6 Reasons Why Jamaicans Dominate the Sprints

As for talent, what the heck is the talent. Describe it please! [EDIT- pulled from another thread]

by that i just meant raw untrained speed

speed is a skill therefore it is learned or acquired, not untapped or some type of natural unproven speed. There is no way to identify or quantify beforehand how much speed someone has. Therefore talent does not exist, because talent describes having such abilities to develop such a skill apriori.

I just did an interview where I was told talent was everything. I nodded in agreement without giving full compliance. It’s true that to win in a collegiate program you must take your chances with those of proven abilities and skills over those who do not show such abilities or skills, but that doesn’t mean you should base your entire program around it. The best way to develop depth is to take the athletes who show great abilities (older training ages) or great skill acquisition (younger training ages).

in my book talent is the natural ability to be good at something…ie, having a naturally high percentage of fast twitch fibres would/ could mean you have an extra ability to be good at sprinting/ jumping etc…i beleive talent is a very real thing…

i mean like they say houston mctear ran a 9 (100yrds) wearing jeans

Mctear never ran 9.0 for 100yds wearing jeans.

Having a high percentage of fast-twitch fibres doesn’t equal being a great sprinter. In fact, people are born with about the same amount fast to slow fibres across the board so everyone starts out about equal (sure there are outliers). The development of those fibres starts early in life and continues till about a child 2nd or 3rd major growth spurt after infancy. Thus between the ages of about 18 months to about 8-10 years of age determines the predominance of fibres in our bodies (which we can still change). However, the human body is not yet done developing at this point and here in lies one of the problems with early specialization. At a time when motor abilities are being put together we are teaching sport specific skill acquisitions which lead to an imbalance of abilities developed to keep a skill when most these kids turn 18-20 years of age when their bodies are different, not to mention the lack of overall general motor skills they’ll need when their body gets bigger to express those abilities into sport specific skills like speed while sprinting. On another note, a bigger stronger kid at age 10 is going to run faster than a smaller or fatter one, but that likely will not hold true into his early 20’s or even his teens as late bloomers (those who develop into contenders at age 16 or 17 out of nowhere) are generally but not always the better athletes over time from my observations. If an athlete shows promise at 13 or 14 they are likely to be surpassed by better athletes by the time they are nineteen or twenty years old.

The case against having excess fast-twitch fibres is that Olympic Lifters and even some powerlifters have greater percentages of fast twitch muscle fibres than elite sprinters. However, none of them could run a 100m like an elite sprinter and not many of them could throw the javelin, long jump, or throw the discus anywhere near what the elites or even multis do. Fast twitch muscle fibres are about force development and impulse and they work into helping the speed and power athletes of track and field, but more important to those fast twitch fibres are the development of elastic structures which aid the impulse and force development in track and field events. Those are developed through a combination of having certain bio-motor abilities, general motor skills (balance, coordination, speed), and then specific motor skills (speed while running/sprinting).

I think all this feeds into the 2 groups I identified earlier, ones showing a great number of abilities or the ones who show great skill acquisition. Those two types of athletes come from different backgrounds as one has a greater training age, but a more general overall background and could possibly have potential based on certain attributes to develop into a very good sprinter, but mostly never the elite status. The other is the group that has the greatest potential, but the hardest to quantify as they show they usually don’t have a training age of any thing longer than 2-3 years, but they show great competence in acquiring specific skills (These are athletes who when you were younger could play and where pretty good and not the best, but always limited by size and strength (to abilities developed later in maturation to their fullest potential), but had outstanding vision, tracking, balance, coordination, and limb speed (you just didn’t notice it). These are the kids who didn’t make the cut on travel teams, made the travel teams and sat on the bench, or just always played on the playground on not on any teams.

…i cant realy respond to that one except…point taken…and i cant confirm that mctear maybe its an urban legend…

…The other is the group that has the greatest potential, but the hardest to quantify as they show they usually don’t have a training age of any thing longer than 2-3 years, but they show great competence in acquiring specific skills (These are athletes who when you were younger could play and where pretty good and not the best, but always limited by size and strength (to abilities developed later in maturation to their fullest potential), but had outstanding vision, tracking, balance, coordination, and limb speed (you just didn’t notice it). These are the kids who didn’t make the cut on travel teams, made the travel teams and sat on the bench, or just always played on the playground on not on any teams.

What you have described here is a pretty good example of what many prefer to call talent. Nevertheless, all nouns are somewhat elusive, so we should perhaps talk more in terms of verbs anyhow (like you seem to suggest, at least indirectly).

If you were a collegiate coach and needed to fill the last spot on the roster with your last half scholarship would you want to offer it a kid who progressed from 10.92-10.68 from his freshman to senior years or the kid who progressed from 11.92-10.85 from his freshman to his senior year with a jump from 11.15-10.23 from junior to senior? I’d take my chances with the latter.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1222857061"] …The other is the group that has the greatest potential, but the hardest to quantify as they show they usually don’t have a training age of any thing longer than 2-3 years, but they show great competence in acquiring specific skills (These are athletes who when you were younger could play and where pretty good and not the best, but always limited by size and strength (to abilities developed later in maturation to their fullest potential), but had outstanding vision, tracking, balance, coordination, and limb speed (you just didn’t notice it). These are the kids who didn’t make the cut on travel teams, made the travel teams and sat on the bench, or just always played on the playground on not on any teams.

What you have described here is a pretty good example of what many prefer to call talent. Nevertheless, all nouns are somewhat elusive, so we should perhaps talk more in terms of verbs anyhow (like you seem to suggest, at least indirectly).[/quote]

I’ve never heard talent as many would put described the way I just did. They would call the fastest, highest, and/or strongest subset of a group of athletes as the most talented.

I’ve never heard talent as many would put described the way I just did. They would call the fastest, highest, and/or strongest subset of a group of athletes as the most talented.

That might be due to the context coaches usually find themselves in. Some are expected to show results in the short term, perhaps only within a time frame of a few years, thus it becomes pragmatic to define talent accordingly; i.e., if the goal is to win a championship the following year, they will opt for the athlete who’s more likely to achieve that goal within that time frame- and consequently sometimes motivate their decision in terms of talent (hence talent is defined accordingly). That doesn’t mean they are correct in their short-sighted definition; that’s just how they use the term, but which tend to re-define it as time goes by.

But that is of course not how talent would be defined if the time span would be much longer, and especially if they had more developmental information available about all the athletes. Thus in another context talent is defined more along the properties you already alluded to, and which is probably why I associate talent more along the lines of what you have brought forward (as many I know also do). Here we’re talking about a kind of hidden potential becoming visible when we’re broadening the landscape for our observations. It could remain hidden as long as we’re only making our conclusions from a fixed point in time with limited information (current results on paper). But when we look at the more qualitative aspects (how they move and react, their training history etc.), the potential becomes clearer, at least in the intuitive sense. Hence talent can be used to describe behavior rather than a fixed set of results.

From a pragmatic point of view, I would say we need both perspectives. The sad thing is that the easily quantifiable one appears to be overly dominating; maybe because it requires much more insight from the observer in order to look past the obvious, as well as resources (time) and lesser pressure to gain immediate success.

I agree with Lorien, i never said a high no. of fast switch fibres, long achilles tendons, long legs, lean muscle mass etc etc will definitily make an elite sprinter…my word, so much more has to go into it. (lifestyle, right training, coaching,desire, motivation etc) BUT, that person i just described sure does have the talent to become a great sprinter and if given the right situation and if he has the right motivation i am sure would beat out 95% of the people who don’t have his characteristics…

As described by Websters, talent is, “the natural endowments of a person”.

So, arguing that talent doesn’t exist, when it is a word which describes charactoristics of a person specific to a skill or application is a bit silly isn’t it.

Dbandre: what are arguing again? im confused…is it that the word talent is a stupid WORD? or is it that there arent natural charactoristics which can predict an athletes possible ability in certain sports?

I was just happy to see the homeland. I am childhood friends with the physio who work with Darryl and Asafa on the video and with MVP camp(and who worked with Usain before the beginning of last season). I can say that from conversations with him that they really do not do anything much different than what is done here in the collegiate system. In my opinion, what has created the boom this year ( and it has been developing for probably 20)is
1. A more scientific approach to sprinting and periodization. Even 10 years ago when i was a junior, many sprint coaches in the caribbean prescribed mileage in the off season, upwards of 3!, daily. This is no longer the case for the most part
2. Prehab and rehab is more widely accepted and used as can be seen by the full time physio whos services are utilized by both the pros and the kids in the club system
3. Sprinting is the beginning and the end when it comes to track and field in the caribbean, there are few exceptions, but not very many
4. apart from football(i refuse to use the S word)and cricket to a lesser extent, talent isnt lost to other sports.
5. Coaches in the caribbean are a huge proponent of technique and drills, there arent much quality weight facilities so by the time these kids and young adults are able to raise their strength levels,through improved facilities, be it abroad or the limited infrastruture that MVP has, improvements usually follow. I am sure this is an observation that many college coaches who have coached caribbean kids can attest to. technically sound, but cant even move the bar off of the rack.
I can go on, but comments welcome.

Oh and about the vitamin S. i am hopefull that all involved are clean, but history isn’t on their side.

lorien:

I just don’t see it that way. I see “talent” as being an excuse of why someone else did better and “desire” or “talent” as being the excuse of why your athletes didn’t do as well. What I see by and large in the coaching community is an inability to identify athletes and distinguish between raw values and the ability to train an athlete to higher and higher levels. It takes much greater coaching skill to get more out of athletes who are on the cusp of greatness, but whose abilities are already maximized. In the case of sprinters this is the majority of HS sprinters aged 16-19 is between 10.6-11.0, but the further you get away from 10.6 the larger the potential of the “late bloomers” who start to fill the ranks around 10.9-11.4s for 100m. I am not saying that the 10.6 guys don’t have potential, but those who do are far fewer at 10.6-10.7 than they are at 10.9-11.0.

At the collegiate level if a coach is looking to win he has to offer scholarships to the guys who can get to regionals or score well at conference meets, but at some point that same coach is going to have to develop depth. That depth comes from his athletes who are partial scholarship athletes or walk-ons. What I see is a ton of collegiate coaches are more willing to take on the athlete that their coaching skill is unable to help maximize based on known abilities just because the raw numbers are better under the premise of those athletes having more “talent”.

At the high school level its even more pronounced, when an athlete is very good they use the term talent, but the marginal athlete they don’t see as being talented but as having drive or motivation and the kid who they think as being talented but ends up marginal as being unmotivated, lazy, or lacking drive.

It’s all hogwash, the coach should be focusing on skill acquisition/development working towards perfecting such skills. The coach needs to work on feedback and refinement in feedback to facilitate skill development and acquisition as well as redefine goals intrinsically and towards performance goals and not extrinsically and towards outcome goals, evaluate competence, and reset desire and motivation when needed. This is like 80% of in the field coaching responsibility and ends up being that 80% of coaching community has no idea what this is.

Nick:

They are not natural characteristics that can be measured unless you live in a totalitarian state which predict possible ability in any sport. What I am saying is the US system by nature of evolutionary system naturally cuts out about 50% of what would be the “talent” pool.

USATF/AAU age groups
Middle school
High school
Collegiate
Professional

After peak numbers in middle school years, track and field experiences a sharp decline in participation at each level. Evaluation of potential shouldn’t stop until around age 25 as this is when 99.9% of the individuals at that age are done maturing. This is why I hate who post-graduate athletes are supported and not just the good ones. You still have athletes who are leaving college who have not reached their potential, partly because of coaching they have received and partly because they haven’t stopped maturing.

