No. No. No. There is a minimum level of physical exertion that needs to be met for something to meet my definition of a sport.

It's as much of a sport as competitive spelling or poker, which are on ESPN. Even at the highest levels there is simply not enough physical exertion to be considered a sport. So in my book, none of them are sports! I don't see people posing exercise tips on how to improve at spelling, poker, or pinball. If it required the level of physical exertion to become a sport we'd have topics discussing pinball workouts. Yet after 100,000s of topics it simply hasn't come up.

I play pinball recreationally.

For me the definition comes down to that level of physical exertion. What is the minimum level of physical exertion required for something to become a sport? For me that's beyond standing, nudging, and flipping (plus dealing with adrenaline and nerves). I feel there has to be some minimum otherwise every activity or hobby done competitively would be a sport. I can't think of anything that doesn't require at least some physical exertion. Again that's just my opinio...man.

biglebowski_(resized).jpg

I'm not sure that's a fair argument. I think most would recognize that soccer, for example, is a sport without having competed in a soccer tournament. Perhaps there is a difference with these borderline examples. Either way, in order to answer your question of whether pinball is a sport a person has to first answer my question; what is the minimum level of physical exertion required for something to become a sport?

I really like how Popular Science framed that debate. They asked the question, "Is Tiger Woods proof that golf is a sport, or is John Daly confirmation to the contrary?" and determined that the answer "probably depends on whether you've got a set of clubs in the garage." Clever. I'd ask the following followup questions, "Would Tiger Woods have been as dominant if he was less athletic?" and "Would John Daly have been more dominant if he was more athletic?" My answers would be "no" and "yes". I'd argue that being athletic makes a much larger difference in golf then pinball.

PS: I'll address the obvious comeback, that John Daly was already known as a long ball hitter. My counter to this would be that if he were more athletic he would have been able to produce equal distances without using such an uncontrolled swing.

In my view that is the only question that makes this a debate.

I will give you that. Pinball is as much of a sport as chess, spelling bees, Odyssey of the Mind, Math Olympics, video games, Academy Awards, board games, Solo & Ensemble, battle of the bands, Go Fish!, art contests, Mock Trial, Sudoku, construction, etc.

I'll quote myself from before.

I volunteer as tribute to make the con argument. Does someone accept the challenge? In our submission I think we need to provide some options for "justice" should the honorable judge rule against us. I'm open to suggestions.

Here is the correct link: https://judgejohnhodgman.wufoo.com/forms/submit-your-case-to-judge-john-hodgman/

Thank you for the link. It was a very interesting listen. In my arguing that it's not a sport, something I still believe, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to dismiss the dedication tournament players put into pinball. The level of dedication is very comparable to preparing for a sport. Further, I agree with most of the comparisons the speaker made to other sports. The analogy of a golfer studying the course with his caddie was spot on.

I guess that's really the debate at this point, "What is the definition of sports?"

I don't think that's an accurate analogy. If the vast majority of people agree on the meaning of a word and use the word in that context, that will become the definition. How people use words is what defines them.

With language, yes. How the vast majority of people use language is what defines it. For example, the word "nice" used to mean "ignorant" or "stupid". Now it means "pleasant". Is everyone that uses "nice" as "pleasant" wrong? No, because that is now what the vast majority of people believe it means. So was everyone that previously used "nice" as "ignorant" wrong? No again; because that was previously how the vast majority of people used it. It's not about finding ignorant people, it's about finding how the vast majority of people use language.

Perhaps I should have prefaced this with where I'm at in the debate. I think the real debate is about defining "sport". More specifically what is the minimum level of physical exertion that is required for something to be considered a sport. There are some here that have claimed it to be zero. Again, I don't think that's how the vast majority of people use the word "sport".

Definitions are dependent on context. I feel there is a huge difference in the definition if you are saying, "I enjoy fishing for sport" versus "Is fishing a sport?". In the first, I'd interpret the word "sport" as a synonym for "recreation" or "fun". Basically I am stating that I am not fishing as a means for commerce or survival. If that's the definition you are using then, absolutely, you can play pinball for sport. In the second, I'd interpret the word "sport" as perhaps "athletic activity". Based on context is seems logical that the OP is referencing the later. Assuming we can agree on that, the question remains, "What is the minimum level of physical exertion required for something to be considered a sport?"

I don't want to get hung up on this point but the nouns have also changed in definition.

I proactively agree.

That's how I understood your argument.