rcarter2 : Athlete certainly implies a degree of fitness, but that can be misleading. In recent years we've seen that the definition of athelete is extremely flexible and has become a more generic term for anyone who plays a sport. I won't deny that 100 or even 50 years ago, the term "athelete" may not have applied, but this is more an example of the evolution of the language.


Light Knight : You still haven't made an argument beyond "Wiki says so!". Opinions are cheap.

Traduweise : I very much disagree with the 'evolution of language'. Even any up to date dictionary labels it as being proficient in an activity that require physical prowess. When you say that something like video games becomes an athletic activity because people are using the term a lot more general nowadays is not really valid. That isn't evolution of language. That is a misuse of a term. For example, is it valid for me to say 'effect' and 'affect' are not different from each other because people nowadays often use them interchangeably, and claim that is just an 'evolution of language'? Is it valid for me to say that ' omg lol' is correct grammar on an English paper because almost the whole nation is constantly using text language, claiming that is just evolution of language? Neither of those will pass. The correct description for athletic has not changed. People are just trying desperately to claim they are athletes because of the positive connotation that comes with being seen as an athlete. No different than when a 600 pound woman says she is not fat, she is America's 'real woman', claiming she is not some airbrushed photoshoped fantasy but the real average woman. She is using the term average to fit her when it really doesn't. Just like when gamers claim their activity is athletic, when it isn't.

rcarter2 : I didn't say video games were an athletic activity, but I did say that some of them could be considered a sport. All sports may require athletic activity, but the degree is going to vary from sport to sport. Are you going to be the one to give an exact defition of athletic activity? Can you say exactly what the minimum is in order for an activity to be "athletic"? I doubt it, and if you can, on what basis does this definition rest? You may not like my use of words, but it seems you are the one co-opting them to fit your view.

And languages most certainly do evolve. Just read a book written 100 years ago. Heck, even books written 50 years are clearly different. While we're on the subject of dictionaries and internet slang, the Oxford English Dictionary has recently come under fire for adding words like "srsly", "twerk", and "selfie". It's because the language is changing, and people recognise this. You rail against it all you like, but languages are dynamic. Grammar exists to replicate the way we speak, and words exist to suit our needs, not the other way around. That's why a book like Huckleberry Finn, rife though it may be appalling grammar, is still taught in American schools. If the language doesn't suit our needs, then we change it. That's how it's been done since time immemorial.

Traduweise : But base definitions do not change. We are not at a time where the term 'athletic' no longer refers to physical prowess. Adding words has absolutely nothing to do with completely changing the meaning of an existing word. Evolving language does not mean completely altering the meaning of a word. Making video game playing fit athleticism is exactly what that is. Completely changing the definition. I am not saying that language isn't dynamic. But changing language does not mean completely altering the definition of existing words. There might be a set minimum amount of work in the term athletic, but it is defined as actual physical prowess. In no way does anyone become more physically fit playing video games than even the least active athletic sport.?

As for your first sentence, I already accepted video games being a sport as it can be competitive and requires skill. Again, the question is athleticism.?

rcarter2 : Of course basic definitions change. Most words in the language meant something different 250+ years ago. As far as what athletic means, you are clearly wrong, because professional video gamers are now being legally referred to as "atheletes". So they are, by extension, atheltic. That is a tautology. Perhaps they are not athletic in the same way a professional runner is, but athletic in their respective fields. Nobody is completely altering the definition of words. People have simply realised that the term can be applied more broadly than initially imagined.

Oh, and this.

 http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=515834

And that is a non-competitive game in a non-competetive environment.

Traduweise : "People have simply realized that the term can be applied more broadly than initially imagined". What you mean is that the term can be altered to fit more broadly than imagined. By that logic, we can simply realize that the term murder can be applied more broadly than imagined, and say it is murder to cut off someones finger because you are killing a part of them.

Gamers are now pro athletes? I'm sorry... I'm a gamer too, but honestly, that seems to me like saying, "Wow, you're pro!" to someone who pushes buttons all day. 

