My opinion of a sport is anything, in general, that requires you to train your body to repeatedly and consistently perform certain skills while at the same time, provides competition. Going by this definition, a sport is different from exercise, and I would not consider walking casually as a sport. For this same reason, I would have to consider running not a sport either, namely because then, following by my definition, someone running just for exercise would be partaking in a sport but someone just walking for fitness would not be. What I mean by having your body perform certain skills is developing hand-eye coordination for darts, pool, horseshoes, or learning the proper strokes to swim, or else developing the hand position to put revolutions on a bowling ball, among many other things along those lines. No particular sport can be “more of a sport” than any other sport. Basically, I do not believe that a sport should be dependent on how much exercise it offers or how many calories you burn during participation. In my mind, football is just as much a sport as bowling or pool or horseshoes. I also think that it is wrong to judge a sport by how strenuous it is. I don’t necessarily disagree with some professional athletes being paid more than others, though. I think that a perfect reason why was actually brought to my attention by Adrian Ballesteros, a student at Skyline. He said, “Sports that are more demanding on a player’s body should pay more”, and I think he is absolutely right. Football players average around six years of competitive play, whereas bowlers average around 30 years. So, it only makes sense for the football athletes to make much, much more a year than bowlers do if they want to break even in the end. Even if a person just participates in a sport recreationally, I would argue that they are still playing a sport because they are still trying to beat whoever they are playing against, even if they don’t really care about the competitive aspect. In my opinion, this is why the term professional athletes exists – to distinguish between those playing casually and people who play a sport for high stakes.Last semester, I wrote an article saying that poker is not a sport. I am going to stick by that assertion, even though I have recently been made aware that, judging by the definition I have put forth, I should consider poker a sport. However, I assure you, I have a reason for disregarding this argument.The argument goes as follows: In poker, you have to bluff in order to compete successfully, and that requires a great deal of skill and practice to keep your emotions and facial expressions to a minimum. I actually agree with this statement, but I have to draw the line somewhere. As I reflect on the matter, I realize that if I consider poker a sport, then I have to consider acting, fast eating, debating, performing magic tricks, painting, and pretty much everything else that exists as a sport. This is why I do not believe it is possible to have one true definition of the word “sport”.A brief list of activities that I recognize as sports but others may not includes bowling, pool, darts, and gymnastics. I do not see, however, race car driving or chess as sports. There is a large grey area when it comes to defining what a sport is, and because this is so I believe that it is impossible to define what a sport is, you can only form an opinion of what is a sport and what is not.