Are Stock/Indie Car Drivers Athletes?

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're being a fool. Physical athleticism, which is the term used in that quote, means physical locomotion/ movement (I've used "movement" as part of my definition in the past). Running, kicking a ball, tacklking, bouncing a ball down a court, etc are all physical athleticism. Also, keep in mind that when I've used the word "athleticism", I've either put the word "physical" in front of it, or I've used it in a context in which I meant physical athleticism. At this point, you're arguing about semantics. You know exactly what I meant. Anyhow, the Olympic Games agrees with me. We're done.

BluRayHiDef

Are you a fool? I just said that you're arguing about semantics. What I meant is what is important; not the exact words that I used.

Is weight lifting a sport, and if so, why is not racing?

Let me sum up my argument.

• A sport is an activity that requires BOTH physical athleticism (i.e. physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movement) AND competition.
• The Olympic Games and the European Council recognize only activities that fit my definition.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] You can use the word how ever you wish, that does not mean that the definition you apply to it is the only or correct definition. Again, get a dictionary. coolbeans90

Are you a fool? I just said that you're arguing about semantics. What I meant is what is important; not the exact words that I used.

Is weight lifting a sport, and if so, why is not racing?

If it's competitive (i.e. who can lift the most weight or who can perform the most repetitions?), then yes, it's a sport.

Let me sum up my argument.

• A sport is an activity that requires BOTH physical athleticism (i.e. physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movement) AND competition.
• The Olympic Games and the European Council recognize only activities that fit my definition.

BluRayHiDef

I'm with you on this one. Having been a racer, I never called myself an athlete for it. It's just not athletic. Like I stated in my earlier post, if all you have to do is withstand high temperatures and physical forces while operating machinery to be an athlete, most modern farmers qualify.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Are you a fool? I just said that you're arguing about semantics. What I meant is what is important; not the exact words that I used.

BluRayHiDef

Is weight lifting a sport, and if so, why is not racing?

If it's competitive (i.e. who can lift the most weight or who can perform the most repetitions?), then yes, it's a sport.

How does it differ from racing in that regard?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Let me sum up my argument.

• A sport is an activity that requires BOTH physical athleticism (i.e. physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movement) AND competition.
• The Olympic Games and the European Council recognize only activities that fit my definition.

hartsickdiscipl

I'm with you on this one. Having been a racer, I never called myself an athlete for it. It's just not athletic. Like I stated in my earlier post, if all you have to do is withstand high temperatures and physical forces while operating machinery to be an athlete, most modern farmers qualify.

Not that I've operated farm machinery regularly, but I've worked extensively as a farm hand before, and I would posit that the process isn't as competitive. Though, that does posit the following question: can one be athletic w/o being competitive. (e.g.: a hardcore jogger that does not race)

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Is weight lifting a sport, and if so, why is not racing?

coolbeans90

If it's competitive (i.e. who can lift the most weight or who can perform the most repetitions?), then yes, it's a sport.

How does it differ from racing in that regard?

Is that a serious question? Weight lifting requires the BODY to do the work that defines the sport. Lifting weight is very physically demanding; it literally requires a strong body. You're using your muscles when you life weight. As for racing, there is no physically demanding locomotion/ movement (i.e. there is no physical athleticism). Hence, racing is just a competition, but not a sport.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Now you're just being a fool. I never said that something has to be competitive to be athletic. I said something has to require physical athleticism (i.e. physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movements) AND has to be competitive to be a sport.

BluRayHiDef

What? You just f*cking said that something has to be physically demanding and competitive to be atheletic. You literally just said that. It's right there in the quote chain on this very post.

You're a fool. "Something has to be competitive to be athletic" =/= "It has to be both physically demanding AND competitive." Literally shaking my head right now.

Go back and read the chain of comments from around the bottom of page 4. You're literally saying that something has to be physically demanding and be competitive to be athletic. All I can say is ether pay attention to the conversation you're engaging in or don't bother.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Let me sum up my argument.

• A sport is an activity that requires BOTH physical athleticism (i.e. physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movement) AND competition.
• The Olympic Games and the European Council recognize only activities that fit my definition.

thegerg

You can't read. I typed "...locomotion/ movement".

