Olympic Athlete Claims Blacks are superior to Whites

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

That is subjective, frankly...that was just cheesy, overwrought and melodramatic.

But entertaining! Very few people would appreciate a dry and flawless rendering of a classical violin solo, no matter the skill required.

Case in point, Joshua Bell plays one of most expensive violins ever made in DC subway, and nobody noticed.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I didn't find it entertaining personally. The problem with this entire thread is people trying to somehow prove their subjective opinions are objective facts.

Originally posted by rebellender
as for the racial claim? I think only our political correctness and fear of Racial Separation prevents us from actually discovering Racial Superiority with regard muscle activity strength and agility , see what I mean?

if not check out the NFL NBA and the boxing ring..

Again. NFL.... American sport. NBA......American sport. Boxing....... dominated by blacks ..... but only in America.........But on the world stage, there are more white champions than any other race from lightweight - heavyweight. (This only includes the top four world governing bodies, WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF). The lower divisions are dominated by Mexicans and phillipinos.

reply to post by Debunkology


how far would a 130lb man go in the NFL?

scream American all you want.

you can scream Racial $$$ and dumb ass Americans shelling out watch all you want

all I have to do it turn on sports entertainment and OP made his point.

the BUT in all of the claim are others like Jim Thorpe as I mentioned. The Fly in the OP's ointment.

when the dust settles its about an uncanny effort to be the best that is the real prize in the OP of this thread

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I didn't find it entertaining personally. The problem with this entire thread is people trying to somehow prove their subjective opinions are objective facts.

But they are facts?

When we are talking about the majority of people, and the popular opinion, and the averages and statistics. Nothing is 100% correct, but if it is 75% correct, then the generalization is valid.

The problem with this thread is people trying to take a few exceptions and pretend they disprove anything? Just because you didn't enjoy it, doesn't mean the majority of the population doesn't prefer that type of performance over some technical yet dry performance. You are the exception, not the rule. The white sprinters are the rare exceptions, not the general rules. The "Great White Hope" boxers are the exceptions, not the general rules. That is precisely why they stand out, they are the anomalies.

The "Great White Hope" boxers are the exceptions, not the general rules. That is precisely why they stand out, they are the anomalies.

You seem like the only view you have on this world is through American sports. And American sports only. Domestic sports confined to 4.5% of the worlds population.

Yet it's a big world out there.

The entire heavyweight division is dominated by Eastern Europeans. Like what was said before, there are more white world boxing champions from lightweight - heavyweight than any other race.

reply to post by Debunkology


Wiki on Current Boxing Champions



Currently it is Klitschko, whom I don't respect very much, but he is Eastern European as you say, but what about before him? Haye, Peter, Briggs, Rahmen, Bruester, Ruiz, Sanders, Roy Jones Jr, Lewis, all black.

And how many of those guys has anyone really even heard of anyway? Boxing has been dead since Lennox Lewis and we haven't had a good, popular champion. People watch when Roy Jones, Jr. fights, or Tyson, or Holyfield.

Eastern Europeans are currently dominating, because no one else is fighting.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Debunkology

 

Wiki on Current Boxing Champions

Currently it is Klitschko, whom I don't respect very much, but he is Eastern European as you say, but what about before him? Haye, Peter, Briggs, Rahmen, Bruester, Ruiz, Sanders, Roy Jones Jr, Lewis, all black.

And how many of those guys has anyone really even heard of anyway? Boxing has been dead since Lennox Lewis and we haven't had a good, popular champion. People watch when Roy Jones, Jr. fights, or Tyson, or Holyfield.

Eastern Europeans are currently dominating, because no one else is fighting.

Eastern Europeans used to dominate the heavyweight division. There downfall coincided with the Soviet Union. That block of countries of Russia and Eastern Europe.

Had Wladimir Klitschko and Vitali Klitschko been born just a decade earlier. They would not have been allowed to compete proffesionally. Instead they were, now they have dominated over the past decade.

The reason the Eastern Europeans are currently dominating, is because they ARE fighting and allowed to compete, something that didn't happen from 1922 - 1991.

The only way the fight game has changed in the US is that their promoters haven't got such a hold of the WBA and WBC anymore. They have lost their champions and have to fight in Europe now. The game has changed.

Haye is actually half white/half black. Ruiz is white, Sanders is white. They aren't even that good.

reply to post by getreadyalready


You seem to mention violin music as an answer to black sporting excellence.

Well, here are videos of ordinary black violinists taking violin music to new places.

reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady




Nope, I was arguing that the reason they don't excel at classical music is because their interest and exposure are low, but I think their athletic proclivity would translate nicely to any instrument. I don't think it would be as much of an advantage as it is in sprinting or jumping, but I think they can be ever bit as good as white folks if they choose to be. I mentioned Delta Blues, and Jazz, and Ragtime Piano, they are known for taking music to new levels.

