Dance: Art, Sport or Science ?

[TA Guy]

Inspired by these two posts.


I wouldn't like to define the difference between 'someone doing a dance' and a 'dancer'. Despite that, I'm pretty sure that all MJ classes (at least all the ones I've seen) just teach people how to do the dance.
There are a handful of people who do MJ I would class as dancers. Some are natural dancers. Others have trained in other dance forms. I don't think any became dancers purely from doing MJ.
But I think now there is a possibility that someone could do this - ie learn enough about dancing from MJ to be classed as a dancer. However they would have to go to several different teachers, as I don't believe any one teacher has that level of knowledge yet.



I love dancing. I love the challenge of interpreting the music and of following the leads of many many different people. I like the idea I can dance my way to a piece of music without being told it's wrong. I've been dancing (properly) for over 20years now, but I'm not a dancer and never will be one. And that's just fine by me ;) .

To me, Sparkles is a dancer. (but, of course, I respect your right to call yourself whatever you want :))
With all the respect due.... I have no idea what DavidB is talking about, but I know he is not talking about dance.... or dancers. Maybe competition judging?

People talk about having a good frame like it's something you can fix with a tape measure. They talk about technique like it's some holy grail, which, if you find it, WOW! You are a dancer! It's complete crap. Technique on it's own is useless. Technique is merely a means to an end. Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against improving technique, I've done it myself, but I was a [bad/average/good] dancer before that, and I'm a [bad/average/good] dancer now. The point is, I'm a dancer both ways. Dance is not a Science.

Dance is about moving to music, nothing more, nothing less. A dancer is someone who moves to music. Whether that is by learning fixed moves, or in a wonderful show of emotional dance expression is completely irrelevent because both are simply steps on the same path. (Zen moment there :))
Likewise, this is not a sport, how far you go down 'the path' is completely upto the individual. Crossing the winning line is not the goal. People do not need to be put down as 'not dancers' simply because of some (usually insecure) desire to separate the elite from the rest.

Of course, there is a big difference between a 'professional dancer', and a 'dancer'. Likewise, competitions do exist. But these things are merely measuring devices and actually have no relevance to what a 'dancer actually is'.

My view is; Dance is an art form.
Sure, some art appeals to more people than other art, that doesn't mean it's not all art.
Sure, some dancers happen to be better than other dancers, that doesn't mean they are not all 'dancers'.


Rant over.

[bigdjiver]

This thread might be relevant "Canvas, stage or artform?":

http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/search.php?searchid=821180

One of the reasons that I love MJ is that it can be several different things in one evening. I love exploring my limits.

[straycat]

Good rant.

I believe the distinction David was talking about was pretty simple. Most (not all) MJ classes teach you to do MJ moves. They do not teach you to dance. The same is true for many different dances and teachers - many Salsa classes I've been to are like that, quite a few Lindy classes....
One of the top London Salsa teachers was recently heard to say that to his regret, he and his peers had been teaching people to 'move their arms and legs' rather than teaching them to dance. You need technique to get beyond a certain level. Where that level is depends on a lot of things (including your own level of natural talent) - but there's absolutely no-one in MJ or any other form of dance who couldn't benefit from some or more training in dance technique.

This isn't about snobbishness. This is about how good you want to be, and what you're prepared to do to reach that level. It's a very personal thing. I've spent a week of classes with one top Lindy teacher, where we did very little but learn to walk & connect with the floor. NOT everyone's cup of tea. But I still feel the benefits of those lessons every single time I dance, or even sometimes when walking down the street.

Look at some of the people who we regard as top MJ dancers - Nina, for example, has years of ballet training, and is a qualified ballet teacher. Amir trained at the Rambert School of Dance :worthy: - people like this are such amazing dancers not purely through natural talent (although I'm not denying they have it), but through a lot of hard work and formal training.

You don't get this at a Ceroc class - that's not what Ceroc's about.

If you want to perform or compete, dance technique lessons will help you vastly improve the way you look and feel. For social dancing, working on your frame will give you better connection, hence a clearer, stronger, more versatile lead, and more and more dimensions on what you can achieve with a partner.

Dancing is an art, yes. And technique alone won't make you an artist. But it will give you a fantastic range of tools to combine with your art, and take it to places you could only have dreamed of without them.

