Society/Culture Sport: Arbitrary, Needless or Essential?

[Gethelred]

After discussion in another thread, the subject of the arbitrariness of sport came up.

Okay, I brought it up.

It got me wondering, what are people's thoughts on the nature of sport within our society? What is its role? What does it owe society, and vice versa? How should we view it? Is it important or unimportant?

Go nuts. Standard board rules apply.

 

[ShanDog]

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

arbitrary
adjective

adjective: arbitrary

1. 1.
   based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Sports (or competitive pursuits in general) are neither random choice, nor conducted on a whim, and most certainly have reasons for their existence and systems that control their conduct. Sport is therefore not arbitrary.

The need for play and shared activities are seen in many mammals, and competition for fun or other purposes not related to survival have been a part of the human existence for eons.

/thread?

​

 

[Mofra]

On an existential level, human beings have an innate need to belong to something 'bigger than thyself'.

That could be a large family group, identifying strongly with a hobby ("I'm a Trekkie"), religion (esp. to a specific church group, involvement with events), Rotary, Scouts, etc.

I believe that in some circumstances, sport fills that gap for people. There are plenty of volunteers at grassroots level who have their attachment to a local club providing them with some sort of commonality and human connection they would be unable to find elsewhere. For others, watching elite sports gives them a social outing they would rarely have otherwise.

I wouldn't call sport essential per se, but for some people it would come damn close to it.

 

[Gethelred]

sorted, I view sport as an entirely arbitrary series of rulesets and categories that we confected at different times throughout history for the purposes of meeting external societal goals; if you look at the history of sport holistically, what you find is that sport served political purposes (to keep soldiers fit, to allow wealthy young men opportunity to show off, to provide an outlet for competition external to war) and that the same societal biases that the different societies held at the time were replicated within those sporting categories. For example, the original concept of the Greek Olympics was built around the citizen, and was a method both for foiling war and ensuring that soldiers were kept in fighting trim outside of times of war. AFL, for example, was built for and by the working class - to keep the riffraff from drinking and smoking their ability to work away - and the working class took on the sport by storm.

For the purposes of the argument we were having, how far are you willing to go to say that the categories sport finds itself creating are not arbitrary?

 

[Gethelred]

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

arbitrary
adjective

adjective: arbitrary

1. 1.
   based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Sports (or competitive pursuits in general) are neither random choice, nor conducted on a whim, and most certainly have reasons for their existence and systems that control their conduct. Sport is therefore not arbitrary.

The need for play and shared activities are seen in many mammals, and competition for fun or other purposes not related to survival have been a part of the human existence for eons.

/thread?

​

You did this to me last time. Let's say at least some of the rules were the sake of personal whim and leave it at that.

 

[Chief]

to keep soldiers fit, to allow wealthy young men opportunity to show off, to provide an outlet for competition external to war

Soccer and Rugby for keeping private school boys anything but gay.

 

[faible]

Soccer and Rugby for keeping private school boys anything but gay.

They just needed somewhere that being naked with and feeling up the boys isn't gay.

 

[ShanDog]

You did this to me last time. Let's say at least some of the rules were the sake of personal whim and leave it at that.

Don't make me post the definition of whim...

 

[Gough]

The only time the Olympics are ever interesting is when they act as a proxy to conflict.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Peak SRP, this

 

[the_interloper]

After discussion in another thread, the subject of the arbitrariness of sport came up.

Okay, I brought it up.

It got me wondering, what are people's thoughts on the nature of sport within our society? What is its role? What does it owe society, and vice versa? How should we view it? Is it important or unimportant?

Go nuts. Standard board rules apply.

I believe it's so important, from the time you're a kid. And in Australia we're lucky because we can (more or less) participate in any sport we want at any age, I feel keeping fit playing sport is much more enjoyable than just running or exercising for no reason.

Aside from participation there is a vicarious element like Mofra said to watching it as well, particularly in a group. I'm mad on cricket, boxing, MMA and footy and get quite into it when watching live or at home. Sort of pathetic when you think about it but you need to be entertained.

Sport does way more good than bad in my opinion. Even you take combat sports, sure they're violent, people get hurt, often a few dickheads at the events etc. But think of a world where those fighters weren't allowed to compete relatively safely, you'd have either illegal fights like back in the day which are way more dangerous or some of those fighters might be on the streets picking on you and me.

So is it essential? I guess not, but society is a lot better for it.

