Georgetown, or any other great college basketball team go against a much smaller, slower team that has "better fundamentals"

just read an article on the low viewership ratings for women's sports...

basically the study says that men watch sports to see ideal, unattainable representations of men. where women turn to magazines, movie stars, etc... to see ideal representations of women.

A major part of the sports audience doesn't really watch sports for the actual sporting competitions.

^^^ Got a link to the article? Sounds like an interesting read, but it also sounds like the type of "study" that was pointed toward achieving a particular result.

No, I'm saying both are garbage compared to the NBA, and refusing to watch the WNBA while lusting over March Madness is absurd.

i was trying to find it... it came out just the other day in relation to the press around the women's soccer team, and drop off in viewership since the '99 squad. i'll try to find it again.

Was it a study or an opinion piece? I know plenty of male sports fans and I would dare say very few would agree with that position.

i was going to say, on the original topic, that at some level yes this is kind of sexist.

men don't watch women's sports because most men don't want their women to be represented like that. strong, tough, fast, insert whatever male performance adjective you want...

i think the same can be said for the reason why there are no open gay athletes in male sports. the male sports viewing public doesn't want to think of gay male athletes that can perform athletically at levels that they can't. the underlying current is definitely sexist in nature...

I've got to disagree with you here.  I have no issue with an openly gay athlete as long as he can play at the same level as all the other athletes.  If Jake Long came out and said he was gay, I'd still hold the same respect for him.  Gay or not, if an athlete preforms well on the field, and isn't a piece of shit (example:  T.O., Pacman Jones, Roger Clemons, ect.) they are good in my book. 

I'll lay out a scenario for you.  I don't like Tom Brady.  I think he's a shitty person. Don't ask why, this isn't what this is about, it's just my opinion.  As a football player, he has a bit of my respect.  If he came out and said he was gay, I'd have more respect for him and wouldn't rag on him as much because I'd be saying, "See!  I knew it all along!"  I kid, but seriously, I'd dislike that douche anyways...him being gay in this scenario has nothing to do with it.

Back to my point, I can't watch most women's sports because they can't perform on the same athletic level.  I will admit that some of the women's sports I do watch are because of sex appeal.  Beach volleyball and tennis.  When the Olympics come around I'd prefer to watch women's gymnastics over men's, even though the men might be athletically superior, although that can be argued because a lot of women in that sport have better balance and flexibility.  That instance comes down to "I don't want to see a dude in a unitard."


I agree that both are garbage compared to the NBA talent wise.  I watch March Madness over WNBA because NCAA players are faster, stronger, can dunk, which is exciting to watch, and play more team ball vs. the NBA.  The only thing WNBA has in common is the team play.  NCAA is overall more exciting to watch than WNBA.

March Madness is in its own league because it is a do or die tournament and people love to watch to see underdogs win because the upsets make the tournament.
Also it is also a platform to watch possible NBA draft picks shine. So as an NBA fan, you should enjoy the nature of the tournament and to get a glimpse of hom your team might draft.
What is absurd is that you are comparing amateur teams against professional teams. The WNBA is boring and slow paced with the very best of women athletes, which means that their NCAA games and tournaments is even worse.
I do not watch either womens NCAA nor the WNBA. But I do follow the NBA, so it would be foolish to not watch mens NCAA games to see the up and coming talent to the league.

I don't agree with either position. I think most males do enjoy an athletically fit woman who is still feminine as opposed to a fat slob of a woman.

Also, from interviews I have seen with former athletes who have come out, just about every one of them has said they stayed in the closet because of fear of the locker room reaction. Not from a fear of the reaction of the fans.

I think that the wish fulfillment angle is probably the most accurate.  I watch pro sports, because on some level, I want to be like that, I guess.  ...I want those accomplishments, that physique, that fame, etc.

Since we're on the topic of gay athletes in pro sports, I'll use this opportunity to link to an article on one Hall of Fame footballer (Michael Irvin) on the cover of "Out" magazine:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/07/michael-irvin-talks-about-his-gay-brother/1

This reminds me of the time that Dave, Fau, Flo, Chuck and I played a few 5-on-5 pickup games against a college women's team (I think they were from Lynn University).

There were 6 of them that came out to practice on some night and someone talked them into playing against us. We are the typical average white dudes (on average, short with very little physical attributes) and we were playing against a highly conditioned, highly practiced, highly trained team of young women (they ran plays, had signals for pick and rolls, the whole bit).

We played 2 games to 15.

We beat the crap out of them.

Basically, it turned out that we were simply faster, stronger, more accurate, more vertical, and more physically athletic than they were, not only as a group but as individuals (I have a clear memory of Dave posting up their power forward and completely whooping her - and if you know anything about Dave, that's some funny shit right there).

We were able to have fast-breaks, open shots, and our defense was good enough to completely neutralize their efforts. They scored some points, but they did not have enough there to compete.