As for game competitions... they're fun to BE in, not fun to watch. Of course, that's just my opinion, but still.

rcarter2 : See, now you're just hysterically throwing out slippery slopes. Face it: your requirement of "physical prowess" is not only arbitrary, it is unquantifiable. As a result, there is no real way of defining "athletic" because there is no real way of determining a satisfactory minimum of physical prowess. Video games are sports. People who play sports professionally are athletes. Thus, people who play video games professionally are athletes. It's fairly simple if you could only get past your inherent biases.

Traduweise : We are at an impass, it would seem You believe that I see things at an inherent bias. I see your view as over-generalizing a term. I believe that my view isn't an bias, it is simply holding on to traditional meaning of a term. You believe that the term no longer applies to those in physically fit condition, but anyone who does their activity professionally. I think we can go no farther as we won't change those key parts of each other's opinion.

But I will specify my term for something to be athletic. The activity has to exercise someone to at least be physically in shape/fit. No matter how long you play a video games a day, debates you do, chess games you play, etc, those activities will never exercise you to be in a physically healthy condition.

rcarter2 : You keep insisting you hold a traditional view, but you are unable to quantify it. What degree of physical fitness is required? Or is it just "very fit", whatever that means? Instead you come up with increasingly odd and unbacked definitions to justify your claims. That people who practice a sport professionally are athletes is deductively logical. By your new definition, a whole slew of sports would be discluded, including archery, sharpshooting, equestrian sports of all types, shotput/javelin/discus, curling, luge/skeleton, weightlifting, golf...the list goes on and on. Sooner or later, something has to give: your personal feelings or reality.

Sports are entertainment. Video games are entertainment. Therefore Video games are sports.

Well gaming can be a talent depending on the game and I think that should be recognised. It may not require all of the exercise and it may not exhaust you but it does take skill. Though I do not enjoy watching gaming tournaments I think it should get the same recognition as sport does even if it is a different audience. I may be sounding like a hypocrite by say that more people should watch it even though I do not but I would watch it if it became more competitive and it would only get competitive if more people actually watch it. Most people will do it for the fame and that could interest more people into gamers, you never know!

Traduweise : I am not. I am using the base definition of fitness, which says proficient in sports AND other forms of physical exercise. Anywhere official place you look for the definition of athlete/athleticism will specifically include the words proficient and physical exercise. That is reality, and that is not being bent by me. That is not my opinion, that is what the official definition is. It is society that has decided to take away the exercise aspect from the term 'athlete'. So going off of the traditional definition of athlete, yes, a lot sports accepted as athletic would not fit that category. But that isn't a matter of reality. That is a matter of opinion. The problem I have with your argument is that you are saying that because society comes to an agreement, that makes it reality and everyone else's thoughts are personal feelings. When in reality, society (and your) agreed view is just as much of an opinion as mine. My opinion just happens to coincide with the traditional definition of athlete without taking out one of the key parts.

zanderlex: Humans made of cells. Plants made up of cells. Are humans plants? Facebook is a social media. MySpace is a social media. Is Facebook Myspace? ipods are Apple products. iBook is an Apple products. Are iPods iBooks?

zanderlex :

Fixing rcarter's summon.

Also, by that logic Movies and Opera are also sports. Do you think so?

rcarter2 : What official definition of fitness is this? Words are defined by usage, and vary by source. Nonetheless, Dictionary.com defines fitness as the capability of passing oxygen to all the cells in one's body. That's a fairly accurate definition from a biololgical standpoint. Merriam-Webster defines it as being physically strong or healthy, as does Cambridge's online dictionary. Note that none of them mention proficiency in sports or exercise. That's because physical strength and health are not the only factors in determining proficiency in sport and exercise. Now it seems you've progressed beyond simply bias and are making up definitions. 

