Why African-Americans are superior athletes.

[Conan]

This theory was actually presented to me by a black friend of mine yesterday while discussing why almost all running backs and wide receivers in the NFL are black.

He argued that the reasons African-Americans were athletically superior is because of the physical trials their ancestors went through. From survivng the horrid conditions of the slaveship, to being forced into a life of a slave laborer, an industry in which the individual's physical makeup determined his value, these Africans of higher physical makeup were more likely to survive (perhaps even be selectively bred) and pass on their genes.

I personally had never even considered this idea until he told it to me, however, when I heard it, I didnt find it that far fetched and wondered WHY I had never heard it before.

Has anyone heard this theory? Does it seem like it could have any merit?

Ape, I know you dont think that they are superior athletes. Lets just assume that you are wrong.

[earwax]

I have heard this "theory" for years, ironically from white racists.

Thought it smelled like crap then, and it still smells kind of funny.

[LuridLemur]

My psych teacher mentioned this earlier in the year. Said some sports commentator was fired for mentioning it on the air. I couldn't really say if the theory has any validity, but I wouldn't be surprised it if it did.

[abathur]

Not really unreasonable, such natural selection advantages would reach even farther back in many cases. Tribal africa required survival skills that europe hadn't required for centuries leading into the colonization of the Americas.

There's also a bit of a reasonable case that African American men are more driven to do well in sports because of their life outlook and the cultural glorification of those stars. I think what parents allow their kids to dream about and set as a standard for them does often have an effect on where they end up.

Perhaps a bit of parallelism. How many parents encourage their kids to be rock stars? How many more would encourage their kids more broadly to pursue a pop music career and probably push them along the way? How many "pop stars" were strongly encouraged or pushed by their parents to reach this? If a large % of pop stars would say they were encouraged or pushed into it, it wouldn't seem unreasonable to say they end up with some inherent advantage when it comes down to making it.

[songbird36]

It is a physiological fact that Negroids (if I can be permitted to use that term safely) have on average a lower fat/muscle ratio than Caucasians or Asians. It therefore stands to reason that they should display greater athletic prowess.

[cryingmime]

It isn't possible that runningbacks and wide receivers in the NFL are good because they practice and work hard to be the best, is it? I mean, heaven forbid that someone is good because they really practice and train.

Crackpot theories can be applied to anyone's success... for example:

The reason that american girls are so excellent at gymnastics is because of their ancestors' nautical background. Their forefathers, after crossing the Atlantic ocean by ship, had better senses of balance from having to stand on the decks of ships crossing the choppy sea. Those that survived the treacherous journey had a more developed inner ear,thus a better sense of balance, and were those that begat the american gymnasts that live today.

Good Athletes - African American, European American, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Russian, Hungarian, British, Canadian (...you get the point...) - are good because they practice and train night and day to be that good. They are proud of their skills and are constantly improving themselves.

-r-

[digesthisickness]

i found this (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_insight.html), but the same thing is stated in many more places as a biological fact. i'm not saying in any way that blacks are better, just that it can't be ignored that they are built differently, and so may have an advantage.

"Let's start with the biological differences in sports, which is something almost everyone observes. Jon Entine's recent book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, addresses the old cliche that "white men can't jump" (and the new one that Oriental men jump even less well). Entine shows that in sports, Black men and women have a genetic advantage. Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips, wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle.

Blacks also have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than whites or Orientals. This translates into more explosive energy, which gives Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting."

as far as the theory goes... i'd be more apt to think that because the physical traits came before the slavery, they were possibly part of the reason that they were chosen to take as slaves (among other larger reasons of course).

[Xenophon]

I believe it. I have been playing basketball in parks for a long time, and I have NEVER seen a white person dunk a basketball before (in real life). I know that they exist, but it is not uncommon at all to see black men who are under 6 feet tall dunking. I don't think this can possibly be explained by environmental differences.

Of course, the unspoken corrolary to this theory is that white people survived based on intelligence rather than physical characteristics, and therefore they should be smarter than black people as a race. Of course, I think this idea is completely bogus. Since when have smart people had more children than stupid people? It certainly hasn't helped me hook up with a lot of girls.

[azurwarrior]

Maybe since African-Americans experience discrimination and have for so very long they work harder at completing a dunk shot or a scramble to the end zone than their Caucasion-American counterparts, who it is not as devastatingly important to, perhaps.
How many Black students have been pushed to be a stereotype, excel in sports instead of calculus.
Who mentors them?
It's not entirely a race thing to be big, strong and powerful, or there would not be star athletes who are Native American (also grossly oppressed) or Hispanic or Asian. Baseball, or Sumo wrestling or whatever.
Blacks do seem good at intimidating, in general. So, facing an offensive line, in football for instance, this can be a factor.
Just why are so many so strong. Just look who/what they had to fight in the short time frame of North American history. How strong they had to be. As has been said, but bears repeating, the abysmal condition of slave ships were fatal, in many cases. Only the very strongest survived. And passed this on genetically.
Then, being sold, seperated at whim by whites. How big was their enemy? Slaves were considered chattle, by law. Surviving this must have taken enormous strength of character and will.
No white person is truly qualified to judge, I believe.
Whites are aware of all this, at least at some level. Whites feel guilty and this strenghtens Blacks. Probably this carries over to athletics.
By the way, slavery is not unique-there have been, and are today still slaves of many persuations, all over the globe, and have been, since the beginning of recorded history.
And it is also a historical fact that sometimes black parents sold their own children. Whether it was because they were starving or thought the kids would be better off, or for some other reason.
No one is innocent.

[tinribz]

i found this, but the same thing is stated in many more places as a biological fact. i'm not saying in any way that blacks are better, just that it can't be ignored that they are built differently, and so may have an advantage.


"Let's start with the biological differences in sports, which is something almost everyone observes. Jon Entine's recent book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, addresses the old cliche that "white men can't jump" (and the new one that Oriental men jump even less well). Entine shows that in sports, Black men and women have a genetic advantage. Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips, wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle.

Blacks also have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than whites or Orientals. This translates into more explosive energy, which gives Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting."

as far as the theory goes... i'd be more apt to think that because the physical traits came before the slavery, they were possibly part of the reason that they were chosen to take as slaves (among other larger reasons of course).