This is a good example because our comparative skill levels are close enough to be fair (We weren't playing against a WNBA team - we played against a local college women's team, and we're no men's team other than we were 5 dudes playing disorganized pick-up basketball once a week).

There is no way in the hell that the worst NBA team (The Clippers?) would not totally beat the crap out of the all-time WNBA team all in their primes.

^^I'd like to see how you'd do against a Division II women's soccer team in a full 90 minute scrimmage or possibly against a Division II fast pitch womens softball team. Not all sports are created equal.

Sure put them against a mens league soccer or mens league fast pitch softball team and I would not be surprised at the outcome.

If we spent the same amount of time playing pick-up scrimage soccer matches or pick-up fast-pich softball games as we did playing pick-up basketball, we would whoop the crap out of them in those sports as well. There's just no question about it.

I never ever play soccer, so I don't think that's a fair comparison.  I think Joe is right.  At a certain point, strength is strength, speed is speed, height is height.  You can get out-finessed, sure, but that only goes so far.

For us to be able to compete (much less beat, and even much less whoop) against a practiced team of girls when we, ourselves are a pretty pathetic bunch, it speaks volumes.  I'm in no way saying that women are lesser, but they just don't have the physical tools to compete against men.  I don't expect them to win, because it isn't an even playing field.

Saying that I'm sexist because I don't care about women's sports is kind of like saying I hate dogs because I don't watch the Iditarod.  I'm neither sexist, nor a dog-hater...I just have clearly defined personal parameters for "boring things to watch."

I don't agree. Basketball is a sport that lends itself to athleticism more than some other sports.  Being able to jump higher, run faster, fight for position for rebounds better is a definate advantage in basketball, moreso than soccer or softball where skill can negate those attributes to a larger degree.

You don't think that for certain sports speed, strength and height are more important?  There's a very good reason that most professional Basketball players are tall, lean and quick or strong.  There's also a reason that baseball players and soccer players don't always seem to have those same traits.  Height especially isn't all that important. Doesn't matter how tall you are, everyone's feet are on the ground. :)

I'm not talking about finesse, I'm talking about skill.  An NCAA division II Womens soccer player is just more skilled at soccer than you. You can't make up for that with speed, strength and size for the most part. Granted that if you were just as skilled as them and were bigger and faster and stronger, you'd be better, but at what point?  At what point does speed, strength and size overcome a lack of skill?  I think that point is different for different sports and Basketball is one that height especially has a distinct advantage.

You did only play 2 games to 15. Did you play half court or full court?  Do you think things would have changed if you played 4 12 minute quarters on a full court? Would conditioning begun to have taken it's toll on you?

I'd just like to point out that if a bunch of male nobodies was playing a pick-up soccer game, and it was showing on TV...I wouldn't watch that either.

It's a quality of play issue, not a plumbing issue.

You are crazy if you do not think size, speed and height give you an advantage in soccer. All the skill in the world is meaningless if the person on the other team can outrun you to the goal, outjump you for a pass or shrug off your attempts at a body check or tackle due to size and strength.
You are committing the same fallacy that all the proponents of women's sports make time and time again, that skill set alone can somehow overcome an across the board lack of speed, strength, height, and size.
If skill alone gave a decided advantage over the other intangibles, then woman's teams should be able to compete against mens teams of the same level i.e college vs college, pro vs pro. The fact that people keep defending woman"s sports by comparing higher level woman against lower level mens teams destroys their arguements.
Womens sports are slower and boring as they lack the same pysical atributes that make mens sports exciting.
Hell even in sports that require skill alone and it is more of an even playing field, the top females are still behind their male counterparts, just look at Danica Patrick. She is hyped as this great driver, but has one career victory.

Don't twist my words, I said they were not as big of an advantage in soccer as some other sports, say for example Basketball.

Really?  Ever hear of an offsides trap? Works pretty well to negate your speed advantage. It's not fool proof, someone can still outrun you to the ball if they are onsides and the ball is played into space, but they have to stay onsides until the ball is played and then use their speed and the ball played has to be played into a spot that will allow him to run onto it, that takes some skill and understanding of the rules of soccer and how teams try to defend.  Skill does matter, it matters a great deal.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that skill alone could offset an across the board lack of speed strength and height, skill CAN however offset a lack of physical ability to an extent.

Got in on this late but I want to make one point that I didn't see being made earlier in the thread.

Disclaimer - I don't watch women's sports, it is boring as hell!  But...

I try to support the notion of women's sports because of the severe lack of constructive hobbies for women.  I would much rather young girls spend some time playing sports than learning to use up time with shopping and gossip.  Guys have always had so much to do and in the past girls/women have had not much more than dance classes as an option for a past time.

I suppose I have found myself feeling bad for the ladies at times because of how bored they appeared to be.  Certainly there are exceptions and much of it has to do with social class and where you live.  But, nearly every community has something set up for the average Joe or Jane to get a game going on the cheap.