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

That doesn't change the fact that it's doesn't require athleticism. It's competitive, but that's it.

hartsickdiscipl

Only it does require atheleticism. You don't get the kind of physical conditioning required to do it without atheleticism.

Have you ever seen Tony Stewart?

Listen.. Nascar is a sport. Indy racing is a sport.. But the drivers are not "athletes." No way, no how.

Ah, let me guess. Tony Stewart is fat, so that mean's he's not an athlete right?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

What? You just f*cking said that something has to be physically demanding and competitive to be atheletic. You literally just said that. It's right there in the quote chain on this very post.

worlock77

You're a fool. "Something has to be competitive to be athletic" =/= "It has to be both physically demanding AND competitive." Literally shaking my head right now.

Go back and read the chain of comments from around the bottom of page 4. You're literally saying that something has to be physically demanding and be competitive to be athletic. All I can say is ether pay attention to the conversation you're engaging in or don't bother.

Quote the post you have in mind.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Let me sum up my argument.

• A sport is an activity that requires BOTH physical athleticism (i.e. physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movement) AND competition.
• The Olympic Games and the European Council recognize only activities that fit my definition.

coolbeans90

I'm with you on this one. Having been a racer, I never called myself an athlete for it. It's just not athletic. Like I stated in my earlier post, if all you have to do is withstand high temperatures and physical forces while operating machinery to be an athlete, most modern farmers qualify.

Not that I've operated farm machinery regularly, but I've worked extensively as a farm hand before, and I would posit that the process isn't as competitive. Though, that does posit the following question: can one be athletic w/o being competitive. (e.g.: a hardcore jogger that does not race)

Fair enough.. it's not competitive per se. One can be competitive without being athletic though. One can also be athletic without being competitive, like your example.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] You are the only one saying that physical athleticism requires locomotion, not the Olympic Council. thegerg

You can't read. I typed "...locomotion/ movement".

What does the Olympic Council say, then?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Only it does require atheleticism. You don't get the kind of physical conditioning required to do it without atheleticism.

worlock77

Have you ever seen Tony Stewart?

Listen.. Nascar is a sport. Indy racing is a sport.. But the drivers are not "athletes." No way, no how.

Ah, let me guess. Tony Stewart is fat, so that mean's he's not an athlete right?

He's a great driver, but the dude is not an athlete. I know that some drivers are quite fit and athletic, but they are not athletes based on their merits as drivers. You have to do more than drive a hot car at high speed to be an athlete.

Those two posts on the first page conviced me, drivers are definitely atheletes.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

If it's competitive (i.e. who can lift the most weight or who can perform the most repetitions?), then yes, it's a sport.

BluRayHiDef

How does it differ from racing in that regard?

Is that a serious question? Weight lifting requires the BODY to do the work that defines the sport. Lifting weight is very physically demanding; it literally requires a strong body. You're using your muscles when you life weight. As for racing, there is no physically demanding locomotion/ movement (i.e. there is no physical athleticism). Hence, racing is just a competition, but not a sport.

Yes, it's a serious question. Both weight lifting and driving in excessive temperatures for hours on end is physically demanding. (heat f*cking kills people -- work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in 100+ degree Farenhight, 100% humidity weather and you'll know what I mean with regards to what heat does) Racing for hours requires endurance. One does not locomotive much when lifting, barring a few muscle groups at a time.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I read what you typed. What you typed is not what the Olympic council says.thegerg

What does the Olympic Council say, then?

I know what the quote says. I'm simply asking what YOU THINK the Olympic Games says. Anyhow, it's obvious that you're resorting to semantics once again. Just because I didn't use the exact same words in the quote (i.e. "dexterity") doesn't mean that my definition is different. Dexterity is a type of movement. C'mon, man. If you don't have any arguments aside from those which concern semantics, then call it a night, because you're done.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

How does it differ from racing in that regard?

coolbeans90

Is that a serious question? Weight lifting requires the BODY to do the work that defines the sport. Lifting weight is very physically demanding; it literally requires a strong body. You're using your muscles when you life weight. As for racing, there is no physically demanding locomotion/ movement (i.e. there is no physical athleticism). Hence, racing is just a competition, but not a sport.