Nice videos.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I stand corrected.

Thanks.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
doesn't mean the majority of the population doesn't prefer that type of performance over some technical yet dry performance.

I may sound like an elitist prick, but the general population is ill-educated and seem to think Rhianna can sing worth a damn. You have to excuse me if I don't hold what the masses like in high respect.

You are the exception, not the rule.

Never said I was the rule.

The white sprinters are the rare exceptions, not the general rules. The "Great White Hope" boxers are the exceptions, not the general rules. That is precisely why they stand out, they are the anomalies.

This entire thread stemmed from an out of context quote and rests solely on the opinion of the posters. No one has yet to unequivocally prove that blacks are superior in every sport to whites. Until you can prove that you are simply stating a subjective opinion.

reply to post by antonia


Why are you talking about sport?

In terms of raw athletic ability, independent of any sport, blacks (of west african origin) tend to be more athletic than non-blacks.

Hence, the fastest runners (which would be an ideal barometer for athleticism) are blacks

Usain Bolt - 9.572
Asafa Powell - 9.74
Justin Gatlin - 9.77
Tim Montgomery - 9.78
Maurice Green - 9.79
Donovan Bailey - 9.84
Leroy Burell
Carl Lewis
Ben Johnson
Calvin Smith

Those are the top 10 fastest sprints ever recorded. EVERY ONE OF THEM ARE BLACK.

Link

This is strong evidence for a superior athletic ability in Blacks compared to non-blacks.

Again, with running backs in football, basketball players, this is the case. They outperform non-blacks in ATHLETIC ability.

In sports which have more successful whites than blacks, we can chalk that up to statistics. Because more blacks tend to participate in Basketball, Football and Baseball, there will be a higher likelihood of preeminence of blacks in those sports.

Conversely, in a sport like hockey, where 99 out of every 100 ( a rough estimate, could be higher or lower) prospective athletes are whites, statistically they have a better chance of producing players of a superlative ability, where athletic prowess coincides with skill and mental maturity. This is probably the case in Tennis and soccer as well, which is more popular amongst whites than amongst blacks (but even in women's tennis, serena/venus williams have dominated).

You might counter that soccer is the most popular sport in Africa. True, but their programs and leagues are VERY poor compared to those in Europe, which is why Europe tends to produce the better players and teams than Africa. Also, Soccer is a truly team sport, more so than basketball, which elevates strategy and skill (in timing, often, which mandates a collective consonance between midfield/attackers) above athletic ability, although athletic ability is nonetheless invaluable.

You have very little argument against the thesis that blacks are more athletic. It's an unspoken assumption that most people share. If it's not being studied more ardently by academia, it's probably because of it's 'political incorrectness' - not because it's not worth being studied.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by antonia

 

Hence, the fastest runners (which would be an ideal barometer for athleticism) are blacks

Nope, that is what you think. Other athletes would tend to disagree as to what constitutes good athletics.

You have very little argument against the thesis that blacks are more athletic. It's an unspoken assumption that most people share. If it's not being studied more ardently by academia, it's probably because of it's 'political incorrectness' - not because it's not worth being studied.

And you have no scientific evidence. Blacks are over represented in professional sports yet, they are under represented in overall participation in sports. Furthermore, the bulk of the african american population is overweight or obese. If you are going to make wholesale claims about a race it is far better to look at the ENTIRE population rather than looking at superstar athletes who train for years to get where they are. The main reason people cling to this argument is simple: You can give blacks a freebie on athletics yet proclaim whites are superior intellectually. That's what it's coming to and it's been said several times in the thread. There is 1% difference genetically between blacks and whites and you will find more genetic difference between two blacks than you will between a black man and a white man. Present some actually DNA evidence, otherwise you are just spouting a subjective opinion. A majority of people thought the earth was flat and bloodletting would cure your ills too you know.

reply to post by antonia

Nope, that is what you think. Other athletes would tend to disagree as to what constitutes good athletics.

What other criteria is there besides physical explosiveness? I.E lateral quickness, vertical jump, one foot vertical jump, 100 meter sprint?? This is how we determine athleticism.

Do you get that when people - specifically scouts, coaches, athletes - refer to "athleticism", they mean "very quick, very explosive, very strong, powerful jumper"...

If the 100 meter sprint isn't the best barometer of athletic prowess, what other event would constitute "good athleticism"? In any case, surely - if you fancy yourself honest - you must concede that the top 10 100 meter sprints ALL BEING BLACK certainly suggests something particular to blacks that isn't present in non-blacks.

