Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]

[popeyewhite]

SpeckledJim said:

No winner. No sport.

Really? What if you're competing against yourself? Can't you do that? As another poster has pointed out, definitions are vague. Not sure how hitting pads in boxing isn't a sport but bowls is.

[popeyewhite]

Ayahuasca said:

What is the most complex activity that an average human can learn to perform without thinking?

Depends on an individual's memory (and, some argue, innate expertise). And that depends on how often that memory is retrieved, ie practice. As for the activity itself? No idea - one person's 'complex' is anothers' bread and butter.

[SpeckledJim]

popeyewhite said:

SpeckledJim said:

No winner. No sport.

Really? What if you're competing against yourself? Can't you do that? As another poster has pointed out, definitions are vague. Not sure how hitting pads in boxing isn't a sport but bowls is.

Hitting pads doesn't get a winner. There's no rules. No scoring. No winner. It's no different to yoga or pilates or hiking.

Bowls required physical actions and dexterity as does hitting pads. But bowls has rules and strategies and results in a win or a loss.

If you're competing against yourself, as in "last time I did this half-marathon course in 1h 52m 2s, so I'm trying desperately to beat that" then I'd agree that's a sport, even if you're doing it solo, as long as the other criteria are met.

[glazbagun]

SpeckledJim said:

Ayahuasca said:

What is the most complex activity that an average human can learn to perform without thinking?

I mean, a stone-age man whose most complex activity was say daubing a picture of a bison on his cave wall had the same brainpower as a modern man who can - with a bit of practice - ride a unicycle, play a piano concerto or pilot a jet fighter.

So what is the most complex task that a human can be taught to perform?

I'd be surprised if anything we can outwardly perform would be anywhere near as complex as all the unconscious things the brain already does to keep us alive. Millions of messages and actions every minute, pretty-much all without thinking.

Anyone know what the computing power of the brain is like, compared to, say, a top-end laptop?

I'd imagine someething like reading Arabic aloud- talking itself involves loads of muscles, then you have language & all the emotion/social knowledge you've absorbed, then you throw in reading a difficult written language. Maybe play a piano at the same time.

[popeyewhite]

SpeckledJim said:

Hitting pads doesn't get a winner. There's no rules. No scoring. No winner. It's no different to yoga or pilates or hiking.

It's the concept of having to win at something in order to make it a sport that's too vague. If a boxing match is sport, then practising for that match is also sport. Here's another definition of sport: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english...

sport
noun UK ​ /spɔːt/ US ​ /spɔːrt/
sport noun (GAME)

​
A1 [ C ] a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job:
Football, basketball, and hockey are all team sports.
I enjoy winter sports like skiing and skating.
​
A1 [ U ] uk all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment:

[steveo3002]

anyone ever hear of somebody getting the reward money for helping catch a criminal - like you see on crimewatch etc

[a]

SpeckledJim said:

Anyone know what the computing power of the brain is like, compared to, say, a top-end laptop?

Not a fair comparison from either point of view. "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it's stupid."

Average people read approx 200 words per minute. Modern PC RAM could read could read (transfer) somewhere in the region of 4,800,000,000 words per minute. Does that make the computer 24 million times cleverer than a brain?

And yet a human can jump in the air and throw a ball across a room into a basket with a fair degree of accuracy, while holding a conversation. Force/angle calculations are done so instantly and seamlessly with compensations for the jump action force etc, that you're not even aware you're doing those calculations while vibrating your throat between 100 and 1,000 times per second and moving many facial muscles in the exact order required to create the desired sound.

Edited by a on Tuesday 19th September 15:28

[SCEtoAUX]

Blimey, I opened a can of worms here with my golf question.

I'm sticking with this position though:

As long as you can hit a golf ball to a reasonable standard, then taking lessons and getting a better will not increase your chances in competitions. Whether those competitions are just a four-ball with your mates, or a typical club Stableford on a Saturday. That's because your handicap will reduce by virtue of your improved play.

What I went on to suggest is that the factors that make a round of golf enjoyable are, in my opinion, totally unrelated to how good a golfer you are. (Assuming, as above, that you can hit the ball and indeed don't "spend 5 hours in the wet cabbage taking 102 shots").

