400/800 Times to Walk On at D1 School?

Training
61

it’s not a difficult to trace as they base it all off of American and caribean sprinters. Which generally hail from slavery days which is West Africa, it’s not like they ran DNA test and proved this.

Keep in mind that Christophe Lemaitre is a white sprinter that ran under 10 sec. If he would’ve did this in the Olympics before Carl Lewis would he have been traced back to West Africa? West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it? Maybe that’s what the culture has them do from an early age. Did everyone not see the special every time Bolt ran that showed how in Jamaica kids start sprinting races like we play Tag. Jamaicans have ruled the sprints from the last 2 olympics. Are they genetically superior than American West Africans?

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
it is proven that FT can be converted to ST, and vice versa… so even if someone has less FT at the onset, they can “catch up”.

now, for zecarlo, who is obsessed with elite sprinters being chosen by god (lol ;P), let me say this about our 2 specimens: they both join a track club at age 10. they are put through a bunch of random tests and told what to do… the 60% specimen remains a sprinter and becomes really fast, and the 40% becomes a distance runner and is told he is “genetically” slow… the training exacerbates their starting point…

[/quote]

A. I don’t think it has been proven that slow twitch can convert to fast twitch. [/quote]It has, as well as the fast twitch is up to 4 different types.

[quote]
B. Sprinters have 80% or more FT, not 60%.
[/quote] This has not been proven and I doubt ever will. As even slow twitch when activated is likely fast enough to be used in sprinting.

[quote]
C. Who is telling 10 year olds they have genetic limitations and restricting what sports they play? This isn’t the USSR. Plenty of kids participate in sports they don’t have a genetic predisposition to excel at. They train alongside more gifted individuals and still, they don’t manage to close the gap. I’m sure there are people on this site who played HS football. They trained as hard as anyone else, maybe even harder, yet once HS was over they faced the reality that they didn’t have what it takes to play in college. [/quote] Where do you live? It happens more than not that parents and coaches take their White kids for longer runs and have them play other sports soccer, baseball, tennis. That’s part of the culture.

[quote]
D. Don’t restrict yourself to America. Maybe here white kids are told they are slower than blacks and should forget about sprinting, I don’t know (I doubt it). What about other nations which have almost no blacks? You don’t think Russian sprinters are training hard and or properly? Yet, it is still blacks whose roots can be traced to West Africa that dominate sprinting. [/quote] Other nations can’t compete with american in 90% of sports so what are you saying? Other nations have white sprinters but the major races are the boiled down by elimination rounds. Other countries don’t focus on sports like America does, so their not going to succeed like we do. Did you not see the medal count?

62

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
it is proven that FT can be converted to ST, and vice versa… so even if someone has less FT at the onset, they can “catch up”.

now, for zecarlo, who is obsessed with elite sprinters being chosen by god (lol ;P), let me say this about our 2 specimens: they both join a track club at age 10. they are put through a bunch of random tests and told what to do… the 60% specimen remains a sprinter and becomes really fast, and the 40% becomes a distance runner and is told he is “genetically” slow… the training exacerbates their starting point…

[/quote]

A. I don’t think it has been proven that slow twitch can convert to fast twitch.

B. Sprinters have 80% or more FT, not 60%.

C. Who is telling 10 year olds they have genetic limitations and restricting what sports they play? This isn’t the USSR. Plenty of kids participate in sports they don’t have a genetic predisposition to excel at. They train alongside more gifted individuals and still, they don’t manage to close the gap. I’m sure there are people on this site who played HS football. They trained as hard as anyone else, maybe even harder, yet once HS was over they faced the reality that they didn’t have what it takes to play in college.