This such complete nonsense. As usual you are all making a classic mistake that plagues science and research ... professional and amateur. You have has already decided that they are superior and are looking for evidence to support that.

A far more important question is to look for evidence that says black athletes do indeed dominate sport. Do they? Only then, once this hypothesis has been proven, can you begin to ask why.

You are looking at the world from a very biased stance. Anyone living in North America can be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that blacks dominate sports. I would say black folks make only around 10% of the players/participants ... if that.

Dominance of NBA, NFL and whatever acronym the baseball is called as well a tiny handful of track & field events does not, in my opinion, constitute a domination of sports.

Subjects like this really bother me because they are based on sloppy science. Any "research" by supposedly "credible" authors is, more often than not, seriously flawed. And as such, is not really worth the paper it is written on. They are, however, highly dangerous because people like yourself are taken in (and that is not an insult). If it sounds convincing and has lots of evidence, then it must be true ... right? Wrong.

The real truth is that there is no scientifically credible evidence to support this claim. Using the internet as a research tool is highly dangerous ... you will not find real peer-reviewed science papers to back up your claim. What you will come across are endless pseudo-science articles that have no scientific credibility and that have been written either by fools, people with an agenda or by people that haven?t really the depth of knowledge to be dealing with such a subject.

[kwis]

It isn't possible that runningbacks and wide receivers in the NFL are good because they practice and work hard to be the best, is it? I mean, heaven forbid that someone is good because they really practice and train.

Are you trying to say black people work hard?
Yea, no one ever trains hard in sports. Especially not professionals.

[charred_heart]

A poor family would find it hard to pay for a full education right up to university. If they see that their child is talented in a particular sport, they'd be more enthusiastic about backing him/her when they know their best prospects are a high school education and a low paying job.

A family would be less enthusiastic about letting their child devote all their time to sports when they know they can afford to pay for their child's education.

That doesn't sound totally right, but I know that it has to do more with culture than genetics.

[digesthisickness]

This such complete nonsense. As usual you are all making a classic mistake that plagues science and research ... professional and amateur. You have has already decided that they are superior and are looking for evidence to support that.

A far more important question is to look for evidence that says black athletes do indeed dominate sport. Do they? Only then, once this hypothesis has been proven, can you begin to ask why.

You are looking at the world from a very biased stance.

i don't have any idea if they dominate sports or not. i don't even care if they do or not. all i did was point out that biology came before slavery, so slavery, in my opinion, wouldn't be why, IF IT'S TRUE, blacks would dominate.


Subjects like this really bother me because they are based on sloppy science. Any "research" by supposedly "credible" authors is, more often than not, seriously flawed. And as such, is not really worth the paper it is written on. They are, however, highly dangerous because people like yourself are taken in (and that is not an insult). If it sounds convincing and has lots of evidence, then it must be true ... right? Wrong.

everyone knows about the internet and its dangers, but they also know that it has credible information too. the first doesn't cancel out the latter.

[cryingmime]

Subjects like this really bother me because they are based on sloppy science. Any "research" by supposedly "credible" authors is, more often than not, seriously flawed. And as such, is not really worth the paper it is written on. They are, however, highly dangerous because people like yourself are taken in (and that is not an insult). If it sounds convincing and has lots of evidence, then it must be true ... right? Wrong.

The real truth is that there is no scientifically credible evidence to support this claim. Using the internet as a research tool is highly dangerous ... you will not find real peer-reviewed science papers to back up your claim. What you will come across are endless pseudo-science articles that have no scientific credibility and that have been written either by fools, people with an agenda or by people that haven?t really the depth of knowledge to be dealing with such a subject.


YAY! Another Voice of reason!!!!!

I think that anyone doing research on the internet should have to read the above quote, and go through a course on how to do research before they log on. I, as should all sheeple doing research on the internet, rarely trust information online, unless i can backtrack the source to a credible origin (university, research lab, etc). If there is no backup provided to support a claim, or the author has never been heard from before...i treat it as the opinion that it is.

-r-

p.s. Iif you really want to see an example of pseudo-science about race and dominance/superiority/intelligence that has been debunked, check out the book The Bell Curve. Then read literary reviews/rebuttals on it.

[meshou]

I have heard that people of African descent have a few things going for them-- that fat to muscle ratio, less likely to swell or bleed when injured, a more rounded skull (a major boon when hit in the eye or nose when, say, boxing), and they are, on average, taller.

The swelling and bleeding thing makes any injury something more easily played through, and more easy to heal, and less likely to trouble them when healed.

As for slave ship crap... no. African in general already had those traits.

[Conan]

It isn't possible that runningbacks and wide receivers in the NFL are good because they practice and work hard to be the best, is it? I mean, heaven forbid that someone is good because they really practice and train.


Proportionally, there are many white high school football RBs and WRs, less white division I college RBs and WRs, and at most a handful of white professional RBs and WRs.

Of course NFL RBs and WRs practice and train hard. However, that doesnt change the fact that they are still overwhelmingly black. Are you implying that almost all the individuals that happened to practice and train the harderst to become RBs and WRs just happen to be black?

[ferunandesu]

I believe it. I have been playing basketball in parks for a long time, and I have NEVER seen a white person dunk a basketball before (in real life).

I've NEVER seen a white person playing basketball in a park.

I have seen white people dunk, at school, in gym... but only because they were called out. I've seen a 5'8 blond haired blue eyed white boy dunk a basketball. I've seen white, non-football players run sub 4'5 40 yard dashes. I've seen white people bench press 400+ pounds (in high school). I see extremely tall and lanky white people everyday. On average, the black people at my school (UGA) are relatively short (except for the basketball players).

[Lee]

The real truth is that there is no scientifically credible evidence to support this claim. Using the internet as a research tool is highly dangerous ... you will not find real peer-reviewed science papers to back up your claim. What you will come across are endless pseudo-science articles that have no scientific credibility and that have been written either by fools, people with an agenda or by people that haven?t really the depth of knowledge to be dealing with such a subject.
And...