[Andreas]

To me, Sparkles is a dancer. (but, of course, I respect your right to call yourself whatever you want :))
With all the respect due.... I have no idea what DavidB is talking about, but I know he is not talking about dance.... or dancers. Maybe competition judging?

To me it is quite amazing that Sparkles has been dancing for more than 20 years already ... Some people must start right in the cradle. :na:

As for DavidB, I am not sure how you throw competition and judgin into his post, appears to be perfectly clear to me, just a bit more abstract that most other posts.

---------------

As far as sport, art or science, I think dancing is a sport. It becomes an art when you try to get into it more and can get past the shallow initial approach. As for science, elements of dancing, certain moves, even music, can become science should you feel the desire to break everything down to the last atom and try to find explanations to everything. Still, at all times I will remain sport. I think :D

[Alice]

Why can't it be all three?

[Geordieed]

Inspired by these two posts.

People talk about having a good frame like it's something you can fix with a tape measure. They talk about technique like it's some holy grail, which, if you find it, WOW! You are a dancer! It's complete crap. Technique on it's own is useless. Technique is merely a means to an end.
Rant over.


I think it is a question of where you draw the deviding lines. It is like people saying that they can't draw. Everyone can draw, just some better than others. You can treat technique as a science and the more I have learnt from the best teachers around the more I see how true this is. In the last year or so I have learnt some of the principles of cause and effect of muscle use in both leader and follower and wow the amount of thought and effort gone into the information that has been taught to me shows that it is a science. I have been completely amazed and introduced to another world by some of the ideas of how the human body can move when it is trained to move under certain guidelines and how it moves through outside influence. Technique can take us to places we have never been before but it is not the only place to visit. I don't think enough is understood by what frame is within Ceroc. I learnt a little about frame from an Argentinian Tango teacher from Argentina and was amazed by how little I knew.

Unfortunately the effects of these techniques can't be easily described it can only be felt. It is also like being in love. You know it when it happens and you are either in love or you are not. Sorry but this does not help much but that's they way it is. Truely great connection goes beyond the physical. It is really difficult but if you have never felt it then you will always be sceptical about the whole thing.

Good technique can improve us but doesn't necessarily make us a better dancer. Ceroc doesn't teach us how to dance. I apologise if this offends anyone but Ceroc only teaches us moves. It is up to the people doing it to make it into a dance. It has been said before that Ceroc is a framework to which we add the body to and give it form.



Inspired by these two posts.

Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against improving technique, I've done it myself, but I was a [bad/average/good] dancer before that, and I'm a [bad/average/good] dancer now. The point is, I'm a dancer both ways. Dance is not a Science.

Rant over.

What you have to remember is that these mechanical dancers might have bored you but it might have meant the world to them. Remember what they felt would have been different to what the rest of the world could see. Unfortunately I can't ever see a time when technique is something that you can reach an end to unless you stop dancing altogether.

[Alice]

<snip> Lots of good stuff

What you have to remember is that these mechanical dancers might have bored you but it might have meant the world to them. Remember what they felt would have been different to what the rest of the world could see. Unfortunately I can't ever see a time when technique is something that you can reach an end to unless you stop dancing altogether.
Maybe what he meant is that there are some who have a brilliant technique but not that extra "spark" that makes them special. In other words- technique is great and can always be improved.... but it's not all you need to become a fantastic dancer.

In music it's the same- you can hear people who might be technically brilliant but you can't hear the soul of the music or the story they're telling.

[robd]

They talk about technique like it's some holy grail, which, if you find it, WOW! You are a dancer! It's complete crap. Technique on it's own is useless. Technique is merely a means to an end. Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.

This reminds me, in a tangential way, of something Ron Atkinson said relating to football. Can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines of 'Technique is being able to trap a ball or pass a ball or head a ball. Skill is being able to do that whilst a 6' 4 centre-half is trying to kick you up in the air' so, yes, technique alone is not enough. I can trap a ball and pass a ball (I'm rubbish at heading it :sad: ) but nowhere near well enough in a match situation. I play football but I would not describe myself as a footballer. Likewise I dance but I would never describe myself to other people as a dancer. Perhaps Ron's definition of skill as it would be applied to someone dancing is what separates those who dance from those who are dancers?

Robert

[Beowulf]

It must be a sport.

Process of deduction. I understand Art, I'm good at Science.. ergo by a process of elimination dance must be a sport as I not a sporty type ;)

[Geordieed]

Maybe what he meant is that there are some who have a brilliant technique but not that extra "spark" that makes them special. In other words- technique is great and can always be improved.... but it's not all you need to become a fantastic dancer.