D. Don’t restrict yourself to America. Maybe here white kids are told they are slower than blacks and should forget about sprinting, I don’t know (I doubt it). What about other nations which have almost no blacks? You don’t think Russian sprinters are training hard and or properly? Yet, it is still blacks whose roots can be traced to West Africa that dominate sprinting. [/quote]

This. Don’t remember where I read it, but over 90% of elite black 100m sprinters heritage can be traced to a specific region of West Africa. It’s genetics and evolution. Arguing otherwise shows one can’t accept reality.[/quote]

i’m not down with multiquoting (obviously, lol), but how am i wrong in your first comment? i accounted for the potentiality that you were born with a good concentration of FT and basketball increased that system’s performance whereas someone with a less strong starting point would require more work than playing basketball … obviously.

umm and where do you get off on telling me that i can’t accept reality?

my position is backed by 5 years of dedicated genetic research to this exact question

yours is backed up by anecdotal experience by someone who admittedly never made the bigs

honestly i mean no offense, and i’m sure when i’m older i’ll have some scapegoat, too. but, when it’s either genetics or training correctly from a very young age, you can be fucked easily either way.

so i’m not really sure why it’s ME who can’t accept reality…?

63

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
i feel like there is some confusion on what is meant by “genetics”

everyone is born with a different composition of muscle fibers (FT and ST)… those who are predisposed to having more FT are simply faster at the start, many of the “elite” sprinters people keep talking about…

having a head start in fast twitch development is hardly the end all be all of sprinting. it is proven that FT can be converted to ST, and vice versa… so even if someone has less FT at the onset, they can “catch up”.

now, if we assume we have 2 specimens, one with 60% FT and one with 40% FT, and they have identical training, etc., obviously the 60% specimen will be more advanced for a while, but the law of diminishing returns shows that eventually they will become more or less equal. whether or not different people have different ceilings for FT composition is a different question

[/quote]

Also, who’s to say that the athlete with a higher proportion of FT will default to running with the technique that is necessary to go fast? Right out of the box I was a pretty good jumper/thrower (set district records in discus, shot and long jump on my first attempts) but my “natural” running form was just crap. You cannot begin to exhaust your “genetic potential” if you’re just flat out not doing your sport right. Do people really believe that 2 year old Michael Phelps dominated at freestyle the first time they tossed him in the pool? No, he sank. Similarly, I imagine that Askel Svindal was not a super stud the first time he strapped on skis. He had to learn his sport first.

Yet that’s how we treat running. Everybody “can” do it so there’s obviously nothing to it. Nobody teaches kids how to do it well, they just tell them to run and the kids who happen to get it just “are” fast, so they get developed as per the rest of your example. [/quote]

agreed, obviously

64

[quote]swhole milk wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
it is proven that FT can be converted to ST, and vice versa… so even if someone has less FT at the onset, they can “catch up”.

now, for zecarlo, who is obsessed with elite sprinters being chosen by god (lol ;P), let me say this about our 2 specimens: they both join a track club at age 10. they are put through a bunch of random tests and told what to do… the 60% specimen remains a sprinter and becomes really fast, and the 40% becomes a distance runner and is told he is “genetically” slow… the training exacerbates their starting point…

[/quote]

A. I don’t think it has been proven that slow twitch can convert to fast twitch.

B. Sprinters have 80% or more FT, not 60%.

C. Who is telling 10 year olds they have genetic limitations and restricting what sports they play? This isn’t the USSR. Plenty of kids participate in sports they don’t have a genetic predisposition to excel at. They train alongside more gifted individuals and still, they don’t manage to close the gap. I’m sure there are people on this site who played HS football. They trained as hard as anyone else, maybe even harder, yet once HS was over they faced the reality that they didn’t have what it takes to play in college.

D. Don’t restrict yourself to America. Maybe here white kids are told they are slower than blacks and should forget about sprinting, I don’t know (I doubt it). What about other nations which have almost no blacks? You don’t think Russian sprinters are training hard and or properly? Yet, it is still blacks whose roots can be traced to West Africa that dominate sprinting. [/quote]

This. Don’t remember where I read it, but over 90% of elite black 100m sprinters heritage can be traced to a specific region of West Africa. It’s genetics and evolution. Arguing otherwise shows one can’t accept reality.[/quote]

i’m not down with multiquoting (obviously, lol), but how am i wrong in your first comment? i accounted for the potentiality that you were born with a good concentration of FT and basketball increased that system’s performance whereas someone with a less strong starting point would require more work than playing basketball … obviously.

umm and where do you get off on telling me that i can’t accept reality?

my position is backed by 5 years of dedicated genetic research to this exact question

yours is backed up by anecdotal experience by someone who admittedly never made the bigs

honestly i mean no offense, and i’m sure when i’m older i’ll have some scapegoat, too. but, when it’s either genetics or training correctly from a very young age, you can be fucked easily either way.

so i’m not really sure why it’s ME who can’t accept reality…?

