Science Says Pro Gamers Aren't Athletes

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
danpascooch said:
Next article:

[HEADING=2]Science Says Scientists Waste Too Much Time Proving Obvious Shit[/HEADING]
/thread

but to contribute something, here is "proof" that darts is not much of a sport either.


"And it's... a Double vodka... a very good start"

That sketch almost single-handedly was responsible for darts losing all credibility in the UK.

bottom line: if it's a game JUST CALL IT A GAME! No reason to call it a sport, only thing distinguishing sports from games (like chess) is the physical aspect.
 

Ulquiorra4sama

Saviour In the Clockwork
Feb 2, 2010
1,786
0
0
Bah... Scientists really do have way too much time on their hands.
Would it really take a room of scientists to figure out that one usually would train the part of one`s mind or body that will be useful for something we find amusing? Try making a professional hammer thrower run a marathon, or vise versa. It simply wouldn't work out. Just as pro-gamers normally wouldn't compete see who can do pole vault, a triathlon athlete wouldn't try beating the arcade on Tekken 3 or something...
 

bismarck55

New member
Mar 1, 2010
284
0
0
NeutralDrow said:
bismarck55 said:
NeutralDrow said:
I choose to interpret this as there being a market for professional Dance Dance Revolution players.

I'm perfectly willing to step up to the plate.

bismarck55 said:
You know what? I disagree with these "scientists" and everybody here saying "no shit". Why? because of the amount of PHYSICAL CONDITIONING that pro-gamers have to do in order to be competitive. Pro-gamers actually TRAIN for fuck sakes. Developing the muscle memory and manual dexterity to be competitive at any hotkey intensive game (starcraft for example) is in my opinion comparable to learning kata (forms, sets, whatever) in martial arts. and that is just one aspect, it doesn't take into account skillful use of the mouse, reflexes, etc.
And yet, unlike the sports or martial arts training, none of that makes you any healthier.

Did you even read the article? It points out the positive results of game training on physical and mental reflexes.
Why yes I did read the article. But before I continue here's a bit of my post that you missed.

"My point is, that there is an element of physical mastery and skill involved that people don't seem to notice. I'm pretty sure there are professional golfers that actually ARE 60 year old smokers. Endurance isn't required in every sport."

What I'm saying is that Strength and endurance are not the defining aspects sports or athletics, otherwise any form of physical labour would be a sport. Rather, Physical mastery, competition and skill are in my opinion the defining aspects of sport. A Healthy body can be developed and maintained without ever participating in any sports, and is not the goal of athletics. In fact athletes often sacrifice their health (by competing while injured, taking steroids, participating in unhealthy sports such as gymnastics and so on) in pursuit of victory, fame, money or whatever. As such, I do not consider gaming's admittedly unhealthy nature to rule it out as a sport.
Oh, so in other words, you were contesting the notion that gaming can't be considered a sport (which is the only explanation I can think of for why those examples would be relevant), rather than the notion that the physical conditioning required for gaming isn't as healthy as that required for athletics.

My apologies, I misinterpreted.
My fault for for not being clear about what I was arguing I suppose. ^_^
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
Jamash said:
Deofuta said:
Although, the lung quality of a 60 year old heavy smoker just screams bullshit to me. You dont get like that from just sitting around.
If not bullshit, then there must be mitigating circumstances which aren't being reported, perhaps chronic childhood asthma which caused this person to stay in and play video games (thus becoming a pro gamer) instead of being an active, sporty child.

I stay in and play video games and I smoke, but at my last medical check up I didn't have the lungs of a 60 year old smoker, in fact they were surprisingly normal for someone my age.

Most people find the notion that pro gamers are athletes pretty laughable, but judging by the lung quality comment, it's seems that this Dr. Dominic Micklewright has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind.
*whew*

OK, well thanks for making me feel better. I really did not enjoy the mental image of...

 

direkiller

New member
Dec 4, 2008
1,656
0
0
Rokar333 said:
I have seen someone really claim with real conviction that gaming can be a sport along with such things as football and basketball. Maybe if I show him the link that will get him to shut the fuck up.
it depends on your definition of sports
if that definition includes chess,darts,pool then yea gaming can fit under it. The university of dumb ass proving gamers are out of shape has nothing to do with your views of what a sport is.
 

