You are Here: Home >< Sport

# Is gymnastics harder than football?!?!?

1. lol @ this thread, what does it even mean? Which is "harder"? What the **** does that mean?

You can participate in either sport to whatever extent you like. There's nothing "hard" about either of them, at the level a given person can perform. What does it mean?
2. (Original post by iSMark)
I just gave you the example, now re-read and try to understand. That is logic
Lol what you presented to NYU was not logic. Please try again.
3. (Original post by NB_ide)
lol @ this thread, what does it even mean? Which is "harder"? What the **** does that mean?

You can participate in either sport to whatever extent you like. There's nothing "hard" about either of them, at the level a given person can perform. What does it mean?
If we take "hard" to be which is more physically demanding, time consuming and requires greater commitment -- we can say that gymnastics is the more difficult or harder of the two.

Why? A gymnast is in superior physical shape to almost all, if not all, football players. And, a competitive-level gymnast spends more time per week training than a football player.
4. (Original post by NYU2012)
Yes, and I responded and clearly indicated none of your inferences were deductively valid. Considering I study both formal and informal logic, I would know
No you don't.
5. (Original post by iSMark)
No you don't.
No I don't understand logic? Coming from the one who's making a deductively invalid assertion? Right...

Under what set of conditions is the number of people who do activity X indicative of how competitive X is? You're saying that the competitiveness of activity X is directly proportional to the number of people doing X. However, this isn't a valid inference, as there is no supporting evidence for such a claim nor is it a purely logically valid inference.

Let's look at this a bit more closely:

Your first premise is something like this:
The more people compete in a given activity X, the more competitive X is.
Formally, P --> Q or, less formally Q if P.

While inferences of Q if P are valid, yours is not -- namely because it's not true that the competitiveness of activity X is directly reliant on the number of people who participate in X.

What part of this is difficult to understand?
6. (Original post by NYU2012)
No I don't understand logic? Coming from the one who's making a deductively invalid assertion? Right...

Under what set of conditions is the number of people who do activity X indicative of how competitive X is? You're saying that the competitiveness of activity X is directly proportional to the number of people doing X. However, this isn't a valid inference, as there is no supporting evidence for such a claim nor is it a purely logically valid inference.

Let's look at this a bit more closely:

Your first premise is something like this:
The more people compete in a given activity X, the more competitive X is.
Formally, P --> Q or, less formally Q if P.

While inferences of Q if P are valid, yours is not -- namely because it's not true that the competitiveness of activity X is directly reliant on the number of people who participate in X.

What part of this is difficult to understand?
You may study logic, that doesn't however make you win every debate. No wonder you're a douche, you need to study logic hahah.
7. (Original post by iSMark)
You may study logic, that doesn't however make you win every debate. No wonder you're a douche, you need to study logic hahah.
So why is it then that the more people participating makes something more competitive? Where is the logic behind that reasoning?
8. (Original post by iSMark)
You may study logic, that doesn't however make you win every debate.
You're correct -- it just means that I'm capable of identifying when someone is trying to present crap as a real argument.

(Original post by iSMark)
No wonder you're a douche, you need to study logic hahah.
(1) Yet again your material conditional isn't valid... These things are in no way related

(2) I don't need to -- I choose to. I major in philosophy, among other things.

(3) That's really mature of you.

(4) That's called a fallacious ad hominem.
9. (Original post by NYU2012)
You're correct -- it just means that I'm capable of identifying when someone is trying to present crap as a real argument.

(1) Yet again your material conditional isn't valid... These things are in no way related

(2) I don't need to -- I choose to. I major in philosophy, among other things.

(3) That's really mature of you.

(4) That's called a fallacious ad hominem.
I'll tell you what it's called 'banter'.

No need to bring out logic concepts, it's quite clear this thread wasn't logical in the first place. If you believe this then sorry but you've just wasted the last few years of your life, studying for something that you're terrible at.

My logic was fine, made sense. The logic of you getting annoyed that I proved you wrong is what made this argument turn silly.
10. (Original post by iSMark)
No need to bring out logic concepts, it's quite clear this thread wasn't logical in the first place. If you believe this then sorry but you've just wasted the last few years of your life, studying for something that you're terrible at.
Any assertion that X is reliant on Y is inherently about logic.

As far as my being terrible at it -- my 4.0 out of 4.0 in logic dictates otherwise; and of course, my equivalent of a 1st in my philosophy major also dictates that I'm no 'terrible at it', in fact, it shows quite the opposite, especially considering where I study philosophy.

(Original post by iSMark)
My logic was fine, made sense. The logic of you getting annoyed that I proved you wrong is what made this argument turn silly.
No, in fact it did not make sense, as I clearly indicated. You haven't proven me wrong, rather, I've proven you wrong.

In case you cannot understand why:
I can imagine a case where 3,000 people compete in activity X and they are only mildly competitive. I can imagine another case where 2 people compete in activity Y and they are much more competitive.