In music it's the same- you can hear people who might be technically brilliant but you can't hear the soul of the music or the story they're telling.


True but that doesn't change the point I was making that without actually being that person you have no idea of how the experience was for them and we are judging them. The technical musician could be having the time of their lives and feel the music deep inside. They just might not be communicating it to the outside world.

[ducasi]

As far as sport, art or science, I think dancing is a sport. It becomes an art when you try to get into it more and can get past the shallow initial approach. As for science, elements of dancing, certain moves, even music, can become science should you feel the desire to break everything down to the last atom and try to find explanations to everything. Still, at all times I will remain sport. I think :D For something to be a sport, doesn't it need an element of competition? Otherwise, it is a pastime.

Dancing is an art. Taking it into competition makes it a sport. Analysing it gives it a science.

[Geordieed]

Sorry just thought of something else. The appreciation of art is very simular. It is all about what it means to the individual not what somebody tells you what it should be. There has always been the debate 'What is art?'

We can be given techniques to improve our painting, sculpting etc. Our efforts might be assessed on so many different levels and it is always a matter of perception and opinion.


Great thread though because I can't see a definate answer just a heathly debate. (Fingers crossed)


Happy painting...

[Sparkles]

Technique on it's own is useless.

I don't believe this is true. Technique is transferrable, not just between dances but from other sports and art forms too. I know several men who have done matrial arts and go on to be good at dancing beacuse they are able to apply the techniques they already know to the new situation.
Admittedly technique is *more* useful if the person you're dancing with has learnt the same techniques, but as is prooven all over the country every night of the week people with different techniques can dance together happily, and even very well.


Technique is merely a means to an end. Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.

And some of the most 'artful' dancers have little or no idea about spacial awareness or human physiology. They're both inappropriate, sweeping generalisations because in both 'categories' there are also good, musical, gifted dancers :flower:


Dance is about moving to music, nothing more, nothing less. A dancer is someone who moves to music.

Someone who is moving to music is dancing, but IMO that doesn't necessarily make them 'a dancer' (but that is just my opinion).


Likewise, this is not a sport,

Well, the olympic committee certainly seem to agree with you on that one (as far as ballroom dancing is concerned at least) but I'd like to know the reason why... after all what can you say of a sports person that you cannot say of a 'dancer'?


Of course, there is a big difference between a 'professional dancer', and a 'dancer'.

Yes, this is very true. It takes a lot of committment and dedication to make dancing your life and living :worthy: - I couldn't do it and wouldn't want to.

[ducasi]

Good technique can improve us but doesn't necessarily make us a better dancer. Ceroc doesn't teach us how to dance. I apologise if this offends anyone but Ceroc only teaches us moves. It is up to the people doing it to make it into a dance. It has been said before that Ceroc is a framework to which we add the body to and give it form. I disagree. Ceroc teaches us moves to music. Moving to music is dancing. It might not be good dancing, but it is dancing. In regular classes you'll also find a lot of good technique taught. Maybe not explicitly, but it's in there.

Beyond the regular class nights Ceroc teaches us further technique, things about musicality, and how to adapt moves to the music, etc...

Of course, it takes the person doing the dancing to understand and apply all this to their dancing.

[Gus]

I disagree. Ceroc teaches us moves to music. Sorry. Disagree. Ceroc(tm) teaches MOVES. It DOES NOT teach musical interpretation, how to use accents, how to chose appropriate moves to appropriate music. At best it may try to show how to dance to the beat, but it often fails. Watch any average Ceroc night and watch the dancers who have only done Ceroc. Want to take a bet as to whether they are dancing to the music or doing moves with music on at the same time? If Ceroc taught dancing then CTA instructors would be taught to be DANCE INSTRUCTORS ... they aren't ... they are taught to teach a series of defined moves (some of which only have 7 beats so how does that fit in with 4 beat music :confused: ).

