Quote:
Originally Posted by Félix
Do you know of any other sport where a 10% equipment performance advantage is deemed acceptable? I know we're discussing a sport where that advantage can be bought for 30 to 200 million dollars, so theoretically it's not unfair... but come on! What we get is a house of cards that crumbles at least once a decade, when the manufacturers who have spent enough have had their turn at a win and leave without a care for what's left behind them except their "credible" win.
That's very far from a sport where the best athletes who have put the most effort into their preparation and done a good job on the day of the actual competition stand a realistic chance, with room for unpredictability, upsets and great (and believable) underdog stories.
|
Horse racing is probably closer to 99% given the horse is the one that does the work - the jokey just throws up after the weigh in to shave off a few grams.
How do you define the percentage like that anyway? If you give the best golfer in the world terrible clubs, he won't win. Tennis, if you give him a terrible racket, he's out. Tour de France on a £30 mountain bike? What about round the world sailing? That's expensive. Red Bull Air Race? So how do you define that? Any sportsman with a bad bit of equipment is not going to win.
You also go on to use the word athlete. Well snooker players are not athletes. But snooker is a sport. So are we not going to say that isn't a sport? Given that town planning
was once an olympic sport, I'd suggest that the word sport is not as solidly defined as some would like. You could argue any competition where a skill is judged and prizes awarded can be a sport.
So is motor racing a sport? Absolutely. Does it actually matter? Not really. You can call it a turnip if you want. Motor-turniping. It'll still be the same and nobody will stop watching it.