What about an activity that requires overcoming a physical difficulty to score better than an opponent or beat a time clock is sport? Anything else is a game. Golf could then be considered a sport as it requires walking, swinging etc. which could be difficult for some. Table tennis, too. But even chess could be difficult for someone with say arthritis. Hum, would that make Chess a sport? Maybe there is a balance between physical endurance and mental toughness to consider. More physical than mental is a sport. More mental than physical is a game. Let's hope the Mountaineers have the right balance for their game.

A sport is a competitive physical activity that takes physical courage (i.e. you can be injured). Football is a sport. Baseball is a game. Racing cars is a sport. Golf is a game. There's not a sharp division though, since there are degrees of physical activity and physical courage in different activities.

Bryn gives me confidence that the future of philosophy is in good hands. Sdidney Gendin, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Philosophy Eastern Michigan University

Many of the examples considered (e.g., baseball) are both sports and games. Any activity that can be played for fun and that has rules to govern it is a game. If it is "physical" in nature and involves competition, but still has the play aspect (even if only slightly), then it would be a sport.

A sport can be played professionally (while something that could not be considered a sport is not -- realize that there are what we call professional baseball "games"). In this sense, similar to the previous comment, the thing that defines a sport as separate from a mere "game" is the level of competition that can be found within it. This is not a complete definition, however, as, after all, there are professional levels for games like chess, which are not considered sport. To clarify this, there needs to be a second element to this definition of a sport, and that is that a significant level of physical fitness is necessary in order to be competitive. To add this part of the definition to a game of chess, it would fit as a game rather than a sport, as the game does not require any physical action on the part of the competitiors in order to be played. To go back to the idea of the arthritic chess player, I believe that there is no reason that the player cannot have an assitant to move the pieces per his direction.

the first distinction to be made is whether the act is spontaneous (which is simply play), or organized (which constitutes a game). Once you have an organized game you must determine whether it is competitive or non-competitive. Non-competitive games are simply games and competitive games are known as contests. Once determined to be a contest you must distinguish between intellectual and physical contests. Thus, in order to be a sport it must be organized, competitive, and physical. Whereas games are only organized and either lack competition or physicality.

A sport is any sort of competitive (not necessarily directly competitive, as in 1v1, or team versus team... it could just be competing against the clock) activity which relies SOLELY upon the physical and mental constitution of its participants in determining the outcome. I.E. There is no random chance, and the rules are strictly defined so as to produce a natural "end" point. It can be said that all sports have some sort of outside interference in the form of officials... but that is simply the limit of human ability. I feel that a third group must be acknowledged as well... competition. Monopoly, Poker, Blackjack = Games Football, Basketball, Baseball = Sports The olympics, or any other physical activity that requires outside judgment to determine a winner or winners = Competition

Why is training for a sport called practice and training for dance called rehearsal?

A sport is a physical activity that has both an offense and a defense. If these are missing, then it is a competition or a game.

It is hard to tell what is a sport or a game. I think perhaps the definitions derive from individuals. For example, i might play a game of football with my friends. However, i also play games of chess, which i can consider to be a sport. If you take a good look at many chess players [checkers, cards, any type of over the board game], often times when there is competition involved, they'll sweat. I've played in several chess tournaments, and I'm more exhausted after a really tuff game than I am after playing tackle football. I've sweated during chess matches. And to say chess isn't physical is slightly unfounded. Playing a blitz game of chess is a feat few can pull off well. 30 seconds on the clock and one has to make numerous calculations, on top of making sure thier hand can get around the board fast enough? That is physical, even if not to as 'grand' a scale as other 'sports' imply. I think that a 'game' and a 'sport' are merely what individuals make of it, depending on how seriously [or not] they take thier activities.

Well, it seems to me at stake here is a definition. I think we should begin with the point Wittgenstein makes in his philosophical investigation, 340. ''One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its use and learn from that....But the difficulty is to remove the prejudice which stands in the way of doing this. It is not a stupid prejudice.". So, what do I (with my prejudices) think makes a ''sport'' and a ''game''? Why you play it. If it's for a diversion and amusment, then it's probley a game. If it's to win out of competiveness, then it's a sport. I play golf to amuse myself. I play chess cause I want to beat my opponent.