So ladies...  You are nowhere near as good as the guys.  As one of my college friends once said (he was a sports writer for the college paper) "dude, this is barely sports".  But go for it anyway, its good for you.  At the very least it takes away your excuse of not supporting our habit of watching every damn Dolphin's game we are alive for!

Who cares? 98% of the guys are nowhere near as good as the guys we watch on TV.  What difference does that make?  I can't go play basketball and compete in the NBA, why should that prevent me from enjoying the NBA?  And why should it prevent me from watching women play in the WNBA? They're a hell of a lot better than I am too, just like the guys in the NBA. Who made up this silly rule I can only enjoy sports when played at their highest level?

Confused???  Is this in response to my post?  It doesn't seem to match up with what I said.

But what the hell, I will respond-  There is no rule that all sports have to be at the highest level, but I really don't have enough time to watch second rate stuff.  Hell, I barely have the time to watch the top notch stuff.  But lets say I did have the time...  I don't think I would watch unless I had something else to invest me in what I was watching.  If I knew someone playing or was an alumni from the school that was playing, I would have something to get invested in.  Even then I would opt for the men's sports nearly every time. 

Even if I am not currently athletic enough to beat women at these sports, I used to be.  There was a time when I was athletic enough that a team of me could have beat any of the best womens sports teams out there.  I am not talking like a dumbass like you see in pros vs joes type shows.  I really believe that I was realistically good enough.  But I never took it to the next level.  I want to watch the guys that are at the level I had once dreamed to be at.  I want to see what it would have taken to get there and then excel.  I want to see what it looks like when you take those types of guys and pit them against one another.  I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME WATCHING PLAYERS THAT AREN'T ANY BETTER THAN I ONCE WAS!

But once again, I support girls sports because I think it is good socially.  Let other girls watch it.  Let their families watch it.  Let people who have never been athletic watch it.  Heck, even let the dudes that like to look at athletic chicks watch it.  AND ALWAYS SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TEAM.  But, I will pass on anything but the best.

There's a difference between being athletic enough and skilled enough.

I have no doubt that you may have been athletic enough to compete with women at any sport, I very seriously doubt however that you would have been skilled enough to compete with women at any sport at any level.  I don't buy it.  I used to be a pretty good athlete myself (played college baseball). I could probably hang on a softball field with just about any woman, but there's just no way that I could have played soccer at the level that the USWNT is at now. I'm not even sure I could have played at the level that some of my daughter's friends were playing at for Div I schools. Some of those girls were quite fast compared to other girls. Now maybe that's not faster than the fastest boys, but I wasn't as fast as many boys. I think they may have come pretty close to matching me in speed. My soccer skills were just too far below theirs, my better athleticism would not have made up for it and I don't care how good of an athlete you are, I don't believe it makes up for a complete lack of skill in a game. If your skill level is close enough to theirs (women), then yes your athleticism could put you on par or even exceed their ability, but your skill level has to be close enough to begin with and I don't believe it would be. Not at the highest level of women's sports. They have a lot of skill. More than I think most here are giving them credit for.

I don't think Dave is giving himself enough credit on his basketball skills. Sounds like he's a pretty good player even if he is just a white guy. That's enough to make him better than even a more skilled woman player, but only because he's pretty skilled in basketball. I think if you would take him out of his element and put him on the pitch, the women would run rings around him. He couldn't compete. His skill level wouldn't be enough for his superiour athleticism to matter.

I'm flattered.  Really. Honestly.  Truly.  I'm blushing.

But I'm not a good basketball player.  I'm actually a really good example of this principle, actually.  I'm an pretty good shooter and I have a good head on my shoulders to minimize mistakes.  I understand the game, but when I play pickup games, I'm probably the least physically gifted on the court.  (This is years ago, we're talking about, BTW.)  I make up for it with hustling back all the time on defense and trying to be a good role player.  I lacked skills in dribbling and I don't play "tough".  My friends can attest to all of these, both positive and negative.

That said, when playing against girls, I all of a sudden was able to make up in those areas I lacked by sheer power, size, and speed.  I'm not a fast guy at all, but what was "quickness" in the men's game became "speed" in the women's game.  All of those things are true.  Fau is a big dude - stocky and pretty tall.  In the men's game, he's not tall enough and probably too slow to play a true center against their athleticism.  Against the girls, he's like Shaq.

Like Joe said, I mostly played a "2" in our games.  Hung outside and shot or swung the ball around the perimeter, but against the girls, my game opened up to where I was backing people down and rebounding.  I never do that.

Plus, it was easier to pass against them, because of stuff like height - a sheer measurable.


To be fair, basketball is probably the most obvious example, other than maybe football or MMA or something, where skill can't make up for attributes.  And soccer is on the other end of that (softball, too).  There's no doubt that I'd get schooled in a game of soccer, even against 15 year old girls.  But it only speaks to my complete lack of familiarity with the sport. 

You just described a lot of the attributes that I would consider "skill" as opposed to "athleticism".

Shooting is a skill, has little to do with athleticism.

