No this doesn’t bring football up from 1 item as I’ve just explained. This silly discussion is becoming weirdly real for some reason, so I’m gonna disengage
Thanks to this thread I’m now going through common sports and seeing what the trade off is between minimal equipment and typical rules.
Hockey’s minimal version is “shinny”, where you still need a puck, skates and a stick, as well as a usable ice surface which is realistically hard to come by even in cold weather areas with lakes/rivers due to the way ice freezes inconsistently. F tier.
American Football’s minimal version would be two-hand touch, which is still fun and can be played with just a ball. B tier.
Rugby is similar to American Football, only the touch version doesn’t really work, but hits aren’t as hard so you can get away without gear. A tier.
Baseball needs a ball, bat and glove. I guess you could play some positions without a glove, but it would detract from the game. C tier.
All racquet sports need a net, ball/device, and racquet. C tier
Volleyball has some drills/games that can be done without a net, but to really “play” you need the net + ball. C tier.
Basketball needs a ball and hoop. Fairly easy to find in a city, but still a costly piece of infrastructure. F tier.
Soccer is the only S tier I can think of because you really just need a ball to get 90% of the fun from the sport (full nets give you free reign for goal height).
Rugby is similar to American Football, only the touch version doesn’t really work
Touch rugby has its own leagues and championships and shit. Not sure if you’re making a judgment on if it’s fun or not, but I’ve watched enough touch games to know that it at least works as a game.
Oh cool, I was just thinking back my brief time playing organized rugby and couldn’t think of a way to remove the tackling. The ability to toss the ball mid-tackle felt integral, but makes sense that people figured it out.
Good list, but you’re missing out on one integral part (except for hockey) which is terrain. Basketball requires a hard and smooth surface, like asphalt or wood. Rugby requires a soft surface like grass, don’t know if it requires a soft surface with two-hand touch. Tennis requires a hard surface. So on and so forth.
Any sport that is restricted to a specific surface gets a minus point in my book. To me, this is what really brings the game up in my eyes.
After that it’s complexity: How easy is it to learn the rules of the game (not talking at a fully competitive level, just the simplified backyard variant) the easier it is to pick up, the better.
To me it’s the combination of these factors that make football so good: You can play it anywhere, it’s incredibly easy to pick up (but can still scale in complexity) and it doesn’t require anything other than a sphere.
deleted by creator
No this doesn’t bring football up from 1 item as I’ve just explained. This silly discussion is becoming weirdly real for some reason, so I’m gonna disengage
Thanks to this thread I’m now going through common sports and seeing what the trade off is between minimal equipment and typical rules.
Hockey’s minimal version is “shinny”, where you still need a puck, skates and a stick, as well as a usable ice surface which is realistically hard to come by even in cold weather areas with lakes/rivers due to the way ice freezes inconsistently. F tier.
American Football’s minimal version would be two-hand touch, which is still fun and can be played with just a ball. B tier.
Rugby is similar to American Football, only the touch version doesn’t really work, but hits aren’t as hard so you can get away without gear. A tier.
Baseball needs a ball, bat and glove. I guess you could play some positions without a glove, but it would detract from the game. C tier.
All racquet sports need a net, ball/device, and racquet. C tier
Volleyball has some drills/games that can be done without a net, but to really “play” you need the net + ball. C tier.
Basketball needs a ball and hoop. Fairly easy to find in a city, but still a costly piece of infrastructure. F tier.
Soccer is the only S tier I can think of because you really just need a ball to get 90% of the fun from the sport (full nets give you free reign for goal height).
Touch rugby has its own leagues and championships and shit. Not sure if you’re making a judgment on if it’s fun or not, but I’ve watched enough touch games to know that it at least works as a game.
Oh cool, I was just thinking back my brief time playing organized rugby and couldn’t think of a way to remove the tackling. The ability to toss the ball mid-tackle felt integral, but makes sense that people figured it out.
Good list, but you’re missing out on one integral part (except for hockey) which is terrain. Basketball requires a hard and smooth surface, like asphalt or wood. Rugby requires a soft surface like grass, don’t know if it requires a soft surface with two-hand touch. Tennis requires a hard surface. So on and so forth.
Any sport that is restricted to a specific surface gets a minus point in my book. To me, this is what really brings the game up in my eyes.
After that it’s complexity: How easy is it to learn the rules of the game (not talking at a fully competitive level, just the simplified backyard variant) the easier it is to pick up, the better.
To me it’s the combination of these factors that make football so good: You can play it anywhere, it’s incredibly easy to pick up (but can still scale in complexity) and it doesn’t require anything other than a sphere.