Most boring sport?

[Bruce]

To be honest, I really don't get the appeal of soccer. I understand it's a global sport and more deeply ingrained in non-US cultures, but the scoring is slow and the matches are long. Compare that to something like basketball, where there's several scoring attempts being made in a single minute and a constant back-and-forth growth of each team's point total, which keeps you tuned in and paying attention to each player's movements and performance from start to finish. I like watching a game where the result could tip in either team's favor throughout the match.

Scoring is not the only thing one can appreciate in soccer. There's plenty of back-and-forth fighting over possession that can result in chances that are either missed, saved, or withered away. A game where "the result could tip in either team's favor throughout the match" pretty much describes soccer, as momentum is a really important part of the game and gets regularly exploited. Instead of watching dozens of ultimately meaningless points, players are recognized for their skill in keeping movement moving in the right direction, for their vision on the field, and for their attempts at goal.

[DandyDan]

Any sport that judging is a part of, the two that come immediately to mind being figure skating and diving

[kphoger]

Football is boring.  Most of it is just a bunch of standing around not doing anything.

3 h 10 m = game duration
1 h 15 m = commercials
0 h 11 m = action (5.8% of game duration)
1 h 44 m = just standing around but not on commercial break (54.7% of game duration)

Baseball is boring.  Most of it is just a bunch of standing around not doing anything.  And some of the 'action' shouldn't really count as action.

2 h 56 m = game duration
0 h 43 m = commercials
0 h 18 m = action (10.2% of game duration)
1 h 55 m = just standing around but not on commercial break (65.3% of game duration)

Soccer is boring.  Technically, action accounts for 50% of the game duration, but that 'action' is mostly just passing the ball back and forth.  Wheee.

1 h 55 m = game duration
0 h 19 m = commercials
0 h 58 m = action, but most of it isn't very action-y (50.4% of game duration)
0 h 38 m = just standing around but not on commercial break (33.0% of game duration)

Give me ice hockey, where, even if action accounts for less than 45% of the game duration, at least most of that action is real action.

2 h 20 m = game duration
0 h 30 m = commercials
1 h 00 m = action, and most of it is real action (42.9% of game duration)
0 h 50 m = just standing around but not on commercial break (35.7% of game duration)

[drebbin37]

Traditionally, baseball was a strategic thinking game with every player having a role.  The pitcher and catcher tried to outsmart the batter by mixing up pitch types and locations (the high hard one vs. the low curve, for example).  The batter tried to outsmart the defense by bunting or slapping the ball to the opposite field.  Each defender had to position himself accordingly and be prepared for every possible situation, including backing up their teammates in case of an error.  Base runners had to decide whether to stay put or try to take an extra base.  Managers had to decide the best situation to substitute a player based on skills and strategy.  A four-hour game was an exhausting mental battle that provided fans with plenty of opportunities for second guessing on-field decisions or for admiring brilliant strategy.  The broadcasters were expert teachers of the game, providing listeners with interesting commentary about every aspect of a beautiful, complex game.

Some of this still happens in modern baseball, but the current MLB commissioner is laser focused on making the games fit into a predictable, made-for-TV timeframe at all costs.  Modern hitters understand that big paydays come from focusing on launch angle and home runs, even though they make winning harder and watching less interesting.  Pitchers are bred for generating strikeouts and expected to throw at maximum velocity for short periods before being replaced by the next arm.  Defenders are only involved in an occasional play nowadays, since home runs and strikeouts are so prevalent.  Broadcasters now talk about celebrity sitings in the stands and players' fashion choices as much as they discuss gameplay.  It's no wonder so many people find the modern game to be boring.

I find many other team sports (soccer, hockey, etc.) boring, probably because I don't understand what the players are thinking while they're playing.  I imagine that those games involve just as much strategy as baseball, but the broadcasters certainly don't explain it well enough for me to truly understand what's happening in each player's head.  A physical contest with no strategy is definitely boring to me.