Yes, it's a serious question. Both weight lifting and driving in excessive temperatures for hours on end is physically demanding. (heat f*cking kills people -- work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in 100+ degree Farenhight, 100% humidity weather and you'll know what I mean with regards to what heat does) Racing for hours requires endurance. One does not locomotive much when lifting, barring a few muscle groups at a time.

In my definition of a sport, I clarified what I meant by physical demanding. What I meant was physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movements. Physically demanding bodily locomotion is running and power walking, and physically demanding movements are movements such as lifting heavy weights, swinging a bat, throwing a ball, etc. C'mon, man.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Is that a serious question? Weight lifting requires the BODY to do the work that defines the sport. Lifting weight is very physically demanding; it literally requires a strong body. You're using your muscles when you life weight. As for racing, there is no physically demanding locomotion/ movement (i.e. there is no physical athleticism). Hence, racing is just a competition, but not a sport.

BluRayHiDef

Yes, it's a serious question. Both weight lifting and driving in excessive temperatures for hours on end is physically demanding. (heat f*cking kills people -- work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in 100+ degree Farenhight, 100% humidity weather and you'll know what I mean with regards to what heat does) Racing for hours requires endurance. One does not locomotive much when lifting, barring a few muscle groups at a time.

In my definition of a sport, I clarified what I meant by physical demanding. What I meant was physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movements. Physically demanding bodily locomotion is running and power walking, and physically demanding movements are movements such as lifting heavy weights, swinging a bat, throwing a ball, etc. C'mon, man.

Forgive me, but I am seven pints of Guinness into this conversation. I get that you said that locomotion is key to athleticism, as I acknowledged in my first post ITT. My point is that there is not much more, if any more locomotion, to weight lifting than driving. You may have a point WRT physically demanding movements, but there are other sports in which movements are not necessarily physically demanding. (my experience with baseball, IMO, was hardly ever physically demanding, at least in the short run, whereas speed in short bursts and dexterity are required)

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Are you dumb? You posted the quote yourself earlier.thegerg

I know what the quote says. I'm simply asking what YOU THINK the Olympic Games says. Anyhow, it's obvious that you're resorting to semantics once again. Just because I didn't use the exact same words in the quote (i.e. "dexterity") doesn't mean that my definition is different. Dexterity is a type of movement. C'mon, man. If you don't have any arguments aside from those which concern semantics, then call it a night, because you're done.

Semantics, semantics, semantis. Go away. You know exactly what I mean (i.e. direct usage of the body to fullfil the task of the activity in question). Car-racing does not require direct usage of the body to fulfill its main task (traverse a distance) because it relies on a machine (i.e. a car) to do so. I'm not going to reply to you any further. You're done.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, it's a serious question. Both weight lifting and driving in excessive temperatures for hours on end is physically demanding. (heat f*cking kills people -- work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in 100+ degree Farenhight, 100% humidity weather and you'll know what I mean with regards to what heat does) Racing for hours requires endurance. One does not locomotive much when lifting, barring a few muscle groups at a time.

coolbeans90

In my definition of a sport, I clarified what I meant by physical demanding. What I meant was physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movements. Physically demanding bodily locomotion is running and power walking, and physically demanding movements are movements such as lifting heavy weights, swinging a bat, throwing a ball, etc. C'mon, man.

Forgive me, but I am seven pints of Guinness into this conversation. I get that you said that locomotion is key to athleticism, as I acknowledged in my first post ITT. My point is that there is not much more, if any more locomotion, to weight lifting than driving. You may have a point WRT physically demanding movements, but there are other sports in which movements are not necessarily physically demanding. (my experience with baseball, IMO, was hardly ever physically demanding, at least in the short run, whereas speed in short bursts and dexterity are required)

I said both "locomotion" and "movement". Weight lifting does not require locomotion, but it does require movement (i.e. lifting the weight up and down or in whatever fashion necessary). As for baseball, as you said, you have to run in short bursts and be dexterous, both of which are physically demanding. I've had enough of this thread for tonight. I keep having to repeat myself over and over again, despite how clear my argument is.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

In my definition of a sport, I clarified what I meant by physical demanding. What I meant was physically demanding bodily locomotion/ movements. Physically demanding bodily locomotion is running and power walking, and physically demanding movements are movements such as lifting heavy weights, swinging a bat, throwing a ball, etc. C'mon, man.