 

[Frank Bunn]

sorted, I view sport as an entirely arbitrary series of rulesets and categories that we confected at different times throughout history for the purposes of meeting external societal goals; if you look at the history of sport holistically, what you find is that sport served political purposes (to keep soldiers fit, to allow wealthy young men opportunity to show off, to provide an outlet for competition external to war) and that the same societal biases that the different societies held at the time were replicated within those sporting categories. For example, the original concept of the Greek Olympics was built around the citizen, and was a method both for foiling war and ensuring that soldiers were kept in fighting trim outside of times of war. AFL, for example, was built for and by the working class - to keep the riffraff from drinking and smoking their ability to work away - and the working class took on the sport by storm.

For the purposes of the argument we were having, how far are you willing to go to say that the categories sport finds itself creating are not arbitrary?

Some sports rules are arbitrary. Like how many holes there are on a golf course, the length of a football game, the distances in athletics.

Back when these sports started there were often a variety of rules played by different groups. As each sport got more popular and travel became easier there was a desire to standardise the rules so individuals or teams from anywhere in the world could compete against each other fairly. Generally, the rules aim to allow for a reasonable amount of playing time to achieve a fair outcome, balanced against the physical demands of the sport.

Other sport rules are not arbitrary. The main one being segregation by sex - which is why we are here in this thread.

 

[Gethelred]

Other sport rules are not arbitrary. The main one being segregation by sex - which is why we are here in this thread.

Isn't interesting that the segregation by sex inside sport replicates protestant work/private life male/female spheres?

I get that you don't even want to think it. It won't hurt you to question, just a little.

 

[Boston tiger]

It’s great fun

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Yeah, I like sport. Not a great deal of sport. I like my footy. I'll watch the cricket though I've no real passion for the game. As noted, us humans are social animals and feel the need to belong to something greater. In the absence of religion I have the Geelong Football Club.

If sport were to one day disappear altogether however, I think I'd cope. I think I could find something to fill the void, even though it may not come from the world of health and fitness.

Competitive drinking, anyone?

 

[faible]

Yeah, I like sport. Not a great deal of sport. I like my footy. I'll watch the cricket though I've no real passion for the game. As noted, us humans are social animals and feel the need to belong to something greater. In the absence of religion I have the Geelong Football Club.

If sport were to one day disappear altogether however, I think I'd cope. I think I could find something to fill the void, even though it may not come from the world of health and fitness.

Competitive drinking, anyone?

Which God is the true God? GAS or GAJ?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Isn't interesting that the segregation by sex inside sport replicates protestant work/private life male/female spheres?

It's true that at times in the past women have been excluded from playing certain sports for similar reasons they were excluded from other roles in society. But it's been decades since this has been a factor in either society or sport, at least in the West.

Segregation by sex in sport is different, and is still current. It's largely based on physiological differences between males and females. On average, males tend to have greater height, muscle mass, strength, and endurance compared to females. Separating male and female athletes in competitive sports based on their biological sex has been comprehensively adopted by sports organisations. It allows females to compete against each other rather than against males, where they would be at a significant disadvantage.

Pretty much no one is seriously arguing for the end of sex segregation in sport.

 

[Gethelred]

It's true that at times in the past women have been excluded from playing certain sports for similar reasons they were excluded from other roles in society. But it's been decades since this has been a factor in either society or sport, at least in the West.

Segregation by sex in sport is different, and is still current. It's largely based on physiological differences between males and females. On average, males tend to have greater height, muscle mass, strength, and endurance compared to females. Separating male and female athletes in competitive sports based on their biological sex has been comprehensively adopted by sports organisations. It allows females to compete against each other rather than against males, where they would be at a significant disadvantage.

Pretty much no one is seriously arguing for the end of sex segregation in sport.

Again: people argued against women's inclusion in the legal profession, law enforcement, trades that were considered unfeminine due to supposed physical/mental incapability. Society has used science to justify decisions without sufficient pretext before, and absolutely will again.

This line of reasoning is replicated here, and - even if it has a basis in fact - should be questioned purely on that basis.

 

[Taylor]

I think sport has served as the community bonding, socialisation and roughhousing outlet for a significant number of men during the course of human life since we moved out of the struggling to survive period into the general abundance of resources period in which blood and killing violence is confined to the make believe television.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the western world has entirely subjugated the dangers of the wild world with how life is these days. It's a lovely circumstance that has taken generations to build but we no longer need worry about dying from a cut, a broken bone doesn't cripple us for life here. Women aren't dying in pregnancy at a rate of about a third (going off the Australian rate of 37% C-sections). We aren't taught to fight from an early age because the people over the hill could come for our winter stores any moment.