This such complete nonsense. As usual you are all making a classic mistake that plagues science and research ... professional and amateur. You have has already decided that they are superior and are looking for evidence to support that.Okay, provide the articles that debunk all of these claims, please. You sound awfully hypocritical at the moment.

Fact is, professional sports tend to be disproportionally represented by different racial groups, it isn't just as simple as "black = better" either. It largley depends on what that particular sport requires, which might be endurance, speed, accuracy, strength etc. Physical characteristics, such as bone structure, skin tone, height, body fat tend to cluster around particular ethnic groups, just as sporting talents tend to cluster in individual families, but on a much larger scale. This is why endurance races tend to be dominated by people of African highland ancestory, swimming events by people of European ancestory and sprinting events by people of Afro-European ancestory.

Any clustering of these talents will simply mean that some ethnic groups will produce more talented individuals in particular domains than others, and when we are talking about professional sport, tiny differences can make all the difference.

However, people probably overexagerrate the differences, because any slight difference there to begin with will be reinforced through life, simply because people generally like doing that which they are good at. Any further schism down ethno-cultural lines no doubt stengthens this divide.

[KuJo]

saying that there are more blacks than other races in football is not proof that they are better than other races at it. look at the skee ball thing in the olympics, not a single black person in the whole league. does that mean whites are somehow better than all other races at it? yes, because other races dont play it, but it also doesnt mean that a black team couldnt train hard and be the best. this is a game based on skill and slight spin, does that mean whites have more finesse than other races at it? no. so really you only have a disadvantage in sports if your crippled, or retarded.

[MacGuffin]

saying that there are more blacks than other races in football is not proof that they are better than other races at it. look at the skee ball thing in the olympics, not a single black person in the whole league.How many people play skee ball, or curling, or whatever minor sport you think up?

Now compare them to the masses in the U.S. playing baseball, basketball, football, and track. You need a large sample pool.

[Conan]

saying that there are more blacks than other races in football is not proof that they are better than other races at it. look at the skee ball thing in the olympics, not a single black person in the whole league. does that mean whites are somehow better than all other races at it? yes, because other races dont play it, but it also doesnt mean that a black team couldnt train hard and be the best. this is a game based on skill and slight spin, does that mean whites have more finesse than other races at it? no. so really you only have a disadvantage in sports if your crippled, or retarded.

No one is claiming there are more blacks in the NFL than other races (there may be but if there are, its close). What is a fact is that the most athletically demanding positions (especially in terms of speed): running back, wide receiver, and defensive back are OVERWHELMINGLY made up of peope of african-american heritage. Meanwhile, the majority of quarterbacks and kickers are white while linebackers, linemen, and tight ends tend to be split pretty evenly between blacks and whites.

[Dr. Haight]

I have been banging this topic around in my head for years, and have come to a comfortable position. My belief is the reason blacks are overrepresented in some sports has to do with opportunity, or lack there of, rather than any measurable genetic pattern. I really need to write a paper on this someday, but let me just throw out a few claims that can be smacked around a bit.

-For the black community, opportunities to reach the "American dream" are few and far between. Furthermore, the average black kids perception of future success is even more limited. Sports that have low barriers to entry (publicly provided sport facilities, require one to only need a ball), basketball, football, baseball, etc. are more accessible to blacks as opposed to sports that require greater resources. This creates a situation in which a greater percentage of blacks play these sports relative to the percentage of their white counter-parts. This would be most familiar during the K-12 years of ones life in America.

-A second consideration is that as the years go by, whites are exposed to a greater amount of professional opportunities, and choices, as compared to blacks. Hence, the future expands for whites after High School and contracts for blacks. I do believe that blacks perceive their choices to be even more limited than they actually are, yet they are grossly limited relative to whites.

Hypothetical example:
Now, for instance, average white dude on the High School basketball team says, "I can do X,Y,and Z, rather than bust my ass for the coach at the next level, and even now, for that matter...heck, I can just go to college and party like a rock star," while black dude on the High School basketball team says, "I have to raise my game now...I have to get to the next level, and I am have to put in the training to get their if I am going to make it to college." Furthermore, black dude says, "College is not designed for me, and the corporate world is definitely not suited for the average black folk...even so, if I put a tie on, the boys back home would rip me a new one."

Look, I know I am generalizing, and I have yet to collect any data to substantiate my hypothetical or my claims. And one must consider the average blacks income and opportunity level relative to the average whites average per household income level to have a better grasp of my hypothetical. However, I'm just musing here and thought someone might consider this theory.

[ferunandesu]

It is a physiological fact that Negroids (if I can be permitted to use that term safely) have on average a lower fat/muscle ratio than Caucasians or Asians. It therefore stands to reason that they should display greater athletic prowess.

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2004/1703.html
http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2004/17032.html

it would appear to me that this isn't true at all. maybe for males, but males are also the ones under the most cultural pressure to succeed as athletes, and to keep up their physical appearances.

i had friends in high school who would go home everyday, play basketball for hours, and do 100 - 200 pushups every night just to maintain their muscle tone.

[Lee]

saying that there are more blacks than other races in football is not proof that they are better than other races at it. look at the skee ball thing in the olympics, not a single black person in the whole league. does that mean whites are somehow better than all other races at it? yes, because other races dont play it, but it also doesnt mean that a black team couldnt train hard and be the best. this is a game based on skill and slight spin, does that mean whites have more finesse than other races at it? no. so really you only have a disadvantage in sports if your crippled, or retarded.Even when all else is held constant similar patterns emerge, especially in the big sports. Of course, I don't expect any discernable difference between racial groups in Olympic curling, but the patterns are too consistent to be written off, especially in sports where the difference between being the best and being mediocre is a matter of 10mm or 1 second.

The spread of genetic information through the gene pool isn't even and this basically because of geographic seperation of our ancestors. The irrefutable proof is that there are consistent patterns in body shape and general appearence! any uneven distribution of genes that gives a particular group even the slightest advantage of developing a particular phenotype useful in a competitive sport, will ensure that group - all else being equal - produces more talented individuals than other groups.

It's almost absurd to think this isn't the case, since there are obvious patterns to physical shape and bone structure, small differences that can mean all the difference in competitive sport.

