Drivers are Not Athletes, and NASCAR is not a Sport
Is NASCAR a sport? Are drivers athletes? This question has been plaguing the United States for quite some time now, and I answer no to both proposed questions.
Don’t get me wrong. Being a NASCAR driver takes a major amount of skill and talent, being able to control a ridiculously fast car with the constant fear of wreckage, but NASCAR is not a sport.
To be an athlete, one must rely solely on their own body to accomplish their goal. For instance, a baseball player uses a bat, obviously not their own body, but how do they use their bat? It is essentially an extension of their arms. The player still must rely purely on his/her physical abilities. Hand-eye coordination to hit the ball and give it a direction, and potentially strength to hit it far.
A fielder uses a glove to cushion the ball, but still, relies completely on themselves, to move to the ball, pick it up and throw it.
Football, basketball, hockey, soccer, golf, none of these sports are different. All athletes use some form of external wear (padding, shoes, sticks, etc.), but the results are caused by the athlete himself (or herself).
Going back to football, a Quarterback can have all the padding in the world, and the most amazing ball or glove, but he still must rely on his own strength and mind to make a throw.
A NASCAR driver does not rely solely on his body. He uses his body to turn and accelerate, but the car is what is the major reason a driver has success. The driver relies on the car’s abilities as much as his own. In no other sport is an athlete so dependent on his gear.
For a basketball player, if he loses a shoe he can still play, albeit not at the same level, but in NASCAR, if a tire gets blown, the driver must get the car fixed before continuing to race. If one car is faster than another, with better tire traction, the driver can do little to prevent the other from winning.
In soccer, if a player is more talented than another, he will win out most of the time. In NASCAR, as much weight is put on the car as the driver himself.
This is all theory, per se.
But, how can we prove this hypothesis? Well, we can look at performance enhancing drugs.
I am not in any way at all supporting the use of PEDs, or cheating, so keep that in mind while reading the following:
Performance enhancers help athletes in all sports, because they change the athlete’s physical abilities, generally making them stronger. In hockey, if you take steroids, you become stronger and dish out bigger hits, but in NASCAR, if a driver takes PEDs, is he really going to be helped?
Sure, he can push the gas pedal harder, or turn the car with more vigor, but is he going to be profoundly affected by the use of steroids?
Simply put, roids make an athlete’s abilities better, but as a NASCAR driver, you rely a lot on the car’s abilities, so steroids are not helpful.
Obviously, NASCAR drivers are incredibly talented and are definitely taking a daily beating (driving a car moving that quickly is not easy), but the races are more events, not sports matches.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
Although I agree with your position that our usual forms of athleticism do not apply to NASCAR, I disagree with your illustrative example of using steroids. Just as certain steroids can enhance strength and bulk of the more traditional athletes, I am certain there are other drugs that can enhance (or hamper!) the acuity and reflex speeds of NASCAR racers.
So, I think you need to come up with a better example!
I totally agree with you.
a)there is nothing even exciting about it. For example, its not like anything unexpected happens. It’s more like, “hey the guy is about to take a left what next another left… yeah i wasn’t expecting that.”
b)It burns no calories and doesn’t even use any major muscle movement. It’s like claiming chess is a sport because you use your brain in extraneous ways.
c)sorry to any racecar fans but NASCAR is not a sport
The basis of your argument is the definition of an athlete being someone who relies totally on their body to accomplish their goal and I believe this to be an incomplete definition of an athlete. It also places all of the emphasis on physical body control which is only a portion of any competition.
Athletes use certainly must control their bodies but must also be able to concentrate at high levels and endure extreme physical conditions. Being an athlete is not just one of these things but all three simultaneously. Not all 3 are necessary at the same time. In most sports their are periods of time where physical control or exertion are the most important aspect while at other times intense concentration are important. Endurance or stamina are necessary in all sports and that recieves no attention in your argument.
Your point about equipment is interesting. You assert that a driver without a car in peak condition (with a blown out tire) is unable to compete. This is true but is the same not true in other sports. A baseball player with a cracked bat can not hit the ball as true or as hard. The same player with a glove that has a few loose stitches may drop a fly ball. Equipment is a part of many sports and if the equipment fails so does the athlete.
In any racing sport, the equipment provides a platform on which the driver competes. The driver uses his hand eye coordination to maneuver his vehicle around other cars and a track at 200 mph avoiding other vehicles and finding the fastest way to get to where he is going. That same driver must control a steering wheel and gas pedal and brake pedal and shifter while reading different gages, communicating with his pit crew about the condition of his vehicle, make decisions on when and where to move all the while fighting the intense heat and g-forces put on his body during the course of the race. Those things require the elements of an athlete that I mentioned above.