[/quote]

Scapegoat? I admitted that my not making it was entirely my fault. You’re coming across as a childish dick. You’ve spent 5 years studying this and you can’t accept that genetics is the #1 factor in athletic success? Good luck.

65

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

it’s not a difficult to trace as they base it all off of American and caribean sprinters. Which generally hail from slavery days which is West Africa, it’s not like they ran DNA test and proved this.

Keep in mind that Christophe Lemaitre is a white sprinter that ran under 10 sec. If he would’ve did this in the Olympics before Carl Lewis would he have been traced back to West Africa? West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it? Maybe that’s what the culture has them do from an early age. Did everyone not see the special every time Bolt ran that showed how in Jamaica kids start sprinting races like we play Tag. Jamaicans have ruled the sprints from the last 2 olympics. Are they genetically superior than American West Africans?

Now we’re also taking into account elevation, training environment [I mean the actual environment where they train] and various other things. Take two twins, have them do EVERYTHING the exact same, but one does it in Florida and the other in Minnesota, and I guarantee the Floridian twin will be the better athlete. I haven’t looked at any studies that support this, but all I have to do is look at the THOUSANDS of kids each year that play ball, and how the most dominant athletes come from the warmer, more humid states or regions.

66

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
it is proven that FT can be converted to ST, and vice versa… so even if someone has less FT at the onset, they can “catch up”.

now, for zecarlo, who is obsessed with elite sprinters being chosen by god (lol ;P), let me say this about our 2 specimens: they both join a track club at age 10. they are put through a bunch of random tests and told what to do… the 60% specimen remains a sprinter and becomes really fast, and the 40% becomes a distance runner and is told he is “genetically” slow… the training exacerbates their starting point…

[/quote]

A. I don’t think it has been proven that slow twitch can convert to fast twitch.

B. Sprinters have 80% or more FT, not 60%.

C. Who is telling 10 year olds they have genetic limitations and restricting what sports they play? This isn’t the USSR. Plenty of kids participate in sports they don’t have a genetic predisposition to excel at. They train alongside more gifted individuals and still, they don’t manage to close the gap. I’m sure there are people on this site who played HS football. They trained as hard as anyone else, maybe even harder, yet once HS was over they faced the reality that they didn’t have what it takes to play in college.

D. Don’t restrict yourself to America. Maybe here white kids are told they are slower than blacks and should forget about sprinting, I don’t know (I doubt it). What about other nations which have almost no blacks? You don’t think Russian sprinters are training hard and or properly? Yet, it is still blacks whose roots can be traced to West Africa that dominate sprinting. [/quote]

This. Don’t remember where I read it, but over 90% of elite black 100m sprinters heritage can be traced to a specific region of West Africa. It’s genetics and evolution. Arguing otherwise shows one can’t accept reality.[/quote]

i’m not down with multiquoting (obviously, lol), but how am i wrong in your first comment? i accounted for the potentiality that you were born with a good concentration of FT and basketball increased that system’s performance whereas someone with a less strong starting point would require more work than playing basketball … obviously.

umm and where do you get off on telling me that i can’t accept reality?

my position is backed by 5 years of dedicated genetic research to this exact question

yours is backed up by anecdotal experience by someone who admittedly never made the bigs

honestly i mean no offense, and i’m sure when i’m older i’ll have some scapegoat, too. but, when it’s either genetics or training correctly from a very young age, you can be fucked easily either way.

so i’m not really sure why it’s ME who can’t accept reality…?