DANCE DANCE REVOLUTION IS NOT A SPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that the distinction we are attempting to make between a sport and a game is an arbitrary one. As one can tell by the above comments, sports and games share many attributes that we try to use to seperate them. To me, this shows that "sport" and "game" act as a kind of knife, or divider, that is constantly trying to cut in half something that is indivisible. Sports and games are things that are usually defined by societies. We are indoctrinated to regard some things as sports and others as games, for no other reason than the people before us have seperated them as such.

Ernest Hemingway said that "auto racing, bull-fighting and mountain climbing were the only real sports, all others are games."

I think this is one of the best pure modern philosophical questions in our world. I'm not going to presume to know the best answer, but I'd suggest a dilemma that wasn't brought up yet. We have generally accepted sports in our world, like basketball, football, hockey, and soccer. No one seems to seriously question that participating in these activities on a competitive basis is "playing" a "sport." Yet, today the world is full of Console or Computer-based "games" based upon these real world "sports." I can turn on a Playstation 3 and pop in a "game" and "play" football. But what am I engaging in when I sit on my couch and "play" in this way? Is it a game? Or am I playing a sport? I think the best example of how much more complicated this question is than it appears is brought up by the Nintendo Wii. If I am playing tennis on the Wii, I have to actually swing my arm in a tennis-like motion in order to play the game. Soon, when football is released for the Wii, throwing a pass will require a passing-like motion with the controller, jumping will require actual jumping, and so on. What then separates this from a "sport"? In tennis I do not actually hit a ball with my hand -- I use an extension of my hand (the racket) to hit the ball. On the Wii, I likewise use an extension of my hand (the controller) to "hit" the ball. What is going on in brain in both cases is fundamentally the same. My eyes are processing visual data (the ball coming at me, or the ball coming at my character on the screen), analyzing the proper action (when should I swing?), and then sending electrical impulses to my arm to control my muscles. The success (and failure) of my action in both the "game" and the "sport" will be determined by the speed and ability which I demonstrate in these steps. The better my timing, my decision making, and my dexterity, the more likely I will be to hit a good shot back. Thus, in a very real way, what I am doing, on a cellular or fundamental basis, is exactly the same regardless of whether I am at a tennis court, or on my couch. If I win, my brain may release certain chemicals (adrenaline, endorphins, testosterone, etc) which affect the way my body feels -- the literal "feel of victory." While other game systems which do not use this motion sensing capability like the Wii are somewhat less similar (the amount of dexterity needed to push the appropriate combination of buttons is somewhat less than that needed to swing the remote), the same fundamental systems and steps are taking place. Since I anticipate the counter-argument, already made, that physical fitness is a necessary ingredient in playing a sport, I'll respond to it. Nothing stops a person who is not in any sort of "fit" physical condition from playing a sport. Even if I do not exercise with any regularity, I can go out and swing a baseball bat with some success (beer-league softball games are ample proof of this). I may tire more quickly, and exhibit greater performance loss due to fatigue, but I can still technically "play" the sport. So physical fitness does not seem a necessary element of "sport." And, if I am unused to playing the video "game," I may experience the same diminished ability to perform (not being able to push the buttons fast enough or properly in the right combinations), and with time my hands may become very tired, cramped, and sore and I may experience sports-like performance loss. The point of all this is -- the separation between "sport" and "game" may be getting shorter and smaller every day. As the space between them shrinks and becomes ever more gray, the ability to differentiate what makes something a "sport" and another a "game" can become more difficult. Yet, it may also help us to eventually better narrow down the actual point at which an activity goes from being a mere "game" to become a "sport."

Sports are succesful because of the games that are played in that perticular sport. No one remembers a sport, they remeber the game or moment that took place in that perticular sport. When you think Hockey you think 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid when the US defeated the USSR, or when you think Baseball you think of McGwire breaking the all time single season home run record, it goes on and on. Those small little games make a sport, well a sport. Because in the hour or two that the game was going on something great, or magical happened. Something that will be with you till the day you die. Watching WVU lose against Texas after a last second shot, or watching the Mountaineers defeat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. Sports come and go, but a memorable game lives on in the heart and minds of the players, spectators, and fans.

