Not a big fan of Taylor at all, can tell he's from Stoke, must be one of the most depressing places in the UK and that's saying something.

That said he's one brilliant darts player, and yes it is a sport.

Darts simply is not a sport, end of. Neither for that matter are dominoes, tiddlywinks, bar billiards, shove ha'penny, buckaroo, mousetrap or cluedo!

Didn't Taylor get voted as runner up in the BBC sportsman of the year award the other year? Similar to Jessica this year!! Even coming higher than Murray, Mo Farrah etc

What does Peacock know about anything-He is a neanderthal

Computer games are as much of a sport as darts. Requires skill, hand to eye coordination and no physical ability whatsoever.

So it seems that some people are of the opinion that because you can play darts well into your 40s and early fifties and can also be overweight that it isn't a sport. I would welcome these people's opinions on golf.

I would like to draw your attention to Michelangelo. He painted the Sistine chapel lying on his back for hours, in order to complete his masterpiece. He was fantastically talented and clearly had to endure great physical stress. Now he was a real sportsman.

Here's a dictionary definition of sportsport [inoun[/i An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.

It's the degree of 'physical exertion' which is the sticking point, I guess. You could rule out darts in that there's not a significant amount of physical exertion involved, but the same could be said for golf, bowls, archery and snooker to name a few.

The 'competitive' bit would appear to count against Michelangelo's prowess with a paintbrush.

Nobody mentioned age or weight did they? I've probably missed it.

Golf's not a sport. It's fine - but let's not you and I confuse it with what men do.*

*thats a quote from fictional US President Josiah Bartlet, and a joke by me. Golf is, on balance, a sport.

I think you will find that Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine chapel lying on his back.

Well in the 15th century life was tough if you wanted to be a painter. There was no unemployment benefit or even a job seekers allowance. If you wanted to become a painter you had to find a patron or a commission. In those days very few people could read or write, so when the church wanted to 'spread the news' they couldn't just hand out flyers, and books were incredibly expensive to produce. But paintings were ideal. You could get frescos, alter pieces and canvas paintings all knocked up that would bring bible stories to life and capture the imagination of the general public. So many patrons were in fact bishops or clergy of some description, and most commissions were for churches (or perhaps the odd noble / royalty portrait). At any rate, it was extremely competitive to to become an accepted artist in those days. Far more so than now. I don't think many patrons would have been happy with a pile of bricks, a whole cow in a glass container of formaldehyde, or a large canvass simply painted red.

So you can argue that even artists are highly competitive. Although I would have to admit, just like calling Phil Taylor a sportsman, it's stretching it a bit.

I think you will find he did, at the top of wooden scaffold that he had erected for the job.

I've known a few girls around Warrington who have spent many hours of physical exertion lying on their back; doesn't mean I'll be nominating them for next year's Sports Personality of the Year.

Why would he paint on his back, when the ceiling is curved?

You've been watching too many Charlton Heston films.