The reason I maintain this opinion is that I've played golf for years, and I've see no evidence whatsoever, at any of the three clubs I've been a member of, that the better players enjoy the game more.

[SpeckledJim]

SCEtoAUX said:

I'm sticking with this position though:

As long as you can hit a golf ball to a reasonable standard, then taking lessons and getting a better will not increase your chances in competitions.

This is wrong though. If you don't get better at golf you won't stand a chance at best gross. Which is, let's not forget, the actual point of the game.

If you want to win best nett (which is a nonsense really) then the best thing you can do is massage your handicap, turn up twice a year, win, and have everyone know you're a lousy cheating bandit.

If on the other hand you maintain your handicap as a fair reflection of your talent, then you won't win best nett anyway, because it's normally won by a lousy cheating bandit.

Which is why lots of golfers aren't bothered about winning best nett, and even are embarrassed to win it. Because, as above, it's a nonsense.

[V8mate]

steveo3002 said:

anyone ever hear of somebody getting the reward money for helping catch a criminal - like you see on crimewatch etc

On the basis that 'no-one likes a grass', I'd imagine they keep pretty schtum?

[motco]

Why does the handrail on an escalator, travelator, or supermarket moving ramp always move ever-so slightly faster than the stairs/foot surface? Ever since I was a child (long time ago) this has been the case. Surely it isn't difficult to keep them in perfect synch?

[SCEtoAUX]

SpeckledJim said:

This is wrong though. If you don't get better at golf you won't stand a chance at best gross. Which is, let's not forget, the actual point of the game.

If you want to win best nett (which is a nonsense really) then the best thing you can do is massage your handicap, turn up twice a year, win, and have everyone know you're a lousy cheating bandit.

If on the other hand you maintain your handicap as a fair reflection of your talent, then you won't win best nett anyway, because it's normally won by a lousy cheating bandit.

Which is why lots of golfers aren't bothered about winning best nett, and even are embarrassed to win it. Because, as above, it's a nonsense.

We have at least 80 competitions each year at my club, and I can only think of perhaps three or four where the only thing that decides the winner is the gross score.

However, you make a fair point and I will discuss this at the club on Thursday with my brunch buddies.

[SpeckledJim]

SCEtoAUX said:

We have at least 80 competitions each year at my club, and I can only think of perhaps three or four where the only thing that decides the winner is the gross score.

However, you make a fair point and I will discuss this at the club on Thursday with my brunch buddies.

You don't have a best gross prize (or at least recognition) at every competition? That's unusual I'd say.

Normally there's both on offer. The good golfers and the honest golfers don't usually get much of a look-in at best nett (because of the lousy cheating bandits. Slow, sarcastic round of applause for them) so best gross keeps the good golfers interested.

[Abbott]

SpeckledJim said:

SCEtoAUX said:

I'm sticking with this position though:

As long as you can hit a golf ball to a reasonable standard, then taking lessons and getting a better will not increase your chances in competitions.

This is wrong though. If you don't get better at golf you won't stand a chance at best gross. Which is, let's not forget, the actual point of the game.

If you want to win best nett (which is a nonsense really) then the best thing you can do is massage your handicap, turn up twice a year, win, and have everyone know you're a lousy cheating bandit.

If on the other hand you maintain your handicap as a fair reflection of your talent, then you won't win best nett anyway, because it's normally won by a lousy cheating bandit.

Which is why lots of golfers aren't bothered about winning best nett, and even are embarrassed to win it. Because, as above, it's a nonsense.

This is the golfers paradox. You want to have a low handicap for bragging rights down the pub with your mates but you also want as high a handicap as possible to increase the chance of doing a bit of banditry and grabbing a few pots in a competition.

[popeyewhite]

SCEtoAUX said:

As long as you can hit a golf ball to a reasonable standard, then taking lessons and getting a better will not increase your chances in competitions.

Reams and reams of sports psychology research suggests otherwise. Improvement = motivation = more self-confidence = greater chance of success.

[kowalski655]

Putting the cat among the pigeons,how about e-sports? Most would consider them only for geeks but it has all of the following 5

SpeckledJim said:

• Physical activity and dexterity*
• Rules
• Strategies
• Winners and losers.
• An element of fun or entertainment. e.g. shop-keeping isn't a sport.