We live very safe sheltered lives. Most people won't even ever experience killing a creature to consume it. Is this a problem? No, again I think it's wonderful that our way of life has built such a paradise, I'm very fortunate to live here.

...but biology is biology and men are built bigger so they can be deliver more power and violence as required. They have this inbuilt desire to be part of a team and to succeed as a team, their tribe, their guys, they deliver the power of their bodies and are victorious. It's in their blood, it might be testosterone.

Testosterone has been reducing in more recent generations of men so perhaps that manly requirement is slipping from them resulting in people questioning the need for athletic releases of manly aggression at all.

Given the number of lesbians in elite sport vastly outperforms their social representation percentage there might be something to look into there, although I am quite proud to say that Australia has the most elite lesbians in world sport.

Women's competitions are the closed competitions, the "men's" are the open ones where anyone can enter. This is why equestrian and sailing don't need a specialist women's division that excludes the men.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Again: people argued against women's inclusion in the legal profession, law enforcement, trades that were considered unfeminine due to supposed physical/mental incapability. Society has used science to justify decisions without sufficient pretext before, and absolutely will again.

This line of reasoning is replicated here, and - even if it has a basis in fact - should be questioned purely on that basis.

I already addressed what you have said above. You have responded with a vague word salad.

You have presented no good argument that rules in sport are arbitrary.

Or that sex segregation in sport is anything other than about physical differences between men and women.

 

[Gethelred]

I already addressed what you have said above. You have responded with a vague word salad.

You have presented no good argument that rules in sport are arbitrary.

Or that sex segregation in sport is anything other than about physical differences between men and women.

You could do with actually reading the posts you've quoted, as opposed to attempting a faux intellectual high ground you're incapable of holding. But then, that comes as no surprise, sorted.

 

[Engimal v3]

Sport is a part of human nature. We love to compete physically.

 

[Frank Bunn]

You could do with actually reading the posts you've quoted, as opposed to attempting a faux intellectual high ground you're incapable of holding.

There's not just segregation by sex in sport but rules differences too, arising from the differences in physiology. For example -

• The men's shot weighs 7.26 kg. Women put a 4 kg shot.
• The men's javelin must weigh at least 800g while the women's javelin weighs 600g.
• The standard sprint hurdle race is 110 metres for men and 100 metres for women. The hurdles are higher in the men's event - 106.7 cm compared to 83.8 cm.
• Women play 3 sets of tennis, the men play 5.
• Female golfers use a different ball, different clubs and play a shorter course.
• AFLW play 15 minutes quarters, the men play 20 minutes each quarter.

It's not controversial that if there were no segregation by sex in sport the women could not compete. You are tying yourself up in knots with this when the real issues about women and sport lie elsewhere.

 

[Chief]

It's not controversial that if there were no segregation by sex in sport the women could not compete.

You're making the argument that the only possible way to differentiate between athletes in every sport is sex?

 

[Roobs321]

Sad that this couldn't even go a page without people going offtrack with segregation by sex in sport. If that is the first thing that pops into your mind...

I think it's good, provides a bit of colour through our lives as participant and spectator, allows us to test our physical limits, challenges us to get out of our comfort zone, experience the thrills and chance many different sports throw at us and camaraderie bonds they forge, instill competitiveness and work ethic, and as a means of rallying togetherness, parochial proxy or diplomatic dialogue to actual conflict. Many sports also relate to important survival skills such as teamwork, communication, rules, learning to swim, navigate harsh terrain, throw'n'catch, training of animals, spatial awareness, strategy, confidence/self-esteem, achievements, specialised skills, breeding, etc. I guess it passes the time, gives you something to look forward to, a games to flaunt your specimen, cunning and maybe decide a wager. Teaches you the value of sportsmanship, of giving your best effort and (hopefully) being graceful when fairly defeated. It's the right kind of alternative activity to slot amidst the other forms of modern daily life. One could question the prominence of professional sport in modern life, but as long as it continues to inspire people to get involved and invested in a pursuit which can bring meaning and wellbeing, then it performs an essential function. It will also shift over time, as I expect the more concussion-ridden sports might continue to become more niche. Sport v art or academics or work or family (or faith) or whatever need not be a zero-sum, all in moderation. And in pragmatic terms, it puts bums on seats, gives us news to chatter over, a pillar of mass distraction in society and lets off some steam.