Unless you're calling the stopwatch a racist.

[KuJo]

No one is claiming there are more blacks in the NFL than other races (there may be but if there are, its close). What is a fact is that the most athletically demanding positions: running back, wide receiver, and defensive back are OVERWHELMINGLY made up of peope of african-american heritage. Meanwhile, the majority of quarterbacks and kickers are white while linebackers, linemen, and tight ends tend to be split pretty evenly between blacks and whites.

yeah i know. i was trying to say that skill comes from training, not biology(ok maybe a little, like height, but thats not exclusive to race.). There isnt really an edge that one race has over other races. Plus, i think its partly culture.

[KuJo]

Even when all else is held constant similar patterns emerge, especially in the big sports. Of course, I don't expect any discernable difference between racial groups in Olympic curling, but the patterns are too consistent to be written off, especially in sports where the difference between being the best and being mediocre is a matter of 10mm or 1 second.

The spread of genetic information through the gene pool isn't even and this basically because of geographic seperation of our ancestors. The irrefutable proof is that there are consistent patterns in body shape and general appearence! any uneven distribution of genes that gives a particular group even the slightest advantage of developing a particular phenotype useful in a competitive sport, will ensure that group - all else being equal - produces more talented individuals than other groups.

It's almost absurd to think this isn't the case, since there are obvious patterns to physical shape and bone structure, small differences that can mean all the difference in competitive sport.

Unless you're calling the stopwatch a racist.

yes there are biological traits that would help you in competitive sports. but, they are nothing without training. All those running backs do a damn lot of training to be as good as they are. especially when their egos are as big as the stadium and they have to outdo all the other running backs, or players on the field for that matter.

[ferunandesu]

Even when all else is held constant similar patterns emerge,

Where are you getting this information? How are all things being held constant? As far as I can see, you're talking out of your ass.

[MacGuffin]

yeah i know. i was trying to say that skill comes from training, not biology(ok maybe a little, like height, but thats not exclusive to race.). There isnt really an edge that one race has over other races. Plus, i think its partly culture.
Then why aren't there more white WR and RBs? Most of them are in fact white as you go down through the ranks college -> high school -> pee wee

[Dr. Haight]

Where are you getting this information? How are all things being held constant? As far as I can see, you're talking out of your ass.

If that's the case, then he has a very smart ass.
(sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[ferunandesu]

Then why aren't there more white WR and RBs? Most of them are in fact white as you go down through the ranks college -> high school -> pee wee

And where are you getting this information? That's not true at all. If you go down through the ranks, they're black, black, and black.

[ferunandesu]

We might as well say that more blacks are rappers because they're genetically superior rhymers.

[Lee]

Where are you getting this information? How are all things being held constant? As far as I can see, you're talking out of your ass.Maybe this may be too anecdotal for you, but even form my own experience, back in school, there were few black kids in my school, they were of similar socio-economic status, their parents had lived here for years (probably second generation, at least), I knew of no kind of cultural divide between them and white kids that went to my school, but sure enough, despite being a minority, they were disproportionately represented amongst the fastest in my yeargroup.

I'd put money that this occurs all the time, that other people would be able to recite similar stories, even when there was an absence of racism and no cultural divide, when there was no good reason to explain the difference other than a genetic advantage.

[KuJo]

Then why aren't there more white WR and RBs? Most of them are in fact white as you go down through the ranks college -> high school -> pee wee


Then why aren't there more white WR and RBs? Most of them are in fact white as you go down through the ranks college -> high school -> pee wee

hell if i know. im just saying the pros are pros because of training. There are people of certain builds in all races, builds which would be perfect for being running backs etc., and considering how many people there are in the world, the field "should" be even. tell me if i need to flush that out.

[MacGuffin]

And where are you getting this information? That's not true at all. If you go down through the ranks, they're black, black, and black.
WTF are you talking about? You mean to tell me you go to a high school in the middle of South Dakota and they are black?

[ferunandesu]

I'd put money that this occurs all the time, that other people would be able to recite similar stories, even when there was an absence of racism and no cultural divide, when there was no good reason to explain the difference other than a genetic advantage.

This did not occur at my school. My high school was 48 % white and 47 % black. All of the RB's and WR's were black (except for 1), but none of them ran sub 4'5 40 yard dashes... While there were around 5 white guys who could, and 1 who ran under a 4'4 (he was the only one who played football, the rest were soccer players).

Also, despite having quite a few latin americans, none of them played baseball. Something that they should be genetically predisposed to because of their obvious genetic advantages in speed, flexibility, hand eye coordination, and dexterity demonstrated by their dominance of Major League Baseball.

[ferunandesu]

WTF are you talking about? You mean to tell me you go to a high school in the middle of South Dakota and they are black?

Of course there are more white football players in South Dakota. BLACK PEOPLE DON'T LIVE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (or around 1% do, but you know what I mean).

[MacGuffin]

Of course there are more white football players in South Dakota. BLACK PEOPLE DON'T LIVE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (or around 1% do, but you know what I mean).
And that is what I am talking about. The whole country. Every high school with a football team. White people EVERYWHERE. How come none of those white running backs never make it out of their podunk town?

[KuJo]

And that is what I am talking about. The whole country. Every high school with a football team. White people EVERYWHERE. How come none of those white running backs never make it out of their podunk town?

scholarships?

[MacGuffin]

scholarships?
Yeah, why don't they get them?

[ferunandesu]

And that is what I am talking about. The whole country. Every high school with a football team. White people EVERYWHERE. How come none of those white running backs never make it out of their podunk town?

Oh. I forgot to mention. SOUTH DAKOTA DOESN'T HAVE PEOPLE.

NO ONE makes it out of the podunk towns.

No one scouts there, and there isn't a large enough population to create a sizeable amount of athletes.

[MacGuffin]

Oh. I forgot to mention. SOUTH DAKOTA DOESN'T HAVE PEOPLE.

NO ONE makes it out of the podunk towns.Jerry Rice did.

[ferunandesu]

Jerry Rice did.

Jerry Rice was lucky. Jerry Rice also didn't come from South Dakota.

Jerry Rice also had a slow 40 time (4'6ish). He was also small.

He was just a good player.

