Soccer, whites and blacks are on a totally even playing field, due to the different athletic requirements for the game in the different positions etc. But the fastest players in the world are nearly all black. The clever, creative players are mostly white. Coincidence?
bullshit the fastest players in the english league are a mixture of white and black. as with clever players. ronaldinho for example and michael owen.
[quote]b_ambuehl wrote:
This is like saying that Pit Bulls aren’t more athletic then other dogs.
What type of training do pit bulls do to become more athletic and mucular then other dogs?
How about greyhounds. Are greyhounds the fastest dog because of their training or because they’re born that way.
How come people have no problem recognizing the fact that there are vast differences genetic wise between dog breeds and other animals but they can’t see the same difference among people?
[/quote]
lol you are comparing dog breeds to humans.
[quote]superscience wrote:
u annoy me with ur bullshit commenting on stupid stuff like spelling go get a life.
who on earth would be assd to go bak and correct there spelling. [/quote]
LOL.
“Hooked on Phonics worked for me!”
Peter: “Look, my alphabits are telling me something, it says, ooooo…”
Brian: “Peter, those are cheerios.”
I started this post to see whether or not people even factored race into things.
Personally, I’ve been doubted because of my race on numerous occasions and I don’t like it. Being a sprinter, I get made fun of for being white. My potential and ability are constantly under question. The same thing happened in basketball.
In my own opinion, I think society as a whole should do away with notions of race. Even things as seemingly innocent as the terms “black” and “white” are actually harmful to the quest for ultimate equality. If the world really wants to get along, race itself must be done away with.
RJ
[quote]superscience wrote:
u annoy me with ur bullshit commenting on stupid stuff like spelling go get a life.
who on earth would be assd to go bak and correct there spelling.[/quote]
Here’s a guy whose intelligence is probably at least one full standard deviation below the average for his ethnic group (whatever that might be). A classic example of how individual differences outweigh group differences, as discussed in my earlier post. Thanks for the illustration.
dogs are/were bred to bring out certain genetic traits. are you looking to knock up a woman thats really good at whatever you do so your kid will be excellent at it, then have suceeding generations do the same?
ive come to a conclusion.
dnt participate in sports unless ur black lol.
on a more serious note i why is everyone soo obsessed with blaks dominating a few sports. like white people dominate nearly most sports and yet wen blacks dominate some ders arguments.
and since when is being able to run fast the most genetically gifted thing u can have.
[quote]b_ambuehl wrote:
This is like saying that Pit Bulls aren’t more athletic then other dogs.
What type of training do pit bulls do to become more athletic and mucular then other dogs?
How about greyhounds. Are greyhounds the fastest dog because of their training or because they’re born that way.
How come people have no problem recognizing the fact that there are vast differences genetic wise between dog breeds and other animals but they can’t see the same difference among people?
[/quote]
Although I do see your point, I think that the comparison to dog breeds is not entirely applicable here. The differences in phenotype and morphology in dog breeds is extremely pronouned when compared to the variance across ethnic groups of humans. The point should also be raised that domesticated dogs were domesticated and bred for specific purposes (ie: hunting, herding, protection, etc.).
The extent of the impact of this selective breeding upon phenotype and morphology is marked, take for example the daschund which has the body that it does as it was historically bread for farms where it, among other things, chased animals out of their dens, burrows and holes in the ground.
There is, however a great deal less phenotypical and morphological variation, athough this still far exceedes the level opf variation observed amongst human groups, amongst wild dogs across the world (although the numbers of wild dogs are quite paltry and decreasing still).
I agree with the point that I think you were trying to make, that morphology can have a significant impact upon ability. However, I would contend that athleticism functions much like intelegence in this respect - nature (one’s morphology and genetic dispositions) establishes a ceiling for ability and nurture (practice and workouts) establish how close to that ability people come.
It is in the later part of this equation that I believe that the racial differences that so many observe materialize through the behaviors that are encouraged or rewarded by the group to which an individual belongs.
[quote]Fat Man wrote:
One of the first articles from the archives: http://www.T-Nation.com/findArticle.do?article=5speed[/quote]
A point well made Fat Man. Everyone should take a look at this and then the arguing would stop.
I was under the impression that black individuals make better sprinters due to the tilt of their pelvises. This supposedly put the hamstrings into an optimal position for generating power. Can’t quote any source for this, but the article touches on it - long legs, short bodies, high butts!!
Wheels
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
SpeedStrength wrote:
fireplug52 wrote:
Oh crap.
