If racing is a sport, does that make race-car drivers athletes? A BJ is riding on this one, my brothers. Pete

If racing is a sport, then the horses are athletes. The jockeys, like race car drivers, are technicians.

Race horses are athletes. ESPN named Secretariat number 35 in its Top 100 athletes of the 20th Century. (And, at 35, I think the great Secretariat was ranked just a little too low. When the list came out, Secretariat was the first name I scanned for and I was very happy that ESPN had the guts to include him.)

Race car drivers are athletes, too. Aside from the tremendous physical endurance they must demonstrate, there's the whole precision hand-eye coordination thing. I know I know, they're propelled by a car ... but would you disqualify a pole vaulter from the category "athlete" because it's the pole that propels him over the bar?

And ... from ESPN's list of the 100 greatest ATHLETES of the 20th Century:

Three race car drivers were included: A.J. Foyt (#80), King Richard Petty (#90), and Mario Andretti (#92)

Three race HORSES were listed: Secretariat (#35), Man O'War (#84), and, inexplicably, Citation (#97) (who should have points deducted for later having a really awful Chevrolet product named for him).

And two jockeys were listed: Willie Shoemaker (#57) and Eddie Arcaro (#66)

So according to the folks at ESPN who compiled this list of the 100 Greatest Athletes of the 20th Century ... race car drivers, race horses, and jockeys are athletes. This is a neutral source, so give or get depending on which way the bet went.

By the way, no figure skaters, no ballroom dancers, no chess players, and no synchronized swimmers made the list ... so their status as athletes is still in question.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I am curious as to how you plan to settle the debate so as to claim (or award?) your prize!

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
... would you disqualify a pole vaulter from the category "athlete" because it's the pole that propels him over the bar?

---

I think the better question, and one I would have a harder time answering, is would a bicycle disqualify Lance Armstrong as an athlete. I think it is first necessary to acknowledge that there are competitive human endeavors that are not athletic and that there are physical activities that are not athletic. Now the question becomes if an activity is both physical and competitive is it necessarily athletic? The usual answer to this is much like the old chesnut about pornography, you cannot explain what it is, but you know it when you see it. Likewise, it is difficult to define athletics and sport (assuming they're the same thing) but you know it when you see it.

Let's go to a purely physical activity that is almost never considered a sport, ballet (not ballroom dancing, I've already taken my lumps on that). Ballet, if you ask any practitioner, is an art, an art that is extremely physical. Yet it is highly competitive. Dancers compete to get into schools, compete for spots in prestigious companies and they compete for roles within those companies. But none of that makes it a sport. Why not? Probably the most important reason is that the people involved, both practitioners and spectators, don't consider it a sport.

So it is possible for something to be physical and competitive to not be a sport because the people involved say it's not. Are there any other criterea? Personally, I think that while tools are acceptable in sport, machines are not. Now, of course in order to keep bicycles within my definition, I have to redefine both tools and machines. A tool is an object external to the athlete that is fundamental to the execution of a sport: a pole for vaulting, gymnastic apparati, bicycles, baseball bats, etc. A machine, on the other hand is a self propelled object controled by the competitor: an automobile and, for the purposes of this argument, a horse.

But what I'd really like to know, like George_vikingfan, is how is this bet going to be decided?

[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:
I think the better question, and one I would have a harder time answering, is would a bicycle disqualify Lance Armstrong as an athlete.

---

I think we can agree: if you're using a definition of "athlete" that would exclude Lance Armstrong, you then need to come up with a new definition.

[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:
Let's go to a purely physical activity that is almost never considered a sport, ballet (not ballroom dancing, I've already taken my lumps on that). Ballet, if you ask any practitioner, is an art, an art that is extremely physical. Yet it is highly competitive. Dancers compete to get into schools, compete for spots in prestigious companies and they compete for roles within those companies. But none of that makes it a sport. Why not? Probably the most important reason is that the people involved, both practitioners and spectators, don't consider it a sport.

