The following is an excerpt from an email Scott (Scottman) sent to Michael Hafer concerning his 'article':

"I just read your post on the RAMB newsgroup regarding whether marching band is or is not a sport. I found it really intriguing since your position compares the activity to more than just fall sports, such as football. I am one of the creators of a web site called Simply Instrumental - The Marching Band Guide of Southwestern Indiana (www.simplyinstrumental.com). The web site covers 31 high school marching band programs in southwestern Indiana. One of the things we like to do to set our web site apart from the "typical" marching band web site is to publish articles from people associated with various elements of the marching band activity. Currently we have articles from college music majors, judges, and band boosters in addition to the articles I have written for the site. The reason I am contacting you is to ask your permission to take your post about whether marching band is a sport and publish it on our web site in the form of an editorial article. I think visitors to our site would be interested in reading your views on this topic. I, for one, share your view and think you have articulated it very well in your post."

Michael responded to let us know we had his "enthusiastic approval" to post the article, so here it is:

Here's my basic spiel on this subject. I have refined it over the course of a dozen or so debates on this subject. Well, here it goes...

Band isn't a sport. I believe it is an athletic activity, but not a sport. We've had this conversation a hundred times on a dozen different message boards, including the marching band newsgroup, while some of you were still in middle school band playing hot crossed buns. :)

You've all explained how marching band takes so much dedication and listed all the sprains you've gotten from high mark time, among other things. But time spent rehearsing out in the sun and other such reasons are not proof of an activity being a sport. This is a great activity to be sure and takes a fair measure of athleticism, but an activity where the winner is decided by a panel of judges is not a sport. And before you spout gymnastics and Olympics and stuff, I don't believe figure skating, gymnastics, marching band, and any other activity in which the winner is decided by a "third party" such as a panel of judges is a sport. Football is a sport because there is a strict competitive way to gain points. Points in such a sport are measureable. You can actually see the competitor gaining the points and defeating their opponent. Furthermore, since many of you use "evidence" like the fact that you have to run laps and do pushups or rehearse in the sun for two hours past when the football players go home, check out pool. You won't see pool players doing jumping jacks or breaking legs or what-have you. I'd like to see some of you prove competitive pool is not a sport. Pool is a sport because the way to gain points is an objective and measurable phenomenon.

To recap:
Swimming: Sport
Diving: Not a Sport

Chess: Sport
Gymnastics: Not a Sport

Marathon Running: Sport
Competitive Ballroom Dancing: Not a Sport

Golf: Sport
An Art show where the paintings are judged: Not a Sport

Football: Sport
Marching Band: Not a Sport

With gymnastics, you add up the points at the end to see who wins, but how did they gain those points? Judges gave them those points subjectively. Now, if in diving you gain points by diving through a hoop floating on the water or something objective like that, then I'd agree with you on the diving = sport thing. But they don't. Points are still gathered in a subjective manner utilizing a panel of judges. Therefore, I can't count diving as a sport. I'm sure we could come up with a cool name to replace sport though, like "acrobatic art" or something like that. :-)

Events in track and field -
Long jump...Sport. Whoever jumps furthest. Measurable and most importantly objective.
Sprint...Sport. Whoever reaches the finish line first wins. Same reasons as Long jump. Blah blah blah, on down the list.

I am perfectly consistent. The fact that some of these events or sports need a "photo finish" at the end of a race, or a judge's tally to break a draw at the end of a boxing match, does not poke a hole in my argument for the simple reason that these procedures are there in case the objective means of determining a victor fails. In a competitive art form such as marching band or drum corps the judges aren't there in case the objective means of determine a victor failed, but to inherently *be subjective* in their determining of a victor. For instance, the "judges" in a boxing match basically count how many punches are landed and determine who "wins" a round from that in order to possibly use that as a "tie breaker" in case neither fighter scores a clean win. I realize that that's the short version, but there we are.

The judges in marching band, or the judges who judge an art show, are there to give their opinion on who should win, or give a score based on their opinion as in an art show, who they think "uses color better" and in a marching band competition, who they think has a snappier "horn flash" among other things....subjective, immeasurable, not a sport.

Do any of you see the logic? Of those of you who do, do any of you wish to simply ignore it? Marching Band is a great activity. If you need a varsity letter jacket in order to validate band for you, then you are wrong. If you want a P.E. credit because you think it'll prove anything, then you are wrong. If you call it a sport in order to convince the school body that what you are committed to, love, and cherish, is worthwhile, then you are wrong. If you call it a sport because there are winners chosen, then go to a judges critique sometime and you'll see how "scientifically" the winners were chosen. Marching Band is a performing art - plain and simple. I believe someone who calls it a sport needs to look deeper.

I'd like to say that I respect the fact that everyone has a differing opinion on this subject, but we can't rely on a "definition" from a dictionary when the definition in said dictionary is so broad and imprecise. A dictionary doesn't have the luxury of going into great detail, weighing the pros and cons and differing opinions on what constitutes a sport or not. A dictionary is there to give a simple, easy to understand blurb about whatever word you're looking up, not be the end all to a debate. That's all I got to say 'bout that. :D

Thanks for your time.
Michael Hafer