Most Hated Sports Star (11 Viewers)

[duffer]

It's a competition where the quality of industrial machinery decides who wins. I'm sure it can be fun to watch if you're into that kind of thing, but it's not a sport, it's a science contest.

If it's _just_ the machinery, why do the best drivers get paid so much more than the worst ones? Why not just put an engineer in the car rather than a driver, cheaper and more expendable!

 

---

[SBT]

If it's _just_ the machinery, why do the best drivers get paid so much more than the worst ones? Why not just put an engineer in the car rather than a driver, cheaper and more expendable!

I didn't say it was just the machinery. The machinery is without question the most important factor though.

 

[AOM]

Are you too young to have watched Mo Konjic?

I do have some memories of Konjic but I don't remember him doing anything like that

 

[duffer]

I didn't say it was just the machinery. The machinery is without question the most important factor though.

It's certainly pretty important, yes. Always has been in motor sport of all kinds, but most people still consider it a sport in which the driver clearly also influences the result.

How about horse racing, is that not a sport either?

 

[duffer]

I do have some memories of Konjic but I don't remember him doing anything like that

Ah, you must've missed that one.

 

[SBT]

It's certainly pretty important, yes. Always has been in motor sport of all kinds, but most people still consider it a sport in which the driver clearly also influences the result.

How about horse racing, is that not a sport either?

For the horses it is, yeah

 

[duffer]

For the horses it is, yeah

So there's no skill involved in being a jockey either? Again then, why do the best ones get paid more than the worst ones?

 

[duffer]

Dunno why I didn't just get a job as a racing driver or a jockey, knowing this.... Is it too late to apply do you think?

 

[SBT]

So there's no skill involved in being a jockey either? Again then, why do the best ones get paid more than the worst ones?

Because it pays to gain whatever advantage you can, even if it's not the primary factor in who wins the contest.

Being physically skilled at something is great, but it doesn't make you an athlete.

 

[duffer]

Because it pays to gain whatever advantage you can, even if it's not the primary factor in who wins the contest.

Being physically skilled at something is great, but it doesn't make you an athlete.

Define athlete. Is shot putting a sport? Weight lifting? Golf?

 

[Grendel]

No chance. National hunt jockeys, mental bastards.
Guaranteed to break nearly every bone in their body during their career.

Sadly very few get eradicated on the course

 

[SBT]

Define athlete. Is shot putting a sport? Weight lifting? Golf?

They're all competitions where the winner is decided by the athletic quality of the competitors involved, so yes.

If the Ryder Cup started letting the US use hydraulic clubs they'd designed at home while Europe were stuck with normal titanium ones, then the US would win almost every time and it would cease to be a sport.

 

[fernandopartridge]

It's a competition where the quality of industrial machinery decides who wins. I'm sure it can be fun to watch if you're into that kind of thing, but it's not a sport, it's a science contest.

Robot Wars is better entertainment

 

[SBT]

If you want my really red-hot take, my argument against industrial machinery contests being counted as sport extends to believing that Andy Murray should be ineligible for SPOTY.

 

[duffer]

They're all competitions where the winner is decided by the athletic quality of the competitors involved, so yes.

If the Ryder Cup started letting the US use hydraulic clubs they'd designed at home while Europe were stuck with normal titanium ones, then the US would win almost every time and it would cease to be a sport.

Again, define athletic. What's athletic about golf?

 

[SBT]

Again, define athletic. What's athletic about golf?

It's a game where the players use controlled physical motion to hit the ball with a club. The strength and technical control required is where the athleticism comes in.

 

[Grendel]

It's a game where the players use controlled physical motion to hit the ball with a club. The strength and technical control required is where the athleticism comes in.

John Daley and Craig Stadler never struck me as very athletic

 

[Saddlebrains]

Those claiming otherwise, educate yourselves below

 

[SBT]

John Daley and Craig Stadler never struck me as very athletic

Just as you can be athletic without being an athlete; you can be an athlete without being athletic

 

[Grendel]

I always look at what someone called the superstars test to see if sports people are athletic.

I wouldn’t give Luke the Nuke much if a chance in truth

 

[SBT]

Those claiming otherwise, educate yourselves below

Nobody is denying these F1 drivers are fit and healthy people. Some are obviously better at driving than others too. Unfortunately, the best and strongest driver stuck in the worst car wouldn't win a single race - not a sport.

 

[duffer]

It's a game where the players use controlled physical motion to hit the ball with a club. The strength and technical control required is where the athleticism comes in.

Exactly. And controlling a very high powered car (or feckin' huge horse) also requires controlled physical motion, strength and technical control.

So by your definition, a driver or jockey, must also be an athlete.

If sport is something in which human athletes compete, then motor racing and horse racing are sports. (Darts too for that matter!).

I get that the gripe with F1 is that the best cars win, but they don't always win. The driver is a factor too. Similarly with horse racing.

I think that's why many (most?) people, consider them sports, and also why bookies make money on horses!

Anyway, I'm not here to wind you up mate. I've enjoyed the debate and we've not yet resorted to calling each other names, though I've probably been less than polite sometimes, sorry. If we disagree, it's pretty trivial stuff in the scheme of things.

The one thing I'm sure we can all agree on is that darts simply has to be in the Olympics.

 

[SBT]

Exactly. And controlling a very high powered car (or feckin' huge horse) also requires controlled physical motion, strength and technical control.

So by your definition, a driver or jockey, must also be an athlete.

If sport is something in which human athletes compete, then motor racing and horse racing are sports. (Darts too for that matter!).

I get that the gripe with F1 is that the best cars win, but they don't always win. The driver is a factor too. Similarly with horse racing.

I think that's why many (most?) people, consider them sports, and also why bookies make money on horses!

Anyway, I'm not here to wind you up mate. I've enjoyed the debate and we've not yet resorted to calling each other names, though I've probably been less than polite sometimes, sorry. If we disagree, it's pretty trivial stuff in the scheme of things.

The one thing I'm sure we can all agree on is that darts simply has to be in the Olympics.

I'm enjoying this discussion too!

The crucial difference with horse racing and F1 is that while all sports require some sort of equipment to compete, the result of the competition is not (or at least should not be) determined by the quality of that equipment. In golf/football/sprinting etc, the difference between competitors' equipment is nominal, and competitive advantages gained from the equipment are typically regulated if not outlawed altogether. In F1, those advantages are fundamental to the point of being predictive of the result. An Olympic Games where it would be almost impossible for an athlete wearing Nike shoes to beat another athlete wearing Adidas wouldn't be a proper competition, it would be a fashion show.

(You fucking prick)

 

[Shannerz]

Imagine a Cov player doing this

Loads of our players have overhit passes out for a goal kick, tbf.

 

[duffer]

I'm enjoying this discussion too!

The crucial difference with horse racing and F1 is that while all sports require some sort of equipment to compete, the result of the competition is not (or at least should not be) determined by the quality of that equipment. In golf/football/sprinting etc, the difference between competitors' equipment is nominal, and competitive advantages gained from the equipment are typically regulated if not outlawed altogether. In F1, those advantages are fundamental to the point of being predictive of the result. An Olympic Games where it would be almost impossible for an athlete wearing Nike shoes to beat another athlete wearing Adidas wouldn't be a proper competition, it would be a fashion show.

(You fucking prick)

In fairness, I could've come up with a well reasoned argument against all of that, except for that last bit in brackets. You've got me there. You win.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Say what you want about him, but he's an absolute fucking animal. Personally, I think he is great.