Good head on your shoulders, to minimize mistakes - Skill, not athleticism.

Trying to be a good role player - skill, not athleticism.

You weren't playing a WNBA team, you were playing a Div II basketball team. You were probably equally as skilled as the women you were playing against if not better in some of those skills. Of course your superior athleticism made the difference. Now go play against the WNBA.  MUCH higher skill level than that.  Now come back and tell me your superior athleticism would have allowed you to outplay them.  I don't buy it. I just don't.

Of course I wouldn't beat someone in the NBA.

The point is this, as far as men go, I'm on the bottom when it comes to skills.  Most guys I play with kick the crap out of me.  I'm a good shooter, but I'm not great, compared to regular guys on the pick up court.  And we're unorganized and largely untrained, other than playing for fun.

Compare this to an organized team of girls in the top 1% of their gender at basketball.

In short, I'm one of the worst guys on the court.  They're some of the best girls.  I still beat them.  (Or even play competitively against them.)

So, I have a question:

All of the people who are saying that size, speed, strength are just too much to overcome... surely you must believe that NBA players are the biggest, fastest, strongest people in the world, right?

I'm pretty sure that you could take a team of (male) NBA players, and a team of (male) track-and-field stars who are bigger, faster, and stronger... and the NBA players would wipe the f*cking floor with them in a game of basketball.

Does skill count for nothing in your world?

Of course you need some skill, but athletic ability can equal that and even surpass that.  How many players in any sport do you hear are "great athletes?"  That usually means they are game changers but need to hone their skill a little more. 

Take Vick for instance.  He is athletically gifted.  He made the Probowl pre-arrest almost entirely on athleticism.  He was by no means a good QB, we was athletic.  Now, he is a good QB and still has the athleticism and is widely considered one of the best in the league right now.

Skill counts for something.  Athleticism counts for more.  Both and you're a beast.

So do you think that Chris Paul is the most athletic point guard in the NBA?  That Dwyane Wade is the biggest, strongest, or fastest shooting guard?

Yes, there are physical freaks like LeBron or Dwight Howard, but there are plenty of great players who aren't the best athletes in the league.  And basketball is the most extreme example you can pick... I doubt anyone would say that Joe Montana, Barry Sanders, Greg Maddux, or Derek Jeter were the biggest, strongest, or fastest at their positions.

WNBA.

What?  A Div II team? In the US? I don't think so. Maybe of the entire population in the world, but 90% of those girls don't play basketball.  Of the girls that play basketball, you're talking about maybe in the top 50%. Maybe. The average Div II team is not that much better than a pickup team. You telling me that Div II, NAIA, Div I, WNBA and anyone else that plays outside the US at that level makes up the top 1% of girls basketball? I doubt it.  Now WNBA, you're probably talking about top 1% of their gender at basketball. You're vastly over estimating your competition.

I don't think you quite understand what Div II sports is like. Div II and NAIA is for anyone that wants to play who's not good enough for Div I. Div III is like playing a recreational sport. Now before anyone goes crazy, I'm not talking about all of Div II, I'm talking about the average Div II school. The top 15-20 Div II schools in their respective sport are on par with some Div I schools, but that's only the top 15-20 schools and there are hundreds of Div II teams, so unless this particular school you were playing against was within the top 15-20 in the country of Div II, the level of play is not really that great. Same goes  for NAIA, the top teams can compete with some Div I schools, but the vast majority are not much better than finding 5 girls who play basketball on a regular basis and throwing them together (a pick-up game).

And before you tell me that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, my son just graduated from playing soccer on an NAIA team and I had a daughter that played on an NAIA team 3 years ago. They both played against Division II teams at times and were very competitive. None of the schools I'm talking about were top Div II or top NAIA teams, just average teams, so I saw first hand the level of competition. The kids play hard and train hard but you won't see any of them playing in a World Cup. None of them will ever even make it to the professional level.

If you're gonna look at it like that, then you are easily in the top 5% of the men since 90% of the men in the world don't play basketball and of those that do (like me) that haven't played in years and are out of shape, fat, short and never really were that good in the first place you easily smoke us.

Whatever.  Vick has probably been playing football since he was old enough to walk. He's had YEARS of training to hone his skills.  Even in a wheelchair he can read the defense better than anyone here at anytime in our lives.  That's skill buddy, got nothing whatsoever to do with athleticism.

Now he's certainly not the best at it, but he's no moron either. His superior athleticism allows him to be a little less skilled than maybe a Peyton Manning, but he's in the same ballpark as him when it comes to skill and that ball park is WAY over the heads of you and me.

On Pappy's point.

And in sports where skill is more important than athleticism, the women are closer to being even. 

PGA vs. LPGA, yes the best male golfer in the world is better than the best female golfer. But not by much.  Of the top 1000 golfers in the world there probably are 100+ that are female.

NBA vs WNBA.  Probably about 10,000 male basketball players that are better than the best female basketball player.