BluRayHiDef

Forgive me, but I am seven pints of Guinness into this conversation. I get that you said that locomotion is key to athleticism, as I acknowledged in my first post ITT. My point is that there is not much more, if any more locomotion, to weight lifting than driving. You may have a point WRT physically demanding movements, but there are other sports in which movements are not necessarily physically demanding. (my experience with baseball, IMO, was hardly ever physically demanding, at least in the short run, whereas speed in short bursts and dexterity are required)

I said both "locomotion" and "movement". Weight lifting does not require locomotion, but it does require movement (i.e. lifting the weight up and down or in whatever fashion necessary). As for baseball, as you said, you have to run in short bursts and be dexterous, both of which are physically demanding. I've had enough of this thread for tonight. I keep having to repeat myself over and over again, despite how clear my argument is.

Driving requires movement. Baseball doesn't require anything difficult, for the mos part. Dexterity is required to operate a motor vehicle.

I'm done; I can't post coherently.

It takes a lot of concentration just to drive. There's certainly a lot of mental stress and car lag if you drive long enough. When I drive from NY back to my home state of NV, there's a lot of wear and tear on both my body and mind.

I think those drivers are athletes.

So yes, racing drivers are athletes;)

Gar529

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're a fool. "Something has to be competitive to be athletic" =/= "It has to be both physically demanding AND competitive." Literally shaking my head right now.

BluRayHiDef

Go back and read the chain of comments from around the bottom of page 4. You're literally saying that something has to be physically demanding and be competitive to be athletic. All I can say is ether pay attention to the conversation you're engaging in or don't bother.

Quote the post you have in mind.

Good Christ, I already told you were to look. But to recap the conversation (towards the bottom of page 4 to page 5) went like this:

You - "I should have been more specific. I think it's obvoius that I meant physical athleticsm. Anyhow, it's not just bodily locomotion, it's PHYSICALLY DEMANDING bodily locomotion. Don't twist my words."

Me - "So when I pick up and carry a 30 lb bag of dog food I'm being an athlete? Cool."

You - "Now you're taking what I said out of context. It has to be both physically demanding AND competitive."

And here we are.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I know what the quote says. I'm simply asking what YOU THINK the Olympic Games says. Anyhow, it's obvious that you're resorting to semantics once again. Just because I didn't use the exact same words in the quote (i.e. "dexterity") doesn't mean that my definition is different. Dexterity is a type of movement. C'mon, man. If you don't have any arguments aside from those which concern semantics, then call it a night, because you're done.

BluRayHiDef

Semantics, semantics, semantis. Go away. You know exactly what I mean (i.e. direct usage of the body to fullfil the task of the activity in question). Car-racing does not require direct usage of the body to fulfill its main task (traverse a distance) because it relies on a machine (i.e. a car) to do so. I'm not going to reply to you any further. You're done.

And hitting in baseball does not require direct usage of the body to fufill its main task (to propel a baseball) because it relies on a machine (a bat) to do so.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Go back and read the chain of comments from around the bottom of page 4. You're literally saying that something has to be physically demanding and be competitive to be athletic. All I can say is ether pay attention to the conversation you're engaging in or don't bother.

worlock77

Quote the post you have in mind.

Good Christ, I already told you were to look. But to recap the conversation (towards the bottom of page 4 to page 5) went like this:

You - "I should have been more specific. I think it's obvoius that I meant physical athleticsm. Anyhow, it's not just bodily locomotion, it's PHYSICALLY DEMANDING bodily locomotion. Don't twist my words."

Me - "So when I pick up and carry a 30 lb bag of dog food I'm being an athlete? Cool."

You - "Now you're taking what I said out of context. It has to be both physically demanding AND competitive."

And here we are.