As far as black athletes being better… I think there is some credence to that. Just look at the number of American white guys in the NBA, you can’t tell me that a disparity that great can be contributed to social or lifestyle factors because there are a lot more white kids that play basketball growing up. However, I don’t think it’s a very drastic difference. At the elite level, 1% is a huge difference, on the average it’s hardly anything. At any level below top-level D1 athletics, I think pretty much anything can be evened out by proper training and a nutrition, but to play at that top level you pretty much have to be a freak- either freakishly skilled or freakishly athletic or both.
how do you know that alot more white kids play basketball growing up? if the statistic is taken from organized cyo leagues and what not, that means nothing.
and to further touch on a sociological aspect, you can compare the structure of urban life to the structure of suburban life. In the city there is a deneser population and parks within walking distance. this leads to: 1. always enough kids to play a game 2. easy access to a court at a younger age, and 3. probably the most important, a greater amount of better players, in relation to suburbs(due simply to population density. now, I cannot speak for the whole country, but this is how it is in NY. And for any basketball historians out there, you’ll know that basketball was actually originally dominated by jews. It was very popular in the Jewish ghettos of NYC. It’s not hard to draw a parallel to the current population of the inner city ghettos. [/quote]
If you think there are more black kids playing basketball then white kids in the elementary and middle school levels than you are crazy. Percntage-wise, yes, more black kids play basketball. But even if 100% of black kids play baseketball, and 30% of white kids play basketball, there are more total white kids playing. That doesn’t really have anything to do with the argument, so I don’t want to highjack.
I don’t think anyone can deny that there are genetic differences between various populations, but proper training can pretty much negate those differences at all but the very highest levels.
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
dogs are/were bred to bring out certain genetic traits. are you looking to knock up a woman thats really good at whatever you do so your kid will be excellent at it, then have suceeding generations do the same?[/quote]
HELL YES!
Ve vill have suber-children! Zey vill be raised to dominate in all spooting endeavors!
[quote]steelwheels wrote:
Fat Man wrote:
One of the first articles from the archives: http://www.T-Nation.com/findArticle.do?article=5speed
A point well made Fat Man. Everyone should take a look at this and then the arguing would stop.
I was under the impression that black individuals make better sprinters due to the tilt of their pelvises. This supposedly put the hamstrings into an optimal position for generating power. Can’t quote any source for this, but the article touches on it - long legs, short bodies, high butts!!
Wheels
[/quote]
Error: No such article ‘5speed’
Please try whatever you were doing again, or, if you continue to have the problem, please tell us what happened in the Tech Support forum! Include the information in this page, when it happened, what you were doing, and what browser and operating system you were using. Thanks!
Well, if you’re going to compare the performances of athletes based on their ethnic background I recommend a sport that’s participated by as many ethnic backgrounds as possible.
So sports like hockey, american football and cricket are out of the question.
Baseball is already a better choice, but I think Soccer is wideley accepted as the largest international game.
And if you look at the top 5 soccer nations you’ll quickly see that there is no common ethnic thread.
In other words, the top 5 countries arent all European, arent all South American, arent all African, arent all Asian.
So there you have it. Stop looking for shit that isnt there.
RJ24,
You could at least use an athlete that hadnt recently stuck a needle in his ass to prove your point…Pavle Jovanovic. And since you are ANY white athlete just keep training and we will soon see your 100meter time right up there with Maurice Green and co.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
matsm21 wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
SpeedStrength wrote:
fireplug52 wrote:
and to further touch on a sociological aspect, you can compare the structure of urban life to the structure of suburban life. In the city there is a deneser population and parks within walking distance. this leads to: 1. always enough kids to play a game 2. easy access to a court at a younger age, and 3. probably the most important, a greater amount of better players, in relation to suburbs(due simply to population density. now, I cannot speak for the whole country, but this is how it is in NY. And for any basketball historians out there, you’ll know that basketball was actually originally dominated by jews. It was very popular in the Jewish ghettos of NYC. It’s not hard to draw a parallel to the current population of the inner city ghettos.
If you think there are more black kids playing basketball then white kids in the elementary and middle school levels than you are crazy. Percntage-wise, yes, more black kids play basketball. But even if 100% of black kids play baseketball, and 30% of white kids play basketball, there are more total white kids playing. That doesn’t really have anything to do with the argument, so I don’t want to highjack.