[MacGuffin]

Jerry Rice was lucky. Jerry Rice also didn't come from South Dakota.

Jerry Rice also had a slow 40 time (4'6ish). He was also small.Maybe he's really white.

[Dr. Haight]

And that is what I am talking about. The whole country. Every high school with a football team. White people EVERYWHERE. How come none of those white running backs never make it out of their podunk town?
Read my post a few pages back...I think it has relevance.

[MacGuffin]

Read the post a few pages back...I think it has relevance.
I'm still on the first page... which one?

[Dr. Haight]

I'm still on the first page... which one?
#22

[ferunandesu]

You guys remember Matt Jones? The Arkansas quarterback? The best athlete in the NFL?

6'6 242 lbs. and a 4'38 40 yard dash... THAT'S INSANE

how can someone that tall and that heavy run that fast?

he's also quite white.

[Conan]

Then why aren't there more white WR and RBs? Most of them are in fact white as you go down through the ranks college -> high school -> pee wee

right over his head

[KuJo]

Yeah, why don't they get them?

well if its a case in the south... i think you know why.

[MacGuffin]

You guys remember Matt Jones? The Arkansas quarterback? The best athlete in the NFL?

6'6 242 lbs. and a 4'38 40 yard dash... THAT'S INSANE

how can someone that tall and that heavy run that fast?

he's also quite white.
Actually he didn't run the 40 that fast, but that is another discussion about the NFL and their screwed up 40 yard times.

There are plenty of white people that are excellent athletes. But we are talking about averages and majorities.


well if its a case in the south... i think you know why.
White people, NOT getting a break in the south?!? Ok...


#22
Oh yes, culture does play a huge factor. It just doesn't explain everything. I don't think there is a huge cultural factor in becoming an Olympic sprinter, not like basketball and football. Yet how many white sprinters has the U.S. had on their 4x100 relay in oh... the past 40 years?

[ferunandesu]

Actually he didn't run the 40 that fast, but that is another discussion about the NFL and their screwed up 40 yard times.



I see 4'37, 4'38, and 4'39. I stuck with 4'38 - the official combine time.

[KuJo]

White people, NOT getting a break in the south?!? Ok...




seriously, white people are getting shafted in the south for scholarships. minorities are getting full rides to places like Vanderbilt over white kids with much better credentials. and im not even sure if you were being sarcastic, its hailing and ive got to shut this mutha down!

[ferunandesu]

Yet how many white sprinters has the U.S. had on their 4x100 relay in oh... the past 40 years?

How many white people aspire to be sprinters? How many actually go out to see how fast they are?

How many of you know your time in the 100 m dash?

[MacGuffin]

I see 4'37, 4'38, and 4'39. I stuck with 4'38 - the official combine time.Well Ben Johnson is supp. to have ran the fastest 40 ever, when he broke the world record for the 100 at the Olympics in 1988.

He ran a 4.39 for those 40 yards.

The NFL's 40 times just aren't legit.

[MacGuffin]

How many white people aspire to be sprinters? How many actually go out to see how fast they are?

How many of you know your time in the 100 m dash?
How many people period aspire to be sprinters? If you have the talent on a world class level you will know.

[ferunandesu]

Well Ben Johnson is supp. to have ran the fastest 40 ever, when he broke the world record for the 100 at the Olympics in 1988.

He ran a 4.39 for those 40 yards.

The NFL's 40 times just aren't legit.

People who train for the 100 meter dash don't train for the 40. Believe it or not, you have to pace yourself for the 100 m. They run the fastest during the 3rd 4th of the run.

People run under 4'39's all the damn time. The 40 is more about burst speed and quickness.

Deion Sanders ran a 4'1. He's in his late 30's now, and can still break a 4'39.

Michael Vick runs under a 4'3. Marcus Vick ran a 4'22.

Also, Ben Johnson does't hold the record for the 100 m. It's Asafa Powell.

[MacGuffin]

People who train for the 100 meter dash don't train for the 40. Believe it or not, you have to pace yourself for the 100 m. They run the fastest during the 3rd 4th of the run.

People run under 4'39's all the damn time. The 40 is more about burst speed and quickness.

Deion Sanders ran a 4'1. He's in his late 30's now, and can still break a 4'39.

Michael Vick runs under a 4'3. Marcus Vick ran a 4'22.

Also, Ben Johnson does't hold the record for the 100 m. It's Asafa Powell.http://www.usoc.org/11611_32384.htm

[ferunandesu]

combine times are measured by video tape

what coaches say doesn't matter. times are usually low pre combine, and higher later on.

but as I said above, 100 m dash runners train for the 100 m dash. the writer of that article was assuming that a 4.39 by Ben Johnson meant that he was slower than half the NFL. first of all, half the NFL doesn't run under a 4'39. second, if Ben Johnson had wanted to run faster than a 4'39, then he could.

the writer of that article obviously doesn't know shit.

[cryingmime]

I'm so glad that this thread has become a thread about sprinting. It's far less volatile, and it's late, so we all could use a little calming down.

-r-

[Marazul]

Jimmy the Greek Snyder explained this thought once! It didn't go over well, never heard from him again. So watch your step. lol!

Actually American mix race people seem to have some physical advantages,
but then the desert folk from northern African, the skinny little buggers seem to be able to run longer distances better. But then the strongest guys seem to be from east Europe, but then Paul Anderson was from the USA.
Well I have confused myself.

Did you know that there are nearly no INTP in professional sports! I think
Natimbi Mutumbo is the only one. Why do you think that would happen?
I know I could shoot foul shot better in High school than everyone on my local pro team (Trailblazers)but I sure never even gave it a thought to work hard enough to be a pro baller. Too many other things I could do better. Or maybe we just are not driven hard enough, motovated.

Did you get an answer? I doubt it. <_<

[ferunandesu]

Tiger Woods?

[Marazul]

Tiger Woods?nm

[meshou]

seriously, white people are getting shafted in the south for scholarships. minorities are getting full rides to places like Vanderbilt over white kids with much better credentials. and im not even sure if you were being sarcastic, its hailing and ive got to shut this mutha down!I have to step back and say this: does this mean that middle class unqualified black kids who would be going to college anyway are going to college because they are black, or that underpriveleged less talented people who would have otherwise not gone to college are getting free rides over more talented people who would be going anyway?

Sometimes the former will happen. A lot of the time it's the second.

[Pooja]

I'm against affirmative action, but probably just because it REALLY does not benefit asians at all. In fact, we're worse off than Caucasions, b/c Asians, and especially Indians, have much more of an "over-representation" problem. Maybe if it helped me, I'd be for it. Yeah, that sounds very selfish, but I'm being honest here.
Oh, and it also sucks to be indian, because we SUCK at sports. All sports. Can you name one single Indian professional athlete? I can't.

[Melange]

The correct phrase is "non asian minorities". One must be specific now for the reasons that Pooja said above. So only some minorities and not all minorities get in on the affirmative action?, that is my question.

[INThoughtPolice]

Entine shows that in sports, Black men and women have a genetic advantage. Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips, wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle.


Well if you are correct, this does not give blacks any advantage in swimming, water polo etc., or any sports in the cold. I don't believe that blacks dominate baseball either. Everyone is different and better at certain things than one another. It is easy to lump ALL sports into one category and say that a particular race is better at them because of who you see on basketball and football commercials. This was an ignorant book and post for that matter. (no offense to anyone)

[meshou]

The correct phrase is "non asian minorities". One must be specific now for the reasons that Pooja said above. So only some minorities and not all minorities get in on the affirmative action?, that is my question.My understanding is that undreerpresented minorities at the time it was insituted benefit.

I've also heard complaints it benefited women as a whole much more than any other group.

So INTP ladies, apply to colleges as math majors or engineers and for scholarships. You WILL get much help, and you WILL get nearly any job you want as long as you are at least average.

[digesthisickness]

Well if you are correct, this does not give blacks any advantage in swimming, water polo etc., or any sports in the cold. I don't believe that blacks dominate baseball either. Everyone is different and better at certain things than one another. It is easy to lump ALL sports into one category and say that a particular race is better at them because of who you see on basketball and football commercials. This was an ignorant book and post for that matter. (no offense to anyone)

i've already said this once, but i'll repeat it. i don't know or care if blacks dominate any sport. the OP asked about our thoughts on a theory his friend had involving blacks and their ability in sports being connected to slave ships, etc.

i found an article that cited a book, yes, but also quite a few others stating basically the same thing... that there is a definite difference in races and that it does make a difference when it comes to certain sports. this (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0657b.htm) is another one.

my only interest in posting was to address the OP's question, which i did. that if they are better at sports because of a genetic reason, the reason would have been present before they were ever taken as slaves. that is, no, i didn't agree with his friend's theory.

no offense taken, since it seems that we were just on different wave-lengths :)

[INThoughtPolice]

i've already said this once, but i'll repeat it. i don't know or care if blacks dominate any sport. the OP asked about our thoughts on a theory his friend had involving blacks and their ability in sports being connected to slave ships, etc.

i found an article that cited a book, yes, but also quite a few others stating basically the same thing... that there is a definite difference in races and that it does make a difference when it comes to certain sports. this (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0657b.htm) is another one.

my only interest in posting was to address the OP's question, which i did. that if they are better at sports because of a genetic reason, the reason would have been present before they were ever taken as slaves. that is, no, i didn't agree with his friend's theory.
My point was that you and everyone else on this thread only choose to focus on a select few sports. Lean muscle does not help anyone swim or do anything in the cold. Everyone is attempting to answer a question that is much too broad. Everyone has just thoughtlessly narrowed it down to 2 or 3 sports!!!!!
:banghead: Good to see another ENTP though. :)

[digesthisickness]

nah, i didn't concentrate on any sport in particular because sports wasn't what i was talking about. i was only speaking of the genetic differences, since they were what would back up my saying that biology would have come before the slave ships, etc. the article may have, but that's not what i was interested in at all.


Good to see another ENTP though. :)

same here happppy

[MacGuffin]

Oh, and it also sucks to be indian, because we SUCK at sports. All sports. Can you name one single Indian professional athlete? I can't.
Outside of cricket?

[INThoughtPolice]

Outside of cricket?
Knowledgebowl.

[SensEye]

I'm against affirmative action, but probably just because it REALLY does not benefit asians at all. In fact, we're worse off than Caucasions, b/c Asians, and especially Indians, have much more of an "over-representation" problem. Maybe if it helped me, I'd be for it. Yeah, that sounds very selfish, but I'm being honest here.


Maybe you should get a DNA test.



Genetic tests, once obscure tools for scientists, have begun to influence everyday lives in many ways. The tests are reshaping people's sense of themselves ? where they came from, why they behave as they do, what disease might be coming their way.
It may be only natural then that ethnic ancestry tests, one of the first commercial products to emerge from the genetic revolution, are spurring a thorough exploration of the question, What is in it for me?

...

Ashley Klett's younger sister marked the "Asian" box on her college applications this year, after the elder Ms. Klett, 20, took a DNA test that said she was 2 percent East Asian and 98 percent European.

....

Shonda Brinson, an African-American college student, is still trying to figure out how best to apply her DNA results on employment forms.
In some cases, she has chosen to write in her actual statistics ? 89 percent sub-Saharan African, 6 percent European and 5 percent East Asian. But she figures her best bet may be just checking all relevant boxes.
"That way, of the three categories they won't be able to determine which percentage is bigger," Ms. Brinson said.


Maybe you could scape together a percent or two of something to qualify you for aff. action.

From NY Times article: Seeking ancestry in DNA (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/us/12genes.html?ex=1145764800&en=2af4d28f6672d8bd&ei=5070)

Getting back to the thread subject, it would be interesting to see the DNA composition of the black athletes in the dominant positions. Would there be a correlation between a higher percentage of African DNA and superior athletic ability, or would mixed race proove superior? Might shed some light on the whole black DNA = superior explosive speed argument.

[Pooja]

Knowledgebowl.

hmm... is that like quizbowl? I used to be on my highschool team for that, and they did (somehow) count it as a sport. I even got to waive some phys.ed. requirements through that. Our team was in the top 30 nationally.

