Japan's First World Champion

[Mulboyne]

[Socratesabroad]

The BBC just screened a good documentary called Planet Ping Pong which looks at the development of the game from a parlour room pastime to an international sport dominated by China.

Mulboyne, thanks for the cite. That said, a diatribe is about to begin...

[SIZE="5"]Ping pong is not a f*cking sport.[/SIZE]

A game, sure. Like badminton. Here in China, they take those piddly little events seriously.

I can see the winner of the winter Olympic medal in the biathlon comparing himself/herself to the track & field folk - fair enough.

But let's be clear: ping pong is no more a sport than any other minimally exhaustive game; otherwise, golf is fast on its way to recognition as "sport" along with lawn darts and horseshoes. Hell, given that logic even pachinko might qualify...

[drpepper]

Spoken like a guy who has never really played it.. badminton is also a sport and as someone who has played it at the league level I can tell you it is not minimally exhausting at all, those people are real athletes.

[American Oyaji]

Table tennis is a sport as is badminton.

[Socratesabroad]

Table tennis is a sport as is badminton.

You'll forgive me if I don't just take you guys' word for it...

[Mulboyne]

Badminton and table tennis are both sports in my book but I wouldn't stand up for darts and pool or billiards. Then again, if darts isn't a sport then it's hard to make a case for archery and shooting. Bowls, bowling, croquet, gateball, petanque and curling don't seem to require their participants to be in peak physical shape. Then again, you have to be extraordinaily fit and coordinated to compete in gymnastics, skating, synchronized swimming and diving and but all those sports award marks for style or artistic interpretation so this definition problem gets a bit knotty.

I think if you did play table tennis or badminton then the only way you would be minimally exhausted is if you lost heavily because you didn't get anywhere near the ball or shuttlecock. I speak from personal humiliating experience. With table tennis, the more athletic it has become, the less interesting it is to watch. In the BBC documentary, players described how it used to be possible to be either a defensive player or an attacking player. The speed at which the game is played today requires everyone to attack. The game often consists of three-shot points: a difficult serve which the receiver can only return weakly which then allows the server virtually a free shot. To have any chance of competing at a top level, you need sharp reactions, excellent hand-eye co-ordination and great agility. Unfortunately, it tends to be a dull spectatcle.

[Socratesabroad]

Badminton and table tennis are both sports in my book but I wouldn't stand up for darts and pool or billiards. Then again, if darts isn't a sport then it's hard to make a case for archery and shooting. Bowls, bowling, croquet, gateball, petanque and curling don't seem to require their participants to be in peak physical shape.

I guess I'm somewhat of a throwback: I view "sport" as an event or competition in which
1) there is some practical application of the techniques/prowess displayed
2) there is a substantial risk of physical contact/injury
3) there is an objective standard to determine the winner like time, distance, weight, etc.

And I'd dare say I'm not the only one with this view.

Writing in The Age, Aussie writer Richard Castles suggested
Let's get rid of those silly Olympic events

I'm sorry, but coming first in the beach volleyball comp is just not the same as winning the marathon. One belongs in the Hall of Heroes, the other at Club Med.

The fastest man on earth gets one gold, the ping-pong champ the same? Come on. It's like comparing Miss Universe with Miss Congeniality, Best Director with Best Achievement in Costume Design, the Nobel Prize for physics with the Nobel Prize for home economics (if there was one).

I've always preferred the basic "fastest, highest, strongest" events at the Olympics. The weightlifting might not be the most exciting sport to watch, but there is something heroic about being the bloke in the world who can lift the heaviest load above his head, the strong man of fairytales.

There is an obvious evolutionary triumph here, a talent that is transferable to real world survival. Consider athletics: throughout history, being able to run fast has clearly served mankind well, in times of war, and in times of being chased by animals. Hitting ping-pong balls at a lion is only going to help you live longer if the big cat pauses for a moment to ponder your behaviour.

Stranded by a rising river, I'd want to be with someone who could either swim across it, jump over it, or just throw me over her shoulder and carry me across. Gymnastics, triple jump, javelin: all of these might conceivably be useful at times like these. Brave knights did not rescue damsels in distress with a deft hand at softball. It was fencing, pole vaulting and archery that won the day.

This is, of course, why walking continues to be the stupidest event at the Olympic Games. Why don't they just run? As one commentator said during the Sydney Games, a contest to see who can walk the fastest is like a contest to see who can whisper the loudest.

It would have been a strange Neanderthal who thought: "I shall retreat from this advancing river of molten lava, but, a-ha, here's the rub, I shall always keep one foot in contact with the ground." Actually, it would have been a dead Neanderthal. Perhaps that is what the famous "Iceman" of Austria was doing when the glacier overtook him.

I don't mean to dismiss the skill and countless hours of training that all athletes put into their respective sports. And, in many ways, I'm more in awe of ping-pong prowess and synchronised diving than the generally uncomplicated art of running fast. But if that's what it's all about, there might as well be a gold medal for juggling.

[drpepper]

I guess I'm somewhat of a throwback: I view "sport" as an event or competition in which
1) there is some practical application of the techniques/prowess displayed
2) there is a substantial risk of physical contact/injury
3) there is an objective standard to determine the winner like time, distance, weight, etc.

I'd say badminton meets those requirements as well as any non-contact sport (tennis for example), I blew out my ACL in badminton. I have always found tennis to be a poor imitation of badminton, just too slow and boring for my tastes though I suppose it is easier to watch on TV. You are not going to be seeing any fat jolly old guys playing comptetive badminton like you do in darts where it seems to be a prerequisite.