[kphoger]

Any sport that judging is a part of, the two that come immediately to mind being figure skating and diving

In my opinion, judging that includes a level of subjectivity does not make a sport inherently boring.  I don't necessarily care about the 'artistic' portion of figure skating scores, but I still appreciate the objectively judged factors—and, more importantly, I still enjoy watching it.

If the Olympics are on, then I'd much rather watch diving than the much more objectively judged sharpshooting.  The latter is very objective, but it's also very boring.

[bing101]

Does this count as most boring sport. 

[interstatefan990]

To be honest, I really don't get the appeal of soccer. I understand it's a global sport and more deeply ingrained in non-US cultures, but the scoring is slow and the matches are long. Compare that to something like basketball, where there's several scoring attempts being made in a single minute and a constant back-and-forth growth of each team's point total, which keeps you tuned in and paying attention to each player's movements and performance from start to finish. I like watching a game where the result could tip in either team's favor throughout the match.

Scoring is not the only thing one can appreciate in soccer. There's plenty of back-and-forth fighting over possession that can result in chances that are either missed, saved, or withered away. A game where "the result could tip in either team's favor throughout the match" pretty much describes soccer, as momentum is a really important part of the game and gets regularly exploited. Instead of watching dozens of ultimately meaningless points, players are recognized for their skill in keeping movement moving in the right direction, for their vision on the field, and for their attempts at goal.

But isn't seeing who wins (which is determined by the score) the whole excitement of watching a sports game? You have soccer matches ending in 0-0, and boom, you've watched an entire game without seeing a single score or even a winner. And even when they do score, you have a whole match where there were just a small handful of actual, outcome-determining goals. I just don't get how people can stay tuned into that for hours.

[kphoger]

But isn't seeing who wins (which is determined by the score) the whole excitement of watching a sports game?

In a word:  no.

Baseball is more than just batters getting back to home plate.  It's about the pitching choices, the fatigue of the pitcher's arm, the fielding, the errors, thwarted attempts at stealing third base...  I think baseball is overall a quite boring sport, but there's plenty more to be interested in than just the score.

Football is about more than just touchdowns and field goals.  It's about zone defense, sacks, coaching strategy, footwork, injuries, and—more than anything else—it's about penalties.  I think football is overall a quite boring sport, but there's plenty more to be interested in than just the score.

My parents watch a lot of long-distance cycling.  That's way too long of an event to hold my interest, but I appreciate that my parents are interested in the lives of individual cyclists, the drama of the long game, the crashes that inevitably happen, the scenery and culture of the places the race goes through, etc, etc.  It's not really for me, but there's plenty more to be interested in than just who gets first and second place at the end.

Carrie used to play volleyball in high school, so we always enjoy watching that event when the summer Olympics are on.  If one team is doing poorly, we enjoy seeing the mistakes and weaknesses that contribute to their losses, and how the opposing teams take advantage of those weaknesses.  That's what makes it interesting.  If anything, the scoreboard can be a distraction.

Soccer is no different.  On the radio this morning, I was listening to DRC soccer fans talking about their defeat.  On the face of it, that was a devastating game for a Congolese fan—England was down 0-1 but then came back with two late goals—but that isn't necessarily how they see it.  This one lady was still quite proud of her country's team, saying how they played very well overall but just needed to make some improvements in the midfield and in coaching decisions.  The final score mattered, sure, but everything else about the game mattered to her just as much.  I personally find soccer kind of boring, but I can certainly appreciate that a real soccer fan (like Bruce) is interested in all the different aspects of gameplay rather than just the score.

[hotdogPi]

There's a reason people keep track of no-hitters and perfect games in baseball.

[Beltway]

If you are a golfer watching it is definitely not boring.

