Reconsideration of the principle of win pursuit：“original- game” as a working hypothesis

Abstract

Sports are competitions and matches determine the winners and losers. The participants must play for their own win to determine who is stronger. Today, this perception appears to be widely accepted; however, there is scope for further consideration. If a sport excludes matches or determining winners and losers, can it not be a sport at all?

For example, sandlot baseball, basketball played on the street, or a practice game do not necessarily determine the winner and loser of the match. However, they remain baseball or basketball games, because, we can find a "competition" that maintains a zero-sum structure and pursues some type of excellence. However, we cannot say that these are not sports activities.

In these "games," each player plays to achieve his or her own success and inhibit the success of his opponent(s), although not competing to win or lose in a match. These games do not require fixed rules as official games, and all rules can be flexibly determined on a case-by-case basis, including the number of players, duration of the game, and gender distinctions. A match can only be realized when it is based on the premise of such games. If these games are termed "original-game," then a match is a composite with "original-game" as its unit.

Therefore, sports cannot be defined as an activity that determines winners or losers in a match, nor include the pursuit of a win as the primary norm required of players. From the perspective of "original-game," the primary norm of practice required of sports players is to pursue their own success (and inhibit the success of an opponent's play) in each particular sequence of play. In matches or tournaments, each of these rule-based norms functions in an overlapping manner.