[Fingers]

Indians are good at hockey, kabaddi, they're coming up in the Tennis and they need to make yoga an olympic sport... who can put their leg behind there had the fastest GO GO GO!

[INThoughtPolice]

hmm... is that like quizbowl? I used to be on my highschool team for that, and they did (somehow) count it as a sport. I even got to waive some phys.ed. requirements through that. Our team was in the top 30 nationally.
Yeah, that's the same thing.

[sbw]

This theory was actually presented to me by a black friend of mine yesterday while discussing why almost all running backs and wide receivers in the NFL are black.

He argued that the reasons African-Americans were athletically superior is because of the physical trials their ancestors went through. From survivng the horrid conditions of the slaveship, to being forced into a life of a slave laborer, an industry in which the individual's physical makeup determined his value, these Africans of higher physical makeup were more likely to survive (perhaps even be selectively bred) and pass on their genes.

chris rock claims that slaveowners did engage in selective breeding; he even uses the NFL as an example. obviously, chris rock is no geneticist or historian...but the whole thing certainly looks bad for whitey, rock's biggest whipping post, and so there seems to be no motive for him to lie about or invent the story.

of course, this could be entirely true and still have no bearing whatsoever upon the discussion. who knows.

Scott

[azurwarrior]

Oh, and it also sucks to be indian, because we SUCK at sports. All sports. Can you name one single Indian professional athlete? I can't.


No, but I HAVE heard of Indian holy men who survive in caves for 30 years without food or water in some kinds of altered states.
I think this can be considered strength(!)

[Pooja]

No, but I HAVE heard of Indian holy men who survive in caves for 30 years without food or water in some kinds of altered states.
I think this can be considered strength(!)

The newest Olympic sport: Cave survival! Who can survive until the NEXT olympics, without any food or water?

[Architectonic]

The newest Olympic sport: Cave survival! Who can survive until the NEXT olympics, without any food or water?

Sounds more like a reality tv show. :P

[euterpenc]

Blacks are better athletes because in Africa they had to hunt by chasing things down running fast etc. That is why their nostrils are big: so they can inhale more air. White's never had to do things so vigorous on an everyday basis.

[meshou]

Blacks are better athletes because in Africa they had to hunt by chasing things down running fast etc. That is why their nostrils are big: so they can inhale more air. White's never had to do things so vigorous on an everyday basis.Except running down game in bitter cold weather, either raping coastlines or having theirs raped, and surviving several plagues?

[charred_heart]

Blacks are better athletes because in Africa they had to hunt by chasing things down running fast etc. That is why their nostrils are big: so they can inhale more air. White's never had to do things so vigorous on an everyday basis.
that statement is not very intelligent.

[tinribz]

that statement is not very intelligent.I think the point was neither is this thread.

[Conan]

I think the point was neither is this thread.

Then dont post in it.

[coffeezombie]

Blacks are better athletes because in Africa they had to hunt by chasing things down running fast etc. That is why their nostrils are big: so they can inhale more air. White's never had to do things so vigorous on an everyday basis.
Do you have any sources on this or did you just make it up?

[azurwarrior]

Oh, and it also sucks to be indian, because we SUCK at sports. All sports. Can you name one single Indian professional athlete? I can't.


Sachin Tendulkar-Cricket

Eric Prabhakar-Olympic Champion

Samaresh Jung-Gold medalist 2006 Commonwealth Games

Well, there's at least one, anyway, Pooja. And I think the other 2 also deserve some credit.
(az ducks head)

[Mr. Beef]

Not all black people are athletic, they just tend to have more atheletes that other races. This is because some groups of black people are highly athletic, namely those who originate from the savannahs. Their hot environment selected for tall slender bodies that could release heat easily. Similarly, groups of people who live up north have short stocky bodies that are good at retaining heat. As for speed, it's possible that this developed in order to hunt game. On the savannah, there was little vegetation so the peoples' primary source of food was meat. It would've been advantageous to be fast so that they could get within spear-launching distance. Not only this, but they had to run from predators as well. These conditions favored speed, and it's common for savannah animals to be unusually fast since both predator and prey need to be able to run quickly over long flat stretches of land. While people in the north also had to hunt game, they used differenty methods. In the cold north it was difficult actually chase after game because the land was usually rocky, uneven, mountainous, forrested and covered in snow unlike the flat spacious savannahs. In the north people had to learn how to adapt by setting traps and studying animal behavior, weather patterns, etc. As for nose size, I have no idea. Zeitgeist's explanation was very likely false. And as for whites not having to do anything vigorous on a daily basis, that is certainly false. Everyone back then had to do things vigorous on a daily basis.



Another possible explanation (that's not mutually exclusive with the first) is that the less athletic and robust blacks died. It's difficult enough to survive on the savannah let alone a slave plantation that favors physique. Blacks had to go through both conditions where only the most athletic were selected for.

People generally won't acknowledge that there are logical reason for why certain races have unique characteristics, but there's usually a reason. Though it's possible that some random genetic variation occurred to create a certain phenotype, more often it's the case that that genetic variation was naturally-selected, especially when it's a characteristic found across the majority of a race or species (i.e. asians having slanted eyes, white people being white, black people being black, etc.). Analyzing living organisms using the principles of natural selection, etc., while refusing to subject humans to the same principles is employing a double standard. We're nothing special, just a highly-developed animal species.

[JBHunt]

Wow...now tweak Mr. Beef's statement and replace "athleticism" with "penis size" and you get a more interesting theory...
Let's give it a try...


Not all black people are well endowed, they just tend to have bigger penises than other races. This is because some groups of black people are highly horny, namely those who originate from the savannahs. Their hot environment selected for tall slender penises that could release heat easily. Similarly, groups of people who live up north have short stocky penises that are good at retaining heat. As for stroke speed, it's possible that this developed in order to hunt game. On the savannah, there was little vegetation so the peoples' primary source of food was meat. It would've been advantageous to be fast so that they could get within spear-launching distance. Not only this, but they had to run from predators as well. These conditions favored stroke speed, and it's common for savannah animals to be unusually fast since both predator and prey need to be able to run quickly over long flat stretches of land. While people in the north also had to hunt game, they used differenty methods. In the cold north it was difficult actually chase after game because the land was usually rocky, uneven, mountainous, forrested and covered in snow unlike the flat spacious savannahs. In the north people had to learn how to adapt by setting traps and studying animal behavior, weather patterns, etc. As for ball size, I have no idea. Zeitgeist's explanation was very likely false. And as for whites not having to do anything vigorous on a daily basis, that is certainly false. Everyone back then had to do things vigorous on a daily basis.

Another possible explanation (that's not mutually exclusive with the first) is that the less endowed and robust blacks died. It's difficult enough to survive on the savannah let alone a slave plantation that favors physique. Blacks had to go through both conditions where only the most well endowed were selected for.

People generally won't acknowledge that there are logical reason for why certain races have unique characteristics, but there's usually a reason. Though it's possible that some random genetic variation occurred to create a certain phenotype, more often it's the case that that genetic variation was naturally-selected, especially when it's a characteristic found across the majority of a race or species (i.e. asians having the smallest dicks, white people being in the middle, black people having the biggest, etc.). Analyzing living organisms using the principles of natural selection, etc., while refusing to subject humans to the same principles is employing a double standard. We're nothing special, just a highly-developed animal species.

there...it's better now.

[screamingflies]

Funny

I think they have "bigger penises" because they were less clothed due to the hotter climate and mated based more on these attributes. Indeed many tribes ran around naked. Also- since most women in the area have been underfed for a long time they develop higher tendancies towards retaining fat on their asses & boobs.

Can anyone think of an evolutionary theory explaining the asian cliche...

Maybe since their culture is much more reserved it doesnt promote selective mating.. the woman doesnt see the penis before wedding night (& then she's in for a real shock).

[screamingflies]

that statement is not very intelligent.
yes it is...

[charred_heart]

yes it is...
Coming from someone with 20 dancing bananas in his sig...

[euterpenc]

Do you have any sources on this or did you just make it up?

I heard it somewhere but I forget where, and I'm sure I left things out.

[euterpenc]

Not all black people are athletic, they just tend to have more atheletes that other races. This is because some groups of black people are highly athletic, namely those who originate from the savannahs. Their hot environment selected for tall slender bodies that could release heat easily. Similarly, groups of people who live up north have short stocky bodies that are good at retaining heat. As for speed, it's possible that this developed in order to hunt game. On the savannah, there was little vegetation so the peoples' primary source of food was meat. It would've been advantageous to be fast so that they could get within spear-launching distance. Not only this, but they had to run from predators as well. These conditions favored speed, and it's common for savannah animals to be unusually fast since both predator and prey need to be able to run quickly over long flat stretches of land. While people in the north also had to hunt game, they used differenty methods. In the cold north it was difficult actually chase after game because the land was usually rocky, uneven, mountainous, forrested and covered in snow unlike the flat spacious savannahs. In the north people had to learn how to adapt by setting traps and studying animal behavior, weather patterns, etc. As for nose size, I have no idea. Zeitgeist's explanation was very likely false. And as for whites not having to do anything vigorous on a daily basis, that is certainly false. Everyone back then had to do things vigorous on a daily basis.



Another possible explanation (that's not mutually exclusive with the first) is that the less athletic and robust blacks died. It's difficult enough to survive on the savannah let alone a slave plantation that favors physique. Blacks had to go through both conditions where only the most athletic were selected for.

People generally won't acknowledge that there are logical reason for why certain races have unique characteristics, but there's usually a reason. Though it's possible that some random genetic variation occurred to create a certain phenotype, more often it's the case that that genetic variation was naturally-selected, especially when it's a characteristic found across the majority of a race or species (i.e. asians having slanted eyes, white people being white, black people being black, etc.). Analyzing living organisms using the principles of natural selection, etc., while refusing to subject humans to the same principles is employing a double standard. We're nothing special, just a highly-developed animal species.

because walking down to the local market to buy one's food is a very vigorous exercise.

[Mr. Beef]

because walking down to the local market to buy one's food is a very vigorous exercise.


Because they HAD local markets back in neolithic times....

<_<

[Marston]

Hell, walking down to the local market wasn't all that big until the Industrial Revolution.

[euterpenc]

Hell, walking down to the local market wasn't all that big until the Industrial Revolution.

So in Biblical times they didn't have markets, where they sell fish and other things for the Romans to take over for the purpose of profit? Yeah....

[Conan]

You are looking at the world from a very biased stance. Anyone living in North America can be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that blacks dominate sports.



Notice the use of the word african american (as opposed to black) in the title.

[Metal_Fingers]

"Why African-Americans are superior athletes..."

hm, that law must have skipped me...

[Ferrus]

To be fair, atheles from Africa seem to dominate long distance running.

[Zero Angel]

This theory was actually presented to me by a black friend of mine yesterday while discussing why almost all running backs and wide receivers in the NFL are black.

He argued that the reasons African-Americans were athletically superior is because of the physical trials their ancestors went through. From survivng the horrid conditions of the slaveship, to being forced into a life of a slave laborer, an industry in which the individual's physical makeup determined his value, these Africans of higher physical makeup were more likely to survive (perhaps even be selectively bred) and pass on their genes.

I personally had never even considered this idea until he told it to me, however, when I heard it, I didnt find it that far fetched and wondered WHY I had never heard it before.

Has anyone heard this theory? Does it seem like it could have any merit?

Ape, I know you dont think that they are superior athletes. Lets just assume that you are wrong.
Sounds like racism to me. :)

[Mr. Beef]

So in Biblical times they didn't have markets, where they sell fish and other things for the Romans to take over for the purpose of profit? Yeah....


Any physical adaptations would have taken place well before this time...we're talking a hundred thousand years ago or even more.

And though it's technically racism, it's purpose isn't to be racist. It's scientific discussion that could lead to some racial judgments.

[sbw]

Another possible explanation (that's not mutually exclusive with the first) is that the less athletic and robust blacks died. It's difficult enough to survive on the savannah let alone a slave plantation that favors physique. Blacks had to go through both conditions where only the most athletic were selected for.

the book that I'm reading right now estimates that 2/3 of the captive slaves died on the boats before reaching america.

Scott