[/quote]

Scapegoat? I admitted that my not making it was entirely my fault. You’re coming across as a childish dick. You’ve spent 5 years studying this and you can’t accept that genetics is the #1 factor in athletic success? Good luck.[/quote]

i apologize if i’m coming across like that, i really do, but, let’s be fair, telling me i “can’t accept reality” isn’t exactly taking the high road

and no, i didnt spend 5 years studying this (lol?)… however, i tend to believe 5 years of research by respected geneticists

anyways, i guess you and i will just have to agree to disagree on what determines a successful athlete

67

You’re focusing on 5 years of research when you have literally the entire history of recorded sport to prove what’s going on. Believe what you want, dude.

68

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
You’re focusing on 5 years of research when you have literally the entire history of recorded sport to prove what’s going on. Believe what you want, dude.[/quote]

5 years of research into this very subject… genetics…

indeed, recorded sport, such as the spartans, who dominated the ancient olympic games. considering their proximity to the neighboring lands i’m gonna have to go with rigorous training from a young age and a never say die mentality

and thanks i will, u2

69

[quote]swhole milk wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
You’re focusing on 5 years of research when you have literally the entire history of recorded sport to prove what’s going on. Believe what you want, dude.[/quote]

5 years of research into this very subject… genetics…

indeed, recorded sport, such as the spartans, who dominated the ancient olympic games. considering their proximity to the neighboring lands i’m gonna have to go with rigorous training from a young age and a never say die mentality

and thanks i will, u2[/quote]

EDIT: Nevermind.

70

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Scapegoat? I admitted that my not making it was entirely my fault. You’re coming across as a childish dick. You’ve spent 5 years studying this and you can’t accept that genetics is the #1 factor in athletic success? Good luck.[/quote]

I remember a few years back on a football message board somebody pointed out that all 64 NFL starting cornerbacks were black and one guy insisted that this was purely random chance and had nothing to do with either genetics or culture. With blacks making up 13% of the US population, the odds of this (if I still remember how to do math) would be .13 to the 64th power which is literally a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000019% chance. Pretty much the same could be said for Christophe Lemaitre being the only caucasian among the 82 men to run 100m under 10sec.
That being said, I think there are probably tens of thousands of white men who could run in the low 10s if they received encouragement and proper training… which doesn’t tend to happen.

71

sorry, i thought when you said recorded sport, you meant recorded sport. did you mean only the carl lewis=>pre-lemaitre time period?

and you can’t possibly be serious with your chronic false attribution… can you? correlation =/= causation… this is why i accept the genetic research over the “look at the black sprinters” mentality

your comment on warm climates producing better athletes must be a joke, right??? did you consider the fact that the climate is conducive to ball sports, so that the sports are played from a younger age and with greater consistency…?

anyways, i think it’s clear we are destined to disagree on this subject, whiteflash

72

[quote]bruceprice wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Scapegoat? I admitted that my not making it was entirely my fault. You’re coming across as a childish dick. You’ve spent 5 years studying this and you can’t accept that genetics is the #1 factor in athletic success? Good luck.[/quote]

I remember a few years back on a football message board somebody pointed out that all 64 NFL starting cornerbacks were black and one guy insisted that this was purely random chance and had nothing to do with either genetics or culture. With blacks making up 13% of the US population, the odds of this (if I still remember how to do math) would be .13 to the 64th power which is literally a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000019% chance. Pretty much the same could be said for Christophe Lemaitre being the only caucasian among the 82 men to run 100m under 10sec.
That being said, I think there are probably tens of thousands of white men who could run in the low 10s if they received encouragement and proper training… which doesn’t tend to happen.
[/quote]

random chance is an impressively foolish argument, don’t mistake my “culture” argument for “chance”

not sure if you are implying that, so if not, excuse me

73

[quote]bruceprice wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Scapegoat? I admitted that my not making it was entirely my fault. You’re coming across as a childish dick. You’ve spent 5 years studying this and you can’t accept that genetics is the #1 factor in athletic success? Good luck.[/quote]

I remember a few years back on a football message board somebody pointed out that all 64 NFL starting cornerbacks were black and one guy insisted that this was purely random chance and had nothing to do with either genetics or culture. With blacks making up 13% of the US population, the odds of this (if I still remember how to do math) would be .13 to the 64th power which is literally a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000019% chance. Pretty much the same could be said for Christophe Lemaitre being the only caucasian among the 82 men to run 100m under 10sec.
That being said, I think there are probably tens of thousands of white men who could run in the low 10s if they received encouragement and proper training… which doesn’t tend to happen.
[/quote]

That’s fucking crazy. Having grown up in a predominantly black area, and having white friends as well, the difference was pretty stark. The black kids were going to the park and playing ball, football, racing, hell, even doing pushups and shit at like age 6. The white kids were playing hide and seek and video games and were only playing sports 'cause their folks signed 'em up. So, there’s definitely a sociological aspect, but pretending that genetics don’t play BY FAR the biggest part is ridiculous.

