The issue of whether pool is a sport pops up on AZB from time to time and everyone seems to have an opinion but, with some exceptions discussed later, there is seldom any analysis beyond, “Yeah, of course it’s a sport” and “Oh no, it’s not.” I wanted to re-open that discussion with what is hopefully a bit more analysis while acknowledging that at the end of the day, it’s all just opinion anyway. Full disclosure, I’m just a league banger who’s played pool all his life and feels like I have a good night if I break and run a single rack. I know there are many people with much more knowledge of the game than myself who insist that pool is a sport, but, for the reasons below, I respectively disagree.
To get beyond the yes it is/no it’s not kind of responses, you have to establish in the first instance the criteria for defining sport generally and, only then determine if pool meets those criteria. These are two different arguments. Without reference to pool, what is “sport”? I’ve not looked it up in Webster’s or Wikipedia but here is my stab at what I believe, from a traditional sense, would constitute a sport. I don’t argue that these are exhaustive or set in stone but they seem a good starting point. A sport is:
1. A contest;
2. Between individuals or teams;
3. With the outcome determined by an objective scoring system (points, times, etc.);
4. With an emphasis on overall physical skills or prowess, to include:
- Strength
- Speed/quickness
- Endurance
- Muscular coordination, with an emphasis on gross motor skills, but including hand/eye coordination and vision
- Reflexes
- Balance
The factors in #4 are the crux of the issue here. The emphasis placed on any of those factors obviously depends on the sport but, to be reasonably defined as a sport, it seems to me the endeavor would have to include at least a large majority, and arguably all, of these factors.
Those that believe pool is a sport almost always fall back on the idea that it involves good hand/eye coordination and it certainly does. If, however, it is conceded that a sport should include some or all of these other criteria, what other boxes does pool check? Certainly it involves a modicum of strength, but not in the sense that we typically think of in sports. A physically very weak person could play a credible game of pool. The same goes with the other criteria.
I’ll concede that a technical argument for pool meeting these other criteria could be made (e.g., walking around a pool table at 3:00 a.m. after eight matches on two hours of sleep can show endurance) but it’s also fair to raise the issue of how society has traditionally and practically assessed things such as strength, endurance , etc. in the context of sport. It seems to me, pool just doesn‘t meet that kind of traditional consideration.
For the hand/eye coordination proponents, they let that argument completely swamp all other considerations. If that is the claim for saying pool is a sport, then you could just as easily give two seventy-five year old grandmothers a roll of yarn, a couple of knitting needles and put them on the clock; best Granny wins. Is that a sport? You’ve got to have more than simple hand/eye coordination and maybe a technical nod to some of the traditional notions of sport to call something a sport.
I’ll also concede that my criteria may imply the disqualification of other endeavors from being called a sport, including some that have been recognized as such for decades and are included in the Olympics. Marksmanship and maybe archery come to mind. Even gymnastics (no objective scoring) would be open to dispute. In these instances, however, I’d allow for giving a nod to tradition.
One final thought. I suspect that for many proponents of pool as a sport, the discussion doesn’t so much center around the nature of the activity as how they wish to perceive themselves. People who play games are merely game players. People who play sports are athletes and that is something admired in our culture. People naturally like to see themselves as athletes. A pool player may well be an athlete, but if he is, it’s not because he plays pool.
Just the opinion of one SL 6 APA banger. Thanks and feel free to weigh in.
To get beyond the yes it is/no it’s not kind of responses, you have to establish in the first instance the criteria for defining sport generally and, only then determine if pool meets those criteria. These are two different arguments. Without reference to pool, what is “sport”? I’ve not looked it up in Webster’s or Wikipedia but here is my stab at what I believe, from a traditional sense, would constitute a sport. I don’t argue that these are exhaustive or set in stone but they seem a good starting point. A sport is:
1. A contest;
2. Between individuals or teams;
3. With the outcome determined by an objective scoring system (points, times, etc.);
4. With an emphasis on overall physical skills or prowess, to include:
- Strength
- Speed/quickness
- Endurance
- Muscular coordination, with an emphasis on gross motor skills, but including hand/eye coordination and vision
- Reflexes
- Balance
The factors in #4 are the crux of the issue here. The emphasis placed on any of those factors obviously depends on the sport but, to be reasonably defined as a sport, it seems to me the endeavor would have to include at least a large majority, and arguably all, of these factors.
Those that believe pool is a sport almost always fall back on the idea that it involves good hand/eye coordination and it certainly does. If, however, it is conceded that a sport should include some or all of these other criteria, what other boxes does pool check? Certainly it involves a modicum of strength, but not in the sense that we typically think of in sports. A physically very weak person could play a credible game of pool. The same goes with the other criteria.
I’ll concede that a technical argument for pool meeting these other criteria could be made (e.g., walking around a pool table at 3:00 a.m. after eight matches on two hours of sleep can show endurance) but it’s also fair to raise the issue of how society has traditionally and practically assessed things such as strength, endurance , etc. in the context of sport. It seems to me, pool just doesn‘t meet that kind of traditional consideration.
For the hand/eye coordination proponents, they let that argument completely swamp all other considerations. If that is the claim for saying pool is a sport, then you could just as easily give two seventy-five year old grandmothers a roll of yarn, a couple of knitting needles and put them on the clock; best Granny wins. Is that a sport? You’ve got to have more than simple hand/eye coordination and maybe a technical nod to some of the traditional notions of sport to call something a sport.
I’ll also concede that my criteria may imply the disqualification of other endeavors from being called a sport, including some that have been recognized as such for decades and are included in the Olympics. Marksmanship and maybe archery come to mind. Even gymnastics (no objective scoring) would be open to dispute. In these instances, however, I’d allow for giving a nod to tradition.
One final thought. I suspect that for many proponents of pool as a sport, the discussion doesn’t so much center around the nature of the activity as how they wish to perceive themselves. People who play games are merely game players. People who play sports are athletes and that is something admired in our culture. People naturally like to see themselves as athletes. A pool player may well be an athlete, but if he is, it’s not because he plays pool.
Just the opinion of one SL 6 APA banger. Thanks and feel free to weigh in.