I shutter to think how many males would be better than the best female nose tackle -- a million, two million, 10 million.

However, the best gymnast in the world are female same with ice dancers.       



 

I think the only way this topic could become more tedious is if it were to devolve into whether cheerleading is a "sport".

I think your missing my point, buddy.  Vick had a little skill pre-arrest but was considered a starting QB because of his athleticism.  If you took his legs away from him, he would have been a shit QB.  He may have had skill but it wasn't on an NFL level until last year.  Skill would be accuarcy and reading defenses, things he was poor at.  Athleticism is rushing for over 1000 yards in a season as a QB and using your mobility to keep plays alive, not to mention throwing the ball eighty yards, things he was good at.

In the NFL maybe, but that's still a lot better than 99% of people.  He didn't get into the NFL on JUST his athleticism. He got there on both his athleticism and his skill at being a QB. I'm sure that if you tried you could find people that were faster, stronger etc, but they wouldn't have ALSO been better QB's than Vick.

I think you mean he wasn't at the TOP of the NFL level until last year. He absolutely WAS at an NFL level or he wouldn't have been in the NFL.  Like I said, I don't think it would have been that tough to find someone as fast or as strong, but you wouldn't have been able to find someone as fast, as strong AND as skilled at QB as Vick and that was even prior to last year.

According to what standard? NFL QB's - I'll buy that. College QB's, no way he was better than all but a few. High School QB's - no one could touch him.

That's ON TOP of his ability to read defenses,  etc.

I have some pretty killer "spirit fingers".  :D

Not sure how many will get that reference.

Also - Don't be hatin' Pappy!  I had some skeelz, son!  Really though, I always had a good knack for sports.  I am not going to elaborate because it serves no purpose, but I will tell you I have had an experience similar to Dave's basketball story.  My stories involve soccer and tennis both at a high level (and no I wasn't some sort of pro).  All I can say is that the ladies look a lot better when they are playing each other and both times the outcome wasn't even close.  Each time they kept on talking about how shocked they were at how fast everything was moving.

Women are great, but sports isn't their forte.

Michael Vick made the Pro Bowl 3 times in ATL; in 2005, he made it rushing for less yards and TDs (in 15 games for ATL) than he did last year (in 12 games for PHI)... so it obviously wasn't just based on his athleticism.

Claiming that Vick was not playing "on an NFL level" in Atlanta is absurd.

I don't doubt it, but how do we know the ladies you played against were any good? Did you beat Chris Evert or Mia Hamm? :)

Since you don't want to share, I'll share one of my experiences. My 2nd eldest daughter Jessica used to play indoor soccer with several other pretty good girls. She was the goalie. They played against girls most of the time and pretty much beat most of the teams they played against, so one year they decided to play against the boys when they were about 12 or 13 I think it was. When the boys saw they were playing girls they all thought it was easy win for them. It was quite funny watching mom and dads scream at their boys when they ended up getting beat by a bunch of girls. They ended up losing in the championship game, their only loss that year, but they earned the respect of every last boy they played against. Now this was just some indoor league, so they weren't playing against great teams or anything like that, most of boys were from rec teams while these girls were all from select teams, but they were playing against boys the same age as them. The boys were faster and stronger, but they weren't as talented and with it being indoor, the size of the field made their superior speed less valuable. Skill won out over speed most games.

Do you have any common sense in your world? You keep using the most assinine comparisons to try and make your point. You keep comparing professional female atheletes to amatuer males. Now you are comparing two different sports against each other.. So in answer to your ridiculous premise no the US track and field team would not beat the US basketball team in basketball, just as the basketball team would not win track and field.
But as I stated earlier, why do you and the other woman sports defenders refuse to compare mens and womans teams of equal skill level? Is it because once skill is equaled, the sheer natural physical dominance would take over? I would love to see the NCAA championship team play the worst WNBA team to see if your theory that skill alone can win out. But even if the WNBA team does win, could it win against a comparible NBA team even though the WNBA players are considered to be more fundamentally skilled players?
The PC bullshit that is permeating the attacks against people who do not choose to watch womens sports is sickening.
If skill is better than athleticism, there would be a lot more overachievers in professional sports than their are.

Because that entirely misses the point!

When you define the comparison as between "persons of equal skill," of course the smaller, slower, weaker people will lose!  There is no way to make up for the difference in athleticism because you have EXCLUDED skill (as a variable) from the comparison.

I would love to see a team of Olympic decathletes take on the worst NBA team to see if your theory works (namely: skill doesn't matter, size/speed/strength is everything).

Who the hell thinks WNBA players are more skilled than NBA players?  Give me a break with that ridiculous strawman.

P.S. If you think I'm arguing in favor of women's sports, you should try reading the thread again.  I have no interest in women's sports OR college sports... but I don't try to pretend that women's sports are an affront to my standards of Superior Sporting Product, while madly cheering on the Buckeyes or the Gators.