74

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
sorry, i thought when you said recorded sport, you meant recorded sport. did you mean only the carl lewis=>pre-lemaitre time period?

and you can’t possibly be serious with your chronic false attribution… can you? correlation =/= causation… this is why i accept the genetic research over the “look at the black sprinters” mentality

your comment on warm climates producing better athletes must be a joke, right??? did you consider the fact that the climate is conducive to ball sports, so that the sports are played from a younger age and with greater consistency…?

anyways, i think it’s clear we are destined to disagree on this subject, whiteflash[/quote]

Jesus fucking Christ dude. If you take a bunch of Greeks and put a group that has trained for most of their lives against those who didn’t then yes, they will be physically superior to the average goat herder. I’m not even sure how you’re writing what you are? I’m not saying training is unimportant. I’m saying all even the best training will only take you as far as your genetics allow. Here’s an anaology: Let’s say you start at a “pinto”, and you train to your absolute genetic limit and wind up a “porsche”. That is phenomenal and should be applauded. But, you will only ever be as good as the guy who starts at a porsche is at his absolute worst.

75

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
random chance is an impressively foolish argument, don’t mistake my “culture” argument for “chance”

not sure if you are implying that, so if not, excuse me[/quote]
This debate reminded me of that previous one but I didn’t mean to suggest at all that you were arguing for random chance. The random chance guy was foolish but you’re making many intelligent points about environment that I happen to agree with… though to me, genetics also seems hugely important.
This is a weightlifting forum and it’s undeniable that there are some people here who just can’t put on muscle as easily as others and it’s not always for lack of trying or poorly designed programs.

76

And, I lived in Portland Oregon for about 7 months. It rains for 10 months out of the year, 22 hours a day. It is cold and damp most of the time. But, basketball is huge up there. There were quite a few dudes that could play. They understood the game and could play ball. With that, I saw very few dudes that I’d consider athletic. Basketball is obviously an indoor sport, and as such one of the few you can play year round indoors. Why aren’t there more athletic dudes up there? Climate DEFINITELY has something to do with physical development.

77

[quote]bruceprice wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
As to how long it took to get down from slow ass teenager to moderately fast old guy, that’s hard to answer as I didn’t follow any particular program and it was all very haphazard and off and on. It was really more of a mental shift than anything.[/quote]
Do you remember what your progression was like in the 100m in your process of getting down to 12-and-change seconds- what your first few times were like and how quickly your improved?
[/quote]

Sorry man. I never really did any timed hundreds before I had to. I don’t really know where I started. Like I said I just screwed around, played sports and made a point of trying to run fast/well whenever I ran. I tried to smoke whoever I was lined up against and then I looked for faster people to line up against.

I would say the biggest cues that helped me were consciously working to let my foot touch the ground as quickly and briefly as possible with each foot strike, allowing my stride to lengthen behind me more than trying to reach in front of me (slight forward lean from ankles), staying as tall as possible, allowing my hips/gut to rotate back with the stride and keeping my shoulders down, loose and square - arms swinging straight forward and back. Some other things too, but those made a big almost immediate difference. That being said there are way better resources out there if you’re serious about it.

I know that’s not really what you asked for but it’s all I’ve got for you. Sorry. In any case my experience wouldn’t likely be all that relevant to you anyway.

Good luck.

78

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it?

Other nations can’t compete with american in 90% of sports so what are you saying? Other nations have white sprinters but the major races are the boiled down by elimination rounds. Other countries don’t focus on sports like America does, so their not going to succeed like we do. Did you not see the metal count?