I don’t think anyone can deny that there are genetic differences between various populations, but proper training can pretty much negate those differences at all but the very highest levels.[/quote]
thats a good point about the population totals, but I still think that it is the other sociological factors that make a difference. not that a race of people is naturally athletically superior. maybe the best athletes are focused or funneled towards certain sports. for example, there was a story a while back that said african-american players were becoming scarce in MLB. baseball was not being played much in the inner cities for whatever reasons, but one of them was definately not that they aren’t genetically gifted enough to play.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
RJ24,
You could at least use an athlete that hadnt recently stuck a needle in his ass to prove your point…Pavle Jovanovic. And since you are ANY white athlete just keep training and we will soon see your 100meter time right up there with Maurice Green and co.[/quote]
Thank you Shadowzz4. In intend to see my 100M times get under 10 seconds in the next few years, race be damned. With all the work I put in I won’t allow my skin color to hold me back.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
With all the work I put in I won’t allow my skin color to hold me back.
[/quote]
I don’t mean to belittle this thread, but this comment coming from a white guy in America just strikes me as “funny as all get out”. Carry onward and upward, my downtrodden bretheren.
My comments about game intelligence seem to have been understood by some and misconstrued by others. Whilst its just my opinion (not a very strong one really just a theory of mine) at the moment I believe it to hold some truth.
In soccer the majority of the fastest players are black. Some white guys are lightning, but not as many. We could start listing them as a comparison or you could just trust me. In the world cup the fastest teams are always Senegal, Cameroon or some other west african nation.
The majority of crafty intelligent players are white. Naming Ronaldinho as a counter example does not make this any less true. YES there are plenty of crafty, creative intelligent black players, but they are fewer than their white counterparts.
I believe this is because many white players simply would not have made it to an elite level as their athletic prowess is sub-par, unless they hade amazing other abilities to make up for it. Black athletes found this less of a problem, as on average, they had superior athletic traits. They never had to develop as much game intelligence since they were such speed demons.
In terms of Prof.X’s point about blacks who were fast being automatically shuffled into certain positions in american football, I think it supports my point and isn’t against it. The black athletes weren’t allowed to become quarterbacks because their athletic ability dictated they play elsewhere. White guys without that same explosive ability, were forced to play in a position where creativeness and craftiness mattered more. Otherwise they would not make it at all.
In basketball when I think of someone like Steve Nash I think, he would never have made it unless he developed supreme on court intelligence. But my point would be equally valid if he was black and I am sure there are plenty of black examples. The whole point of this post was a situational one as regards to athletic development, rather than a racial one. If a black athlete has inferior explosive ability and still makes it, you can be damn sure he has game intelligence through the roof. The white athlete experiences inferior explosive ability more often and therefore there tends to be more of his ilk in the elite ranks.
[quote]ConorM wrote:
In terms of Prof.X’s point about blacks who were fast being automatically shuffled into certain positions in american football, I think it supports my point and isn’t against it. The black athletes weren’t allowed to become quarterbacks because their athletic ability dictated they play elsewhere. White guys without that same explosive ability, were forced to play in a position where creativeness and craftiness mattered more. Otherwise they would not make it at all.[/quote]
You can’t honestly believe that the ONLY reason blacks were not chosen as quarterbacks in majority is because they were simply “better suited” for other positions. Did you somehow miss that whole “civil rights thing”? In the past, “Majority America” was more accepting of a black dominated sport (or even worse originally, blacks playing at all) as long as they are being led by “the majority”. When you see movies like “Remember the Titans”, do you think that is fantasy?
[quote]MarcAnthony wrote:
Well, if you’re going to compare the performances of athletes based on their ethnic background I recommend a sport that’s participated by as many ethnic backgrounds as possible.
So sports like hockey, american football and cricket are out of the question.
Baseball is already a better choice, but I think Soccer is wideley accepted as the largest international game.
And if you look at the top 5 soccer nations you’ll quickly see that there is no common ethnic thread.
In other words, the top 5 countries arent all European, arent all South American, arent all African, arent all Asian.
So there you have it. Stop looking for shit that isnt there.[/quote]
You are TOTALLY missing the point. I am gonna go out on a limb here and post who are the top 5 soccer nations at the moment. (Ignoring FIFA rankings are they are flawed)
1.Brazil
2.Argentina
3.Italy
4.England
5.France
Now there are many players of all different ethnic backgrounds on these teams. Therefore they must all be equal? Not true.
3 of these countries have a reasonable ethnic mix, two are pretty much all white.
Amongst the three with a decent mix, Brazil, France and England, if you look closely you would see that lightning feet forwards are mostly black. Not all but mostly. Creative midfielders tend to be white in greater number.
This is just my opinion and won’t hold water scientifically but all the same. In no particular order.
The top 5 fastest players in the world:
1.Djibril Cisse
2.Obafemi Martins
3.Samuel Eto’o
4.Dennis Rommedahl
5.Thierry Henry
Top 5 creative players:
1 white guy on first list, 1 black guy on second. Its just my opinion though so ignore it as regards to this argument.