• In the first statement, I simply explained what I meant by "athleticism"; what I meant was phsyical athleticism.
• In the second statement, YOU implied that one has to be competitive to be an athlete.
• Being athletic does not mean being an athlete.

Do you see the error in YOUR responses/ understanding? Someone who can run extremely fast is athletic, but not necessarily an athelete.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Quote the post you have in mind.

BluRayHiDef

Good Christ, I already told you were to look. But to recap the conversation (towards the bottom of page 4 to page 5) went like this:

You - "I should have been more specific. I think it's obvoius that I meant physical athleticsm. Anyhow, it's not just bodily locomotion, it's PHYSICALLY DEMANDING bodily locomotion. Don't twist my words."

Me - "So when I pick up and carry a 30 lb bag of dog food I'm being an athlete? Cool."

You - "Now you're taking what I said out of context. It has to be both physically demanding AND competitive."

And here we are.

• In the first statement, I simply explained what I meant by "athleticism"; what I meant was phsyical athleticism.
• In the second statement, YOU implied that one has to be competitive to be an athlete.
• Being athletic does not mean being an athlete.

Do you see the error in YOUR responses/ understanding? Someone who can run extremely fast is athletic, but not necessarily an athelete.

I'm not failing to understand you. You said something dumb, got called on it, and are now trying to backpedal.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Good Christ, I already told you were to look. But to recap the conversation (towards the bottom of page 4 to page 5) went like this:

You - "I should have been more specific. I think it's obvoius that I meant physical athleticsm. Anyhow, it's not just bodily locomotion, it's PHYSICALLY DEMANDING bodily locomotion. Don't twist my words."

Me - "So when I pick up and carry a 30 lb bag of dog food I'm being an athlete? Cool."

You - "Now you're taking what I said out of context. It has to be both physically demanding AND competitive."

And here we are.

worlock77

• In the first statement, I simply explained what I meant by "athleticism"; what I meant was phsyical athleticism.
• In the second statement, YOU implied that one has to be competitive to be an athlete.
• Being athletic does not mean being an athlete.

Do you see the error in YOUR responses/ understanding? Someone who can run extremely fast is athletic, but not necessarily an athelete.

I'm not failing to understand you. You said something dumb, got called on it, and are now trying to backpedal.

Yea, sure. Nowhere did I imply that one has to be competitive to be athletic. Nowhere. Anyhow, we're done. I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Hell no.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

• In the first statement, I simply explained what I meant by "athleticism"; what I meant was phsyical athleticism.
• In the second statement, YOU implied that one has to be competitive to be an athlete.
• Being athletic does not mean being an athlete.

Do you see the error in YOUR responses/ understanding? Someone who can run extremely fast is athletic, but not necessarily an athelete.

BluRayHiDef

I'm not failing to understand you. You said something dumb, got called on it, and are now trying to backpedal.

Yea, sure. Nowhere did I imply that one has to be competitive to be athletic. Nowhere. Anyhow, we're done. I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Yes you did. You did more than imply it, you pretty much flat out stated it. Again, page 4-5.

Not an athlete, but they do compete in a sport.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Not an athlete, but they do compete in a sport.

thegerg

That's one broad definition of an athlete.

Does this mean I was an athlete for competing in a math competition? It's considered a sport. Or a programming competition? How about those e-sport guys. Are they athletes?

Also we have to define sport. Racing is a motor sport. Depending on your definition of just the word "sport", motor sport may not fit under that.

To me, nobody that drives an "indie" car is an athlete.the_plan_man

Does this mean I was an athlete for competing in a math competition? It's considered a sport.Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] "Definition of ATHLETE : a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina" If they compete in a sport, they are an athlete. thegerg

That's one broad definition of an athlete.

Does this mean I was an athlete for competing in a math competition? It's considered a sport. Or a programming competition? How about those e-sport guys. Are they athletes?

Also we have to define sport. Racing is a motor sport. Depending on your definition of just the word "sport", motor sport may not fit under that.

I wouldn't say that necessarily. I mean chess can be a sport, but I wouldn't call chess player athletes. Just as a person can be an athlete but not necessarily compete in a sport.

do they have to do physical conditioning to excel?

can a very weak person do what they do?