Re: Sport or not?
 

Wikipedia:
"Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors."

I have always considered FIRST Competitions a subset of Motorsports. I have always defined Motorsports as a competition where machines are doing most of the "work", but are not able to perform well without human interaction.
These would include, any motor vehicle racing (from faster lap to endurance like solarcar), motor driven freestyle competition (Drifting to Monstertruck Freestyle). All of these are competitions with powered machinery. It also fits into this model as most teams are highly involved in the preparation for an event, but the driver does most of the actual competing.


I have played many sports in High School, and have participated in many motorsports. Many motorsports can be as physically demanding as almost any traditional sport, but usually they are not. That being said I have seen some really out of shape people play many sports (even at the professional level).

So to conclude, if you put Motorsports as a subset of Sports, then yes the FIRST Competitions are Sports. If you give Motorsports it own category on the same level as "Sports" then no it is not a sport.

I make sure to site the words "FIRST Competitions" to both include FRC, FTC, and FLL as well as seperate it from the rest of FIRST (learning, GP, and all the awards for things you have done).

On a side note: Please be careful devaluing "Sports" as having no positive impact. If more people participated in more physical activity, there would be a huge benefit to national Health. While the sport is merely there for "Entertainment" these entertainers are indirectly responsible for many jobs including engineers and construction crews building stadiums, and broadcasters presenting this entertainment. All of these things have significant value to the global economy and the quality of life. This entertainment has also given many students that are economically challenged a way to get a college education.

Re: Sport or not?
 

I've personally worked harder at FIRST than anything else, and harder than any other student on my team. However, the level of physical exertion is nothing compared to what my sister had to do for gymnastics.

Oh yeah, I'm the driver. I know how hard it is. There is a high level of precision needed, but the skill involved doesn't compare to how hard it is to hit a major league fastball, or to return a serve in tennis thats hit at 155 mph.

FIRST is a competition. FIRST is an obsession. FIRST is a way of life. FIRST is entertainment. FIRST is NOT a sport. FIRST is better.

Re: Sport or not?
 

You're right. FIRST is all of those things.

The way I see it FIRST is not a sport. FIRST deserves the recognition of sports, it is just as fun as sports(actually it's more fun than sports). In many cases FIRST is more useful in life than sports.

To compare FIRST to sports and to call FIRST a sport are two different things. When explaining FIRST to people that don't know about it, comparing it to a sport is a great way to do it. Often times, comparing it to a sport gets people interested.

I agree with both sides of this discussion. Everyone has good points that make me think about it. Overall I agree agree that "FIRST is better." I think FIRST isn't a sport, but if we ever decide definitively that it is, I would have no problem with that.

Either way FIRST is FIRST, sport or no sport, and it is totally awesome both ways.

Re: Sport or not?
 

Wow. I didn't know there were so many sides to the issue. Somehow, I just automatically assumed everyone shared the same opinion on this.......that was stupid of me. I consider FIRST to be an "alternative sport". It is similar to a sport in many ways except for, it seems in this thread, is the lack of physical exertion. which I can understand, but as we all know, we aren't all built like Shaq or Lance Armstrong. There also probably just as many rules in basketball or football as there are in FIRST. On the other hand, if we have to be recognized as a "sport" by schools to get funding and other things(like respect...), no I don't want FIRST to be considered a sport for dignity's sake. I myself don't especially care either way(which is why I didn't vote ;mine would've been in-between), but it's interesting to read everybody else's comments. I also like what Ike had to say:

"On a side note: Please be careful devaluing "Sports" as having no positive impact. If more people participated in more physical activity, there would be a huge benefit to national Health. While the sport is merely there for "Entertainment" these entertainers are indirectly responsible for many jobs including engineers and construction crews building stadiums, and broadcasters presenting this entertainment. All of these things have significant value to the global economy and the quality of life. This entertainment has also given many students that are economically challenged a way to get a college education."

That's a good point. A very good point indeed.

My point being, overall, that if we want the respect we should get, I think we should be considered a sport. If we want to nitpick, we're kind of a sport, but actually more different, with sport-like qualities.

