Yes. All sports are games. But not all games are sports. So to call the Olympics games is 100% correct. They could even include board games if they want, since they too are games. Think of it like a square. All squares are rectangles. But not all rectangles are squares. For a rectangle to be elevated to a square it has to meet a higher threshold. It has extra requirements.
Some games are elevated to sports, if they have that physical skill element to them. But many games do not reach the level of sports. Things like tic tac toe, chess, or most card games. I can think of one card game that could be a sport though. Slapjack. Remember that game where you take turns putting down cards, and as soon as a jack appears the first person that slaps it keeps the pile. That's a game, card game even, where physical skill is likely to determine the winner.
Games are defined at their core by the term, “play.”
Sports are defined at their core by the term, “competition.”
These are my personal opinions, and therefore are not subject to your limited interpretation.
You are right, your opinion isn't subject to my interpretation. But if we left definition of words up to each person, then it would be pretty hard to communicate. Imagine court proceedings where each party gets to decide what words mean.
Games ARE at their core defined as play. Which is why all sports are games. But sports are not defined at their core as competition. The core definition, literally definition, is physical skill. That's actually how the dictionary (and almost all of society) defines sports. Even the dictionary says sports "often" have a competitive nature. It doesn't say always. Non competitive tennis for example. Many people play for fun, not competition.
Sports are usually competitive, I agree. But they don't have to be. But they do always have to have physical skill. So far nobody has come up with any exceptions. Nobody has named a sport that has no physical skill. I think the reason for this is because once that requirement is taken away, then it's no longer what is a sport, it's what ISN'T a sport.
Ignoring and disagreeing with information, is not the same as stating the information has not been provided. There are many “sports” with little to no physical skill, but they are always passed off with other qualifiers. Chess has been repeatedly shown to require physical skill. Then the argument becomes, how much physical skill? People sweat profusely during Chess matches, so sweat can’t be the criteria. How about movement? No, Chess requires movement. Physical fitness? Well, Chess requires all players to have some physical fitness, so there again it cannot be the criteria. Agility? Nope. Dexterity? Same problem. Your position requires arbitrary personal opinion and conjecture, where sport = competition requires no such devices.
Yes. All sports are games. But not all games are sports. So to call the Olympics games is 100% correct. They could even include board games if they want, since they too are games. Think of it like a square. All squares are rectangles. But not all rectangles are squares. For a rectangle to be elevated to a square it has to meet a higher threshold. It has extra requirements.
Some games are elevated to sports, if they have that physical skill element to them. But many games do not reach the level of sports. Things like tic tac toe, chess, or most card games. I can think of one card game that could be a sport though. Slapjack. Remember that game where you take turns putting down cards, and as soon as a jack appears the first person that slaps it keeps the pile. That's a game, card game even, where physical skill is likely to determine the winner.
Games are defined at their core by the term, “play.”
Sports are defined at their core by the term, “competition.”
These are my personal opinions, and therefore are not subject to your limited interpretation.
Training for a game or sport is not performing the sport itself. Practice is not a sport. Practice can be anything that improves a particular skill, but it is not the sport. Tennis is a sport when played under competitive rules. Hitting a ball back an forth across the net can be practicing for tennis, but it also could be two kids who know nothing of tennis volleying the ball back and forth. They are not playing tennis, could technically be practicing for tennis, but at the core, they are just playing their own made up game.
I agree with most that. But what if they are not practicing? What if they are playing, but simply not competing? They are playing for fun. I'm not aware of any requirement that says sports MUST require competition or scorekeeping.
To me a requirement of competition gets pretty confusing pretty fast. Lets say there is a golf tournament. A player is competing. So he is participating in the sport, right? But then lets say he makes a 10 on a hole. So now he just gives up. He still plays, but is no longer even trying to do well. He just casually hit's the ball (playing by the rules of course). Sometimes he even intentionally plays to areas where he knows it will hurt his score, but will help him improve long term . He needs the practice. Now he is just practicing right?
But then what happens if the competition gets disqualified and/or starts playing even worse? Now the practicing player thinks "wait, I might have a chance afterall". So now, he starts trying again. Competing. And to everyones surprise, he wins. Does this mean that he was not participating in the sport of golf the entire tournament? I think most people would agree that regardless of how well he played, or his motivation, or his attitude, it's STILL the sport of golf.