Talent is a stupid word unless you use in terms of past tense.

I just don’t see it that way. I see “talent” as being an excuse of why someone else did better and “desire” or “talent” as being the excuse of why your athletes didn’t do as well.

If you define talent as an ‘excuse’ of some sort, then it’s nothing but a straw man from my point of view. There’s obviously no point arguing about this issue since we seem to speak about different issues.

Overall, I share some of your concerns and sentiments.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1222898633"] I just don’t see it that way. I see “talent” as being an excuse of why someone else did better and “desire” or “talent” as being the excuse of why your athletes didn’t do as well.

If you define talent as an ‘excuse’ of some sort, then it’s nothing but a straw man from my point of view. There’s obviously no point arguing about this issue since we seem to speak about different issues.

Overall, I share some of your concerns and sentiments.[/quote]

I am labeling the use of word “talent” as an excuse in many instances. What i gathered in my interview was the coach who did the interview seemed to think of talent along the lines which you do, but I think that’s a misuse of the word. I can certainly understand it’s usage in this context, but I think it’s misused and I am not about to tell a person who interviews me that he’s misusing a word.

Dbandre pulling out a strawman–really the unusual?

I have people describe talent as you have and have talked to probably at least 4-5 people from this board, individually, about the fact some people have naturally much more plasticity with regards to training and other factors (as in, they tend to pick-up and adapt to things, good or bad, more quickly and easily). Talent is a multi-faceted issue, but clearly exists.

As John Smith says, you will not get a donkey to win a Kentucky Derby. I’m sure numerous others have said it, but it holds true still.

While 20% of Europeans don’t have the genes, but 80% still do and given the difference this doesn’t explain Jamaican dominance. It’s definitely more nurture based, a greater percentage of their athletes stay active longer for a greater percentage of time than most countries. What’s the difference? It’s physical activity levels throughout childhood, poverty (which prevents obesity), the environment they grow up in promotes year round outdoor activities, their training surfaces are softer and more compliant at younger ages and as qpokes in the other thread stated they shifted training protocols in the last ten years to a more scientific approach which has not filtered down to high school and club coaches in the US much less over 80% of the collegiate programs still go long to short, but has in Jamaica. Still regardless of having a gene, what is more important is that the gene is expressed and the Jamaica culture it’s much easier to express such genetics through every day physical activity than it is in the US. Disagree, but you are wrong, the gap is only going to widen because the US PE programs have gone to fitness based PE over skill based PE to go along with the cuts in having to have PE at all.

Sprinters usually have the single or double copy of the ACTN3 gene. This gene has been linked with protein syntehesis and the high speed muscular contractions necessary for sprinting. It is very unlikely that an elite sprinter will not have one or both copies of this gene. Startlingly, the double copy of the ACTN 3 gene is found in 72% of Jamaican citizens. To put this in to perspective, the gene is found in 76% of Olympians. The single copy of the ACTN3 is found in 26% of ordinary Jamaicans and 23% of Olympians. If you do the math, this means that 98% of all Jamaicans have one or both copies of the gene that is recognized as being necessary to compete at the highest levels in a sprint event. For further perspective, twenty percent of Europeans lack this gene.

It says that it is found in 98% of Jamaicans, and you have Olympians, do you have any other comparative numbers such and to other nationalities(Chinese, American , Canadian, etc) or com,pared to other races, such as Caucasian, African American, Asian, Indians? so that we can put this genetic potential/advantage in retrospect.

i have read something very simular also…

so i guess that means Jamaicans have alot of TALENT then doesn’t it.

I’m also hoping my lil son one day will have this gene as my girl is Jamaican!!! haha

I think that the weather definetly helps with their training. Look at the U.S, I am from the north east and all of the top athletes from this region typically will train in the south or out west. As for their training methods Bolt has been tested over and over. His genetic make up definetly helps him as well. His stride length combined with his insane turnover definetly is an advantage over the shorter sprinters. I just hope for the sports sake that he is clean.

i have read something very simular also…

so i guess that means Jamaicans have alot of TALENT then doesn’t it.

I’m also hoping my lil son one day will have this gene as my girl is Jamaican!!! haha

A gene needs to be expressed for one to get use out of it and expression of this gene means you might need to move to Jamaica.

oh yeah, like Eugenics has been so successful every other time it’s been tried to implemented.
😉

lol…i totally agree…millions of people have no idea they have what they have etc…many factors go into it…but genes can not be (legally) changed, therefore if you have them…you are one step ahead of the game…

and yeah, i can only wish…lol

[quote author="dbandre" date="1222907515"]
A gene needs to be expressed for one to get use out of it and expression of this gene means you might need to move to Jamaica.

oh yeah, like Eugenics has been so successful every other time it’s been tried to implemented.
😉

Inger Miller…daughter of Jamaican sprint legend Lennox Miller ended up doing quite well for herself as an American born from a Jamaican parent.[/quote]

We have more people of Jamaican descent in the US than Jamaica has itself. In fact the Northeast of the US, particularly New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut should be the sprint capitol of the US based on genetics alone. Instead the best sprinters are spread out amongst California, Texas, and Florida.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1222905034"]While 20% of Europeans don’t have the genes, but 80% still do and given the difference this doesn’t explain Jamaican dominance. It’s definitely more nurture based, a greater percentage of their athletes stay active longer for a greater percentage of time than most countries. What’s the difference? It’s physical activity levels throughout childhood, poverty (which prevents obesity), the environment they grow up in promotes year round outdoor activities, their training surfaces are softer and more compliant at younger ages and as qpokes in the other thread stated they shifted training protocols in the last ten years to a more scientific approach which has not filtered down to high school and club coaches in the US much less over 80% of the collegiate programs still go long to short, but has in Jamaica. Still regardless of having a gene, what is more important is that the gene is expressed and the Jamaica culture it’s much easier to express such genetics through every day physical activity than it is in the US. Disagree, but you are wrong, the gap is only going to widen because the US PE programs have gone to fitness based PE over skill based PE to go along with the cuts in having to have PE at all.

While I certainly don’t discount culture and the role of physical activity during youth, I think you’re WAAAAY off base to so easily discount genetics. Sweden has a population that is more than 3x the size of Jamaica AND has a very active culture and advanced PE programs. They have never produced a short sprinter of any note.[/quote]

Yeah the Kallur sisters are known slow-pokes. They do however have some of the best athletes in track and field considering their cold climate and probably the best hockey players in the world just based on population. I am not saying genetics don’t play a role, because they do if they are expressed and to be expressed you have to have environmental and physical stress variables present to do so and more importantly it has to be done early in life.

I think it would be unfair to make drugs a reason because all the other reasons are relative to conditions outside of Jamaica, so there is no advantage there.

Perhaps a corollary to the some of the aforementioned assertions would be that Jamaicans know they’re the shizzle, and true confidence goes a long way in putting together amazing performances for meets that matter.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1222908285"][quote author="Mike Young" date="1222907744"][quote author="dbandre" date="1222907515"]
A gene needs to be expressed for one to get use out of it and expression of this gene means you might need to move to Jamaica.

oh yeah, like Eugenics has been so successful every other time it’s been tried to implemented.
😉

Inger Miller…daughter of Jamaican sprint legend Lennox Miller ended up doing quite well for herself as an American born from a Jamaican parent.[/quote]

We have more people of Jamaican descent in the US than Jamaica has itself. In fact the Northeast of the US, particularly New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut should be the sprint capitol of the US based on genetics alone. Instead the best sprinters are spread out amongst California, Texas, and Florida.[/quote]They are all of West African descent so you’re point is moot. Plus I’m not saying that nurture just plays no part (that should be obvious from my blog). I’m just refuting your point that it isn’t the major reason.[/quote]

It’s not the major reason, having a gene is different from expressing the gene. 80% of Caucasians have the gene so you would think with a world population of nearly the same population that for 98 sprinters from west-African origins you would have 80 Caucasian sprinters. This is obviously not the case and even projected over 1 million participants it still would not be a significant factor in the US as both would have successful outliers and this is clearly not the case.

While 20% of Europeans don’t have the genes, but 80% still do and given the difference this doesn’t explain Jamaican dominance. It’s definitely more nurture based, a greater percentage of their athletes stay active longer for a greater percentage of time than most countries. What’s the difference? It’s physical activity levels throughout childhood, poverty (which prevents obesity), the environment they grow up in promotes year round outdoor activities, their training surfaces are softer and more compliant at younger ages and as qpokes in the other thread stated they shifted training protocols in the last ten years to a more scientific approach which has not filtered down to high school and club coaches in the US much less over 80% of the collegiate programs still go long to short, but has in Jamaica. Still regardless of having a gene, what is more important is that the gene is expressed and the Jamaica culture it’s much easier to express such genetics through every day physical activity than it is in the US. Disagree, but you are wrong, the gap is only going to widen because the US PE programs have gone to fitness based PE over skill based PE to go along with the cuts in having to have PE at all.

Whilst I recognise all the very wise opinions of all contributors, dbandre’s opinion holds supreme here. Yes the Jamaicans have a lot going for them including inspiration but take a look at the Great Britain sprinters in Beijing(where they made a resurgence). Some of them were not of Jamaican heritage correct? Coaches, athletes, scientists raise the bar every minute in every country and come up with plans to get there. You must have talent in all areas to succeed in sport at the highest level these days.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1222905034"]While 20% of Europeans don’t have the genes, but 80% still do and given the difference this doesn’t explain Jamaican dominance. It’s definitely more nurture based, a greater percentage of their athletes stay active longer for a greater percentage of time than most countries. What’s the difference? It’s physical activity levels throughout childhood, poverty (which prevents obesity), the environment they grow up in promotes year round outdoor activities, their training surfaces are softer and more compliant at younger ages and as qpokes in the other thread stated they shifted training protocols in the last ten years to a more scientific approach which has not filtered down to high school and club coaches in the US much less over 80% of the collegiate programs still go long to short, but has in Jamaica. Still regardless of having a gene, what is more important is that the gene is expressed and the Jamaica culture it’s much easier to express such genetics through every day physical activity than it is in the US. Disagree, but you are wrong, the gap is only going to widen because the US PE programs have gone to fitness based PE over skill based PE to go along with the cuts in having to have PE at all.

Whilst I recognise all the very wise opinions of all contributors, dbandre’s opinion holds supreme here. Yes the Jamaicans have a lot going for them including inspiration but take a look at the Great Britain sprinters in Beijing(where they made a resurgence). Some of them were not of Jamaican heritage correct? Coaches, athletes, scientists raise the bar every minute in every country and come up with plans to get there. You must have talent in all areas to succeed in sport at the highest level these days.[/quote]

You are going to get ripped by some for this, but the US has by far a larger population of West-African origins than Jamaica does, but Jamaica has like 5 guys who can run under 10.0s while the US has 6 or 7 if they run in wind-legal race. It should be 10 x that number and when you at look HS races such as Penn Relays the disparity is even more prevalent.

Genetics sure does fall under the talent definition…and clearly plays a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge role in performance sports therefore i dont see how you could argue against it really…

Genetics sure does fall under the talent definition…and clearly plays a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge role in performance sports therefore i dont see how you could argue against it really…

It’s called genetic expression. Even if you have a gene it doesn’t mean it will be expressed automagically. Unless an athlete comes to me with a genetic profile stating such things how in the world can you identify it? Race? Heck you can’t even do that, you have identify their genetic origins and tribes of Africa they come from. For all you know you could have an Ethopian of Jewish Descent just picking by Race. That’s called Eugenics.

Genetics sure does fall under the talent definition…and clearly plays a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge role in performance sports therefore i dont see how you could argue against it really…

Obviously they don’t mean a whole hell of a lot when you compare it to statistics over a significantly larger population.

You keep missing the fact that ALONG with genetics…you need a desire, motivation, nutrition, training, facilities, coaches ect ect…Its common knowledge that there might be someone right now sitting at a desk who has the genetic make up to be a great sprinter…but either never liked track, training, etc etc and therefore never knew they had that potential…With the right genetics is still takes years of training and conducive lifestyle to get to the top level and the majory of people just dont take it seriously like that and their talent is lost. I’ve heard this from many coaches before…it happens all the time.

ethiopian distance runners have the speed to create a deadly kick at the end of the race….is that nature or nuture?
and a hypothetical question you get a group of freshman and they all want to run the 100 because its the glory event …how do you decide who would be better of for middle distance, long or short sprints?

so dbandre what your saying is that instead of saying someone is talented you should say they have good coachability and talent?

ethiopian distance runners have the speed to create a deadly kick at the end of the race….is that nature or nuture?
and a hypothetical question you get a group of freshman and they all want to run the 100 because its the glory event …how do you decide who would be better of for middle distance, long or short sprints?

so dbandre what your saying is that instead of saying someone is talented you should say they have good coach ability and talent?

I wouldn’t decide by race or origin of parents and those obviously who show a great cardiovascular capacity I would move back to mid and longer distances if they were not the best sprinters or jumpers. You score the most points at HS meets in open sprints, jumps, and relays. Besides how many impact freshmen am I going to get. The kids I definitely will keep in the sprints will be running at least 11.7-12.2s by the time mid-season hits. If a kid is big strong and biologically more matured and runs 11.5s I may keep as sprinter, but he will be introduced to throws and hurdles. There’s not much I will be able to do with the 4 foot by 4 foot by 4 foot square block of fat who want to compete but throws the shot 15 feet and runs the 100m in 23s, he’d have to work hard to get rid of his initial problem. It’s the small skinny kids who I’ll develop as sprinters and move the best of them towards sprinting and jumping and moving the others to more distance oriented programs.

This is the ultimate coaching nightmare.

It’s not just coaching although coaching plays a significant role, but what they did between the ages of 2-10 that makes what happens at 16-22 possible. How many kids in the US are in a playground when you pass by? What percentage of them are rich? What percentage of those who are in the playgrounds are of west-African descent?

You keep missing the fact that ALONG with genetics…you need a desire, motivation, nutrition, training, facilities, coaches ect ect…Its common knowledge that there might be someone right now sitting at a desk who has the genetic make up to be a great sprinter…but either never liked track, training, etc etc and therefore never knew they had that potential…With the right genetics is still takes years of training and conducive lifestyle to get to the top level and the majory of people just dont take it seriously like that and their talent is lost. I’ve heard this from many coaches before…it happens all the time.

This is what genetic expression involves. You strengthened my argument by the way.

How many Sam McGuffie’s, Danny Woodhead’s, and Eric Crouch’s get passed over because they are white?

[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1222909511"][quote author="dbandre" date="1222905034"]While 20% of Europeans don’t have the genes, but 80% still do and given the difference this doesn’t explain Jamaican dominance. It’s definitely more nurture based, a greater percentage of their athletes stay active longer for a greater percentage of time than most countries. What’s the difference? It’s physical activity levels throughout childhood, poverty (which prevents obesity), the environment they grow up in promotes year round outdoor activities, their training surfaces are softer and more compliant at younger ages and as qpokes in the other thread stated they shifted training protocols in the last ten years to a more scientific approach which has not filtered down to high school and club coaches in the US much less over 80% of the collegiate programs still go long to short, but has in Jamaica. Still regardless of having a gene, what is more important is that the gene is expressed and the Jamaica culture it’s much easier to express such genetics through every day physical activity than it is in the US. Disagree, but you are wrong, the gap is only going to widen because the US PE programs have gone to fitness based PE over skill based PE to go along with the cuts in having to have PE at all.

Whilst I recognise all the very wise opinions of all contributors, dbandre’s opinion holds supreme here. Yes the Jamaicans have a lot going for them including inspiration but take a look at the Great Britain sprinters in Beijing(where they made a resurgence). Some of them were not of Jamaican heritage correct? Coaches, athletes, scientists raise the bar every minute in every country and come up with plans to get there. You must have talent in all areas to succeed in sport at the highest level these days.[/quote]

You are going to get ripped by some for this, but the US has by far a larger population of West-African origins than Jamaica does, but Jamaica has like 5 guys who can run under 10.0s while the US has 6 or 7 if they run in wind-legal race. It should be 10 x that number and when you at look HS races such as Penn Relays the disparity is even more prevalent.[/quote]

Let’s look over the course of more than one or two years, shall we?

How many people has Jamaica EVER had go under 10 seconds? How many before 2003?

I love the assumptions that dbandre and some others are making presuming that the talent witnessed at the high school or younger levels mean success ought to be equal at the higher levels. This completely ignores the realities in the US:

1. Many of our most talented (boo-hoo, I used the word) sprinters and athletes gravitate towards other sports, like football and basketball. This causes two main issues. One being very obvious that the athletes do not dedicate themselves fully (or at all) to track and the training necessary to maximize potential. These sports have far more glamor and pay a lot more money than track and field does to the point where if you are not up for consideration as one of the greatest of all time you’ll barely be making what the last man on the roster of an NFL or NBA team makes–if you’re lucky! The is one and two is that there are injuries and other events that take place within those sports that limit one’s ultimate potential in track. One could even say missing out on years of training could be an even greater issue.

2. Once you’re out of college, the likelihood of someone training full time and receiving the best therapy and coaching possible if you are not among the super elite is basically near 0. There are guys from other countries that thrive on running 10.1-10.3 in the 100m or mid/low 13s in the hurdles and do fine, yet they’d have a hard time getting ANYTHING (or even making nationals, in some cases) if they were representing the US. The kind of competitive atmosphere isn’t conducive to generating hoards and hoards of sub 10 guys as there is simply not enough money or interest for that.

3. It is much more expensive (relatively) to live in the US and there is no national federation budget to simply paying athletes livable salaries. The UK, Jamaica, and other countries have resources in place so athletes that are on the brink of making it big are able to continue to train FULL TIME (none of this part time work nonsense) during this transition, while the US relies on people to get a contract in some fashion out of school or you’re essentially out of the sport.

For people saying it is the nurturing environment–why didn’t Jamaica do crap in the 100m until about 2003-2004? Yeah, keep believing guys like Nesta Carter are dropping big times because he trains on crappy, unmaintained grass. Don’t most kids who grow up playing American football do the majority of training throughout their lives on grass???

if potential is to equal talent….then how do you judge potential…based on what has happened in the pass…if previous coaches never thought the runner could be a sprinter because they werent able to produce the fast times ( or worse never even gave them a chance) so the coaches think they are distance runners and have them run miles all through middle and junior highschool by the time they reach highschool do you think that the potential in this runner has diminished?..will you disregard the pass and train every one the same until you can distinguish the difference….since jamaica is all about sprinting you might see a less extreme case…for instance the way usain and most tall sprinters are told they are better for the 400….

genetic expression..has a combination of nature and nuture because nature gives you that natural gene but without the nurturing of a special climate, specializing for a number of years coaching etc.. you will never express the gene or express it to the full extent….the northeast has the genes without nuture aspects like the climate while the south has the genes and the climate producing better performances

if i remember correctly in my science class theres a rabbit whose fur changes color based on the temperature…the gene is there all year round but its the temperature that brings it out

[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1222912531"]You keep missing the fact that ALONG with genetics…you need a desire, motivation, nutrition, training, facilities, coaches ect ect…Its common knowledge that there might be someone right now sitting at a desk who has the genetic make up to be a great sprinter…but either never liked track, training, etc etc and therefore never knew they had that potential…With the right genetics is still takes years of training and conducive lifestyle to get to the top level and the majory of people just dont take it seriously like that and their talent is lost. I’ve heard this from many coaches before…it happens all the time.

This is what genetic expression involves. You strengthened my argument by the way.

How many Sam McGuffie’s, Danny Woodhead’s, and Eric Crouch’s get passed over because they are white?[/quote]

You guys crack me up. You actually share common views in spite of the fact that you try your best to show that you don’t. Genetics play some part but only a starting point. I’m sure they know as much about the steeple in Jamaica as they know what a starting block looks like in Kenya. Nick I’m surprised about the mention of diet in your post. Did you not see mine where I said that Great Britain had a resurgence in the sprints? I’m not sure that baked beans had much to do with Great Britain’s resurgence. The weather for training is not much like Jamaica in GB in spite of global efforts to change it so. It gets better. Facilities, how many sports science labs do you have in GB? Coaches, are they not focused on the task that all are now inspired come London 2012. Athletes, did they not feel more pride knowing that they will perform in front of families and friends in 2012.

Culture and genetics? Cricket is the number one sport in Jamaica but who has the fastest bowlers in the world. I repeat who has the fastest bowlers in the world. Can I say that one more time?

Logic will prevail in this argument. Body builder’s know that overloading the muscles will result in an adaptation that makes their muscle grow. Tour de France cyclists work to increase the number and density of their mitochondria. Train a certain way and you can increase the enzymes PFK and SDH enzymes in your body. Granted that one must have the previously mentioned genes as a starting point, is there a way to train that increases ATPase in the myosin chain found to be significantly higher in fast-contracting muscle? I believe there is but I also realise that this represents a significant but small step compared to some improved training methods such as the jumping method now being proposed to benefit jumping and sprinting. Innovation, inspiration, application wins all the time.

if potential is to equal talent….then how do you judge potential…based on what has happened in the pass…if previous coaches never thought the runner could be a sprinter because they werent able to produce the fast times ( or worse never even gave them a chance) so the coaches think they are distance runners and have them run miles all through middle and junior highschool by the time they reach highschool do you think that the potential in this runner has diminished?..will you disregard the pass and train every one the same until you can distinguish the difference….since jamaica is all about sprinting you might see a less extreme case…for instance the way usain and most tall sprinters are told they are better for the 400….

genetic expression..has a combination of nature and nuture because nature gives you that natural gene but without the nurturing of a special climate, specializing for a number of years coaching etc.. you will never express the gene or express it to the full extent….the northeast has the genes without nuture aspects like the climate while the south has the genes and the climate producing better performances

if i remember correctly in my science class theres a rabbit whose fur changes color based on the temperature…the gene is there all year round but its the temperature that brings it out

Bingo!

You don’t know until you give someone the chance and compare their results to their biological maturity. I can deal with kids who run less than 30mpw until they are about 14-15 and still think they can make good sprinters, but would prefer it happens before that. My new favorite reference to distance running examples is Chris Derrick now of Stanford, he started out as a 18+ plus minute 3 miler as freshman in HS and ended up running a 13:55 on the track in the 5K at Arcadia last year. He’s the typical “late bloomer” who has surpassed those that started out way ahead of him like Kevin Havel who is from the same state and holds the middle school records in XC and track and field but competes at Stanford with him as well. Early success is helpful, but it usually lessens the potential and is no way indicative of future performance. I think a lot of the US high school athletes get left by the wayside, because you need a superior performance as a junior and senior to really get the attention at the collegiate level.

The fact remains that talent or genetic profile is the FOUNDATION for success. If you don’t have that you’re just polishing a turd. With that said, peoples of West African descent (which includes the Jamaicans) have whatever it takes to excel at the sprinting events and most other genetic profiles will NEVER be able to match what is relatively common place.

If you disagree, how can we possibly explain away the fact that there isn’t a single person not of West African descent in the top 500 all-time 100m performances. Despite those on the list coming from different countries, cultures, ‘nurture’ situations, the common denominator is that they all share the same genetic profile. That’s what any researcher with any kind of common sense would call a statistical slam dunk.

Are you sure, because if we go back 28 years that is not the case with one of the Athletes you call one of the greatest of all time getting beat by Allan Wells in the 100m. So what’s the difference? If you go back 40 years in Mexico city, you find a young Australian named Peter Norman beating John Carlos in 200m for silver. It’s not like black athletes have had more opportunities thoughout the world since 1968, just in the US they have had a greater opportunity.

The difference is the proliferation of the myth of “black” athletes are superior at speed and power events, but I don’t see them dominating the throws, jumps, or multis. The white athletes are supposedly superior at distance running another myth. I have a heck of a lot more respect of Jamaican distance runners especially the 800m ones who don’t receive the support that their sprinters do, but at the scholastic level are just as good as their american equivalents, but the runners at US HS who are african are usually push out of distance events and that’s the last time we had world class 800m runners.

The big difference is the buying of athletes, who train in their home countries, but run for another country. That’s the big change since 1988. If a country is weak in an area, they don’t need to train it. They only need to purchase it. This creates little motivation in countries behind the curve.

If I gave you a choice between Dallas Robinson or a sprinter of west-african origin of the same raw numbers out of HS, who would you take?

some people love to argue about ANYTHING!

What i said in the beginning dbandre argued with, and then said i packed up his argument when all i did was write the same thing differently. sigh…

of course talent is the bench mark for success…it goes without saying…but yet seemed to have caused some weird discussion.

Jeremy and Dbandre just keep saying that some people are late bloomers, talent is just a start point, blah blah blah. That really doesn’t change the fact that genetics and talent prevails over everything else, even drugs overall.

Talent and genetics allows people to:
-have a better starting point
-more easily progress (facilitate adaptations and recover optimally)

Nothing changes that. Hell, how many drugged up white sprinters have gone sub 10? How many have even gone sub 10.1? If we can’t even get white guys or Asians to consistently be able to easily hang with teenagers of West African descent, how do you suppose genetics don’t play a monumental influence?

Using Allan Wells has to be a joke. Everyone knows that if he ran today he would have a tough time making US trials, let alone advancing. His era, for a variety of reasons, allowed less talented people to be competitive (but not dominant).

There are statistics and there are damn statistics. Just like it is fact that W Africans have a lock on the fastest times ever, there will always be statistical anomalies… But how many people on this board didnt have to have a diaper change right after they saw Wells, or Borzov.

Having gone thru 4 pages in a day, maybe its time to bump the topic to “Where were the Jamicians for the last 70 years given their stated advantages”, or perhaps most specificly – “What has fundimentally changed so that the current performances are such that they are?”

Now if you want to really talk to an importanat subject, what is it about genes that might predict? or gene transcription that prevents successful baton exchanges?

Having gone thru 4 pages in a day, maybe its time to bump the topic to “Where were the Jamicians for the last 70 years given their stated advantages”, or perhaps most specificly – “What has fundimentally changed so that the current performances are such that they are?”

…i think the issues lies in what was going on in jamaica at that time
https://eh.net/bookreviews/library/1182

Just to add…

James beckford – Jamaican – only man ever over 28 feet and 58 feet!

Well Dallas or Tyson Gay out of high school… similar area, times within the same realm…

opportunities and injuries played a factor…

Well yes, we know now for sure that WGF/Inno/etc. isn’t the way to go and that Tyson had tremendous opportunities at community college, but still. Drob 9.77… ehhhhhhhhhhh

All I can is wow, lets consider how non west african sprinters have somehow hit an evolutionary plateau and those of west-african descent have somehow exploded in that same time frame which PED usage cannot even begin to explain. There is no statistician worth his salt who would base genetics for explaining such an evolutionary superiority when it used to not exist prior to 1980 or even 1984 and over the years the gap has widened and non west-african sprinters have not improved substantially. Also, why has this gap not grown wider amongst women?

Well there is that thing, you know, about not letting blacks have equal opportunity in the sport that was quite problematic, not to mention the socioeconomic hardships many still face.

And when is the last time a white guy was even a truly dominant 100m man? Borzov had his time, but did he change the face of the sport and run world records and some of the fastest times ever on the regular?

I mean, even with some of the greatest hardships an athlete could face, has any white athlete even had comparable dominance to Jesse Owens?

Keep writing away and believing it’s not genetics or that white people or any other group ever were near the same level of relative competitiveness as those of West African descent.

And why not the women? Drugs do a lot more for women.

lol…lol…lol…

All I can is wow, lets consider how non west african sprinters have somehow hit an evolutionary plateau and those of west-african descent have somehow exploded in that same time frame which PED usage cannot even begin to explain. There is no statistician worth his salt who would base genetics for explaining such an evolutionary superiority when it used to not exist prior to 1980 or even 1984 and over the years the gap has widened and non west-african sprinters have not improved substantially. Also, why has this gap not grown wider amongst women?

Don’t be ridiculous: You seem to simply disregard the nurture context whenever it suits you, and yet that is what you seem to emphasize in general (which has much truth in it). First, how do you explain the top 500 list? Second, how do you explain the increasing dominance by West African descendants in an atmosphere which parallels the development of increased socio-economic equality (i.e. nurture when it comes to equal opportunities to excel in sports)?

Heck, you only have to go back four decades in US history in order to gain some insight, not to mention the socio-economic situation in the Caribbean islands and Africa at the same time period. Hence, nurture has been a requirement for a genetically gifted group (nature) to eventually gain almost total dominance over an athletic event. That is not to say it’s impossible for others to succeed; it is simply a matter of keeping one’s eyes open when faced with reality.

Nature, nurture, diet, ideal weather, socioeconomics, what else? All must play a part. Is genetics the main reason? Was Borzov not competing against the best of that time? For many years the West African gene did not dominate sprinting until when… after the 1980’s according to some. When did plyometrics (Borzov’s favourite) take a major role in sprint training? Dintiman & Ward says all the books on plyometrics came out in America in the 1980’s. If so did we just develop a training method that was optimal for a particular genetic make at sprinting alone?

Fast-twitch fibres are essential for sprint running but they are also essential for sprint cycling. Did the Great Britain team not do particularly well in sprint cycling with no West African genetics as far as I could see?

Within a particular genetic make-up such as the blessed Jamaicans, did they not win mostly silver medals prior to this year (cept for Linford and Ben). Suddenly though the Jamaicans are even further away from their highly related genetic brothers and sisters. Have to say it is likely due to two main things: coaching innovation (and consistency therein), and inspiration. In sport just look around. After Bjorn Borg came Wilander and Edberg. Moroccans and Ethiopian champions followed in the footsteps of their heroes. Cram, Ovett, Coe (I’m sick of talking up GB). And finally Australia, Housman breaks the 1500m record in swimming and guess what suddenly we produce Perkins and Hackett. How much in sport is thinking if my countrymen can do it then I can too? Which brings one last point, imagine training next to your hero like they do in Jamaica.

Jeremy, how long did Borzov hold the world record? He never dominated the event, even with all of the drugs and support an athlete could ever need and the fact is that there were very few, even then, of West African descent that enjoyed good opportunities in sprinting. Some in the US and in Europe, but in the majority of the US, Africa, and Caribbean? Not at all.

Davan:

The opportunities available to sprinters of west-african descent in Africa and the Caribbean had been present in all those countries involved in the British Commonwealth or US territories for a long time. The problem is how the genetic difference is portrayed and that has been blown out of proportion with stereotyping and biases in the athletic and coaching communities over the last 25 years or so in developed western countries. What it has done is it limited the full development of Caucasian sprinters and West-African mid-distance and throws athletes. Go to almost any high school with a mixed population and you’ll find that Caucasian are running distance races or doing throws and those of African descent running sprints. Why don’t more Puerto Ricans, Haitians, Dominicans, or Cubans dominate athletic events? The rest of the Caribbean islands together excluding the Bahamas and Jamaica have more Olympic track and field athletes it seems despite extremely smaller populations.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1222933887"]All I can is wow, lets consider how non west african sprinters have somehow hit an evolutionary plateau and those of west-african descent have somehow exploded in that same time frame which PED usage cannot even begin to explain. There is no statistician worth his salt who would base genetics for explaining such an evolutionary superiority when it used to not exist prior to 1980 or even 1984 and over the years the gap has widened and non west-african sprinters have not improved substantially. Also, why has this gap not grown wider amongst women?

Don’t be ridiculous: You seem to simply disregard the nurture context whenever it suits you, and yet that is what you seem to emphasize in general (which has much truth in it). First, how do you explain the top 500 list? Second, how do you explain the increasing dominance by West African descendants in an atmosphere which parallels the development of increased socio-economic equality (i.e. nurture when it comes to equal opportunities to excel in sports)?

Heck, you only have to go back four decades in US history in order to gain some insight, not to mention the socio-economic situation in the Caribbean islands and Africa at the same time period. Hence, nurture has been a requirement for a genetically gifted group (nature) to eventually gain almost total dominance over an athletic event. That is not to say it’s impossible for others to succeed; it is simply a matter of keeping one’s eyes open when faced with reality.[/quote]

The problem is 98% to 80% isn’t something that is going to create great differences as both would create an significant amount of outliers on both sides. It’s not ignoring nurture. It’s coaches who ignore that “black” athletes can be throwers or distance runners too and “white” athletes can be sprinters and jumpers, these are the coaches who ignore the nurture part. This is were USA track and field has suffered and ultimately will set back in all event areas.

utter crap.

I guess thats why USA basketball isnt very good as well right? and why the sprints and jumps are poor in D1 colleges, and why the speed power athletes in the NFL are terrible…because they aren’t getting enough white people to do those events/ sports ? ?? ?yeah right…good one.

utter crap.

I guess thats why USA basketball isnt very good as well right? and why the sprints and jumps are poor in D1 colleges, and why the speed power athletes in the NFL are terrible…because they aren’t getting enough white people to do those events/ sports ? ?? ?yeah right…good one.

Yeah, it’s why everytime you go to basketball playground anywhere in america and there are zero white athletes. Why???? I guess because they are busy in their travel league programs that the intercity kids aren’t subjected to till their early-mid teens. There also is not a cap on ability with playing on the playground or the creativity with movement skills it offers, while there is a cap on ability and creativity in travel league programs for kids in 3rd-8th grade.

The NFL has it’s biases, it’s willing to draft “black” position players who performed worse or no better than “white” position players stating bogus comments like a “white” back who runs a 4.38 40yd and jumps 38 inches and shows quickness on tape saying he lacks all these traits, but has good vision and he’s just too small. Meanwhile, the same back who runs 4.65 and jumps 32 inches and is “black” who weighs 235lbs and is 6-1, the comment is he’s explosive and power, pushes piles, and has quickness to the hole and ability to occasionally take it the distance, when review of tape is done it is painfully obvious that this is not the case, many times he’s too slow, gets caught from behind by linebackers, and can only push a pile of defensive backs and other reviews would show his ability to see holes and quickness to them should be attributed to his offensive line and that his homerun ability is for the same reason as opposing defenses had to sell out with all out blitzes because of his offensive line’s dominance at the point of attack (this is the scenario of many first/second/third round busts in the NFL at RB, read Lawrence Phillips, Cedric Benson, Ricky Williams, Ki-Jana Carter, etc…).

USA basketball has also lost much of its dominance world-wide as other countries started adopting the sport and almost all of those countries don’t have a single player with west-african genetics. Our increase in soccer participation hasn’t created a world power yet and likely will not.

Really you shouldn’t be jumping 24-6 by all accounts. I’m completely surprised you haven’t given up at all considering you aren’t of west-african heritage. If you don’t believe you were overlooked because of the color of your skin then you are dead wrong, just like any “black” distance athlete whose heritage cannot be traced back to east african countries would be overlooked. You cannot deny the stereotyping and bias existent in today’s culture.

And why not the women? Drugs do a lot more for women.

Really how so? It should be easier to detect hormone changes in female blood profiles than men. Thus seemingly more of them are busted.

what 24-6 ? 7.54m is 24’9 and i can jump a hell of alot further than that…my best vertical is also 38inches!

the best british long jumpers at the moment are both white..and one has RED hair! so what does that mean? ? ?

i just think you will say anything to try and back up this dead end argument you have going on.

what 24-6 ? 7.54m is 24’9 and i can jump a hell of alot further than that…my best vertical is also 38inches!

the best british long jumpers at the moment are both white..and one has RED hair! so what does that mean? ? ?

i just think you will say anything to try and back up this dead end argument you have going on.

It’s not a dead end argument. No one should base the performance capabilities of someone on heritage or perceived genetic advantage and currently this is what pervades US culture at the moment hurting us in all areas of sport. The other is the “travel league”/specialization culture of rich and predominantly “white” communities in youth athletics.

What I am saying is there should be more of you and the Kevin Little’s, not less of west-african descent is sprints and jumps and there should be more of west-african descent in distance, throws, and multis and not less of the “white” athletes.

What would you say to someone who says you’re not explosive or overachieved?

Well, i believe “you get out of your potential what you put in to acheiving your potential”. And those who know me know i work harder than most to reach mine…so theres no way im over achieving…

As far as not being explosive…i remember in june at a 24 hour fitness in Brea, CA playing basketball against a few black division one players from the area, it was a 5 on 5 game, and on one fast break i took off outside the lane of 2 feet and caught an alley oop over this guy who was taller than me…im 6’0 and white, just seeing everyones reaction to that play answers that pretty well…lol. 🙂

Davan:

The opportunities available to sprinters of west-african descent in Africa and the Caribbean had been present in all those countries involved in the British Commonwealth or US territories for a long time.

That’s an outright lie. Apparently, you need to brush up a bit on your history as the crack epidemic went through the early 90s (starting much earlier), obviously racist housing and employment policies very prevalent even into the 80s, and more. You simply don’t know a thing about this issue.

The problem is how the genetic difference is portrayed and that has been blown out of proportion with stereotyping and biases in the athletic and coaching communities over the last 25 years or so in developed western countries. What it has done is it limited the full development of Caucasian sprinters and West-African mid-distance and throws athletes. Go to almost any high school with a mixed population and you’ll find that Caucasian are running distance races or doing throws and those of African descent running sprints.

I just watched a cross country race yesterday in Washington Park that had no less than hundreds of African-Americans competing in it, along with Latinos.

Why don’t more Puerto Ricans, Haitians, Dominicans, or Cubans dominate athletic events?

There are actually quite different groups that live on those islands and many came from quite different areas of Africa. Feel free to leave these facts out, though.

The rest of the Caribbean islands together excluding the Bahamas and Jamaica have more Olympic track and field athletes it seems despite extremely smaller populations.

This continue to ignores many basic points. One of the most important being the fact that the US does in fact have the greatest depth AND that all the athletes must go through the US trials to make it. Combined with the fact only 3 athletes can go in any particular event (and injuries happen), you have circumstances where people from other countries can pick-up medals. Fact is though that only one medalist in the men’s sprints didn’t go through the NCAA system and that is the freak Bolt.

That’s an outright lie. Apparently, you need to brush up a bit on your history as the crack epidemic went through the early 90s (starting much earlier), obviously racist housing and employment policies very prevalent even into the 80s, and more. You simply don’t know a thing about this issue.

This is an absurd argument, because this racism did not exist into the sporting arena after 1969 except for very few instances in the south, but none past 1975 and most institutional prejudices were eliminated before the mid sixties.

You also act as if poor economic conditions produces poor athletes. I beg to differ as poorer countries do just as well if not better than more developed and better off countries. Jamaica still has remnants of the third world existing in it, not to mention it’s large gang and drug problems. If anything athletics provides an outlet to poor economic situations and athletes in the British Commonwealth were taken care of especially the Jamaicans such as Herb McKenley as far back as 1948.

This continue to ignores many basic points. One of the most important being the fact that the US does in fact have the greatest depth AND that all the athletes must go through the US trials to make it. Combined with the fact only 3 athletes can go in any particular event (and injuries happen), you have circumstances where people from other countries can pick-up medals. Fact is though that only one medalist in the men’s sprints didn’t go through the NCAA system and that is the freak Bolt.

What I want to know is how white sprinters of 50-60s running on cinder/natural surfaces and standing starts were running 10.1 and 10.2s suddenly disappeared? Those are Olympic A standard times. What used to be at a time about 5 “black” to every 4 “white” sprinters fits the description of genetic distribution. What happened to it.

Despite the US depth it’s not as deep based on population characteristics. With over 40 million individuals having at least some ancestral link to Africa and most of them being likely from West or West-Central Africa provides a certain problem to your argument. Thus we should have about 50-60 sprinters running 10.1s or faster and this is not the case and even if you consider other sports who from the other sports can run 10.1s or better?

I just watched a cross country race yesterday in Washington Park that had no less than hundreds of African-Americans competing in it, along with Latinos.

When was the last time you saw hundreds of African-Americans running in a collegiate XC meet? I haven’t. Why it’s called stereotypes and biases.

Well, i believe “you get out of your potential what you put in to acheiving your potential”. And those who know me know i work harder than most to reach mine…so theres no way im over achieving…

As far as not being explosive…i remember in june at a 24 hour fitness in Brea, CA playing basketball against a few black division one players from the area, it was a 5 on 5 game, and on one fast break i took off outside the lane of 2 feet and caught an alley oop over this guy who was taller than me…im 6’0 and white, just seeing everyones reaction to that play answers that pretty well…lol. 🙂

Yeah, I know the feeling. However, I love when the perception changes.

diet is an important factor i think….because even at jamaican fast food stores i.e. juicy pattys….what do they sell…cooked food their breakfast menu has yams, dumplings, and bananas…also the tourist industry has given jamaicas economy growth…leading to advantages over some other caribbean island

diet is an important factor i think….because even at jamaican fast food stores i.e. juicy pattys….what do they sell…cooked food their breakfast menu has yams, dumplings, and bananas…also the tourist industry has given jamaicas economy growth…leading to advantages over some other caribbean island

I agree diet is a huge factor and much better than it is in the US, but the tourism of Jamaica lines the pockets of the aristocrats of Jamaica.

[quote]
That’s an outright lie. Apparently, you need to brush up a bit on your history as the crack epidemic went through the early 90s (starting much earlier), obviously racist housing and employment policies very prevalent even into the 80s, and more. You simply don’t know a thing about this issue.

This is an absurd argument, because this racism did not exist into the sporting arena after 1969 except for very few instances in the south, but none past 1975 and most institutional prejudices were eliminated before the mid sixties.[/quote] We are talking about producing great athletes. If your family has minimal to no food on the table and you struggle to stay alive, have no parents around, etc., it isn’t going to facilitate an athletic career very well–especially when you compare it to what a guy like Borzov had.

Nice strawman. I specifically mentioned racism that would affect the environment one would develop in–not just in the athletic institutions themselves. You still miss the point in that, even if racism institutionally was eliminated from athletics in the 70s, there was still minimal to no tradition of athletics, which certainly plays a role in success.

You also act as if poor economic conditions produces poor athletes. I beg to differ as poorer countries do just as well if not better than more developed and better off countries. Jamaica still has remnants of the third world existing in it, not to mention it’s large gang and drug problems. If anything athletics provides an outlet to poor economic situations and athletes in the British Commonwealth were taken care of especially the Jamaicans such as Herb McKenley as far back as 1948.

Poor conditions don’t help and I wasn’t referring strictly to poor economic conditions. The crack epidemic faced in the urban centers in the United States is far beyond what was faced in Jamaica and most of the Caribbean. It goes without saying they don’t HELP athletic success unless you want to start getting into some abstract notions–to say the least not having food or a stable home environment certainly doesn’t help. If you think otherwise, talk to the kids at the homeless shelter I volunteer at.

[quote]
This continue to ignores many basic points. One of the most important being the fact that the US does in fact have the greatest depth AND that all the athletes must go through the US trials to make it. Combined with the fact only 3 athletes can go in any particular event (and injuries happen), you have circumstances where people from other countries can pick-up medals. Fact is though that only one medalist in the men’s sprints didn’t go through the NCAA system and that is the freak Bolt.

What I want to know is how white sprinters of 50-60s running on cinder/natural surfaces and standing starts were running 10.1 and 10.2s suddenly disappeared?[/quote] Who was running 10.1 fat from a standing start? Which white guys were these? FAT timing wasn’t even around yet.

Those are Olympic A standard times. What used to be at a time about 5 “black” to every 4 “white” sprinters fits the description of genetic distribution. What happened to it.

The greats of all time even then were still black AND those don’t have FAT timing or anything of the kind. You seem to be absurd just for the sake of it, now.

Despite the US depth it’s not as deep based on population characteristics. With over 40 million individuals having at least some ancestral link to Africa and most of them being likely from West or West-Central Africa provides a certain problem to your argument. Thus we should have about 50-60 sprinters running 10.1s or faster and this is not the case and even if you consider other sports who from the other sports can run 10.1s or better?

Do you just ignore comments? The fact that we have numerous other sports that take the very same athletes and the fact that people in the US have a lot of options that are better than that in the rest of the Caribbean apparently mean nothing to you.

[quote]
I just watched a cross country race yesterday in Washington Park that had no less than hundreds of African-Americans competing in it, along with Latinos.

When was the last time you saw hundreds of African-Americans running in a collegiate XC meet? I haven’t. Why it’s called stereotypes and biases.[/quote] It’s called not running fast enough to make it. The same reason why you don’t see the NCAA 100m final filled up with white guys.

The fact that we have numerous other sports that take the very same athletes and the fact that people in the US have a lot of options that are better than that in the rest of the Caribbean apparently mean nothing to you.

That is def a great point…money talks for many of USA’s speed / power elites…

And that money is Football. Just imagine, if America didn’t have this sport or something else simular. And those athletes who play, focussed on their one real passion and option which was sprinting…my word…then your looking those numbers dbandre was talking about…

Disregarding this, is plain silly.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1223009199"][quote]
That’s an outright lie. Apparently, you need to brush up a bit on your history as the crack epidemic went through the early 90s (starting much earlier), obviously racist housing and employment policies very prevalent even into the 80s, and more. You simply don’t know a thing about this issue.

This is an absurd argument, because this racism did not exist into the sporting arena after 1969 except for very few instances in the south, but none past 1975 and most institutional prejudices were eliminated before the mid sixties.[/quote] We are talking about producing great athletes. If your family has minimal to no food on the table and you struggle to stay alive, have no parents around, etc., it isn’t going to facilitate an athletic career very well–especially when you compare it to what a guy like Borzov had.

Nice strawman. I specifically mentioned racism that would affect the environment one would develop in–not just in the athletic institutions themselves. You still miss the point in that, even if racism institutionally was eliminated from athletics in the 70s, there was still minimal to no tradition of athletics, which certainly plays a role in success.

You also act as if poor economic conditions produces poor athletes. I beg to differ as poorer countries do just as well if not better than more developed and better off countries. Jamaica still has remnants of the third world existing in it, not to mention it’s large gang and drug problems. If anything athletics provides an outlet to poor economic situations and athletes in the British Commonwealth were taken care of especially the Jamaicans such as Herb McKenley as far back as 1948.

Poor conditions don’t help and I wasn’t referring strictly to poor economic conditions. The crack epidemic faced in the urban centers in the United States is far beyond what was faced in Jamaica and most of the Caribbean. It goes without saying they don’t HELP athletic success unless you want to start getting into some abstract notions–to say the least not having food or a stable home environment certainly doesn’t help. If you think otherwise, talk to the kids at the homeless shelter I volunteer at.

[quote]
This continue to ignores many basic points. One of the most important being the fact that the US does in fact have the greatest depth AND that all the athletes must go through the US trials to make it. Combined with the fact only 3 athletes can go in any particular event (and injuries happen), you have circumstances where people from other countries can pick-up medals. Fact is though that only one medalist in the men’s sprints didn’t go through the NCAA system and that is the freak Bolt.

What I want to know is how white sprinters of 50-60s running on cinder/natural surfaces and standing starts were running 10.1 and 10.2s suddenly disappeared?[/quote] Who was running 10.1 fat from a standing start? Which white guys were these? FAT timing wasn’t even around yet.

Those are Olympic A standard times. What used to be at a time about 5 “black” to every 4 “white” sprinters fits the description of genetic distribution. What happened to it.

The greats of all time even then were still black AND those don’t have FAT timing or anything of the kind. You seem to be absurd just for the sake of it, now.

Despite the US depth it’s not as deep based on population characteristics. With over 40 million individuals having at least some ancestral link to Africa and most of them being likely from West or West-Central Africa provides a certain problem to your argument. Thus we should have about 50-60 sprinters running 10.1s or faster and this is not the case and even if you consider other sports who from the other sports can run 10.1s or better?

Do you just ignore comments? The fact that we have numerous other sports that take the very same athletes and the fact that people in the US have a lot of options that are better than that in the rest of the Caribbean apparently mean nothing to you.

[quote]
I just watched a cross country race yesterday in Washington Park that had no less than hundreds of African-Americans competing in it, along with Latinos.

When was the last time you saw hundreds of African-Americans running in a collegiate XC meet? I haven’t. Why it’s called stereotypes and biases.[/quote] It’s called not running fast enough to make it. The same reason why you don’t see the NCAA 100m final filled up with white guys.[/quote]

I disagree with all this horse-hockey you put forward. Bobby-Joe Morrow who happened to be white in 1956 ran 10.28 with a Longines timer so maybe he runs 10.4 flat at his worst. Granted it’s not today’s standard FAT, but Morrow from Abilene Christian would have placed at this year’s NCAA championship with such a time on a surface and in shoes that only best in that race could have beat him.

My biggest point of contention is American system doesn’t allow for all athletes to maximize athletic potential under a structured program. The programs in place whittle down prospective talent till 18 years of age and it shouldn’t and that current biases don’t allow athletes to achieve potential. If we as a country are going to continue to use the school systems to develop athletes then the curriculum within the schools need to change and there needs to be support once a collegiate experience is over. Thus we need better “club” programs in the post-graduate area.

The fact that we have numerous other sports that take the very same athletes and the fact that people in the US have a lot of options that are better than that in the rest of the Caribbean apparently mean nothing to you.

That is def a great point…money talks for many of USA’s speed / power elites…

And that money is Football. Just imagine, if America didn’t have this sport or something else simular. And those athletes who play, focussed on their one real passion and option which was sprinting…my word…then your looking those numbers dbandre was talking about…

Disregarding this, is plain silly.

I was looking at those numbers, but the fastest of the fastest runners still seem to gravitate towards track and field. They can make money now in track something they couldn’t do up until the 90’s. Willie Gault may never have gone to the NFL if he could have run track for money. Xavier Carter went pro in track and many thought he’d stay in college and go to the NFL. We are talking about 17 million of African descent alone in the US compared to about 1.3 million in Jamaica. That’s a 14-1 ratio, are basketball players suited for track? Not many. Are Soccer players? yes, but it wouldn’t take away from track. Are football players suited for track? Yes, but would it reduce what should be a 14-1 ratio down to a 1-1 ratio? I don’t think so.

I fear what has happened to US distance and mid distance runners has slowly happened to US sprinters and most definitely long jumpers and it has to do with stereotyping and biases as well as school system and travel league sports that shut out “late blooming” athletes unless they hit pay dirt before they are 17 years old.

My biggest point of contention is American system doesn’t allow for all athletes to maximize athletic potential under a structured program. The programs in place whittle down prospective talent till 18 years of age and it shouldn’t and that current biases don’t allow athletes to achieve potential. If we as a country are going to continue to use the school systems to develop athletes then the curriculum within the schools need to change and there needs to be support once a collegiate experience is over. Thus we need better “club” programs in the post-graduate area.

I completely agree with this on many levels. If you aren’t near the top when leaving high school, then chances are that if you continue to run in college you are going to be in D3, which is a graveyard for talent. Sometimes people are lucky and they get a good coach at this level, but listening to what some coaches have kids doing in d3 is mind boggling sometimes.

There needs to be a system in place in NCAA, especially the lower levels, that somehow assures qualified coaches are put in place, not just random people who fall into the jobs.

[quote author="davan" date="1223019925"][quote author="dbandre" date="1223009199"][quote]
That’s an outright lie. Apparently, you need to brush up a bit on your history as the crack epidemic went through the early 90s (starting much earlier), obviously racist housing and employment policies very prevalent even into the 80s, and more. You simply don’t know a thing about this issue.

This is an absurd argument, because this racism did not exist into the sporting arena after 1969 except for very few instances in the south, but none past 1975 and most institutional prejudices were eliminated before the mid sixties.[/quote] We are talking about producing great athletes. If your family has minimal to no food on the table and you struggle to stay alive, have no parents around, etc., it isn’t going to facilitate an athletic career very well–especially when you compare it to what a guy like Borzov had.

Nice strawman. I specifically mentioned racism that would affect the environment one would develop in–not just in the athletic institutions themselves. You still miss the point in that, even if racism institutionally was eliminated from athletics in the 70s, there was still minimal to no tradition of athletics, which certainly plays a role in success.

You also act as if poor economic conditions produces poor athletes. I beg to differ as poorer countries do just as well if not better than more developed and better off countries. Jamaica still has remnants of the third world existing in it, not to mention it’s large gang and drug problems. If anything athletics provides an outlet to poor economic situations and athletes in the British Commonwealth were taken care of especially the Jamaicans such as Herb McKenley as far back as 1948.

Poor conditions don’t help and I wasn’t referring strictly to poor economic conditions. The crack epidemic faced in the urban centers in the United States is far beyond what was faced in Jamaica and most of the Caribbean. It goes without saying they don’t HELP athletic success unless you want to start getting into some abstract notions–to say the least not having food or a stable home environment certainly doesn’t help. If you think otherwise, talk to the kids at the homeless shelter I volunteer at.

[quote]
This continue to ignores many basic points. One of the most important being the fact that the US does in fact have the greatest depth AND that all the athletes must go through the US trials to make it. Combined with the fact only 3 athletes can go in any particular event (and injuries happen), you have circumstances where people from other countries can pick-up medals. Fact is though that only one medalist in the men’s sprints didn’t go through the NCAA system and that is the freak Bolt.

What I want to know is how white sprinters of 50-60s running on cinder/natural surfaces and standing starts were running 10.1 and 10.2s suddenly disappeared?[/quote] Who was running 10.1 fat from a standing start? Which white guys were these? FAT timing wasn’t even around yet.

Those are Olympic A standard times. What used to be at a time about 5 “black” to every 4 “white” sprinters fits the description of genetic distribution. What happened to it.

The greats of all time even then were still black AND those don’t have FAT timing or anything of the kind. You seem to be absurd just for the sake of it, now.

Despite the US depth it’s not as deep based on population characteristics. With over 40 million individuals having at least some ancestral link to Africa and most of them being likely from West or West-Central Africa provides a certain problem to your argument. Thus we should have about 50-60 sprinters running 10.1s or faster and this is not the case and even if you consider other sports who from the other sports can run 10.1s or better?

Do you just ignore comments? The fact that we have numerous other sports that take the very same athletes and the fact that people in the US have a lot of options that are better than that in the rest of the Caribbean apparently mean nothing to you.

[quote]
I just watched a cross country race yesterday in Washington Park that had no less than hundreds of African-Americans competing in it, along with Latinos.

When was the last time you saw hundreds of African-Americans running in a collegiate XC meet? I haven’t. Why it’s called stereotypes and biases.[/quote] It’s called not running fast enough to make it. The same reason why you don’t see the NCAA 100m final filled up with white guys.[/quote]

I disagree with all this horse-hockey you put forward.[/quote] Not even knowing the basic history of an area you lived near is pretty bad, so I wouldn’t call it horse anything.

Bobby-Joe Morrow who happened to be white in 1956 ran 10.28 with a Longines timer so maybe he runs 10.4 flat at his worst. Granted it’s not today’s standard FAT, but Morrow from Abilene Christian would have placed at this year’s NCAA championship with such a time on a surface and in shoes that only best in that race could have beat him.

Placed what? Top 3? No chance in hell. You forget that the conditions at the NCAA meet this year were HORRENDOUS with flooding because there was so much rain and storming. Thanks for excluding that very important fact though. Do you lie on purpose or are you just unaware of these facts?

My biggest point of contention is American system doesn’t allow for all athletes to maximize athletic potential under a structured program. The programs in place whittle down prospective talent till 18 years of age and it shouldn’t and that current biases don’t allow athletes to achieve potential. If we as a country are going to continue to use the school systems to develop athletes then the curriculum within the schools need to change and there needs to be support once a collegiate experience is over. Thus we need better “club” programs in the post-graduate area.

Great, that doesn’t support any of your other points though.

Davan:

Just shut the heck up, no one is lying and no one is avoiding facts. A 10.28 on a longines timer on a track surface in 1956 is better than 10.28s today period end of story. Those guys at the NCAA’s ran into a .5 m/s headwind. So they run .05-.07s faster into no wind. Morrow ran 10.2s the day before as did Ira Murchison and Thane Baker. To put it into perspective Hayes ran 10.1s 4 years later, yes that Hayes, Bob Hayes.

I don’t know where you received your slanted view of history, but it’s wrong. It just doesn’t mesh with reality. African American sprinters and Caribbean sprinters of great quality have been around for quite some time. Despite your insistence on crack and other drugs being a problem and your insistence on racism as being the other problem, but lets not forget the AAU/TAC/USATF and the USOC and even the IOC always went out of it’s way to exploit black athletes or any athlete for that matter if they could. Which takes us back to 1968, when the Black Power salute of Tommie Smith and John Carlos was done on the podium a young skinny Australian who split 2 of America’s best in the 200m including beating the WR holder at the time of the race in John Carlos. This man whose name is Peter Norman was never again to compete on the international stage because of his support for Smith and Carlos and when those altitude assisted records of Mexico City were long gone Peter Norman’s 200m Australian record of 20.06s still stands or when we come further in history to 1980 when the scottish sprinter of Allan Wells won Olympic Gold against the great Don Quarrie of Jamaica on a cold and brutal russian day into a headwind reminiscent of this year’s NCAA meet, Wells has held the Scottish record of 10.11s for seemingly ever. Tell me that I am forgetting history or I am lying. Name more than 1 white american sprinter who has come close to either of those marks in the modern era? Kevin Little at 10.13 and Kevin Little at 20.10? This is absolutely absurd.

Great, that doesn’t support any of your other points though.

How does it not, In 12 years I will take my son to school in 7th grade and drop him off the first day there is practice and when I come pick him up and I will hear how he’s going to be a distance runner because the coach just doesn’t think he will be able to develop the speed or leg turnover necessary to be a sprinter and how his coach sucks and how he wants me to interfere. Why because this coach has a bias and stereotypes of athletes in his sport. At that level there is no way with the disparity in physical maturity one can project success 10-15 years at a sport. I hate hearing High Jump coaches who say “black” athletes have a hard time jumping off of 1 foot, I roll my eyes in disbelief or when a white kid runs 10.75s at the state meet and every coach (white, black, purple, red, green, blue, or yellow) around me nods in agreement that is steroids.

Pigeon-holing athletes is a problem especially at younger ages when it comes from preconceived biases and stereotypes. It hurts everyone involved.

Davan:

Just shut the heck up, no one is lying and no one is avoiding facts. A 10.28 on a longines timer on a track surface in 1956 is better than 10.28s today period end of story. Those guys at the NCAA’s ran into a .5 m/s headwind. So they run .05-.07s faster into no wind. Morrow ran 10.2s the day before as did Ira Murchison and Thane Baker. To put it into perspective Hayes ran 10.1s 4 years later, yes that Hayes, Bob Hayes.

Look at the overall times and how much worse they were than times achieved just 2-3 weeks prior. You blatantly ignore the truth and mention things that are of little significance–yes -.5 wind isn’t much, but pouring rains and cool weather for multiple days is significant. Were there accurate wind gauges for Morrow? I’ll wait for that one.

I don’t know where you received your slanted view of history, but it’s wrong. It just doesn’t mesh with reality. African American sprinters and Caribbean sprinters of great quality have been around for quite some time.

Some have been around. Those social groups as A WHOLE have not been afforded the same opportunities for a variety of reasons until the last 2-3 decades and even still are not equal yet for more reasons. That doesn’t mean some governing body keeps them out, but their cultures tend to be rife with poverty, single parent homes, violence, and much more. Sorry, but it’s a fact.

Despite your insistence on crack and other drugs being a problem and your insistence on racism as being the other problem, but lets not forget the AAU/TAC/USATF and the USOC and even the IOC always went out of it’s way to exploit black athletes or any athlete for that matter if they could. Which takes us back to 1968, when the Black Power salute of Tommie Smith and John Carlos was done on the podium a young skinny Australian who split 2 of America’s best in the 200m including beating the WR holder at the time of the race in John Carlos. This man whose name is Peter Norman was never again to compete on the international stage because of his support for Smith and Carlos and when those altitude assisted records of Mexico City were long gone Peter Norman’s 200m Australian record of 20.06s still stands or when we come further in history to 1980 when the scottish sprinter of Allan Wells won Olympic Gold against the great Don Quarrie of Jamaica on a cold and brutal russian day into a headwind reminiscent of this year’s NCAA meet, Wells has held the Scottish record of 10.11s for seemingly ever. Tell me that I am forgetting history or I am lying. Name more than 1 white american sprinter who has come close to either of those marks in the modern era? Kevin Little at 10.13 and Kevin Little at 20.10? This is absolutely absurd.

Name 1 white US sprinter that was near there to begin with. You just named a bunch of non-Americans from a different era and asked for a white American, a bit of a different subject, huh?

Not even 10 years ago, we did have 6.5 Casey Combest out of high school and we’ve had white Canadians in Michael LeBlanc and Macro. Not sure exactly what else you expect. Perhaps you should produce the next great white sprinter since you’ve written so much nonsense on the issue here.

Furthermore, you continue to strawman out the socioeconomic issues by saying sports bodies allow many to compete, which is so damn ignorant, I’m surprised you have the balls to post it. That is only part of a much greater issue. Who gives a crap if you can compete in track if you don’t have food or a place to live or whatever else?

Look, if you’re a white athlete, you should absolutely do everything you can to be the best and to hell with what anyone says about it. There are exceptions to everything and it’s just a matter of time until a white guy (or Asian or some other group) is great on the world level in a short sprint. That DOESN’T mean though that the trend of West Africans dominating is incorrect or is going to end, but just shows there is already a propensity and advantage there and there are very few and far between that can compete with them from a genetic and talent standpoint. As an athlete, we have no interest in worrying about our individual possibilities and limits, but when analyzing the sport and trends that take place, it is irresponsible and illogical to not note the obvious that has been discussed here in length or to say it is just because of yams or grass tracks.

[quote author="davan" date="1223026233"] Great, that doesn’t support any of your other points though.

How does it not, In 12 years I will take my son to school in 7th grade and drop him off the first day there is practice and when I come pick him up and I will hear how he’s going to be a distance runner because the coach just doesn’t think he will be able to develop the speed or leg turnover necessary to be a sprinter and how his coach sucks and how he wants me to interfere. Why because this coach has a bias and stereotypes of athletes in his sport. At that level there is no way with the disparity in physical maturity one can project success 10-15 years at a sport. I hate hearing High Jump coaches who say “black” athletes have a hard time jumping off of 1 foot, I roll my eyes in disbelief or when a white kid runs 10.75s at the state meet and every coach (white, black, purple, red, green, blue, or yellow) around me nods in agreement that is steroids.

Pigeon-holing athletes is a problem especially at younger ages when it comes from preconceived biases and stereotypes. It hurts everyone involved.[/quote]

You have been arguing that talent is basically unimportant or of minor importance and that there is no genetic superiority with regards to short sprints and West Africans. That was not supported in anything you said, at all.

[quote author="dbandre" date="1223029127"]Davan:

Just shut the heck up, no one is lying and no one is avoiding facts. A 10.28 on a longines timer on a track surface in 1956 is better than 10.28s today period end of story. Those guys at the NCAA’s ran into a .5 m/s headwind. So they run .05-.07s faster into no wind. Morrow ran 10.2s the day before as did Ira Murchison and Thane Baker. To put it into perspective Hayes ran 10.1s 4 years later, yes that Hayes, Bob Hayes.

Look at the overall times and how much worse they were than times achieved just 2-3 weeks prior. You blatantly ignore the truth and mention things that are of little significance–yes -.5 wind isn’t much, but pouring rains and cool weather for multiple days is significant. Were there accurate wind gauges for Morrow? I’ll wait for that one.

I don’t know where you received your slanted view of history, but it’s wrong. It just doesn’t mesh with reality. African American sprinters and Caribbean sprinters of great quality have been around for quite some time.

Some have been around. Those social groups as A WHOLE have not been afforded the same opportunities for a variety of reasons until the last 2-3 decades and even still are not equal yet for more reasons. That doesn’t mean some governing body keeps them out, but their cultures tend to be rife with poverty, single parent homes, violence, and much more. Sorry, but it’s a fact.

Despite your insistence on crack and other drugs being a problem and your insistence on racism as being the other problem, but lets not forget the AAU/TAC/USATF and the USOC and even the IOC always went out of it’s way to exploit black athletes or any athlete for that matter if they could. Which takes us back to 1968, when the Black Power salute of Tommie Smith and John Carlos was done on the podium a young skinny Australian who split 2 of America’s best in the 200m including beating the WR holder at the time of the race in John Carlos. This man whose name is Peter Norman was never again to compete on the international stage because of his support for Smith and Carlos and when those altitude assisted records of Mexico City were long gone Peter Norman’s 200m Australian record of 20.06s still stands or when we come further in history to 1980 when the scottish sprinter of Allan Wells won Olympic Gold against the great Don Quarrie of Jamaica on a cold and brutal russian day into a headwind reminiscent of this year’s NCAA meet, Wells has held the Scottish record of 10.11s for seemingly ever. Tell me that I am forgetting history or I am lying. Name more than 1 white american sprinter who has come close to either of those marks in the modern era? Kevin Little at 10.13 and Kevin Little at 20.10? This is absolutely absurd.

Name 1 white US sprinter that was near there to begin with. You just named a bunch of non-Americans from a different era and asked for a white American, a bit of a different subject, huh?

Not even 10 years ago, we did have 6.5 Casey Combest out of high school and we’ve had white Canadians in Michael LeBlanc and Macro. Not sure exactly what else you expect. Perhaps you should produce the next great white sprinter since you’ve written so much nonsense on the issue here.

Furthermore, you continue to strawman out the socioeconomic issues by saying sports bodies allow many to compete, which is so damn ignorant, I’m surprised you have the balls to post it. That is only part of a much greater issue. Who gives a crap if you can compete in track if you don’t have food or a place to live or whatever else?

Look, if you’re a white athlete, you should absolutely do everything you can to be the best and to hell with what anyone says about it. There are exceptions to everything and it’s just a matter of time until a white guy (or Asian or some other group) is great on the world level in a short sprint. That DOESN’T mean though that the trend of West Africans dominating is incorrect or is going to end, but just shows there is already a propensity and advantage there and there are very few and far between that can compete with them from a genetic and talent standpoint. As an athlete, we have no interest in worrying about our individual possibilities and limits, but when analyzing the sport and trends that take place, it is irresponsible and illogical to not note the obvious that has been discussed here in length or to say it is just because of yams or grass tracks.[/quote]

I consider a disadvantaged socioeconomic background to be a positive to an athlete in their formative years. As long as that background doesn’t interfere with their physical development. Often those children must do things their well to do counterparts don’t have to do and to play they must become much more creative than their counterparts. This places a certain drive and motivation for many disadvantaged youngsters to do well in sports and some instances school if peer pressure doesn’t get into the way. In fact, maybe it’s the over-emphasis on sports in poorer communities that is the larger cause of many repetitive problems within american society today. Not many of the high profile athletes give back to their communities. What they give back is a pittance to what they make except in a few instances. Certainly the owners of sports franchises don’t give much back to such communities that they exploit, they instead have the citizen of the city taxed to pay for facilities that will make them money. What you see as a disadvantage I see as creating a physiological advantage once someone reaches the ages beyond puberty and beyond. A child without structure who ultimately seeks or embraces structure has learned more than one who doesn’t and this includes motor abilities and skills. There is no strawman argument involved. Maybe you don’t believe in the plasticity and malleability of the human musculo-skeletal system and the genetic changes brought about through training and everyday activity and at what ages though changes are most present but I do.

No its not because of yams or grass tracks, but those yams and grass tracks are part of a lifestyle that is conducive sprint development. If they aren’t and the physiological differences between even the Jamaican and American sprinters currently exists cannot be genetic and environmental influences then it must be drugs. I cannot think of any current athlete in any other US professional sport that could possibly run the 100m faster than 10.3s much less faster than Tyson Gay does.

I hope someday you have a son or daughter who at ages 14 or 12 depending on the gender shows great aptitude for either distance or throws, but when they get to HS, the coach immediately puts them into the sprinting events, despite their objections. Then you will understand what i mean by stereotyping, bias, and pigeonholing. It’s typical liberal ass closed mindedness which you display. As for me every athlete who approaches myself gets asked these question first if I know their name, “What is your background” and “What are your goals”. Even athletes I approach about doing multis show at least an aptitude in a jump and a sprint and the first question about multis is I gauge their interest in doing the heptathlon or decathlon. The color of the athlete’s skin means nothing to me.

Is Jeff Demps going to run track at UF? Yes is the last word i received. He still thinks he’s a football guy and that’s were his heart is right now. However, he needs a heck of a lot of things go right for him to be an NFL player.

Any NFL guy who is going to run 10.25 is going to have be a receiver or defensive back or a smallish running back. Everyone is just too heavy. They’d be fine till about 50m maybe 60m when the vertical GF’s would be too high to maintain maxV even in their PED enhanced bodies.

as for training, they already have excellent acceleration training, it’s not like they are running marathons.