It is.  And it is one sport where even mediocre women do better than the best men.  Kinda the opposite of basketball. 

Well, they weren't pros but the soccer team was one of the better ones (college) at the time and several had been rumored to be offered professional/international invites.  It was a little stronger than just a rumor really.  The tennis situation was ranked.  I was a little surprised that I never saw the tennis player go on to bigger things, maybe she felt she was starting a little late.  I don't keep up with girls soccer enough to know if any of the players moved forward but they definitely weren't high profile.

I will say this Pappy...  I give you credit for holding it down for the ladies, your doing a great job!  I really don't want to make it sound like I think they are bad at sports, just that they have some inherent short comings that keeps them from being at the level I like to watch.  I will also say that as more money goes into ladies sports, I could see better and better talent coming to the forefront.  Some of the better lady athletes I have seen gave up on their games after college.  To many of them the benefit was a scholarship mixed with an opportunity to have some competitive fun.

Cheerleading is most definitely not a sport.  However, even as an activity, like with gymnastics, women are not better than men.  Different things are asked of each.  Men are better at throwing the girls up, the girls are better at tumbling around.  Same with ice dancing or whatever else.

Because I don't care about women's sports...doesn't make me sexist.

Because I don't watch the LOGO channel...doesn't make me homophobic.

Because I can't stand watching Tyler Perry movies...doesn't make me a racist.

Men are (generally) bigger and stronger than women.  Fact.  It's not sexist.  I watch women compete in the Olympics and in world competitions.  Otherwise, I don't care.  It doesn't make me sexist and it doesn't make a man sexist either.  We are used to people not wanting to watch us compete.  We play because we love our sport.

^ And more power to you.  I love that women's sports exist and that women choose that as a way to be competitive.  However, I just don't find interest in it as a spectator.  I am having a daughter soon, and I hope that she plays sports.  It's not that I dislike it, but I just don't have any investment.

Thanks. Maybe I am a little biased having married a woman that was highly competitive in women's sports and had 2 girls that were highly competitive as well. On the other hand I tend to believe that I've just been exposed to it more than some. My daughter played on a soccer team that was ranked #2 in the country when she was 13. My daughter wasn't a starter, but I watched that team play and knew how good they were. I also had a son 1 year younger that played select although on a much weaker team. My daughter's team would have slaughtered my son's team and it wouldn't have been close. I don't think they would have beaten the top boys team in the area, but they wouldn't have been blown out either.

Yes that's at 13, the difference between the girls and the boys does increase as they get older, but I'm not trying to argue that the top women's team could top the top men's team, only that the top women's team could top an average men's team.

That's only my opinion, I could be wrong.

Side story:

2 girls from my work were talking crap about volleyball, so me and my buddy Barimo challenged them to a game.  The girls played volleyball in high school and me and my buddy don't play at all.  He estimated that he hadn't played in several years.  I hadn't played in about a year, and even then, it was not with any kind of regularity.

So, we had a big challenge and, to be honest, I was a little bit scared that we were going to get smoked, having no experience.  In short, the girls didn't score 1 point.

Basically you define any activity in which women are superior as non-sport so you can conclude that men are superior at all sports.

Cheerleading is much more of a sport than NASCAR. 

I know we love definitions here. By definition, cheerleading is a sport. I use to argue with the girls in high school that it wasn't, but that was just to tease them as much as aything else.

Isn't the primary purpose of cheerleaders to entertain the crowd while real athletics are going on? I know they have their own competitions, but I was under the impression that their main purpose was still "leading cheers" at real sporting events.

I don't consider cheerleading a real sport either...

That was true in 1950.  Today most of the cheerleaders in high school and college are more interested in their own competitions and consider the cheering at football and basketball games to be a minor sideshow. 

I was under the impression you were until I asked some cheerleaders of the 23 of them at the high school I taught at for three years, only one saw the primary purpose to be cheering at the basketball games, 21 said that they were much more focused on their own competitions and one said it was about equal.   I have heard the same from other cheerleaders at other schools. 

Completely untrue.  Women being worse at them have nothing to do with it.

Nascar isn't a sport.  Neither is cheerleading.

Neither are surfing or golf.  My definition of sport requires active defense.

Interesting. I've never seen if defined that way. My gut reaction says that's a little too restrictive as then many of the summer and winter olympics would be disqualified as sports.

It doesn't match up with the dictionary definition either.

sport   /spɔrt, spoʊrt/ 
[spawrt, spohrt] 
 
–noun

1. 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.
2. a particular form of this, especially in the out of doors.
3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
EXPAND4. jest; fun; mirth; pleasantry: What he said in sport was taken seriously. 5. mockery; ridicule; derision: They made sport of him. 6. an object of derision; laughingstock. 7. something treated lightly or tossed about like a plaything. 8. something or someone subject to the whims or vicissitudes of fate, circumstances, etc. 9. a sportsman. 10. Informal . a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or admirable manner; an accommodating person: He was a sport and took his defeat well. 11. Informal . a person who is interested in sports as an occasion for gambling; gambler. 12. Informal . a flashy person; one who wears showy clothes, affects smart manners, pursues pleasurable pastimes, or the like; a bon vivant. 13. Biology . an organism or part that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation. 14. Obsolete . amorous dalliance.