All sports and all games are competition (regardless of the level, you are still competing against someone or something), but not all games are sport, and not all sports are games. What differentiates them is an unanswerable question (i.e. the chicken or the egg).

After much opinion and debate as to the difference between a game and a sport, there may not be much of a difference at all. An interesting observation in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is the definition of both game and sport; they have, almost, the same definition. It says for sport, ?a source of diversion.? The only difference the definition for game has is it adds, ?[?or amusement.? Think about it, playing basketball or football is just a game when playing with your friends; however, when playing in a league (whether NCAA or peewee) that game becomes a sport. Instead of looking at the actual event, one must look at the context that event is being played in. When playing a game with your friends, you are just playing for the fun of it, for the workout, or for whatever. Although there may always be competition in any game, it is not always an organized contest, thus not making it a sport. That is why the National Spelling Bee and a dominoes tournament can be held on ESPN. On a normal basis, spelling and playing with dominoes are not considered sports, but if they are played in an organized contest or competition, they are. The question is just how many people actually watch those sports?

a sport involves a collective group or league. a game is something played between friends for fun.

sports has general or a standard rule but not in games,the only difference i think is that games makes an amusement to the players,like party games etc.

Sport-A physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customes and often engaged in competitively.

Game-An activity providing entertainment or amusement, a pastime:party games, word games.

That is the best way to put it to Second Language students.

I think the major difference between “sport” and “game” is the fact that a sport encompasses the mental aspect of a game while adding a physical element. In the introduction it was noted that tag or hide and seek could be considered sports because of physical aspects. However, tag and hide and seek are not played professionally so perhaps the distinction lies in whether or not the activity has a professional league or is just a childhood pastime. As for golf and NASCAR, if you think that Tiger Woods plays a “game” and is not athletic just look at his physique. Golfers need to be in shape. So do NASCAR drivers…500 straight miles of driving at 200 mph will take its toll on anyone.
I’ve had this argument many times with friends and we never seem to come up with a concrete answer. It’s an excellent question!

My answer is that a sport is only one type of hundreds of different games, each involving a different method required to be sucessful in that game.

My reason is a sport requires physical fitness and indurance while still having the proper strategy and plan of action to win the game. Where as a board game such as chess is all your strategy and mental fitness and not so much the physical fitness.

The difference of sports from a game is simply the rules and regulations. . .
A sports has a universal rule or standard rule given by an organization or a governing body for that certain sports and that governing body are responsible for making an standard rules to be followed by the players. If and only if there are changes in rules in that certain sports, the changes will go through the screening committee of the governing body ?
While in a game there are no universal rules or standard rules to be followed. Because the rule of a game is only a ground rules that can be made by any person who is playing for a certain event.
Ex: our activity is volleyball, if the activity are played with the standard rules given by the governing body (example FIVA) and we play according to the rules complete officiating official to implement the activity, that is sports, but if our activity volleyball are played using some rules of the governing body and its not the totally rules of the governing body and we use only the standard rule to make our own ground rules for our activity, then we can call our activity volleyball as game.
Thus the ground rules are not be the standard rules but the standard rules or universal rules release by the governing body can be a basis for ground rules.

There are three divisions of contests. Sports, games and activities. A sport is a contest in which a direct physical defense is applied. Examples of sports includes: Football, Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, wrestling, etc. Examples of games include: golf, chess, curling, ping-pong, bowling, etc. Examples of activities: track and field, nascar. Track and field is not a sport. It could be considered as taking a sport and broking it down into individual events. I ran track for WVU. Just because you sweat, work hard, or win at something that takes talent, does not make that event a sport.

These are all wonderful theories on a question that plagues all game-players seeking to be called competitors. It seems we all agree that all sports are games, but not all games are sports. Games are supposed to fun, and sports involve organized competitive events. Therefore, a game turns into a sport when we gather to compete in an organized environment.

