Throwdowns > Closed

Somebody of Note said 01/08, 05:58 PM
It has to be golf, quite simply. Even though some golfers look more like they had a 24-pack than a six-pack, it still trumps NASCAR.

To me, a sport isn't a daily activity heightened to an extreme level. People drive every day; is driving to school to pick up your kids a sport? After all, it requires the same attributes that NASCAR does. Golf, meanwhile, requires a specific skill set. You need body control, you need power that is generated from your legs and torso, and you need to be able to control your strength and judge how much is allocated to a much greater degree than NASCAR.

I also have trouble saying an athletic activity that is dependent on individual performance is less of a sport than one that depends for a large part on mechanics and external technology. The entire vessel for one's athleticism to be displayed is designed by a bunch of scientists with less street cred than Agrippa in Oklahoma. When a machine plays a significant part in determining who wins something, it's less of a sport in my book.

Golf, meanwhile, relies entirely on the competitors. They may look lazy, but it's better than sitting down, pressing the gas, and making a left turn for three hours.

Somebody of Note said 01/08, 06:29 PM
So the reason NASCAR is more of a sport is because you feel more powerful? Because you get an adrenaline rush? You know what makes you feel more powerful? Being the president. You know what gives you an adrenaline rush? Riding a roller-coaster. When it boils down to it, sports aren't about power. Sports are about athleticism, not about whatever makes you feel more powerful.

In Canada, we don't have horses. Way too cold for that. However, we do have cars. I know that you need to press your foot on a pedal and use your hands to steer and manipulate the clutch like RobertMenn manipulates his sausage role when watching Andrei Arlovski fight. When you get down to it, though, you're still operating a machine and calling it a sport. If that's a sport, then I guess we can include competitive logging and channel-surfing.

In the meantime, I'll take the sport that depends almost entirely on your physical performance. Golfing requires a very specific blend of power, skill, and mental fortitude. It's much harder to golf well than to drive well. You may say that going hours without **** is hard, but not as hard as walking in the blazing sun and manipulating your body correctly for more.

Somebody of Note said 01/09, 09:45 AM
So the reason why NASCAR is better than than golf is because drivers occasionally fight, fans drink beer, and five and 102 year olds can't do it? Five year olds and 102 years olds are also likely unable to operate a chainsaw, does it make it that a sport? See, the main reason NASCAR has a very specific age group is because you need to be proficient in the operation of a machine: the car. No matter how you slice it, NASCAR is nearly entirely dependent on the car, with a slight bit up to the driver's non-athletic abilities. That doesn't make it more of a sport.

You're saying the difference between me and a NASCAR driver is 150 MPH? That must mean I drive like a snail. The speed run by Greg Biffle this year to win the pole at Dover was 155.219 MPH. Patrick Carpentier at New Hamphire? 129.776. Don't get me wrong, I could never be a NASCAR driver, but the gap between the average freeway driver and a NASCAR star isn't nearly as huge as the gap between a non-professional golfer and a pro. If I ever break 100 in my life on the course, then I'll send you a keg of beer.

The bottom line is that NASCAR requires less athleticism and is reliant on technology. Golf is just more of a sport.