I hope this all makes sense. I had a lot of random thoughts reading this thread. All considered things aside, I still love FIRST, so none of it really makes a difference.

Re: Sport or not?
 

That's another really good point. Obviously it doesn't match perfectly to either category, which is why we are debating it. Why force it into an existing category when it doesn't really fit in either. Let's make it its own classification, one that really fits. It's part game, part sport, but not really either.

Re: Sport or not?
 

John, this isn't a flame at you. I have great respect for you, but I'm just using some of your quotes to get my thoughts flowing.
You might want to watch out when you say that. I'm not exactly sure olympic athletes training all their lives for the most grueling two and a half weeks of competition would like to know that they are doing nothing more than entertaining.

I don't see sports as only a thing to watch on the TV or to buy tickets to go see in a stadium or arena. Seems that's how most Americans see it as we are one of the most obese nations in the world. There's the whole participatory aspect to it as well.

I know one sport shaping the future of the global automotive industry..Formula 1. Many of the advancements in that field of motorsports are being put back into our own cars for daily use. Making cars more aerodynamic, efficient, better handling, better stopping, more reliable, and the list goes on. Next season they're going to work on implementing KERS in the cars to further their efficiency. It's a CVT that engages during braking to capture extra kinetic energy to put it to use. Some neat stuff that will help to make cars run cleaner.

What made the world so polluted in the first place? Industry, cars, factories. Getting away from these and using alternative forms such as maybe walking or cycling or even skateboarding from here to there will help make us less reliant on cars.

Like others mentioned, I see FIRST on the same level as motorsports. The vehicle, or car is just the means for teaching. There's a lot that can be learnt from Rally racing, Formula 1, A1GP, Baja, etc.

The same could be argued about the YMCA, or club teams, or soccer teams. Working with the coaches, the students build a relationship and have a rolemodel. Sports were a big one during the a|n|t|i|d|r|u|g campaign. Students were doing something better and more beneficial during their time and were building character and value. They valued themselves and their teammates.

You might not all see sports the same way as I do, and we will all still have our own little disputes about different topics. Still seems pretty evenly divided (36-27) as to whether or not FIRST falls into the categories of Sport. I see it has the positive attributes of a sport, but won't be an olympic sport anytime soon. However though, it has been featured in ESPN.

Re: Sport or not?
 

Really? How many people show up to watch track meets that aren't family?

No value. I can say that I've learned more about myself from XC and Track than from robotics. While the community may not gain anything from sports, almost everyone who participates in a sport has a personal gain.

Sports weren't created for entertainment, they were created as a way to have fun, as a game. Even today you'll hear athletes say, "At the end of the day you just gotta go out there and have fun."

I have a feeling that most people on here haven't actually participated in a sport beyond little league. So we're getting a major bias. Until you actually participate in a sport in high school or wherever else, you don't really fully understand sports.

Re: Sport or not?
 

I agree. I've learned a ton from sports. I have had so many life lessons because of tennis. Robotics has taught me a ton too, but I've only been involved with FIRST for 2 years while I've been around tennis for 18 years, I played soccer starting at 4 years old, I played hockey at 4, and I played baseball for a few years.

Sports (should) teach lessons through a head fake of sorts. I played tennis when I was really young, got mad, and smashed my racket on the court. It became oddly shaped because of that, but my parents forced me to play with that racket for a year or so. Due to that, I gave much more value to my possessions. This is just one example of how someone would learn a lesson through sports. Sports are important for more than just physical activity.

However, I don't think I degrade sports when I say that I think FIRST is better. I understand (mostly) the benefits of sports. I've been a sports person my entire life, and will play Division 3 tennis.

Re: Sport or not?
 

I see what you are saying about the bias.

With all of the sports I play and follow, I feel like in 10 years of sports I haven't learned as much as I have in two years of FIRST. It is probably different for everyone though.

My opinion is very biased because all I think about is FIRST and I intend to go to college for engineering.

