Alpha Black

Evil Elvis wrote: I rather train with Paintball than Blamks, MILES or other lame training tools that we had when in the Marines. Those training aids all they do is make people go thorugh the motions without knowing where the rounds are landing.

MILES has a tendency to teach/reward some very bad practices in regards to cover vs. concealment.

If you are going to go the route of regulated equipment to define it as a sport, I really can not argue. I am going to say this anyway though.

All I can say to that is is PSP, MXL, AXBL, CXBL, and numerous local tournaments guns are capped to a 15 bps(changed this year ramp).  Anyone playing in higher than a beginner division, made to introduce players where Tippmann's and Spyders are the norm, will at least have an Ion. These guns come equipped with a board capable of 1, 2, 3 trigger pull to 15 bps. I think even electro spyders are now equipped to ramp.


I also have to say that the firepower isn't necessary to compete. I have won games with my Matrix having dirty and/or broken eyes. Anyone that shoots a Matrix knows that when the eyes aren't working the gun is capped at 8 BPS. A capable rate of fire with any gun.


I have more, but I will add later time to go


Edited by jmac3 - 09 February 2008 at 8:46pm

Paintball, in my opinion is a sport.  It is a highly physical activity with a clear goal in mind.  I would call it a more "extreme sport" if I were to call it anything though.

I'm noticing a definite trend in the lower levels of play these days.  Electros are getting cheaper and cheaper, and the playing field continues to get closer to ever.  Practically EVERYONE can shoot a 15bps ramp now, unless they don't want to.

brihard wrote: Snake6 wrote: brihard wrote: RoninGames wrote: I think there is another thing to look at here. Yes, it's a nice little cheap entry level marker. I wish this was out when I bought my first entry level marker. I wound up with a JT Tac-5 Camo. And let me tell you, that is a peice of crap. This, because it's a Tippy, I know is made much better.   Now look at the mil-sim look of this little marker. It looks very much like the current M-16 that the military uses. One thing that is happening in some military and law enforcement areas is the use of Paintball in as a trainning tool. Becuase this is cheap to buy, more departments can afford to buy a number of them.   Yes, I know there is simunition rounds. However, the problem with those is that, to the best of my knowlage, they are only avalibe in small cal. rounds. Such as the 9mm. There is no simunition round for a 5.56 NATO round. Mostly because the round is traveling at such a high rate of speed, that it would shatter when fired.   So, if Tippmann worked with the US Army to make a marker that our troops can use to better their skills so they have a better chance to stay alive. Then figured that the same marker can be sold to the public. Good for them. False. I have shot, and been shot with, 5.56mm simunition. They even have it belt fed for light machineguns. It's quite handy actually; no longer any need to swap out upper receivers. That said, paintball is loads cheaper, much easier to run safely in force on force scenarios, and easier to template safe training ranges for, so your mention of military training is still valid. I would not want to use paintball as a training tool. Even the most accurate M16 milsim paintball marker handles completely different than the real weapon. I would use sim rounds over paintball rounds any day of the week. For reasons of muscle memory I agree, but in some situations it's still better than nothing, or blanks.

It is better than nothing, but still not my first, second or third choice.

One of the biggest reasons why paintball is not a sport is that often, the game is decided by player gear rather than player skill.

Every sport that I can think of off the top of my head regulates the equipment used by each team so that they are on equal ground and skill decides the victor.

This is not done in paintball, even in the advanced levels but especially in the lower levels where gear control is often not present at all. Yes, there have some moves towards this but they are still far from the amount that is required to make both sides be on equal ground.

Strongman, definitely a sport.

I'll agree with competitive eating, because I'm fat. There is no way I in hell I could anywhere near that much or fast.

Tolgak wrote: If one looks at all the games that are globally considered as sports, they all have the following traits. A single focus (ball, puck):     - Use of focus by players is the only way points are earned.     - Focus must be on-field and/or in constant possession possession of players for play to continue.     - Upon possession of focus, team becomes offense with no stop in play.     - Focus is always put into play by offense. An even field:     - Oval, circle, rectangle.     - Symmetrical on one axis.     - Scoring zone on each end.     - Flat, to put emphasis more on game than terrain. A significant amount of physical effort required:     - If all players are putting a decent effort, players will be required to run in order to make progress.     - Only by acting on the focus can scores be made (throwing, kicking, swatting, running with)     - Only energy created by players moves game forward. Other traits:     - Standardized mechanism of play.     - Always no more than two teams.     - Players are never eliminated from the game unless penalized.     - Always an even amount of players from each team on field.     - Artistry of participants does not go toward the score. I'm prepared to defend each of those points, so have at me. As for the recruiting aspect of this venture, I don't like it one bit. Recruiters try to reduce the distinctions between games and actual combat to prey on the kids that don't understand. My friend recently had a recruiter ask him after a lengthy conversation. "Well, what's the difference between joining the Marines and Call of Duty?" I've had similar questions asked to me regarding flight and paintball. The weak minded can fall into this trap easily, and those are not the kind of people I'd want fighting for this country anyway.

Are you saying it is or isn't a sport? I'm pretty sure the only thing paintball doesn't have on that list is a single ball.

Running and whatever else was mentioned is a sport. If it's in the olympics it is a "universally" recognized sport.

Footraces and cross-country skiing are not sports?

Where are the people that think these are not sports?

 

Susan Storm wrote: Tolgak wrote: If one looks at all the games that are globally considered as sports, they all have the following traits. A single focus (ball, puck):     - Use of focus by players is the only way points are earned.     - Focus must be on-field and/or in constant possession possession of players for play to continue.     - Upon possession of focus, team becomes offense with no stop in play.     - Focus is always put into play by offense. Track/running/racing events? No ball there. An even field:     - Oval, circle, rectangle.     - Symmetrical on one axis.     - Scoring zone on each end.     - Flat, to put emphasis more on game than terrain. Cross-contry running?  Skiing?  Ski-jumping?  Gymnastics? A significant amount of physical effort required:     - If all players are putting a decent effort, players will be required to run in order to make progress.     - Only by acting on the focus can scores be made (throwing, kicking, swatting, running with)     - Only energy created by players moves game forward. Competitive walking has no running. Still assuming the need for this "focus". Equestrian events use energy created by non-players, as do shooting events. Other traits:     - Always no more than two teams.     - Players are never eliminated from the game unless penalized.     - Always an even amount of players from each team on field.     - Artistry of participants does not go toward the score. Individual events (track et al) routinely have multiple "teams" competing simultaneously. Several sports (golf, ski-jumping) have cutoffs where many players are eliminated without "penalty" at midpoints in the event. Ice Hockey frequently has an uneven number of players from each team.  Baseball always does.  Some variants of soccer and other sports also vary the number of players at any given time. I tend to agree on the artistry bit, but many/most people (including the IOC) believe that figure skating is a sport.  Methinks that your multi-prong definition eliminated a sizeable chunk of what most people would consider "sports".

Every game/activity you just mentioned is not universally recognized as sport, and that's where I believe the distinction lies between sport and game.

You might as well call any game a sport if you're willing to rule out most of the distinctions I put up. If so, why then would you argue over the name if all competition is the same to you?

Nobody argues that soccer, basketball, handball, hockey, rugby, tennis, water polo, or volleyball aren't sports. Nobody would ever rule those games out as non-sports.

However, not everyone agrees that baseball, or skiing, or anything else you mentioned are sports. The same people that call chess a sport would not necessarily call auto racing a sport. However, pretty much everybody from all those fields would not argue that the games I listed in the previous paragraph are not sports.

In terms of semantics and definitions, majority rule and impression is what defines the meaning and use of words. For words that describe a group, the categories that fall under said words are usually very similar to each other.

Most games/hobbies/activities fall out of the realm of universally accepted sports, and thus would not be defined under the term sport.

As for hockey, players leave the ice (as with most other games) for one of three reasons: Penalties, Injuries, and Dissensions. There is no mechanism of legal play that boots opposing players from the field in that fashion.