Golf broadcasts feel slow only to non‑golfers. For golfers, the pauses between shots, the walk to the ball, club selection, wind reading, recovery shots, and green analysis are all part of the strategy and tension. The pace mirrors how the game is actually played, so players watch for mechanics, decision‑making, and pressure moments rather than constant action. To casual viewers, it looks like "nothing happening," but to golfers, every shot is a small drama.

[formulanone]

Auto racing is definitely one of those things where you're either spellbound by the activity, action, spectacle, tension, and technology...or it's just not your thing. The shape, color, backdrop can also be interesting as every competitor shoves their way into being greedy and wasteful, or thoughtful and cautious in racecraft. Like a lot of sports, there's a build-up of the teams and players, while anything with a lot of variables over time and space brings chaos when you add pressure and reward.

But plenty of times, it can also be one big expensive procession of follow-the-leader or watch someone create such a gap between each other, that all you hope for is some instant drama or mayhem that never unfolds. Or maybe watching millionaires argue about petty concerns and trifles while looking like mobile billboards is more than enough to turn you off. Or maybe there just weren't enough fires and shrapnel today (wrestling in the pits is kind of rare, sorry).

I look at it this way; if you can stand watching auto racing, you could probably either deal with any other sport, or no others at all. You can never stick your nose in the air about 0-0 draw (on the pitch or rink), a 15-inning hit-fest, a basketball game decided by fouls, or a predictable 14-10 (or maybe 63-0) football game. The same sorts of tension occurs on the track, but with different tools and craftsmen.

[interstatefan990]

But isn't seeing who wins (which is determined by the score) the whole excitement of watching a sports game?

In a word:  no.

Baseball is more than just batters getting back to home plate.  It's about the pitching choices, the fatigue of the pitcher's arm, the fielding, the errors, thwarted attempts at stealing third base...  I think baseball is overall a quite boring sport, but there's plenty more to be interested in than just the score.

Football is about more than just touchdowns and field goals.  It's about zone defense, sacks, coaching strategy, footwork, injuries, and—more than anything else—it's about penalties.  I think football is overall a quite boring sport, but there's plenty more to be interested in than just the score.

My parents watch a lot of long-distance cycling.  That's way too long of an event to hold my interest, but I appreciate that my parents are interested in the lives of individual cyclists, the drama of the long game, the crashes that inevitably happen, the scenery and culture of the places the race goes through, etc, etc.  It's not really for me, but there's plenty more to be interested in than just who gets first and second place at the end.

Carrie used to play volleyball in high school, so we always enjoy watching that event when the summer Olympics are on.  If one team is doing poorly, we enjoy seeing the mistakes and weaknesses that contribute to their losses, and how the opposing teams take advantage of those weaknesses.  That's what makes it interesting.  If anything, the scoreboard can be a distraction.

Soccer is no different.  On the radio this morning, I was listening to DRC soccer fans talking about their defeat.  On the face of it, that was a devastating game for a Congolese fan—England was down 0-1 but then came back with two late goals—but that isn't necessarily how they see it.  This one lady was still quite proud of her country's team, saying how they played very well overall but just needed to make some improvements in the midfield and in coaching decisions.  The final score mattered, sure, but everything else about the game mattered to her just as much.  I personally find soccer kind of boring, but I can certainly appreciate that a real soccer fan (like Bruce) is interested in all the different aspects of gameplay rather than just the score.

If this is the case, then why watch live sports at all? If you can derive excitement from the movements, strengths/weaknesses, decisions, and strategy of the players and not chiefly a yet-to-be known outcome determined by a final score, then just watch old matches. The only way I could see this making sense is if you are a hardcore fan who analyzes everything a team does to identify exactly what is holding them back or propelling them forward in a given season, but that is a very small minority of overall sports viewers.

At the end of the day, the performance of the players is only truly significant as a means to an end: winning.

[Max Rockatansky]

Auto racing is definitely one of those things where you're either spellbound by the activity, action, spectacle, tension, and technology...or it's just not your thing. The shape, color, backdrop can also be interesting as every competitor shoves their way into being greedy and wasteful, or thoughtful and cautious in racecraft. Like a lot of sports, there's a build-up of the teams and players, while anything with a lot of variables over time and space brings chaos when you add pressure and reward.