Also note that you also haven't given any quantifiable method for determining how much proficiency one needs to be an athlete. That is, of course, because one doesn't exist. Your opinion is vague and impossible to define to a satisfactory standard. Which is why, under it, virtually anything is permitted, because you still haven't set parameters as to what exactly defines proficiency. Exercise is simply a repetitive series of actions performed to become better at something. That's why one can perform a math exercise, exercise at the gym, or exercise one's eyes. Professional video gamers most certainly exercise on a regular basis.


I'll repeat this yet again because you don't seem to understand. Words are defined by usage. They are not defined in just such a manner to make your argument correct. If in 100 years, the everyone uses the term "fitness" to refer to a new breed of purple grapefruit with blue stripes, then the definition of fitness will be a breed of purple grapefruit with blue stripes.

Traduweise : Not making up definitions. The ones you gave are the definitions for fitness. I said I was using the definition of athlete and athleticism. NOT fitness. You miss read my post. And with the purple grapefruit example... and you told me that I was going using crazy examples?

rcarter2 : Sorry. I wasn't thinking straight. I saw you say "I am using the base definition of fitness" and went with that only.

I'll try again with athletes. The problem is that, once again, you have no quantifiable parameters to define the extent of the physical fitness required to be an athlete. A professional video game player may not be able to run the hundred metre dash in 10 seconds, but on the other hand, a professional gamer will have reflexes and hand-eye coordination well beyond that of an Olympic gold medal sprinter. Tell me why the sprinter's physical proficiency counts and the gamer's does not.

Gamers should not be recognized as pro athletes or athletes at all for that matter.Simply because your not doing anything that requires skill nor are you doing anything using your own abilities. In addition what would separate pro gamers from regular gamers after all anyone can beat anyone in video games, deciding who is the best would be quite difficult and rather pointless since video game records get broken all the time.

Back to the "your not doing anything that requires skill, nor are you using your own abilities" comment, when playing video games your not really doing anything that requires any individual skill or your own abilities. Anyone can mash buttons in a certain order plus games are preset/programmed to only allow players to do certain moves and activities thus not really allowing any room for any kind of individual diversity in skill sense it is preset your not using your own abilities so one has programmed and preset what you can't or can do.

People have taken this post FAR beyond the topic at hand. Of course opinions are going to be the basis for what is mostly said, seeing how the entire point of the thread was give your opinion on the matter. I have to agree that professional gaming is a sport. However, I must side with rcarter on what it means to be an athlete. The term itself is based on physical health. If you need a standard of some sort of measurement, you can direct yourself to any medical site of your choosing. To say someone has "an athletic build," for example, is to recognize their tone of muscle and/or healthy appearance. The fact is that there IS a quantification and standard that has been made to decide if someone is in good health. You cannot argue that.

Not only that but if you want to talk about how society is revising the term, then the REAL reason so many people are conflicted about accepting gamers as athletes is because the current view of an athlete doesn't rely on any definition, it's a term that is usually synonymous with someone who plays a pro sport. Not an e-Sport, a 'regular' sport. NFL/NHL/NBA, etc. Pro gaming can be a sport all it wants, but it is not THAT big as of yet. However it appears that we may be on the fast track, judging by OP's link, to starting to accepting e-Sports as more mainstream entertainment. 

danielbelitch: Alright, here we go. Now the definition of an athelete is someone who has "physical health". Of course that can be quantified from a medical perspective, but not from an athletic one in that there is no such standard for defining how healthy one has to be to qualify as an athlete. Athletic builds are overrated and don't define fitness or physical health, to say nothing of an athelete.

Look at golf, for example. It doesn't require incredible fitness in the conventional sense, nor does one have to have an "athletic build" to be successful. Yet most of the top golfers look trim and fit, so perhaps they can get away with. What about this guy? He clearly doesn't have an athletic build, and yet he is a professional athlete: he fights in a cage. And he is pretty good at it too. Physical health is important, but it's delusional to think we can determine whether or not someone is an athlete by a standard of it. Or perhaps MMA is not a "regular sport? Of course, since "regular sport" is an arbitrary term you just coined, that's completely irrelevent. Each sport has its own fanbase. To relegate one sport because it isn't as popular is nonsensical.