Of course this is not to say that some CTA instructors are not dance instructors through their own experience or perseverance

[bigdjiver]

...Well, the olympic committee certainly seem to agree with you on that one (as far as ballroom dancing is concerned at least) but I'd like to know the reason why... after all what can you say of a sports person that you cannot say of a 'dancer'?...There was a link to a very learned paper posted on the forum a while back (Heavy man, heavy) If I understood the gist corrctly both dancers and sport people tend to get the same endorphin rush from exercise, but sports people tend to be more isolated and competitive whilst dancers tend to be more social and cooperative. (discuss)

[ducasi]

Sorry. Disagree. Ceroc(tm) teaches MOVES. It DOES NOT teach musical interpretation, how to use accents, how to chose appropriate moves to appropriate music. At best it may try to show how to dance to the beat, but it often fails. Watch any average Ceroc night and watch the dancers who have only done Ceroc. Want to take a bet as to whether they are dancing to the music or doing moves with music on at the same time? I guess it's just pure fluke then that people end up dancing at Ceroc nights then... I'm 99% the product of Ceroc, and I'm told that I can dance musically...

[straycat]

I guess it's just pure fluke then that people end up dancing at Ceroc nights then... I'm 99% the product of Ceroc, and I'm told that I can dance musically...

I think it says something about you, certainly - that you have some inherent musical appreciation. You'll have improved it by listening to music, by social dancing, and by watching other people. Doing standard classes on their own will have done little to help.

Back when I'd done nothing but Ceroc, I used to be told I danced musically. Then, when I went to a couple of musicality workshops, that improved enormously.

Speaking just for myself, my dancing would have plateaued a long time ago if I'd just stuck with MJ and done nothing else. I owe most of the progress I've made in the last eight years or so to the other dance forms I've done.

And if I hadn't tried them, I'd likely never have known what I was missing :what: .

[Gracefuldancer]

- I was listening to an 80 year old Cuban ballet dancer on radio 4 this morning talking about her dance career, asked what dance meant to her, she replied - " Dance is a living painting ".

- Dance is the only art form where the artist is also the medium of expression.

- There is no THE way to dance, there is YOUR way and there is MY way.
Everyone has their own individual style, the teachers are purely guides.

[Feelingpink]

My vote goes for dancing as Art. However, the number of us (whether Forumites or UK jivers or whoever) who have reached a level of dancing where we could call it art is, I would suspect, very small. To become dance 'artists' there does need to be levels of physicality (muscle memory, inherent musicality, strength, flexibility, technique etc) which can be improved using science. But simply being able to 'do' moves as you might in sport, isn't enough. It isn't enough on its own to be able to jump the highest or stretch the most or whatever. You need practice and technique and some of the right genes to start with ... then some magic and artistry ... then it can be art.

To compare it with photography, if a dance artist was Henri Cartier-Bresson, then most of the rest of us are probably still waving around our camera phones.

But hey, feel free to disagree.

[straycat]

...

To compare it with photography, if a dance artist was Henri Cartier-Bresson, then most of the rest of us are probably still waving around our camera phones.

But hey, feel free to disagree.

I don't disagree. Despite my rather judgemental way of looking at the whole thing, I certainly don't call myself a dancer (or a dance 'artist' by your view) - and I quite likely never will. I can, on the other hand, see where I want to go with it, and I'm learning the things I think will help me get there.

In this world of continuously-moving goalposts, I'll never actually reach a point I'll be truly satisfied with, of course. But I'm loving the journey :wink:

[Andreas]

For something to be a sport, doesn't it need an element of competition? Otherwise, it is a pastime.

Dancing is an art. Taking it into competition makes it a sport. Analysing it gives it a science.
Aren't there any competitions? Last time I checked there were quite a lot. Certainly not everybody competes but all gymnasts compete either. Still, you wouldn't contest calling gymnastics a sport, would you? If you require the availability of competitions then dance qualifies as a sport. However, I doubt sport has a general requirement for competition.

[MartinHarper]

Can anyone give any positive reasons why dance should be an art? Mostly, folks arguing that seem to be saying that it isn't a sport or a science, so therefore it must be an art, but I'm not sure that follows.


Technique on its own is useless.

A leg on its own is useless, but I still like mine.

[straycat]

A leg on its own is useless, but I still like mine.

Roasted or boiled?

[dance cat]

Dance is not a Science.