Yes, they do rely more on their equipment relative to other athletes but that is only a portion of what they do to be competitive. I think of the car as a medium for how they choose to compete. Other athletes have their medium and without it they would not be able to compete.
Your claim that PED’s help “all” athletes is something I have a problem with. By saying all athletes when you have already begun to exclude drivers as athletes you are begging the question. You assume that all performance enhancers are something that makes some one incredibly stronger (i.e. Barry Bonds).
In the past baseball players and other athletes were using amphetamines. These drugs helped players perform through pain (something that happens to anyone who exerts their body beyond normal human capacity) and could (for some) improve focus temporarily (like ADHD medication). Decresed pain and increased ability to concentrate in extreme conditions are definetly benificial to any competitor. This isn’t to mention all of the other possibilities but these are two of the most prevalent.
The reason these drugs are called Performance Enhancing Drugs is becuase there is a wide range of drugs that have a wide range of effects. An increase in strength is only one of the desired effects.
Using PED’s as a way to qualify athletes is a bit suspect in itself. We agree that people should not be using these drugs so why should we use it to qualify who is an athlete? Athletes are people who have taken natural gifts and through training have refined those gifts to become the best in their respective sports. It could be reasoned that if a person with average physical abilites took PED’s they may acquire the physical ability to compete at a high level. PED’s eliminate true competition degrade sport so using them as an example introduces a faulty premise.
An athlete relies on his or her own body. You argue that a baseball player couldn’t play without a bat, but the bat is an extension of his body, as he is controlling every movement the bat makes. In a car, the driver controls the main aspects, but the car does work on its own.
The point about steroids is that they help better an athletes physical condition (whether it be focus, stability, strength, stamina, etc…), and it is being used in the article as a way to show that if driver’s really did rely solely on their bodies, then steroids would have a much more profound impact on their abilities.
I understand the points you make perfectly well. What I don’t agree with is their application. I grant you that drivers are much more dependent on their equipment to an extent that is far greater than most sports. However, many of the sports you list require equipment as well.
It could be argued that the car is an extension of the driver. He is the one who controls its operation and without him it is a chunk of expensive metal (and fiberglass). A bat could be considered in much the same way. It is a chunk of wood until the batter picks it up and swings it toward the ball. I could continue this exercise with all sorts of sports equipment but that seems unnecessary.
PED’s: Your argument asserts that drivers would not be as profoundly affected by using steroids as other athletes. You assume that strength has little impact on drivers (at least that is what I believe is implied in the above article-tell me if this is inaccurate). However, drivers do require a great deal of strength but not in the same way as a football or baseball player. They must have strong muscles with a high level of stamina. A car moving at 165-200 mph will generate between 6-7 G’s while going around some corners. The driver must maintain his grip on the wheel, position in his seat, head an neck placement for vision, and feet on the pedals. These G forces pull in the opposite direction of the way the driver is trying to move (G-force pulls to right while driver is turning to the left). Drivers don’t need massive muscles to do this but well conditioned and strong core muscles and back muscles. The same goes for their arms necks and legs. They may not need to take steroids to get massive muscles but they could use them to rebuild and recover after races where energy and muscle have been depleted. Even modest gains could allow a driver an advantage. The advantage would come from increased muscle stamina. Stronger muscles can hang on longer. At the end of a race a driver who is in better shape can spend more energy focusing on decision making and making the detailed small movements which may allow him to win the race. The ability to turn the wheel or push the pedal with more vigor are not the key gains made but rather the absence of muscle fatigue allowing better mental processes to occur.
What do you think about my definition of an athlete? I think that is the core issue here. Also, how do you define a sport?
Your definition of athlete is certainly accurate, but I think it could be more specific. I mean, a chess player has a natural talent and has refined it through practice, and depending on what you call a sport, a chess player may be considered an athlete.
A sport is an event in which athletes compete, so yes, I definitely agree that the main issue is the definition of an athlete.
I understand that being a driver for NASCAR takes a great amount of talent and practice, but it seems that in every other sport the athlete relies completely on his own abilities, whereas in NASCAR a car with a subpar engine can mess up a race for a driver. In no other sport does equipment have such a profound effect on the ‘athlete’.
Therefore, I think that while NASCAR drivers need to be skilled and extremely talented, they rely too much on their equipment to be called athletes.
AGREE!