Jamash

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,641
0
0
generic gamer said:
Maverick Siragusa said:
Jamash said:
Deofuta said:
Although, the lung quality of a 60 year old heavy smoker just screams bullshit to me. You dont get like that from just sitting around.
If not bullshit, then there must be mitigating circumstances which aren't being reported, perhaps chronic childhood asthma which caused this person to stay in and play video games (thus becoming a pro gamer) instead of being an active, sporty child.

I stay in and play video games and I smoke, but at my last medical check up I didn't have the lungs of a 60 year old smoker, in fact they were surprisingly normal for someone my age.

Most people find the notion that pro gamers are athletes pretty laughable, but judging by the lung quality comment, it's seems that this Dr. Dominic Micklewright has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind.
exactly, they never said why either of them went into their profession. this seems like a anti gaming research to me.
Or maybe, just trying to suggest an alternative here, maybe the study found something legitimate that just happens to support the notion that gaming is unhealthy. This study was paid for by an E-sports radio show so it's unlikely to be anti-gaming.

Maybe we just need to take the tinfoil hats off and realise that maybe gaming IS unhealthy. A guy who is a professional at gauging fitness basically said that the main difference between a gamer and Smeagol is the fact that Smeagol took walks. This is not some dystopian Sci-fi future world where science is used in the oppression of the gaming minority. This is legitimate research conducted with, if anything, a positive bias and frankly it's a big worry health wise.

How do you know that gaming is healthy? What makes you so sure that you're right? Is it that you enjoy it? Because if so talk to a few users on here and they'll tell you they love smoking.
I'm not disputing the notion that a pro gaming lifestyle is unhealthy (obviously any lifestyle which involves a lack of exercise can't be good for you), I'm just disputing the questionable claim that pro gaming can cause someone's lungs to age at almost 3 times the rate and accumulate the damage of 40 odd years of heavy smoking.

I'm a lazy 30 year old overweight gamer & recovering idiot, who from 1998-2008 had abused his body with heavy smoking, almost daily cannabis abuse, and a silly amount of alcohol and other drugs, to the extent that I had to move towns and abandon all my friends to escape the lifestyle which was undoubtedly destroying my body and mind.

However, despite my abusive past, I don't have the lung quality of a 60 year old heavy smoker (in fact, just the lung quality of a 30 year old smoker, which I am), so I'm just questioning the implication that pro gaming alone can have this effect on a "slim & healthy" person in his 20's.

There has to be unreported mitigating circumstances which have contributed to this persons poor lung quality (e.g. genetics, or a childhood disease or illness), either that or I'm just extremely lucky and have an abnormally healthy set of lungs.

If it weren't for the sensational lung quality claim, then I would agree with the study, but that claim, and that claim alone, has (in my mind) cast doubt on the scientific method used in this study... although I will admit that it's probably due to bad reporting and that quote being used out of context rather than actual bad science.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Jamash said:
Deofuta said:
Although, the lung quality of a 60 year old heavy smoker just screams bullshit to me. You dont get like that from just sitting around.
If not bullshit, then there must be mitigating circumstances which aren't being reported, perhaps chronic childhood asthma which caused this person to stay in and play video games (thus becoming a pro gamer) instead of being an active, sporty child.
One thing there - I have horrible asthma which stopped me from being really active, but mucous aside, my lungs are VERY healthy - because I sing in a choir. Very loudly.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
xavix said:
This just in!

Scientists prove genes exist!

and that Darwin was right!

and that religion is the opiate of the masses!

who would've thought....
Really? Just really?

Keep the inflammatory comments to the Religion and Politics forums.
 

HappyDD

New member
Jul 14, 2009
70
0
0
What's amazing is how out-of-shape the guy is, the headline is stupid since we all know that pro athletes are different than pro-gamers, but damn that is poor lung health. I'm guessing that the authors of this study were concerned about the spread of leisure time activities where you don't actually have to move, so they chose this ridiculous comparison to make the point. Note: If you read for 10 hours a day, or worked at a desk for 10 hours a day non-stop, you would probably have similar outcomes.
 