But plenty of times, it can also be one big expensive procession of follow-the-leader or watch someone create such a gap between each other, that all you hope for is some instant drama or mayhem that never unfolds. Or maybe watching millionaires argue about petty concerns and trifles while looking like mobile billboards is more than enough to turn you off. Or maybe there just weren't enough fires and shrapnel today (wrestling in the pits is kind of rare, sorry).

I look at it this way; if you can stand watching auto racing, you could probably either deal with any other sport, or no others at all. You can never stick your nose in the air about 0-0 draw (on the pitch or rink), a 15-inning hit-fest, a basketball game decided by fouls, or a predictable 14-10 (or maybe 63-0) football game. The same sorts of tension occurs on the track, but with different tools and craftsmen.

There isn't anything quite like watching a driver dominating a major race only to have it all go wrong suddenly.  Almost every Indy 500 or Daytona 500 has a big twist that comes near the end of the race.  Sometimes it can be some sort of pit strategy that is pulled off masterfully.  Other times the leader wrecks or suffers an unexpected mechanical failure. 

[kphoger]

If this is the case, then why watch live sports at all? If you can derive excitement from the movements, strengths/weaknesses, decisions, and strategy of the players and not chiefly a yet-to-be known outcome determined by a final score, then just watch old matches. The only way I could see this making sense is if you are a hardcore fan who analyzes everything a team does to identify exactly what is holding them back or propelling them forward in a given season, but that is a very small minority of overall sports viewers.

Plenty of sports fans derive excitement from the movements, strengths/weaknesses, decisions, and strategy of the players in the team they root for right now in the current season.  In fact, for the people I know who are big sports fans, I'd say that's what they enjoy the most about watching live games.  They want to see the ways their team has improved for fallen behind since last season, how the coaches' strategies are paying off or working against them, how players are nursing an old injury or pushing through in spite of it, what a new player adds to the team dynamic, etc, etc, etc.  Each season is a new installment in a years-long story of their team, and they enjoy immersing themselves in each one as it happens.  Yes, they want their team to win the game—of course they do—but even fans of losing teams, of teams who are having a crappy season or always have crappy seasons, still enjoy watching the games.

At the end of the day, the performance of the players is only truly significant as a means to an end: winning.

Alternatively:  at the end of the day, winning is just the reward for the truly significant thing about the game—playing it well.


If all that matters is the final score, then why watch the game at all?  Just check the score afterward.

[1995hoo]

My wife thinks curling is the most boring and doesn't understand how I can watch it. I think I enjoy the thinking aspect.

[kphoger]

My wife thinks curling is the most boring and doesn't understand how I can watch it. I think I enjoy the thinking aspect.

Carrie and I both enjoy it.

[bwana39]

I think harness racing....

[Bruce]

I find many other team sports (soccer, hockey, etc.) boring, probably because I don't understand what the players are thinking while they're playing.  I imagine that those games involve just as much strategy as baseball, but the broadcasters certainly don't explain it well enough for me to truly understand what's happening in each player's head.  A physical contest with no strategy is definitely boring to me.

Soccer is a never-ending well of strategies that have continually evolved since the rules were first put to paper in 1863. The games we watch today are radically different in how teams are lined up (there used to be way, way more forwards), how they move the ball, and how they communicate on the field. Quite a few of the notable tactical systems have their own names and may be closely associated with a certain coach, team, or nation. "Total football" from the Dutch, "Jogo Bonito" from Brazil, "Tiki-taka" from Spain, and "Gegenpressing" from the German-speaking world. Even meme terms like "Haramball" get their own deep analysis.

The best tactical breakdowns have to happen after the games are played, though, as the intricacies are hard to go through when there's simultaneous action and only one natural break per game.