–adjective

15. of, pertaining to, or used in sports or a particular sport.
16. suitable for outdoor or informal wear: sport clothes.

–verb (used without object)

17. to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation.
18. to play, frolic, or gambol, as a child or an animal.
19. to engage in some open-air or athletic pastime or sport.
20. to trifle or treat lightly: to sport with another's emotions. 21. to mock, scoff, or tease: to sport at suburban life. 22. Botany . to mutate.

–verb (used with object)

23. to pass (time) in amusement or sport.
24. to spend or squander lightly or recklessly (often followed by away ).
25. Informal . to wear, display, carry, etc., especially with ostentation; show off: to sport a new mink coat.
26. Archaic . to amuse (especially oneself).

—Idiom

27. sport one's oak. oak ( def. 5 ) .

Origin:

1350–1400; Middle English; aphetic variant of disport

Sounds like chess would be a sport under your definition. 

I find the dictionary definition to be much, much too broad.  Sure, fishing might be "sport", but I don't consider it "a sport".  For my definition, sports require:

1) government via a set of rules
2) ACTIVE defense (AKA simultaneous play)
3) athletic/tactile skill

I don't say this to demean other athletic activities and competitions.  I like surfing and bobsled and all kinds of Olympic events that I don't consider actual sports.

Dave, I think you just created that definition to fit your argument. In your very first post in this thread (which you started) you refer to driving as a sport.

Not to pshaw your "exaggeration for effect" call of the 1950's, but it was also true into the 80's and 90's...which was the last time I paid attention to any cheerleader except the one I was planning on spanking my monkey to that night.

I'd also like to note that "at the highest levels" of cheerleading (NFL, NBA), there is no real cheerleading competition...it is STILL strictly for entertaining fans of a real sport.

The NFL still calls them cheerleaders, I'll give you that. But in the NBA they are actually cheerleaders. They are dance teams.

No, I didn't.  My friends from this board can tell you that I've adhered and defended this definition for well over 10 years.

Sometimes, it's easier to say "sport" for the sake of casual conversation, rather than specifying into the little groups.  I definitely don't consider NASCAR a sport.

Also, "my argument" isn't really an argument.  I'm just saying that I don't like womens' sports (short of MMA).  I don't think that women are as good at any sports that I can think of off the top of my head, but that's not to say that they don't exist.

Gymnastics, track, and marathons isn't sports under your definition. Can one be an athlete but not participate in a sport? Are gymnists or runners not athletes because they do not participate in a sport?

I think you are too limiting as to what you would call a sport. I think a sport is a competitive competition which doesn't exactly require an athlete to participate.  On the other hand you can't be an athlete if you don't compete in a sport.   

Maybe you have consciously used that definition for 10 years, but I don't think it is something in your core. I tell people I don't drink soda. I've done it for years. Guess what, I had a Coca-Cola yesterday. Consciously I try to avoid sodas, I tell everyone I avoid soda, but I still have one sometimes.

In the heat of your post, which was the start of the topic, you referred to driving as a sport. Repeatedly as you are using your conscious mind to respond to others, you have said it isn't. I understand sometimes it is easier to say sport if you don't mean it but this was the very first post of the thread. Why was it even included if it isn't a sport to you in some fashion. Why isn't it just excluded? I think you want to feel some things aren't sports but your subconscious feels otherwise.

Man I may have gotten too deep now.

Absolutely you can be an athlete without playing a sport.  Those involved in track, skiing, surfing, biking, etc....absolutely athletes.  In fact, they're probably more athletic than those that do play sports.

I think that people think that I'm downing things that I don't consider sports.  I'm not.  I am not speaking down to it.  I just don't think that golf is a sport.  It's a game.  It doesn't make golf any easier or less worthy of time or praise.  Or weightlifting, or pole vault, or whatever else.

Phish, if you're trying to tap into some part of my subconscious as to what I'm portraying vs what I believe, perhaps you're right.  ...but sometimes it's easy to just speak in the colloquialisms that are common.  I say things like "Thank God", even though I don't believe in God, for example.  And, subconsciously or not, I definitely, DEFINITELY don't consider NASCAR a sport (or the drivers athletes, for that matter.)

Additionally, some of the things that I do consider sports, you may not: ping pong, for example.

Interestingly you called both golf and NASCAR sports in your thread devoted to the top sports in the US. NASCAR was in response to someone, but golf was in your original thought process, just as driving was in your initial thought process in this thread. No need to go any further on it. I'm not trying to create an argument just so you know. I have just noticed that depending on the particular point you are making you seem to change your stance on what is or isn't a sport.