Sports are important and do teach valuable lessons, but from my position, FIRST has taught me much more than sports.

It goes beyond learning though, sports do keep me in better shape, one thing FIRST doesn't do for me is keep me in shape.(We do have poeple on our team that lose weight during the build season though.)

Beyond learning and physical ability, there is fun. Sports are very fun, but I'd be hard pressed to find something more fun than a FIRST competition. The build season is always really fun as well.

Re: Sport or not?
 

As someone who coaches both a robotics team and a cross-country team, I would argue that they can teach many of the same things. I enjoy coaching both teams. (I have also coached track, soccer and basketball.) And I have had cross-country and track athletes, soccer players, football players, golfers, tennis players, baseball players and volleyball players on my FIRST team. As with many things in life, how you do it makes all the difference. The first step is your approach. In this I am guided by the words of a good friend from quite a few years ago: "As a coach, I need to teach my athletes. If they haven't learned over the course of the season, I haven't done a good job."

As for sports not adding anything of value, please do not discount physical fitness as an important added value. Americans are particularly unfit on the average, and being on a sports team can be a big help in teaching kids how to make healthy life choices. Sports can also teach you how to respond challenges. It takes just as much hard work to be good at a sport as it does to be good at FIRST. Like FIRST, some people will be naturally better at some aspects of sports than other people, but everyone gets better by working at it. You know, the more I think about it, the benefits earned and lessons learned in FIRST and cross-country are remarkably similar.

None of this should be construed as wanting FIRST to be more like the win at all costs ideal which has permeated too much of our sporting culture in the world. But please don't fall into the trap of feeling superior just because you participate in FIRST or of denigrating other athletes because you don't like there sports. One of the reasons I like cross-country and track is the fact that you can't control how fast your opponents run. All you can do is run your fastest. And most athletes measure their success in a season by how much they improved over the course of the season. You also tend to run against the same people several times a year, sometimes as many as 7 or 8 times. This lends itself to a very friendly, almost graciously professional atmosphere at meets. Runners congratulate each other after runs.

Good sportsmanship is something that FIRST tries to foster. And most sports teams at the high school level try to as well. This is not just at the high school level. After the Olympic 1500 meter race in 2004, Hicham el-Guerrouj was kneeling on the track after winning the gold medal. Bernard Lagat, who won the silver, came over to give him a hug of congratulations. Have any of you ever seen the football (soccer) tradition of exchanging jerseys after a hard fought game?

So I guess my point is that whether you do FIRST or some other sport (I guess that answers as to my opinion on the question at hand) you can do it well or not. So choose to do it well and get as much as you can from what you do.

Re: Sport or not?
 

Wait, what?

You can teach me ALL the good techniques of chess in one hour? Really?

Chess takes YEARS of training to even get close to good. Most current masters (not even the grandmaster level; as low as 2200 USCF rating) have been playing since their early childhood and studying with grandmasters to get to a good level, and most people rated 1800 or above play for at least a couple of hours a day.

But I agree with the general idea here; chess is mental, not physical, and so is FIRST; not a sport.

Re: Sport or not?
 

I'll vote for "not a sport".

Sport involves great things, and it also involves ugly things.

Both FIRST and organized sports teach lessons, provide opportunities, and are very enjoyable for participants. Each have benefits. I've learned many life lessons while being active in both. However, I choose now to be involved in FIRST instead of heavily involved in a sport because the impact of life changing lessons and development is significantly higher in FIRST (from my experience*).

I wish that FIRST did not try to market the robotics competitions as a sport. There are other ways to promote this wonderful program.

Andy B.

* - in my younger years, this includes many levels of competition, including college and semi-pro football

Re: Sport or not?
 

It is a sport but for smart people. lol. The sport thing can go both ways.

Re: Sport or not?
 

So are regular sports for dumb people? :confused:

Re: Sport or not?
 

Funny Cory, no that's just the overall feel I get from people. "Dude are you in robotics. Yeah. Man your smart"

But no, robotics just celebrates science and technology a tad bit more than regular sports