That's because it's called ESPN not SPN. What do you think the E stands for?

Edit, next thread: "Is Poker Entertainment?"

do you make a living out of it?

No. I'm an amateur.

well if you play a lot (like all day every day) you'd realize just how disgustingly difficult it is to make money from players that are about as good as you are, you can barely squeeze out a small profit from them and that is IF you are ALWAYS playing close to your best and NEVER tilting, one nasty tilt session can ruin 100,000 well played hands

and the better you are the smaller your winrate is going to be against someone of similar skill, to beat a really good player by a big margin (supposing everyone is playing their best and nobody's tilting) you have be absurdly good

not to mention the players that are better than you against whom you just lose money

so sure, everyone enjoys playing poker and the better your opponent the more interesting it is, however once you lose that money you'll realize you'd rather eat than play phil ivey

Regardless of what ESPN wants you to think, with their "This is the greatest sport in the world!" clip from their old WSOP intro montage, poker is a game, not a sport. Sports require physical activity. However, "sports" tend to have more legitimacy than "games" so I can see why people want poker to be a sport.

Some chess people classify that game as a "mind sport" for the same reason; they really want that word "sport" to be attached to their beloved game.

Interested to know why you (or anyone for that matter) wouldn't categorize table tennis as a sport, or why you would put it "on the borderline".

Out of curiosity, have you ever seen an olympic level table tennis match?

The interesting question is do eSports count as sports? They are nominally a game, like chess or poker, but require a lot of physical dexterity.

Walk into any card room and ask yourself this question. Come on.

God I hope I never meet you

You need your hearing seen to.

...greatest tournament in the world.

Why does a game have to be completely physical to be a sport? The origin of the word has nothing to do with physical prowess., and not necessarily anything to do with skill either. A sport and game are synonyms that basically mean any fun activity. If something is done for fun it is a sport, if it is done with others for fun it is a game. So in that sense, solitaire is a sport, and basketball is a game... unless it is a solitaire tournament, or a guy just shooting baskets for fun by himself.. then it's reversed.

Word origins
sport (n.)
early 15c., "pleasant pastime," shortening of disport "activity that offers amusement or relaxation; entertainment, fun" (c.1300), also "a pastime or game; flirtation; pleasure taken in such activity" (late 14c.), from Anglo-French disport, Old French desport, deport "pleasure, enjoyment, delight; solace, consolation; favor, privilege," related to desporter, deporter "to divert, amuse, please, play" (see sport (v.)).

game (n.)
Old English gamen "game, joy, fun, amusement," common Germanic (cognates: Old Frisian game "joy, glee," Old Norse gaman, Old Saxon, Old High German gaman "sport, merriment," Danish gamen, Swedish gamman "merriment"), regarded as identical with Gothic gaman "participation, communion," from Proto-Germanic *ga- collective prefix + *mann "person," giving a sense of "people together."

Well, because that is how the word is defined in modern English, by both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries.

Now, that's not to say that the way that a word is currently defined by a dictionary equals the absolutely correct and all-encompassing definition, because people can choose to use words in whatever way they want, and every language is constantly evolving. I do however think that dictionaries like MW and Oxford do a lot more research into how a word is currently used most often by the masses than, well, anybody.

Words often change meaning over time, and sometimes they end up meaning almost the opposite of what they originated as. Take the word 'awful' for example. It's pretty obvious that it originally referred to something that inspired or commanded awe, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and can even be very good. However, awful in modern English has a definite negative connotation.

Well, this just isn't true.

No, it isn't.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sport

That's one of the definitions - but there are quite a few others.

Not sure if you're making a joke or not but, from your link:

sport noun
: a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other

: sports in general

: a physical activity (such as hunting, fishing, running, swimming, etc.) that is done for enjoyment

There is only one other definition that conflicts which applies here:

a : a source of diversion

but this is extremely vague, and I think is not included in the main definition for a reason.

Good... now read the full definition below that.

I have, would you care to point out where it states something that conflicts with what I am saying?

How about we start with the very first line:

1 a : a source of diversion : recreation

?

Oh, I edited my above post to address that.

You're obviously free to think what you want, but it's still included in the definition.

And - that definition was clearly broad enough to get chess officially classified as a sport, which means saying that "because that's how it's defined in modern English" isn't really a valid argument.

I'm sorry if I'm a bit ignorant on the topic; who officially classified chess as a sport?

The IOC for one - its an olympic sport.

While what your saying is true and you can use the secondary definition from that page to include poker as a sport, I would prefer to give an answer to the question posed by the thread that isn't on such a slippery slope. If we're using your definition of sport we can then include reading the newspaper and building sandcastles as sports, for example, and an answer using such a vague definition as evidence isn't likely to win over anyone seriously arguing against you.

The IOC probably had plenty of other agendas - other than the actual definition of the word - when they made the decision to include chess in it's competitions; such as gaining viewership to make more money.

Yeah, because nothing sells out arenas like a chess match...