• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should WWE-style wrestling be considered a "sport"?

Binary_Digit

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
9,152
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
 
Acrobatic theater with falling. I think that's why the performers are so big. It makes the falling more dramatic.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

WWE uses the phrase “sports entertainment”, which seems fitting.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a sport as there is no competition. It is basically a soap opera for men.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

No more than acting (and their stunt doubles) is a sport.
 
I would call the wrestlers atheletes

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
All I can say is watching these wrestling matches in empty arenas makes zero sense. It looks completely fake and as a wrestling fan, I say that respectfully.
 


No social distancing.

Gronk wins the 24/7 title.

WTF? Crazy.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

Ah no, every move is rehearsed, the winner determined in advance. There is no competition.

It's entertainment for some, but to call it a sport, no.

And really, those trunks on fat over 40 men has no place on TV.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

Its entertainment but not a sport. I used to love watching with my Grandpa on Saturday nights.

George the Animal.jpg
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"?
Click to expand...

Should WWE-style wrestling be considered a "sport"?

Sure!! Just as we consider Trump a "president". :lamo
 
Nap said:
I wouldn't call it a sport as there is no competition. It is basically a soap opera for men.
Click to expand...

yankintx said:
Ah no, every move is rehearsed, the winner determined in advance. There is no competition.

It's entertainment for some, but to call it a sport, no.

And really, those trunks on fat over 40 men has no place on TV.
Click to expand...
The definition of "sport" doesn't necessarily call for "competition" though. Do we call fishing a "sport" if we're not actively comparing our successes to someone else? What about canoeing and kayacking? Hiking and backpacking? There are plenty of activities that don't involve competition but are still considered sports. I think they're typically distinguished as "non-competitive", but still sports. Do you disagree?
 
Binary_Digit said:
The definition of "sport" doesn't necessarily call for "competition" though. Do we call fishing a "sport" if we're not actively comparing our successes to someone else? What about canoeing and kayacking? Hiking and backpacking? There are plenty of activities that don't involve competition but are still considered sports. I think they're typically distinguished as "non-competitive", but still sports. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Outside of hiking and backpacking (does anyone consider those sports?) Pretty much everything you listed has competitions in that sport.

Wrestling is basically extreme acting where the actors are their own stunt doubles (99% of the time)
 
Last edited:
I'd say the main distinction is you can bet on a sport, because the outcome is unknown (or at least it's supposed to be.)

Whereas he outcome of a wrasslin' match is set in stone a week in advance, when they are story-boarding the event.
 
Binary_Digit said:
The definition of "sport" doesn't necessarily call for "competition" though. Do we call fishing a "sport" if we're not actively comparing our successes to someone else? What about canoeing and kayacking? Hiking and backpacking? There are plenty of activities that don't involve competition but are still considered sports. I think they're typically distinguished as "non-competitive", but still sports. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Not sure

I don't watch WWE. My father was into it. Myself I find it silly, but to each there own. Prefer track and field events.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

I love WWE but it is not a sport, it is an athletic and specialized physical activity, but it does not have a competitive element because it is staged and fake to a large degree.
 
Re: Should WWE-style wrestling be considered a "sport"?

trouble13 said:
It fits the definition of a sport

Sport | Definition of Sport by Lexico



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

To take my words from John Oliver:

Are they though? Are they really though?

Because if you compete against someone normally means participating in a contest, and WWE is not a contest as the moves are choreographed, agreed in advance and the winner is already decided before the match takes place, that is not a contest, that is more like a dance with a modicum degree of "looks like violence" thrown into the mix.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

Nothing competitive about WWE. The outcomes are rigged.

Are they athletes, absolutely. But rigging an outcome isn't a sport. It's pure entertainment.
 
Re: Should WWE-style wrestling be considered a "sport"?

Peter King said:
To take my words from John Oliver:

Are they though? Are they really though?

Because if you compete against someone normally means participating in a contest, and WWE is not a contest as the moves are choreographed, agreed in advance and the winner is already decided before the match takes place, that is not a contest, that is more like a dance with a modicum degree of "looks like violence" thrown into the mix.
Click to expand...
Is dance a sport?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Binary_Digit said:
Irrespective of whether or not you find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, do you think it should be considered a "sport"? (For simplicity, I'm just calling it "wrestling" from here out)

The noun "sport" is defined as:

physical activity engaged in for pleasure (Merriam Webster)
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (dictionary.com)
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment (Oxford Dictionary (via Forbes because accountwall))

Many folks would call wrestling "fake" since there is no actual competition like in the Olympics, instead it's full of choreographed acting and the match winner is pre-determined before hand. But there seems to be disagreement among dictionaries about whether or not competition vs. others is a requirement to be a "sport." I guess there's no right or wrong answer yet, so what do you think?

(Side note on the "fake" thing: Wrestlers often do some amazing and incredibly athletic things, many of which can be extremely dangerous if not done with a high degree of technical precision. And the slaps and body slams are certainly not fake at all, so even though punches are pulled and most of their pain reactions are obvious over-acting and melodrama, they do endure a lot of incidental physical abuse that isn't the least bit fake. And, contrary to what it might seem, the match is not actually choreographed before hand. The wrestlers themselves ad-lib the whole thing, finding opportunities during the match to subtly communicate what the next couple of moves will be and then acting them out accordingly. I think that's impressive.)
Click to expand...

I am fine with calling it a sport. It is comparable to pairs gymnastics in some sense I suppose.
 
Re: Should WWE-style wrestling be considered a "sport"?

trouble13 said:
Is dance a sport?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Is it a contest where every competitor can win? If not, then it is not a sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom