[ABCs]

ABCs on August 9, 2009 at 8:27 am #16046

The first discussion on ethnicity and sprinting we had was a bit childish and at the very least counter productive. After taking some time to compose myself and my thoughts, I just wanted to start this discussion in a less hostile manner, and with a more fertile foundation.

So what is the position of most people on ethnicity and sprinting? This subject really is a taboo, but not in the way John Entine implies. In fact, it is against political correctness to say that whites are close to or as fast as blacks. Here’s a classic double standard all-to-often employed: when the IQ difference is brought up with black people in comparison to whites, people tend to go back and think of the socio economic factors that caused the rift in scores and even crime for that matter. But when white athleticism is brought into the discussion, the party line is that blacks are just more naturally gifted, and that whites have all the opportunity in the world.

The world record in 1980 was 10.03 by Jim Hines (9.95A). Valery Borzov had run 10.07, .04 off this, Allen Wells had run 10.11, only .08 off the WR, and Petar Petrov had run 10.13, .1 off the WR. As you can see, the differnce was incredibly small, even in a completely integrated sport. Now the difference is .31 in the 100. But that is an outlier, the majority of medallists are still in the 9.8 to 9.9 range. That is why I feel that whites are competitive in the 100 when at full capacity and potential. Obviously, the 100 is pretty much the only event where a white athlete is not on the all-time top 10 list (discounting aerobic exercise), but that does not mean that the sport should be 100% black even in the finals. The fact that every other race that runs the 100 on earth has improved since 1984ish, except whites, is very disturbing. I would argue socio economic factors play a large part in this, as well as steroids. Steroids, although used by all races, has aided many of the black gold medallists like Linford Christie, Justin Gatlin, Ben Johnson, and more. It is my personal opinion that white athletes are very competitive with black athletes in the 100m. Even taking the results without an evaluation of socio economic factors, a white man made the finals of the 100 in 2007, won the silver in the world indoor 60m in 2006, and ran 10.04 with no wind the other day.

Here are some options to get you thinking:

1. whites and blacks are the same speed but the former is inhibited by socio economic factors
2. whites and blacks are the same speed until the black athlete focuses on training, because their bodies respond better to explosive training, and are less geared to enhance cardio and focus on the CNS, etc.
3. steroids are taken by the nations where black sprinters typically compete
4. blacks are faster than whites at top speed, but all else is equal
5. blacks are faster than whites in every way
6. the top 20 sprinters in the world are always black, and it should be that way
7. the top sprinters in the world can be any race, but blacks should always have the WR
8. it’s all mental
9. I’m just confused to why blacks have improved so much, and whites have not gotten much faster

[Craig Pickering]

Craig Pickering on August 9, 2009 at 10:21 pm #87347

I honestly cant see how socio-cultural factors disadvantage white sprinters. Im a white sprinter, and I have never felt disadvantaged because of it.

What sort of socio-cultural factors do you think might cause white sprinters to be slower?

[JeremyRichmond]

JeremyRichmond on August 9, 2009 at 11:18 pm #87348

The world record in 1980 was 10.03 by Jim Hines (9.95A). Valery Borzov had run 10.07, .04 off this, Allen Wells had run 10.11, only .08 off the WR, and Petar Petrov had run 10.13, .1 off the WR. As you can see, the differnce was incredibly small, even in a completely integrated sport. Now the difference is .31 in the 100. But that is an outlier, the majority of medallists are still in the 9.8 to 9.9 range. That is why I feel that whites are competitive in the 100 when at full capacity and potential. Obviously, the 100 is pretty much the only event where a white athlete is not on the all-time top 10 list (discounting aerobic exercise), but that does not mean that the sport should be 100% black even in the finals. The fact that every other race that runs the 100 on earth has improved since 1984ish, except whites, is very disturbing. I would argue socio economic factors play a large part in this, as well as steroids. Steroids, although used by all races, has aided many of the black gold medallists like Linford Christie, Justin Gatlin, Ben Johnson, and more. It is my personal opinion that white athletes are very competitive with black athletes in the 100m. Even taking the results without an evaluation of socio economic factors, a white man made the finals of the 100 in 2007, won the silver in the world indoor 60m in 2006, and ran 10.04 with no wind the other day.

9. I’m just confused to why blacks have improved so much, and whites have not gotten much faster

Shortened your post – great point (revisited). Please no-one is to be offended. Subject is not taboo but intriguing.
No change in white man’s 100m times in 27 years. Blacks have improved their times markedly over the same period. We probably need more clues before drawing strong conclusions.
1. What are the 100m times of kids growing up in the Carribean where there is a sprinting culture? The multicultural society that is the Carribean provides us with the desired cohorts for investigating your original question. We could compare the average time for caucasian, asian and west-african descendants in this population given (my presumption) that socio-economic factors are equal and opportunity to play sport are equal in the Carribean. Any stats out there?
2. When did plyometric training become a regular part of everyone’s regime? The reason for my curiosity here is that muscle stiffness has been found to be higher in West-african sprinters compared to Italian sprinters when matched for time.
3. When did tempo (intensive etc) amd special endurance training become part of everyone’s training? The reason for my curiosity here is that african’s have a greater genetic disposition to produce enzymes that facilitate glycolysis and therefore adapt to tolerate higher intensity sessions.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 9, 2009 at 11:26 pm #87349

One of the biggest ones is the lack of role models to look up to, and the even greater lack of white household names. Bolt, for instance, is a household name. That is not to say that one’s heroes cannot be black, but it important to see people in the media and news who look like you. If not, then many white kids will look to other sports to imitate their role models, and I highly doubt Marian Woronin is one of them.

Another factor is financial stability, which allows kids to try a variety of sports instead of focusing on just one.

[star61]

star61 on August 10, 2009 at 3:23 am #87355

The world record in 1980 was 10.03 by Jim Hines (9.95A). Valery Borzov had run 10.07, .04 off this, Allen Wells had run 10.11, only .08 off the WR, and Petar Petrov had run 10.13, .1 off the WR. As you can see, the differnce was incredibly small, even in a completely integrated sport.

Eastern Europeans were ahead of the west in training and drug use and closed the gap.

Now the difference is .31 in the 100. But that is an outlier, the majority of medallists are still in the 9.8 to 9.9 range. That is why I feel that whites are competitive in the 100 when at full capacity and potential.

The West caught on to the training techniques and the drug use, now the gap has reopened.

It is my personal opinion that white athletes are very competitive with black athletes in the 100m.

You are in total denial. Make list of every sub 10.1 100m race. Not every racer, but every result. It will be very long. It will include results over a 40 year span. You will see racers from every socio-economic background. Racers with good dietary habits and bad. Racers with traditionally good training habits and not so good. They will be, with a few exceptions, of West African descent. No amount of explanation and excuse making will overcome the preponderance of this data.

1. whites and blacks are the same speed but the former is inhibited by socio economic factors
2. whites and blacks are the same speed until the black athlete focuses on training, because their bodies respond better to explosive training, and are less geared to enhance cardio and focus on the CNS, etc.
3. steroids are taken by the nations where black sprinters typically compete
4. blacks are faster than whites at top speed, but all else is equal
5. blacks are faster than whites in every way
6. the top 20 sprinters in the world are always black, and it should be that way
7. the top sprinters in the world can be any race, but blacks should always have the WR
8. it’s all mental
9. I’m just confused to why blacks have improved so much, and whites have not gotten much faster

No, no, no, no but almost, under 150-200m yes, define ‘top’,no, yes.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 3:48 am #87356

[quote author="Jake Sumner" date="1249786650"]
The world record in 1980 was 10.03 by Jim Hines (9.95A). Valery Borzov had run 10.07, .04 off this, Allen Wells had run 10.11, only .08 off the WR, and Petar Petrov had run 10.13, .1 off the WR. As you can see, the differnce was incredibly small, even in a completely integrated sport.

Eastern Europeans were ahead of the west in training and drug use and closed the gap.

Now the difference is .31 in the 100. But that is an outlier, the majority of medallists are still in the 9.8 to 9.9 range. That is why I feel that whites are competitive in the 100 when at full capacity and potential.

The West caught on to the training techniques and the drug use, now the gap has reopened.

It is my personal opinion that white athletes are very competitive with black athletes in the 100m.

You are in total denial. Make list of every sub 10.1 100m race. Not every racer, but every result. It will be very long. It will include results over a 40 year span. You will see racers from every socio-economic background. Racers with good dietary habits and bad. Racers with traditionally good training habits and not so good. They will be, with a few exceptions, of West African descent. No amount of explanation and excuse making will overcome the preponderance of this data.

1. whites and blacks are the same speed but the former is inhibited by socio economic factors
2. whites and blacks are the same speed until the black athlete focuses on training, because their bodies respond better to explosive training, and are less geared to enhance cardio and focus on the CNS, etc.
3. steroids are taken by the nations where black sprinters typically compete
4. blacks are faster than whites at top speed, but all else is equal
5. blacks are faster than whites in every way
6. the top 20 sprinters in the world are always black, and it should be that way
7. the top sprinters in the world can be any race, but blacks should always have the WR
8. it’s all mental
9. I’m just confused to why blacks have improved so much, and whites have not gotten much faster

No, no, no, no but almost, under 150-200m yes, define ‘top’,no, yes.[/quote]

Certainly those are valid points to think about. But I could do the exact same thing as you did, in the exact opposite way, and make equally valid points. For instance, I could say that the narrower difference in times between whites and blacks in in 1980 was because LESS steroids and PEDs were in use (E. Europeans were not the only competitive whites), and now that the gap has widened steroids are used more rampantly. After all, the majority of 100m gold medallists after Allen Wells have tested positive for PEDs (Gatlin, Christie, Greene, Johnson, Lewis, etc.). So to say that whites were more competitive back then because of steroid use, and blacks today are competitive because they are faster, even though there are more positive tests now and faster times are being run, is a bit of a double standard in itself.

[davan]

davan on August 10, 2009 at 4:47 am #87357

Are you joking?

The whole point was that white athletes in Europe were more competitive because they had greater access to PEDs than black athletes in Western countries. Notice how few whites were competitive times wise outside of Europe (ie in the US). Even though Allan Wells is great and all, he still ran times not even close to the WR at the time. It goes without saying that many black athletes were not afforded many opportunities until the 70s and you would expect that it would take at least a decade or so (probably more like 20 years or so) for the results of such opportunities given.

There are positive tests now because they can actually test for the drugs. There was no random testing before 1989 and minimal effective testing at all before 1983. It goes without saying that many Eastern European countries controlled the testing procedures in the first place, which makes it unlikely you would see a positive test.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 5:11 am #87358

Even though Allan Wells is great and all, he still ran times not even close to the WR at the time. It goes without saying that many black athletes were not afforded many opportunities until the 70s and you would expect that it would take at least a decade or so (probably more like 20 years or so) for the results of such opportunities given.

Allan Wells ran 10.11 when the WR at the time was 9.95A and 10.03 by Jim Hines. Although Mennea used HGH and Borzov is a little suspicious, Wells was at the time one of the fastest men in history. He also beat ALL 4 Americans that had not been at the 1980 Olympics in 10.15 and 20.15w in the IAAF Golden Sprints. So, yes, the sport was integrated. Yes, Wells was the best in 1980 and the worthy gold medallist. He was .08 off of the non-altitude WR. And yes, unlike Christie, Lewis, Greene, Gatlin, and Johnson (and probably, Bolt, Mennea, Borzov and Bailey) he was clean. He even ran into his older age, holding a WR for his age at one time.

So when you add 20 years to 1932, the Olympics Jesse Owens was crowned the 100, 200, and long hump champion, you get 1952. White people were winning way past then.

[davan]

davan on August 10, 2009 at 5:43 am #87359

1. Wells ran 10.11, but it is still a ways from Hines and that was before there was lots of black participation in athletics like there is today.

2. Why do you say Mennea used hGH and Borzov was a little suspicious? Borzov was part of systemic doping in the USSR that likely exceeded that of East Germany. Mennea’s coach acknowledged that much of what he learned came from some Eastern European training methods at the time, so put two and two together.

3. Wells won in an era where it was still amateurs and participation rates were still low. Sure, early 80s it wasn’t bad, but you need to look in the decade(s) before then because it takes a while for progress to come to fruition.

4. Wells was cleans? Hmmm yep. A guy who ran 11.1h at age like 22 or something… yep lol.

5. Jesse Owens being allowed to run for Ohio State does not indicate what it was like for the majority of the athletes in the country. It goes without saying that in Europe, many athletes were getting paid under the table while many Americans were forced to have amateur status and did not compete in athletics to the same extent. See Bob Hayes.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 6:10 am #87360

4. Wells was cleans? Hmmm yep. A guy who ran 11.1h at age like 22 or something… yep lol.

He also ran 10.28 as a 35 year old, and I doubt he would still be using them even as an amateur sprinter in his mid 30s. It’s called being a late maturer. 10.28 at 35 compared to 10.11 in his prime seems about right to me.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 10, 2009 at 6:28 am #87361

I honestly cant see how socio-cultural factors disadvantage white sprinters. Im a white sprinter, and I have never felt disadvantaged because of it.

What sort of socio-cultural factors do you think might cause white sprinters to be slower?

It’s probably a bit diifferent in the states than it is in Europe. Basically, white people focus on things other than athletics because its the cutlural norm, and white people are always told they aren’t as athletically talented as black people.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 6:38 am #87362

[quote author="speedfreak1" date="1249836732"]I honestly cant see how socio-cultural factors disadvantage white sprinters. Im a white sprinter, and I have never felt disadvantaged because of it.

What sort of socio-cultural factors do you think might cause white sprinters to be slower?

It’s probably a bit diifferent in the states than it is in Europe. Basically, white people focus on things other than athletics because its the cutlural norm, and white people are always told they aren’t as athletically talented as black people.[/quote]

Precisely. Most white kids will play football or baseball. Even in Europe I’d imagine soccer and rugby are more popular than track. Either way, even if black people are slightly faster than white people in terms of speed endurance or top speed, it doesn’t help to shove it in their faces by portraying black athletes as the best ones, because the sport of athletics is inherently based on outliers anyway.

There are also no starting white runningbacks in the NFL. For the European equivalent, I’d guess that’d be the same as saying that because blacks may be better at goalie in soccer (just a hypothetical), every goalie should be black. Just makes no sense. Especially because in the runningback position, speed is tertiary to explosiveness and strength, areas whites have proven they can excell in.

[davan]

davan on August 10, 2009 at 6:45 am #87363

That is complete bullshit. Go to nearly any high school meet and the vast majority of the people sprinting are white. Go to any division 3 meet college meet and the vast majority of people competing are also white.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 6:47 am #87364

That is complete bullshit. Go to nearly any high school meet and the vast majority of the people sprinting are white. Go to any division 3 meet college meet and the vast majority of people competing are also white.

Ya, I’m on one of those all white track teams and the talent is definitely leftovers from other sports, no offense. I love track myself, but making varsity track was the easiest things I’ve ever done.

[davan]

davan on August 10, 2009 at 6:54 am #87366

Yes and we see tons of extremely fast white athletes in other sports, who don’t run track as well. All those extremely athletic and physically gifted baseball and hockey players.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 10, 2009 at 7:02 am #87367

After all, the majority of 100m gold medallists after Allen Wells have tested positive for PEDs (Gatlin, Christie, Greene, Johnson, Lewis, etc.).

I think this is a valid point, and I think it’s fully possible that one of the reasons for black dominance today, is the possibilty that black athlete are dirtier than non black athletes. For evidence of this, just look at women’s track and field. People say the reason non black athletes are competitive in women’s track and field is because PEDs help more. That’s probably true (men have 10 times the test level of women), but if everyone dopes equally, the most talented athlete still wins. Also, women make much less money than men I’m sure, making their access to PEDs smaller. And while I won’t diregard the possibility of women’s doping, I think it’s unfair to hold the women’s lack of positives in less esteem than the men’s rash of positives. I won’t get carried away though. Even with women included, black athletes are winning Olympic sprint medals over nonblack athletes at a ratio of 2:1. It’s pretty clear that they are more likely to have the attributes to run at a high level. But let’s not pretend that black athletes are demigods because they’re black.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 10, 2009 at 7:06 am #87368

That is complete bullshit. Go to nearly any high school meet and the vast majority of the people sprinting are white. Go to any division 3 meet college meet and the vast majority of people competing are also white.

Sure, but how many talented white sprinters do you see quiiting track after high school? I see it all the time, and while they may or may not have become elite sprinters, the talent pool would have been that much deeper.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 7:08 am #87369

Yes and we see tons of extremely fast white athletes in other sports, who don’t run track as well. All those extremely athletic and physically gifted baseball and hockey players.

I would say most fast people of all colors move on to jobs not in pro sports, but proportionally a lot more whites hang up the spikes. Whites mature later too. And baseball is a coordination sport, so it has little relevance. There certainly are many fast hockey players though.

[griff]

griff on August 10, 2009 at 7:18 am #87371

The bbc in the Uk did a TV programme with Colin Jackson titled “The making of me” where they traced his ancestory and explored the reasons why he was so quick. Turns out he is a mixture of European 38% and 55% african, & 7% native american. Colin Jackson appeared in the BBC One documentary The Making of Me on July 31, 2008 in attempt to find out what had made him such a talented athlete. A sample of his leg muscle showed that he had 25% super fast twitch fibres, when all previous athletes tested had only 2%. Family support was also thought to have been highly significant. Jamaicans are notable for the high level of support and encouragement they give their children in the area of sports. A notable clip showed a stadium in Jamaica with 30000 people cheering on children taking part in an average school sports meet.
They did a biopsy of his muscle fibre and tested for Fast twitch fibre, and found that he had a high percentage of same but when compared with some europeans was similar in those percentages. However they did discover an element of what they called “super fast twitch” , this they claim was unique to some carribeans and small number of west african dna pools. So if this is correct than those lucky few with the “super fast twitch” are through ethnicity destined to be quicker and more explosive.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 7:22 am #87372

[quote author="Jake Sumner" date="1249856339"]After all, the majority of 100m gold medallists after Allen Wells have tested positive for PEDs (Gatlin, Christie, Greene, Johnson, Lewis, etc.).

I think this is a valid point, and I think it’s fully possible that one of the reasons for black dominance today, is the possibilty that black athlete are dirtier than non black athletes. For evidence of this, just look at women’s track and field. People say the reason non black athletes are competitive in women’s track and field is because PEDs help more. That’s probably true (men have 10 times the test level of women), but if everyone dopes equally, the most talented athlete still wins. Also, women make much less money than men I’m sure, making their access to PEDs smaller. And while I won’t diregard the possibility of women’s doping, I think it’s unfair to hold the women’s lack of positives in less esteem than the men’s rash of positives. I won’t get carried away though. Even with women included, black athletes are winning Olympic sprint medals over nonblack athletes at a ratio of 2:1. It’s pretty clear that they are more likely to have the attributes to run at a high level. But let’s not pretend that black athletes are demigods because they’re black.[/quote]

That is the opinion I have and I thought most people had, but apparently not. That’s why this thread was started, because most people will say that only blacks are competitive at the elite (top 20) level.

In a sport that is inherently linked with complete outliers, I thought it was safe to say that any race has the potential to compete. Sure, the 100 is the best possible event for black people, and for some reason one of the weakest for white people. But we all have two legs and fast twitch muscles.

In the last discussion most people were pretty close to saying that blacks will always be the best, even in the most individual of sports. Think of it this way. When out of 6 billion people, a white man (Matic Osovnikar 7th place Osaka) can make the finals of an event that is supposed to be dominated by one race, shouldn’t people question how different we really are in sprinting? And shouldn’t people question why one solitary race has made no improvement in a single event in over 20 years? If anything, whites are faster now, it’s just a matter of getting their interest and finding them.

[Ian Cooley]

Ian Cooley on August 10, 2009 at 7:22 am #87373

There certainly are many fast hockey players though.

You sure about this one?

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 7:27 am #87375

The bbc in the Uk did a TV programme with Colin Jackson titled “The making of me” where they traced his ancestory and explored the reasons why he was so quick. Turns out he is a mixture of European 38% and 55% african, & 7% native american. Colin Jackson appeared in the BBC One documentary The Making of Me on July 31, 2008 in attempt to find out what had made him such a talented athlete. A sample of his leg muscle showed that he had 25% super fast twitch fibres, when all previous athletes tested had only 2%. Family support was also thought to have been highly significant. Jamaicans are notable for the high level of support and encouragement they give their children in the area of sports. A notable clip showed a stadium in Jamaica with 30000 people cheering on children taking part in an average school sports meet.
They did a biopsy of his muscle fibre and tested for Fast twitch fibre, and found that he had a high percentage of same but when compared with some europeans was similar in those percentages. However they did discover an element of what they called “super fast twitch” , this they claim was unique to some carribeans and small number of west african dna pools. So if this is correct than those lucky few with the “super fast twitch” are through ethnicity destined to be quicker and more explosive.

Interesting. Like many have said before this, though, fast twitch muscles are a very small piece of the puzzle. I read that Christophe Lemaitre can’t jump or throw for shit. On a side note, Matt Shirvington was extremely powerful. Yet their PBs were 10.04 and 10.03, respectively. There are many ways to be a good 100m sprinter.

I wonder how white Maurice Greene is. I bet both of his parents are black, but still have a lot of white genes. The average African American is 30% white admixture, and Maurice Greene looks a lot whiter than the average African American.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 7:29 am #87377

[quote author="Jake Sumner" date="1249868334"]There certainly are many fast hockey players though.

You sure about this one?[/quote]

Not as fast as most NFL wide receivers, but still fast. Yes, I am sure.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 10, 2009 at 7:29 am #87378

The bbc in the Uk did a TV programme with Colin Jackson titled “The making of me” where they traced his ancestory and explored the reasons why he was so quick. Turns out he is a mixture of European 38% and 55% african, & 7% native american.

And this kind of thing always make me laugh. If you look at this statement he is black, he isn’t white. This whole ethnicity debate is about throwing white people to the sharks, but tying their hands right before. You won’t hear anyone arguing that Colin Jackson is really of European descent. And Patrick Johnson isn’t really white, because his mom is aborigine. It’s just dumb. In this argument any ethnicity can mix except white people.

[griff]

griff on August 10, 2009 at 7:52 am #87379

Casey Combest? white man, (mostly anyway), one hell of a 60 meter sprinter . Nature V Nurture, whatever genetics he has, had he gotten the support from family and community etc could he have gotten even quicker.
Point being whatever your gentics, the environment you grow up in has a huge bearing.

[Ian Cooley]

Ian Cooley on August 10, 2009 at 8:32 am #87380

Not as fast as most NFL wide receivers, but still fast. Yes, I am sure.

I played hockey for years on numerous teams with a lot of high level (multiple NCAA D1 and NHL) players most of whom I don’t think had the potential to run mid 10s let alone elite times in the sprints. I’d be surprised if there were many hockey players that were that fast because most guys were much better on the ice than their “performance testing numbers” (speed, strength, etc) might suggest.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm #87389

[quote author="Jake Sumner" date="1249869571"]Not as fast as most NFL wide receivers, but still fast. Yes, I am sure.

I played hockey for years on numerous teams with a lot of high level (multiple NCAA D1 and NHL) players most of whom I don’t think had the potential to run mid 10s let alone elite times in the sprints. I’d be surprised if there were many hockey players that were that fast because most guys were much better on the ice than their “performance testing numbers” (speed, strength, etc) might suggest.[/quote]

First of all a natural mid 10 without sprint specific training is an elite time, and I agree I doubt you saw many people who could do that. But some could, and hockey is much higher on the list of events/sports whites take seriously compared to the 100m, and also has more naturally talented people. The best event for a black athlete now due to both their genes and scoio economic and cultural factors, especially in the US, is the 100m. It is the exact opposite case for whites. Soccer/hockey/rugby/tennis are our main sports, and where the majority of white talent lies. But in no way is hockey where all the hidden white Usain Bolts are. Who says that they have to be playing pro sports anyway? I doubt Bolt would go pro in anything except track (maybe WR in American football).

[Ian Cooley]

Ian Cooley on August 10, 2009 at 2:01 pm #87392

First of all a natural mid 10 without sprint specific training is an elite time, and I agree I doubt you saw many people who could do that.

I said potential to run mid10 not untrained ability… big difference

The best event for a black athlete now due to both their genes and scoio economic and cultural factors, especially in the US, is the 100m. It is the exact opposite case for whites.

Off the topic of what I was discussing but haven’t you been arguing that black (west african) athletes aren’t genetically better suited to sprint performance? Here you say, flat out, that their genes better suit them for sprinting…

Soccer/hockey/rugby/tennis are our main sports, and where the majority of white talent lies.

Do you know what % of the white population plays hockey? I don’t but I would have a hard time believing that it exceeds the % that participates in sprinting.

But in no way is hockey where all the hidden white Usain Bolts are.

Like I said… not so much sprint speed amongst hockey players

Who says that they have to be playing pro sports anyway? I doubt Bolt would go pro in anything except track (maybe WR in American football).

I don’t think anyone said they had to be playing pro sports, I certainly didn’t.

[aivala]

aivala on August 10, 2009 at 10:52 pm #87394

Interesting. Like many have said before this, though, fast twitch muscles are a very small piece of the puzzle. I read that Christophe Lemaitre can’t jump or throw for shit. On a side note, Matt Shirvington was extremely powerful. Yet their PBs were 10.04 and 10.03, respectively. There are many ways to be a good 100m sprinter.

Lemaitres lj pb is arround 5.60m, clean 50kg.

[ABCs]

ABCs on August 13, 2009 at 5:15 am #87468

[quote author="Jake Sumner" date="1249886623"]The best event for a black athlete now due to both their genes and scoio economic and cultural factors, especially in the US, is the 100m. It is the exact opposite case for whites.

Off the topic of what I was discussing but haven’t you been arguing that black (west african) athletes aren’t genetically better suited to sprint performance? Here you say, flat out, that their genes better suit them for sprinting…
[/quote]

Here is how it usually works. In America, people of West African usually vote the same, belong to the same political party, and participate in the same types of sports (basketball, football, and sprinting). This is due to cultural and economic factors that are very real, and most people will agree on that. Genetics play a small role in this, and many people will agree on that too.

Now, when I talk about white people and the 100 meter dash, because people of West African descent fare better in comparison to whites at it, people in general assume that this is because of mainly genetics. But this is not true. Genetics again, are an infintesimal factor in comparison to socio economic factors, which favor blacks in pro sports, crime rate, and lower IQ. Little genetics play a role in this.

Stop holding blacks to a differnt standard than whites and stop using the stupid double standards that our society unfortunately rewards you for keeping so close to your heart.