This means that your statement is not well-formed, because I can imagine a case where your statement is not true -- meaning you're wrong.

Your statement would have been more accurate if you used an existential quantifier -- for example, "It is that case that in at least some cases the number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X".

However, that is not what you claimed -- your claim was universal such that, fo all activities X, number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X. Which is false.

Finally, if you want to get out of the realm of formal logic (since you cannot grasp formal logic, which is clearly indicated by the fact that you think you've proven me wrong), there is absolutely no grounds under which you can claim that the number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X. There is no support for such a claim. In fact, competitiveness is a personal trait (hi, welcome to basic psychology. Guess what, I study psychology too) and is in no way reliant on how many people compete in some such activity X.

You can continue being wrong now.
11. (Original post by NYU2012)
Any assertion that X is reliant on Y is inherently about logic.

As far as my being terrible at it -- my 4.0 out of 4.0 in logic dictates otherwise; and of course, my equivalent of a 1st in my philosophy major also dictates that I'm no 'terrible at it', in fact, it shows quite the opposite, especially considering where I study philosophy.

No, in fact it did not make sense, as I clearly indicated. You haven't proven me wrong, rather, I've proven you wrong.

In case you cannot understand why:
I can imagine a case where 3,000 people compete in activity X and they are only mildly competitive. I can imagine another case where 2 people compete in activity Y and they are much more competitive.

This means that your statement is not well-formed, because I can imagine a case where your statement is not true -- meaning you're wrong.

Your statement would have been more accurate if you used an existential quantifier -- for example, "It is that case that in at least some cases the number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X".

However, that is not what you claimed -- your claim was universal such that, fo all activities X, number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X. Which is false.

Finally, if you want to get out of the realm of formal logic (since you cannot grasp formal logic, which is clearly indicated by the fact that you think you've proven me wrong), there is absolutely no grounds under which you can claim that the number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X. There is no support for such a claim. In fact, competitiveness is a personal trait (hi, welcome to basic psychology. Guess what, I study psychology too) and is in no way reliant on how many people compete in some such activity X.

You can continue being wrong now.
I haven't read this, I won't read this, I will just think that I will make an amazing troll.

So you're saying that if 1,000,000,000 people compete against each other, there is an equal chance that 2 people competing against each other will be of the same standard as those who are in the top 0.1% of the 1,000,000,000 people ?

An EQUAL chance?

You have no need to use academic language, this is a simple debate. Your use of academic terms makes you look ridiculous, can't you see this?
12. (Original post by iSMark)
I haven't read this, I won't read this, I will just think that I will make an amazing troll.

So you're saying that if 1,000,000,000 people compete against each other, there is an equal chance that 2 people competing against each other will be of the same standard as those who are in the top 0.1% of the 1,000,000,000 people ?

An EQUAL chance?
How does the number of people competing have anything to do with the standard of their abilities? I can have two professional football players go against each other and 10 gymnasts compete does that all of a sudden mean that the gymnasts are more competitive and are of a higher standard? No. Because that's illogical the amount of people competing doesn't change the standard to which one competes.
13. (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
How does the number of people competing have anything to do with the standard of their abilities? I can have two professional football players go against each other and 10 gymnasts compete does that all of a sudden mean that the gymnasts are more competitive and are of a higher standard? No. Because that's illogical the amount of people competing doesn't change the standard to which one competes.
The more people that compete means that those who have the potential to be the very best footballers/gymnasts realise this potential.

E.g. in England the population is about 50 million?
If 1 million of those try to be a gymnast then that is the size of the pool of people you have trying to be the best gymnast and realising their potential.

If 25 million of those try to be a footballer then that is a larger pool of which are aiming to realise their potential, there is greater chance of finding the very best.

I could be an amazing gymnast, but how would I know? I've never tried it. I know that I'm an average Sunday league footballer though as I've tried it and compete in it.

Or another way of looking at it:

Which do you think is easier beating 10 people to be the number 1, or beating 10,000 people to be number 1?

This is simple, no need for any logical arguments against it. It's ridiculous what that Yank has done.
14. (Original post by 99luft Balons)
I am a gymnast and some people say football is harder and some say gymnastics is harder. Both are my favourite sports.

I think if you compare a professional football player against a professional gymnast......that gymnastics is harder.

Gymnastics combines flexibility, muscle, perfection, balance, toughness, etc. They are doing all these things on a 4inch beam or flying high on those bars....it's crazy! I think gymnasts have to give up a lot more to go further in the sport because it is so select. Also, many people don't realize how professional gymnast are up at 4 in the morning and stay at the gym till late at night....it's a tough sport. And after all is said and done....very few gymnasts ever make it to the top.