ReverseEngineered

Raving Lunatic
Apr 30, 2008
444
0
0
Oh christ, here we go again. Is x a sport? Where is the line between a game and a sport? Or a sport and a hobby? The same fight has plagued the Olympics for decades. Lately, the same argument has been used against talented video game players. "Video games are games, not sports; you can't be a cyberathlete. It's just a game."

The only thing this study showed (not proved) is that video games don't improve physical health factors like strength and aerobic endurance, which isn't surprising to anybody (whose parents haven't said, "Get off the couch or you'll end up lazy and fat."). What it did show is that video games improve your reaction times and strategic thinking just like sports, which is what video game players have been trying to argue for years.

Any activity which challenges our abilities will make us better at those activities. Sports like football and hockey require a lot of physical abilities as well as team work, strategy, reactions, perception, and prediction. Though few (if any) video games require physical abilities, most involve all of the other same abilities.

Want to know what other "sport" doesn't require physical feats but does challenge strategy, reaction times, perception, and prediction? Car racing. Somebody please tell Michael Andretti and Dale Earnhardt that they "will never be confused with actual athletes."

If somebody wants to argue that video games aren't a replacement for sports (in the context of helping young people develop and adults stay healthy), because they don't involve physical activity, then all the power to them. But if they want to use it to isolate gamers, making them seem somehow less worthy than athletes, they can go piss up a rope. Video games are challenging in many of the same ways as sport and anybody who can attain the levels of perfection that pro gamers can is still worthy of admiration for the same reasons as pro athletes. It ain't easy being that good.
 

Jamash

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,641
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Jamash said:
Deofuta said:
Although, the lung quality of a 60 year old heavy smoker just screams bullshit to me. You dont get like that from just sitting around.
If not bullshit, then there must be mitigating circumstances which aren't being reported, perhaps chronic childhood asthma which caused this person to stay in and play video games (thus becoming a pro gamer) instead of being an active, sporty child.
One thing there - I have horrible asthma which stopped me from being really active, but mucous aside, my lungs are VERY healthy - because I sing in a choir. Very loudly.
That's true, singing is good aerobic exercise and probably the only thing keeping Ozzy and Lemmy alive (apart from the obvious power of Metal).

Perhaps this particular pro gamer needs to rage into a microphone more.
 

tetron

New member
Dec 9, 2009
584
0
0
danpascooch said:
Next article:

[HEADING=2]Science Says Scientists Waste Too Much Time Proving Obvious Shit[/HEADING]
Ditto

Andy Chalk said:
While Micklewright declared that the lack of physicality in gaming precluded it from being a sport,
What about pro wii players ?
 

toothofymir

New member
May 6, 2009
88
0
0
Huh, who would've guessed that when you spend all your time playing games, and not exercising, your endurance reaches rock bottom.
 

Mcupobob

New member
Jun 29, 2009
3,449
0
0
dalek sec said:
Oh well thank god they're doing this as to trying to find a new fuel source, curing cancer or anything like that....
I think the kinda scientist who conduct these "studys" are fresh faced nobodys who just got out of community college with an art degree and mangaged to swindle some stupid corprotion or goverement out of money. I highly doubt that the people doing these kind of studys would even know how to open a medical or physics book.
 

Chunko

New member
Aug 2, 2009
1,533
0
0
AvsJoe said:
Testing revealed that he had the lung function [...] of "a heavy smoker in his 60s,"
This is made worse for me since I have a bad lung.

Gaming = fun + bad for me.
This is the last of those avatars I'm seeing, I'm leaving this site for a few weeks or until this thing blows over. Goodbye Escapist...
 

Yureina

Who are you?
May 6, 2010
7,098
0
0
danpascooch said:
Next article:

[HEADING=2]Science Says Scientists Waste Too Much Time Proving Obvious Shit[/HEADING]
They should just change the title of their studies to this.