Dance is about moving to music, nothing more, nothing less. A dancer is someone who moves to music. Whether that is by learning fixed moves, or in a wonderful show of emotional dance expression is completely irrelevent because both are simply steps on the same path. (Zen moment there :))


I feel there's more to it than just moving to music. I'd say dance is about responding to music rather than just moving. Dance comes from an emotional response, you feel something because of the music or wish to convey an emotion. When I hear a piece of music that makes me want to dance I'm responding to the feeling of joy that music brings me.
I'm definitely not a dancer but I am musical and to me the two are closely intertwined. If dancing was just moving to music then I would dance to anything, but I don't. I dance to what inspires me, to what makes me want to express my feelings of joy when I hear a great piece of music.
I have to say that this thread has made me think about why I dance. I've always said dance is my way of switching my brain off from all the things that make me worried, angry or any of the many other countless things in my job that cause me stress. After this I think perhaps there might be a bit more to it.

[ducasi]

Aren't there any competitions? Last time I checked there were quite a lot. Certainly not everybody competes but all gymnasts compete either. Still, you wouldn't contest calling gymnastics a sport, would you? If you require the availability of competitions then dance qualifies as a sport. However, I doubt sport has a general requirement for competition.
My point is for some people it's a pastime, for others it is an art, a science or a sport. Sometimes it's all these things.

Many (most?) sports, as well as being a sport, are a pastime or recreational activity. I'd say that a gymnast who doesn't take part on competition (in some sense of the word), isn't a sportsman/woman.

I can't think of a sport that doesn't involve competition.

There's certainly plenty of "dancers" who take no part in competitions and would be surprised to here of their favourite pastime described as a sport.

[ducasi]

I feel there's more to it than just moving to music. I'd say dance is about responding to music rather than just moving. Dance comes from an emotional response, you feel something because of the music or wish to convey an emotion. When I hear a piece of music that makes me want to dance I'm responding to the feeling of joy that music brings me.
I'm definitely not a dancer but I am musical and to me the two are closely intertwined. If dancing was just moving to music then I would dance to anything, but I don't. I dance to what inspires me, to what makes me want to express my feelings of joy when I hear a great piece of music.
I agree about the emotion part – I define art as the creative (or deliberate) expression of an emotion. And I do class dance as a form of art. However, we're not all as creative as each other – some people's range of emotional expression created by music (without instruction to give them a vocabulary to express their feelings) can stretch only as far as shuffling their feet in time to the music.

Just because they're not the da Vinci of the dance world doesn't mean that they are not dancing.

[spindr]

Well, the olympic committee certainly seem to agree with you on that one (as far as ballroom dancing is concerned at least) but I'd like to know the reason why... after all what can you say of a sports person that you cannot say of a 'dancer'?
Yep, apparently "ice" is required to make "dance" a sport :)

SpinDr

[ducasi]

Yep, apparently "ice" is required to make "dance" a sport :)
Hey, it's slippy out there, you know!


:wink:

[TA Guy]

I think sometimes, after dancing for a long time, you can forget exactly what is involved in a very first beginners class. Maybe things are taken for granted.

It isn't just moves. In fact, I don't need to tell everybody it's usually a short routine, but that routine also includes rudimentary lead and follow, implying at least some kind of basic connection, and, of course, movement. Everything you need to dance, to get you moving to music, is included in that very first beginners lesson.

To view an average Ceroc night lesson as 'just moves' is just wrong. I admit, some of those things, lead and follow, connection etc. are not expanded upon very much, and some are implied rather than taught explicitly, but that's not Cerocs goal, and it certainly does not mean those who do Ceroc do not have those things at least at the most very basic level.

I also agree that adding emotional content, attitude, expressing yourself can add to the dance, but again, that is a personal thing. One persons dance expression is anothers 'too embarrassing to do'. That doesn't mean the dancers who do not have the tools, or are loathe to express themselves fully, are not dancers. They might not be quite so good as the expressive dancer in some cases, but they are still a dancer. There is no minimum amount of this kind of content you need before you earn the right to be called a dancer. There are no winning lines unless you want to set your own personal ones, no standards to achieve unless you want to set your own personal ones. Just dancers.

So, sorry, but setting artificial winning lines, or artificial standards when you judge whether others are 'dancers' or not is, in my mind, not the correct thing to do.

[Feelingpink]

Can anyone give any positive reasons why dance should be an art? Mostly, folks arguing that seem to be saying that it isn't a sport or a science, so therefore it must be an art, but I'm not sure that follows...
Art goes beyond mere physicality or limits - it is about beauty. When you listen to YoYoMa play the cello, you can hear that he's putting the notes wherever he wants in the auditorium. He's gone beyond thinking about what position his fingers are in or what the little black dots said on the page ... he's somewhere else and if you're listening & watching him you can see and hear that (whether or not you 'think' you are musical enough to hear the difference). The end point is that his music can be pure beauty ... and great dancers can do the same thing - creating shapes and rhythms and responses that are simply beautiful.