It's also hard to compare because gymnastics is really more of an individual sport. I know they compete as a team in worlds and the Olympics....but success is really dependent upon you. Football is much more team-oriented...of course there are some stand out players....but no matter how good the players are if there isn't chemistry they are not always great!
Gymnastics must be miles harder. Although it's probably easier to be a pro gymnast than footballer. Being an amateur gymnast is alot harder than an amateur footballer, gymnastics requires alot of strength etc. Football is probably a better sport though imo.
15. (Original post by iSMark)
I haven't read this, I won't read this, I will just think that I will make an amazing troll.

So you're saying that if 1,000,000,000 people compete against each other, there is an equal chance that 2 people competing against each other will be of the same standard as those who are in the top 0.1% of the 1,000,000,000 people ?

An EQUAL chance?

You have no need to use academic language, this is a simple debate. Your use of academic terms makes you look ridiculous, can't you see this?
No one said it was an equal chance of being one of top people. Never was equality mentioned in any way.

You've stated that the number of people who compete in a sport is directly proportional to how competitive the sport is - which is false.

Now you've changed your assertion to be about 'equal chances' of being one of the best people within that particular sport.

All things being equal, the number of people competing in a particular sport does not make the sport any more competitive -- it may change your odds at being one of the top people at said sport, but that is not indicative of the competitiveness of the sport.
16. (Original post by iSMark)
The more people that compete means that those who have the potential to be the very best footballers/gymnasts realise this potential.
This isn't true. unless everyone competes. Even then that isn't true. Potential and realizing that potential are not correlated to how many people compete

E.g. in England the population is about 50 million?
If 1 million of those try to be a gymnast then that is the size of the pool of people you have trying to be the best gymnast and realising their potential.

If 25 million of those try to be a footballer then that is a larger pool of which are aiming to realise their potential, there is greater chance of finding the very best.

I could be an amazing gymnast, but how would I know? I've never tried it. I know that I'm an average Sunday league footballer though as I've tried it and compete in it.
None of that is competitiveness. Competitiveness has to do with the actually competition eg. the gymnastics competition or the football game. What you are talking about is finding potential, nobody can compete at the professional levels without training. You have to compete to get there.

Or another way of looking at it:

Which do you think is easier beating 10 people to be the number 1, or beating 10,000 people to be number 1?

This is simple, no need for any logical arguments against it. It's ridiculous what that Yank has done.
This is irrelevant. No you are inferring your chances of being number one. But chances don't infer easiness. The difficulty of winning depends on who you are competing against not the amount of people you are competing against.
17. (Original post by 99luft Balons)
professional gymnasts train up to 35 hours a week.
and footballers just rock up on saturday after a week of playing xbox
18. (Original post by iSMark)
Like I said Gymnastics is massive in large countries such as China ,Japan and Russia,Eastern Europe, Germany.China has a population of over 1 billion-1/6th of the world and gymnastics is more popular than football there at the moment.

You could argue, Cricket is probably more popular than football because of the size of India/Pakistan/Asia.Football's popularity is more widespread though.Does that mean football is easier than Cricket?

You think its easy to get into elite gymnastics , the competition is huge.Football is obviously more popular worldwide but there's high level of competition for gymnastics as well,much more than you think.Anyway,the popularity of the sport doesn't mean gymnastics is less tougher.I'd say Rugby is tougher, but it's nowhere near as popular as football.There are many sports out there way some consider harder than football e.g ice hockey,Lacrosse.

Anyway,you sound really thick so I won't bother

One more thing thicko, there are loads of professional gymnasts out there, in China alone.Watch the 'gymnastic strength' video and tell me its easy.The training is one of the hardest there is.

19. (Original post by iSMark)
x
The only way your 'argument' about competitiveness makes sense is if you are talking about how competitive it is to make it onto a team. Then the amount of people trying out matters but that isn't the only thing that matters. It is a combination of how many people are competing and the number of spots available. So even then your 'logic' doesn't really apply. Even applying it anyway then gymnastics would be more competitive because there are less spots on the team so there is more pressure to out perform your competitors.

Not to mention competitiveness has what to do with how difficult a sport is? You're so called logic isn't making sense.
20. (Original post by iSMark)
Well, thanks for getting personal. I'm not actually that fat, last time I checked I was 13 stone with 9% body fat.

So your friends generalise the whole of the football/rugby community? I don't think I would ever want to climb a rope like that, I was given legs for a reason. I don't challenge you to do 100 keepy ups with a football, because that would be silly, I would know you can't do that, you're a gymnast.
you don't need to be good at football to do that.

i can do about 20 and i don't even play football(and yeah with an actual real football). I've seen 7 years old little boys that can manage 100 keep ups,its not difficult to do.I'd say majority of guys can manage atleast 30.

a average gymnast can easily do football training but an average footballer would struggle to do even the basic gymnastic training.

## Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register

Updated: April 27, 2012
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Today on TSR

### A-level exams coming up?

Find everything you need here.

Poll
Useful resources