Herschel Walker, Willie Gault, Michael Bates, Michael Bennett, Michael Garvin, Ron Brown etc, etc…all very big, all sub 10.30. Give them 2 months and favorable conditions they’d run 10.25. Throw in Trindon, Demps, Alexander, Deion Sanders, etc and you get the picture. There’s tons of potential 100m speed in the NFL and NCAA.

As for footballers not running marathons….are you familiar with what many of the top programs do for ‘conditioning’?

Bennett was 185-190 pounds maximum at Wisconsin. Walker was big, but he’d never make sub 10.4, Gault was 175 is you soaked him in water, 10.33 at the Olympic trials in ’80, he ran faster than that, but you get the picture.

The one you left out and was the best of all was Darrell Green who of course was small and light and had a 10.08 to his name. I keep hearing about Deion, and Deion was fast possibly sub 10.2, but his football intelligence made him so special it’s hard not to make people look bad when you pick a pass running the opposite way they are headed.

As for the college guys they are small and light. The NFL will not accept them for it and i just don’t see them in the NFL in the future unless they want to take PEDs and then that’s likely the end of their track careers. Warrick Dunn and Eric Metcalf played with those size and weight stigmas forever. My god Barry Sanders had to play with same kind of can he hold up at 5’8″ 205 lbs.

Yes, but it’s still acceleration work. Stop and go, short rest, long rest, is not the same as continuous sustained effort. At the oxygen consumption level there are differences and at the structural level of muscle remodeling there will be differences.

The stereotyping might be prevalent in the US high school or collegiate systems, which might eschew the data a little bit (mostly in the US). Obviously, if everyone would prioritize the sprints, we would probably have a greater variety that would be doing fairly well. But let’s not confuse speculation with how things are right now. And let’s not pretend that the drop-out is overly significant when including the whole world. We are still talking top 500 in the world ever. Over here in Europe, including Scandinavia, such stereotyping is not significant; sprinting is year in and year out one of the most emphasized events, where most kids migrate towards, and which attracts the most competitors. T&F competes with other sport- that’s a fair point which will hide the overall potential- but still… we’re looking at clear data nonetheless.

With globalization and increased cross-migration, this point might be moot in a few decades or so; genotypes could level out. That still doesn’t change the facts thou. I see many here like to confuse is with ougt … they should read more Hume.

I consider a disadvantaged socioeconomic background to be a positive to an athlete in their formative years. As long as that background doesn’t interfere with their physical development. Often those children must do things their well to do counterparts don’t have to do and to play they must become much more creative than their counterparts. This places a certain drive and motivation for many disadvantaged youngsters to do well in sports and some instances school if peer pressure doesn’t get into the way. In fact, maybe it’s the over-emphasis on sports in poorer communities that is the larger cause of many repetitive problems within american society today. Not many of the high profile athletes give back to their communities. What they give back is a pittance to what they make except in a few instances. Certainly the owners of sports franchises don’t give much back to such communities that they exploit, they instead have the citizen of the city taxed to pay for facilities that will make them money. What you see as a disadvantage I see as creating a physiological advantage once someone reaches the ages beyond puberty and beyond. A child without structure who ultimately seeks or embraces structure has learned more than one who doesn’t and this includes motor abilities and skills. There is no strawman argument involved. Maybe you don’t believe in the plasticity and malleability of the human musculo-skeletal system and the genetic changes brought about through training and everyday activity and at what ages though changes are most present but I do.

I’ll make sure to tell the kids I tutor they have an advantage over me in sport because of their living situation. This has to be a complete joke.

Psychological advantage? Maybe some. Not an advantage when you don’t have good or a safe home, though. You seem to think the issue is just about not having money, rather than an entirely messed up living situation. When it’s considered good to get 1/2 the kids to go to 1/2 the classes, I don’t think it’s exactly beneficial. I mean, how are they suppose to get on the track team?

No its not because of yams or grass tracks, but those yams and grass tracks are part of a lifestyle that is conducive sprint development. If they aren’t and the physiological differences between even the Jamaican and American sprinters currently exists cannot be genetic and environmental influences then it must be drugs. I cannot think of any current athlete in any other US professional sport that could possibly run the 100m faster than 10.3s much less faster than Tyson Gay does.

That is sad.

I hope someday you have a son or daughter who at ages 14 or 12 depending on the gender shows great aptitude for either distance or throws, but when they get to HS, the coach immediately puts them into the sprinting events, despite their objections. Then you will understand what i mean by stereotyping, bias, and pigeonholing. It’s typical liberal ass closed mindedness which you display. As for me every athlete who approaches myself gets asked these question first if I know their name, “What is your background” and “What are your goals”. Even athletes I approach about doing multis show at least an aptitude in a jump and a sprint and the first question about multis is I gauge their interest in doing the heptathlon or decathlon. The color of the athlete’s skin means nothing.

Glad to know I am apparently a liberal. I’ll let my liberal family who is upset about my conservatism know.

More strawmans please. They’re everywhere.

Mike Young:
Item # 3, training on grass
“…reduce stress related injuries that lead to lost training time, more importantly, enhanced tendon elasticity because of a more compliant surface.”

I am not the strongest biomech person so I hope this is not too basic or ignorant but can tendon elasticity be “regained”? So for example if an athlete has spent a lot of time on lesser compliant surfaces, anything from non-sprung wood floors to just training on rubberized surfaces to running in school hallways (its too cold here for much of the year to do anything else) will spending as much time as possible help or is it one of those things where once gone, its gone? Does overall time spent on less compliant surfaces have a bearing? For example if a high school athlete who has trained on little other than very hard surfaces now attends a post secondary institution where there are much “better” and more compliant surfaces. Or would the age of the athlete in that example be an overriding factor?

Interestingly, the Japanese seem to be the ‘next best’ hope outside of West African descent to be competitive at the sprints.

I was looking at that table and that was my thought as well. However, given China’s athletics programs along with the population size like you mentioned it makes me think that Caucasions aren’t going to be the next group to break under 10, but rather Asians.

Haven’t had the opportunity to read all the posts yet but it seems part of the misunderstanding (butchering of logic?) is that there’s an assumption that it’s just as simple as 2 genes that were discussed in the article. If so, I apologize for oversimplifying. Clearly, there’s much more than just fiber type that goes in to speed. Anthropometry, muscle attachment sites, tendon elasticity, etc. are all equally if not more important. Whatever it is though, the fact remains that athletes of West African descent, regardless of what culture they are coming from, are getting it done in the sprints and Caucasians, Asian, Indians, etc are not. I’m kind of at a loss for how we can argue against the overwhelming likelihood that people with West African ancestry tend to have the genetic makeup necessary to sprint at elite levels. Does it mean that others cannot? Heck no! It just is all about probability. In fact, I actually think there’s probably several guys in China that could probably break 10 seconds. The population is so large and there is quite a bit of genetic diversity within the country, that there are bound to be ‘pockets’ of outliers but they’re just not at a point as a country where everyone has the opportunity or desire to show off their talents.

Interestingly, the Japanese seem to be the ‘next best’ hope outside of West African descent to be competitive at the sprints.

Why are the Japanese the next best hope? What systems were put in place and when and we might figure out the second most important factor related to sprint performance. Granted the diet in Japan is fantastic, but…no socioeconomic biases, weather is not tropical. How scientific is the Japanese approach to sprinting and how would this compare to the Scandinavian scientific approach?

The ACTN 3 gene is only missing in 20% of Europeans. If the West African gene favours fast-twitch (or super fast-twitch) fiber then why don’t they dominate throws, Olympic lifts, high jump, long jump etc in both males and females? There is a limit to how fast we can contract a muscle either naturally or through practice. Yes it may seem like a slam dunk when it comes to recognising that West African heritage has produced the vast majority of fastest times but I’m convinced that it is not due to the ACTN 3 gene. Sprinting is a rhythmical action whereby efficient activation of ACTN 3 expressed fibers can save precious ATP/CP for optimal use throughout the race. Are West Africans dominant over the entire portion of a 100m sprint or is there a point of separation?

I’ve got my answer but this debate is so passionate that I’m interested in everyone else’s opinion first. What else are Africans geneticals known to be exceptional at?

Nice use of the word “talent” Mike…good stuff! 🙂

Ok now I’m going to lose Dan for sure.
Talent as I see it in this case is the co-ordinated recruitment of motor unis including the electrical signal from the brain (EMG) to those muscles which must be in short concise bursts. Therefore my theory is that the talent is neural. I prefer to use the word skill because it reflects a class in our sport. To draw a comparison, if most of the world has fast-twitch fibre, we still can’t dance (co-ordinate rhythmically) anywhere near as good as our African brothers. In fact my performance in this area is akin to the word TURD that you brought up earlier.

I believe that non-Africans have reached an evolutionary plateau in terms of sprint improvement but unless we can determine what differentiates the ‘genetic’ groups we will never break through this limit to sprint performance.

My position, ever since joining this fabulous network, has always been that we must start with learning (sounds like nurture)to activate our muscles in as short a time as possible. The adaptations might not be in the cerebellum necessarily but certainly adaptations such as the increase in type IIb muscle fiber will occur, our ability to recruit this fiber will improve, the ATPase enzyme might increase in the sarcoplasmic reticulum to allow us to shorten the contraction of the muscle, or ryanodine receptors might increase to allow us to activate far more muscle simultaneously etc etc etc. At least we can train and make our body adapt to match the natural ability of Africans to contract their muscle quickly.

Then we must give everyone equal opportunity to compete and have access to the best coaches, we must not limit their beliefs in what they can achieve, and we must inspire them to achieve their goals. We are already warming up the world so our children will be able to train in a tropical environment all year round. And lastly, we must change to a diet of sushi, crabs, lobsters, and yams if for nothing else but the prevention of obesity related disease and it tastes damn good.

I’m multi-coloured and I believe that white man can run fast again and will as a scientist endeavour to find ways to overcome physiological and neurophysiological barriers. Where there is a will there is a way.

I still don’t see it, the modern Human Genome still points to a single point of origin to the source of the Nile (Modern Ethopia). I like Jeremy see diet as one of the main reasons, but early childhood physical activity and labor as another reason why this has occurred. Taking drugs and improvements out of the throwing implements in terms of aerodynamics and balance it seems that the throws haven’t improved anywhere near the same amount as all other events. Despite what everyone says most of the best athletes despite ethnicity or any other reason grow up in working class families in the US were many children still have to do chores or even perform manual labor jobs as they grow up. I don’t think there are any barriers to overcome other than specialization we have seen invade many “white” communities in America which started about 25-30 years ago. For the last 5-10 years it started to become prevalent in many “black” communities as well.

I still don’t see it, the modern Human Genome still points to a single point of origin to the source of the Nile (Modern Ethopia).

And of course, nothing has changed since. We all have the same hair, eye, and skin color. We all have the same average limb proportions. We all can digest the same foods. Etc.

I like Jeremy see diet as one of the main reasons, but early childhood physical activity and labor as another reason why this has occurred. Taking drugs and improvements out of the throwing implements in terms of aerodynamics and balance it seems that the throws haven’t improved anywhere near the same amount as all other events. Despite what everyone says most of the best athletes despite ethnicity or any other reason grow up in working class families in the US were many children still have to do chores or even perform manual labor jobs as they grow up.

You’re making a lot of very false assumptions. You think kids living in apartments or projects with nothing around them have more manual labor than the typical suburban white kid that is expected to do yard work every weekend? I don’t know what neighborhoods you are from, but both places I lived as a child (extremely different in racial and economic diversity) had kids routinely playing outside most days of the week–regardless of color.

xxx