[dance cat]

I agree about the emotion part – I define art as the creative (or deliberate) expression of an emotion. And I do class dance as a form of art. However, we're not all as creative as each other – some people's range of emotional expression created by music (without instruction to give them a vocabulary to express their feelings) can stretch only as far as shuffling their feet in time to the music.

Just because they're not the da Vinci of the dance world doesn't mean that they are not dancing.

I don't feel I was saying anything about levels of dancing or being elite in order to be a dancer. As I put in my post I'm not a dancer, but dancing for me is much more than just putting moves to music. It's interesting that when people I work with find out I can play the piano (in the style of Les Dawson's younger sister!) they then often refer to me as a musician. I can make music and I can dance to music but I never claim proficiency in either area. However other people perceive us in different ways. If people can relate to dancing or music through simple shuffling of feet then I wouldn't decry their response or say that it's not as valid as a virtuoso in either discipline.

[Gadget]

One thing that seems to be missing in all the discussion: your partner.
If I say that 'dance is an expression of music', I am proposing that a dancer must be able to express the music to actually be a "Dancer". However this is very self-centred and ignoring the fact we dance with a partner - a dancer has to be able not only to express the music themselves, but cooperate with their partner and help them express the same music at the same time.

If we look at the sporting analogy, the closest 'sport' to dancing would have to primaraly be a cooperative one - eg. doubles tennis or team games. But in sports you have a clearly defined objective. What's the objective in Dancing? Whatever your answer, it's purley speculative and based on your own viewpoint. There are no scientific rules to define an objective: it's subjective.

However there are scientific theories and practices - defined rules and methods that will enable you to move better, have a better connection with your partner, understand the music better, etc. You can disect and examine every movement, the forces applied, the timeing, how each piece can marry with music, how each peice can join onto the prior one. But ultimatly, dancing is more than the sum of it's parts. It requires some creativity and 'chaotic' element - you can't put science on top of that.

[Feelingpink]

One thing that seems to be missing in all the discussion: your partner. ....I understood the question to be "Dance: art, sport or science" rather than "Partner dance: art, sport or science", hence my posts.

[spindr]

If we look at the sporting analogy, the closest 'sport' to dancing would have to primaraly be a cooperative one
Isn't "ice dance" a closer sport?

SpinDr

[Gadget]

I understood the question to be "Dance: art, sport or science" rather than "Partner dance: art, sport or science", hence my posts.But we all partner dance; very few are solo dancers. When we talk about "dance" here, I automatically assume it's "partner dance" - why assume otherwise?


Isn't "ice dance" a closer sport?
I'm sure you meant
Isn't "ice dance" closer to a sport?

:whistle:

[Andreas]

Many (most?) sports, as well as being a sport, are a pastime or recreational activity. I'd say that a gymnast who doesn't take part on competition (in some sense of the word), isn't a sportsman/woman.

I can't think of a sport that doesn't involve competition.

There's certainly plenty of "dancers" who take no part in competitions and would be surprised to here of their favourite pastime described as a sport.

Somehow I have a feeling I completely disgree with all that. But thn again, nobody forces us to have the same opinion. We could make it a competition of who may win the argument and the call discussing a sport, too. ;) While writing that silly sentence I actually remembered that many years back I used to play chess competitively. Yet, at no point was I going to call it sport, despite being a pastime that I had taken to competitive level. Some may still call it 'sport/exercise for the brain'. And while writing this, would you call non-competitively exercised activity exercise and competitively exercised activity sport?

I really don't think that you can only call your activity sport if you are engaging into competitions. Sounds like an evil plan to force a definition. :na:


But we all partner dance; very few are solo dancers. When we talk about "dance" here, I automatically assume it's "partner dance" - why assume otherwise?
Assumptions, assumptions .... :whistle: ;)

[bigdjiver]

I looked up sport on www.dictionary.com and there are lots of definitions, including from pastime to competive athletic activity with rules.

I liked the idea of romantic dalliance, but that, alas, is allegedly obsolete.

:devil: I did not find the current definition - something for which you need banned substances to do well

[ducasi]

Here's a poll (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9595) on this question...