---

I think you can be athletic, but if you're not participating in a sporting competition, you're not an athlete. If it takes a lot of physical effort to control a car going at incredible speeds, then I guess that means a race car driver is an athlete.

Let me share my point of view from experience. I have driven a race car for almost 10 years now. I also enjoy other sports like volleyball, tennis, biking, etc...

I know that when I crawl out of the car I am every bit as physically and mentally exhausted as I am from competing in other sports.

I will also say that the thrill/rush/high I get when I am in the car is better than any amusement park ride or drug that I can think of. I also believe the level of competition is at a par with any other group of athletes you can find. So in my obviously biased opinion, I consider them/us athletes.

racerboy, is the physical exhaustion as the result of the mental stress? I have no experience with racing, or even fast driving really, but I imagine the adrenaline rush and stress of driving 100+ mph, weaving in and out of other cars, constantly on the edge, must be mentally exhausting. I remember how physically exhausted I'd be after some college exams, or after long stretches of hard-core studying, even though I did little more than sit at a desk for a few hours (and my life wasn't even hanging in the balance!). Or are the physical demands of racecar driving really that rigorous?

Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
... would you disqualify a pole vaulter from the category "athlete" because it's the pole that propels him over the bar?

There's a huge difference. The pole does not propel the pole vaulter. All the force required to move the pole vaulter is generated by man (other than gravity). The car's power is generated by burning gasoline.

Excelling at video games and tiddlywinks requires great hand-eye coordination. I still wouldn't call the players "athletes".

Ballet, to my mind, comes closer, but to me, athletics implies some sort of direct competition. I guess you could call a ballet competition, but the nature of ballet is not inherently competitive. Competitive weightlifting in the olympics is sport, but weight training which is for some other purpose (aesthetic, health or training for other sports) is not.

Gentlemen- Thank you for your feedback. I am going to South Carolina for closure on this. It was my contention that an athlete was someone who trained and employed his body to achieve a goal, and that a jockey in horseracing would be an athelete, but that a racecar driver would not, since the car is the instrument doing the work, and that the driver is moving the car. I know about the hand-eye co-ordination thing, but my 8 year old nephew plays Nintendo, and he's got great hand-eye coordination. Does that make him an athelete? I think not. I think the racecar driver could be considered a 'sportsman", (or sports figure to be PC). Lance Armstrong would be an athlete, since he's the one to propel the bicycle, and the conditioning he has invested in his body gives him an advantage over say, John Goodman, on the same bicycle. In a car, both would be equally adept at flooring the gas pedal.
On a bike, Lance would have more stamina of the two. Pete

[quote]Originally posted by notyouthedog:
If racing is a sport, does that make race-car drivers athletes?

---

Webster's dictionary says: "Athlete--One who participates in competitive sports."

So since you say racing is a sport, then racecar drivers are athletes.

And I'm guessing Lance Armstrong would kick John Goodman's ass in a 500-mile car race, as John would likely need beer/food breaks.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: BballDC ]

Bosoxrudy, A good portion of the exhaustion is definitely due to the mental stress and adrenaline. I know I can exercise for longer periods of time than I am in my car, and not be as wiped out.
It's also true that many of the people I am racing against are not what I would call exceptional in the fitness department, But I also notice that the better drivers are usually in better shape than the others.
As far as how physically demanding racing can be. I don't know how it is on the big tracks like Michigan, Indy, and Daytona. But on the short tracks I have run on (1/2 mile or smaller) You are constantly working- Turning, braking, accelerating. The G-forces never really let up. Just holding your head up is work.

I think the question comes down to how narrowly you want to interpret something. I personally think that a ballet dancer could be considered an athlete, even though I don't consider ballet a sport. I don't really look at a pro bowler as an athlete, but I consider pro bowling a sport. My own personal definition of an athlete is someone who does something physically demanding. But my definition of sport says it must include a competitive aspect. As I said before, it comes down to how you personally define what you are looking at.

I'm bringing copies of these posts, and we'll look at whatever evidence he has, and if worse comes to worst, we'll have to mud wrestle. Again, thanks. Pete