I don't change my stance.  I just don't want to write a thread called "Which sports and athletic activities and games and races are relevant in the US?"

For things like that, I use the word sports to include pretty much any diversion that they might talk about on Sportscenter, because my audience (you guys) understand the point of the thread easier.  ...darts, bowling, hot dog eating....whatever. 

Speaking of which, I had a hotdog for lunch.  I am quite the athlete.

When you are the person who asks about what sports are relevant and then you throw one out there, golf, you are most certainly changing your stance between if golf is or isn't a sport. If I had started that thread and I didn't believe golf was a sport, I never would have included the word golf. Someone else could and that would be fine, but you specifically had golf in mind while discussing what sports are relevant.

You didn't have to have a long drawn out topic title. You simply needed to leave golf out of the discussion if it really isn't a sport to you. I bet you didn't even think about it while writing it. It just came second nature as you were thinking of sport viewership. Now that it is in the forefront of your mind of course golf isn't a sport and I don't expect you to say otherwise. Months down the road when this isn't a topic of discussion though I guarantee you will say something about the sport of golf of NASCAR once again. It is somewhere in your recesses that these are sports, but you have created a personal definition otherwise and it creates contradiction.

I did think about golf in discussion, in terms of not being a sport, but I chose to use it anyway.

I was really trying to ask which kind of competitions are relevant?  I just thought that it would cloud the question, knowing the audience I was speaking to.  I figured that it was understood that, in the context I was asking, that the word "sports" included all of those other things, too: specifically popular ones like Nascar and golf.

You can choose to believe me or not, but I am not trying to be sneaky here.  I don't have any other motive.  You're essentially telling me that because I used the word sport when discussing golf in the past, that I think it's a sport.  But I don't.  You're wrong.  I don't think golf is a sport, even if you're telling me that I do.  I simply used a more convenient word choice.  (I thought, at least.)

That's crazy.  Your criteria would disqualify the vast majority of Olympic competition as "sports."

Words are only useful as a method to convey an idea.  When everyone else sees the word "sport," they understand it to mean something close to the dictionary definition.  You have a strange new definition of the word (limited strictly to adversarial sports), but when you use the word "sport" to convey a different idea (adversarial sports only), you're just confusing everyone else.

It would disqualify the vast majority of winter events as only ice hockey would be considered a sport under that def.

But the majority of summer events are sports under that def.

 List of summer 2012 according to http://www.topendsports.com/events/summer/sports/index.htm

    * archery     N
    * badminton Y
    * basketball Y
    * beach volleyball Y
    * boxing Y
    * canoe / kayak N
    * cycling Y
    * diving N
    * equestrian N
    * fencing Y
    * field hockey Y
    * gymnastics N
    * handball Y
    * judo Y
    * modern pentathlon N
    * rowing Y
    * sailing N
    * shooting N
    * soccer / football Y
    * swimming N
    * synchronized swimming N
    * table tennis Y
    * taekwondo Y
    * tennis Y
    * track and field N
    * triathlon (swimming, biking, running) N
    * volleyball Y
    * water polo Y
    * weightlifting N
    * wrestling Y

^ Pretty close.  I think you have rowing as "Yes", where I would say no.  The others I consider games or some other kind of athletic competition.

Spider Dan is right that I'm redefining the word.  I realize.  However, there is debate about what is sport and what is not.  Some consider hunting a sport, which many don't.  Others consider hot dog eating a sport, where others don't.  I just set that line in a different place.

^^^ oops that was a mistake.  rowing is a no.  cycling both.  In time trials no.  in races where you can cut someone off yes.   

Interesting evaluation of cycling.  I think you're probably right in that it IS a sport, but I'd never really thought of it that way.  I suppose that you are directly defending your position.  ...the same with things like speed skating.  However, I'd say that running sprints or ovals where you're restricted to your one lane doesn't apply.

^^^Note:  I don't agree with your definition of "sport." 

But if the term is defined as having an active defense I would say in a race where you can legally interfere with another teams forward progress than it meets the definition.  If you can't block than it doesn't. 

Yeah, I know you don't agree with my definition.  But, under that definition, some types of races apply that I hadn't previously considered.

Please explain how NASCAR is a "no" but cycling and rowing are a "yes".

I think that NASCAR lacks the athletic skill requirement.  (I suppose that is debatable.)

Cycling and Rowing both have it.

I'll let you debate the driver's aspect but have you seen the workout regimen of the pit guys?

As I indicated earlier rowing as a no was a typo.

The difference between cycling and Nascar is one is an athletic endeavor the other is a technology contest.

I was listening to a thing about roller-derby.  I would go watch that.  No men are allowed to compete, and they play us the female aspects of it as part of a larger gimmick, but it sounds pretty fun and entertaining.

All the roller derby I ever saw was a gimmicky as professional wrestling. I got free tickets to go see a taping at Universal Studios once (men were competing as well in this one) and there were two separate matches. The biggest "enemies" in the first match came out and were sitting side by side during the second one.