[/quote]

You don’t watch much sprinting. Canada and England have produced great sprinters…of West African heritage. Trinidad and Tobago just got bronze in the 4x100. And let’s not forget about how the 400m shaped up: all three medals to non-Jamaican Caribbean runners. The reason why you don’t see many actual West Africans doing well is because soccer is more popular (and profitable) and these countries are too poor to set up decent programs and have decent tracks.

What 90% of sports? You can’t go by medal count as America is bigger than most countries and then you have a sport like swimming which can account for a major portion of the medals. Other countries don’t focus on sports like America? Have you ever been to a soccer game in Europe? How many of the major tennis tournaments take place on American soil? The Tour de France? F1? The Diamond League (track)? The USSR put a lot of its resources into sport. They won a lot of medals yet, they couldn’t dominate the sprints.

79

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
And, I lived in Portland Oregon for about 7 months. It rains for 10 months out of the year, 22 hours a day. It is cold and damp most of the time. But, basketball is huge up there. There were quite a few dudes that could play. They understood the game and could play ball. With that, I saw very few dudes that I’d consider athletic. Basketball is obviously an indoor sport, and as such one of the few you can play year round indoors. Why aren’t there more athletic dudes up there? Climate DEFINITELY has something to do with physical development.[/quote]

I prefer the environment argument better. Basketball has some anaerobic aspects but is not nearly as anaerobic as a sprint, or football. You must’ve hung around more basketball people. Oregon’s track environment has fairly large amount of athletes considering it’s population. So much so that there is a hall of fame track up there as popular or more than the pen relays - Prefontaine classic. As far as basketball athletes you have Nate Robinson, Jason Terry, and quite of few others.

When comparing the speed of upcoming athletes, I agree Florida dominates. But I say they even dominate the other warm air environments. I’ve stayed in several areas in the south and I can say way more people hang out at the track in Florida. All Racing and running sprints for fun. So much so I miss it, the girls were gorgeous. Back here in Jersey and NY your lucky if there’s one other person on the track, and if it is they are running for their first time all year. Tennessee, GA, there are more college campus’s you’ll see more general track athletes working out but not random people. Florida kids also play way more football, although that’s starting to change.

80

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it?

Other nations can’t compete with american in 90% of sports so what are you saying? Other nations have white sprinters but the major races are the boiled down by elimination rounds. Other countries don’t focus on sports like America does, so their not going to succeed like we do. Did you not see the metal count?

[/quote]

You don’t watch much sprinting. Canada and England have produced great sprinters…of West African heritage. Trinidad and Tobago just got bronze in the 4x100. And let’s not forget about how the 400m shaped up: all three medals to non-Jamaican Caribbean runners. The reason why you don’t see many actual West Africans doing well is because soccer is more popular (and profitable) and these countries are too poor to set up decent programs and have decent tracks.
[/quote]
You’re just proving me and Milks’s point. Both Canada and England follow the american creed of choosing the black track athletes, and the majority of sprinters they produced in the past came here to train(Environment). Then your using the 3 runners of the 400 as proof? Luguelin Santos isn’t of West African decent he just grew up so poor he knew not to give in to stereotypes like that.

[quote]
What 90% of sports? You can’t go by medal count as America is bigger than most countries and then you have a sport like swimming which can account for a major portion of the medals. Other countries don’t focus on sports like America? Have you ever been to a soccer game in Europe? How many of the major tennis tournaments take place on American soil? The Tour de France? F1? The Diamond League (track)? The USSR put a lot of its resources into sport. They won a lot of medals yet, they couldn’t dominate the sprints.
[/quote] I said like America, I didn’t say they don’t care about sports. Please tell me who has dominated the Tour De France before his record was taken back?, Where are the best most untraceable steriods made? Your right America is bigger than most countries, we also have more money, and more people throwing money into sports. Including Soccer European countries still don’t have nearly the number of child athletes per capita playing competition level sports. Every city in America has popwarner football which ranges from 30 - couple hundred kids at 9 y/o practicing specific athletic drills 5 days a week for several months. Now include soccer, baseball, and basketball leagues No other country can compete when it comes to sports.