.

And the audience for them is bloody huge
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/12/activisions-compet...

*(not much in the way of calories but plenty of dexterity)

[talksthetorque]

popeyewhite said:

Reams and reams of sports psychology research suggests otherwise. Improvement = motivation = more self-confidence = greater chance of success.

I think that the problem with golf is if you're not a great player, say over 14 handicap, then the chances of you stringing 18 decent holes together without completely ballsing up one or two of them is low. You can get away with one bad shot on a hole normally, but two bad shots invariably will cost this type of golfer at least three shots on that hole.
Golf at that level is about how many bad shots you don't hit in a round.
The answer is to play stableford comps

If you are under 14 handicap. the chances are that the major cockup free rounds will happen more frequently. the better you get, the more likely it is that you are more consistent.
I played as a junior who then moved on to more fulfilling pastimes such as women and alcohol, and I now attempt two or three rounds a year.

[popeyewhite]

talksthetorque said:

I think that the problem with golf is if you're not a great player, say over 14 handicap, then the chances of you stringing 18 decent holes together without completely ballsing up one or two of them is low. You can get away with one bad shot on a hole normally, but two bad shots invariably will cost this type of golfer at least three shots on that hole.
Golf at that level is about how many bad shots you don't hit in a round.
The answer is to play stableford comps

If you are under 14 handicap. the chances are that the major cockup free rounds will happen more frequently. the better you get, the more likely it is that you are more consistent.
I played as a junior who then moved on to more fulfilling pastimes such as women and alcohol, and I now attempt two or three rounds a year.

Sure, I get you. I do the women and alcohol, but not the golf bit anymore. Can be a frustrating game.
I used to play as a junior, in fact won a father and son competition decades ago, playing off an over 50 ish handicap which I achieved when I was 12. At the time of the comp I was 15 and should have been on 40 but it hadn't been updated. Dad was as pleased as punch though.

[AstonZagato]

SpeckledJim said:

popeyewhite said:

SpeckledJim said:

Yes, the skill is enjoyable in both activities.

But the measurement is important to something qualifying as a proper sport.

Hmmm. Define "proper sport". Surely jogging is a proper sport. What about going out for a bike ride? How about a kickabout with your mates in the park?
What about aesthetic sports? Ballroom dancing for instance/gymnastics etc? Sure there are skills that have to be included, but measurement is based on judges' opinion, not any objective scoring system.

A sport has winners and losers, rules and strategies. Without those, it's just activity or exercise. Jogging doesn't have winners or rules. Not a sport.

Jogging: Not a sport. Road-running competitively: proper sport.
Bike ride: not a sport. Bike racing: proper sport
Kick-about in the park: might be a sport depending on if you're counting goals and playing to some rules.

Aesthetic sports with judges impartially equating performance into a score is real sport. Although I'd argue it's not quite as 'genuine' as sports with a less interpretive basis for scoring.

popeyewhite said:

SpeckledJim said:

Without the measurement aspect, there's no competition.

I've made no comment about competition, but if I were to I'd note that simply one person arriving somewhere before another could be described as competitive. And of course you don't need a winner for sport to be competitive.
Just some musings... .

Arriving somewhere earlier is only a win if you were in a race. if the other person didn't think you were in a race, then there's no competition, so no win, so no sport.

You do need a winner (or a competition to end in a draw) for it to be competitive and/or a sport.


Edited to correct quoting, sorry.

Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 19th September 12:22

I've always suggested that the only valid sports for Olympic should be those that require no judges for the layman to know who won. First across the line: winner. Jumps the highest: winner. Lifts the heaviest weight: winner.

Does the best triple lutz with salco? Only 10 people in the world would know and they may be lying.

[motco]

AstonZagato said:

I've always suggested that the only valid sports for Olympic should be those that require no judges for the layman to know who won. First across the line: winner. Jumps the highest: winner. Lifts the heaviest weight: winner.

Does the best triple lutz with salco? Only 10 people in the world would know and they may be lying.

There's a lot of truth in that view, and I would suggest that it is impossible to have a fair paralympics competition unless there's a 'standard' disability.