When a game turns into a sport, formalized training becomes needed to win.

If we use that definition to look at Nintendo or any electronic gaming system. It’s a game when you’re playing for fun. It’s a sport when you enter an organized tournament, online, in-person, or otherwise.

If I play for fun, it’s a game to me, but if you fly to Vegas twice a year to compete in a tournament, it’s a sport to you. It’s subjective depending on how YOU experience the activity. Looking at the differences in this light keeps you from passing judgement on someone’s competitive passion – which no matter what it is – is a sport.

sport to me is something should involve physical activities such as, cricket, tennis, track and field and much more others.

To me I think a sport and a game are similar but different. Both sport and game involve skill and strategy and can be competitive but sport takes physical and mental skills verse a game being just mental skill. Also sport takes good conditoning and endurance of the body. I think the biggest difference between sport and game is the aspect of a team vs the individual. Sport is a team thing and game is a individual thing. My friend jessica agrees but on the flip side wants to know why when were attending a sporting event like football we say “I’m going to the football game”

I define a sport as a game that you must be able to beat the opposing side. To me, a game is an activity that you can do for fun, sometimes having a winner. When I hear the word sport, I think of doing an athletic competition where the other side must be deafeated for you to be the winner. Basketball, football, soccer are all examples of sports. Swimming, Track, and bowling are not sports because no matter what you do, you cannot affect the other side’s performance. To be a sport, there must be intangables. As much as I hate to say it, by this defination, NASCAR is a sport. Also, all sports are games, but not all games are sports (kind of like the whole “square and rectangle” principle).

I believe that a game and a sport are in fact opposites. There are many reasons I believe this. I also believe that sport can be game depending on the mindset of the person playing it.

A game is something you play for leisure, entertainment, and in some cases to cure boredom. I consider a game something that takes little or no training to become good at, and that the average person does not take the game competitive. But depending on who is playing the game, they could view it as extremely competitive due to their competitive personality and athletic mind set. I also believe that games take little physical demands to become good at. Sports on the other hand, athletes endure great physical training, strain, and accomplishments. To be good at a sport, you must be in shape. Things that I consider games are things like board games, video games, card games, and simply leisure activities like croquet, washers, or corn hole. One game that I consider could be very much considered a sport is the game of golf. Many people play this game simply for entertainment and the social interaction involved. But other people play this game as a sport; they train for hours on end every single day. If you were to ask Tiger Woods what he thought about the game of golf, he would tell you it was a sport because of all the physical training that he puts in to it, and in that case I would have to agree with him. But when I play golf, I play for fun, as do many other people who just play golf with their friends as a bonding experiences and as game that you can relax, drink a few beers, enjoy the environment, and enjoy the commodity of friendly competition.

A sport in my eyes is much different from a game. A sport requires constant physical effort, training, and experience to be good at. Sports like football, basketball, and soccer are very much considered a battle of who is better conditioned. In order to succeed in these sports and reach that ultimate goal of winning, you must put everything you have into your desired sport(s), physically as well as mentally. Those people, who say it’s just a game, are also correct, because that’s how they play it. But the people who play to win, and put constant effort into being the best athlete you can be will tell you that a sport is not a game, it’s simply a way of life.

im a track runner and track IS NOT A GAME! it’s a sport! whoever wrote that just because you work hard and sweat does not make it a sport, please, get a brain. you come down here and run with us every single day at practice, work hard and stay dedicated. you can not tell me that it is not a sport. what is it then? a game? people like that make me angry…

Games are more mental, sports are more physical.

The distinction between a game and a sport is physical defense. By physical defense I mean your opponent is permitted to physically prevent you from succeeding. For example, golf cannot be a sport because another golfer cannot interfere with you in any way while you are attempting to make a shot. You are only playing against the course. The same goes for bowling, darts, and pool. All of these games require a great deal of skill, but should not be called sports.

While Chris’ answer makes loads of sense, that would put chess & checkers in the category of sports because they both feature defensive elements. Put tic tac toe in the same category. Maybe if we add the element of sweat to Chris’ answer it would help. Defense and sweat?