I don't see why you're anathema to this well grounded assumption.

Blacks are over represented in professional sports yet, they are under represented in overall participation in sports

Like I emphasized earlier, blacks are mostly interested in Basketball, Football and Baseball, but that doesn't mean they represent the majority of athletes interested in those sports. High school's all across America/Canada have basketball teams with nicely skilled players many of whom get scholarships to division I, II and III universities. But PREP schools, are mostly filled with blacks. Why?? Why else than because these kids are tremendous athletes.

Moving away from basketball, to baseball and football, the representation of blacks lessons but they're still over represented relative to non-blacks.

When the statistical ratio between blacks and non-blacks is so overly favorable to non-blacks, as in the case of soccer, hockey, and tennis, we find the majority of such sport stars to be non-blacks because statistically they are more likely to produce athletes with a particular skill set and mentality that enables them to excel above the rest, i.e christiano ronaldo, lionel messi, andres iniesta, etc.

Furthermore, the bulk of the african american population is overweight or obese.

That has more to do with sociological factors than some racial/ethnic tendency.

The main reason people cling to this argument is simple: You can give blacks a freebie on athletics yet proclaim whites are superior intellectually.

I didn't suggest that at all. In fact, I would ascribe this to an evolutionary quirk rather than some tendency 'innate' to black people. If given context, you can de-racialize the claim that blacks are more athletic. West Africa is a harsh place to live. There is something about that environment which encourages athletic development more so than elsewhere.

Likewise, the Jews. People are so leery of finding an explanation of why Jews tend to excel in a far greater ratio to non-Jews because they don't want to 'offend people'. Why are 20% of all nobel prize winners - mostly in scientific categories - Jewish? Even Niels Bohr's mother was Jewish, which makes him halachically (according to rabbinic law) Jewish.

This deserves an explanation. Many biological anthropologists have proffered the theory that the mandatory study of the talmud for all Jewish men played a role in the development of Jewish intellectual prowess. And if you know anything of the Talmud - what it demands from the reasoning mind - that is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. After generations of such development, come the 20th century and the emancipation of Jews from Europe's ghettos, Jews advanced in the sciences in greater proportion to non-Jews.

There is 1% difference genetically between blacks and whites and you will find more genetic difference between two blacks than you will between a black man and a white man.

That doesn't mean anything. 1% is a whole lot. 99% simply means we share some fundamental genes. But in that one percent category, there is a whole gamut of differences which determine the particular attributes of the species, race, and individual.

reply to post by antonia


It's not elitest, you just have a unique perspective because of your experience. Nothing wrong with that.

In this thread we are talking about sweeping generalities, so it is going to be difficult for you to think on those terms when it comes to music, but probably easy to do in other areas like athletics.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by antonia

 

Nope, that is what you think. Other athletes would tend to disagree as to what constitutes good athletics.

What other criteria is there besides physical explosiveness? I.E lateral quickness, vertical jump, one foot vertical jump, 100 meter sprint?? This is how we determine athleticism.

Do you get that when people - specifically scouts, coaches, athletes - refer to "athleticism", they mean "very quick, very explosive, very strong, powerful jumper"...

If the 100 meter sprint isn't the best barometer of athletic prowess, what other event would constitute "good athleticism"? In any case, surely - if you fancy yourself honest - you must concede that the top 10 100 meter sprints ALL BEING BLACK certainly suggests something particular to blacks that isn't present in non-blacks.

There are many sports and disciplines that do not require this ability, would you like to tell them they are not athletes because they don't jump high or run the 100 meter in a quick time? The problem here is you are making your own definition of what athleticism is when it's not the same standard across the board. Different sports and disciplines require different abilities. The standard for a Ballerina is not going to be the same as what is expected for a Powerlifter. The difference in their bodies is enough to tell you that.

I don't see why you're anathema to this well grounded assumption.

Because it's what you think, and i do not ascribe to assumptions without evidence.

I didn't suggest that at all. In fact, I would ascribe this to an evolutionary quirk rather than some tendency 'innate' to black people. If given context, you can de-racialize the claim that blacks are more athletic.

Then you should de-racialize the claim, if race isn't the deciding factor then it shouldn't be mentioned.

reply to post by dontreally
You can't really be serious listing those names. Most of those people should be automatically removed from the list due to drug scandals they were involved in.

Usain Bolt - 9.572
Asafa Powell - 9.74
Justin Gatlin - 9.77
Tim Montgomery - 9.78
Maurice Green - 9.79
Donovan Bailey - 9.84
Leroy Burell
Carl Lewis
Ben Johnson
Calvin Smith

So the sprinters: Gatlin, Montgomery, green, Lewis and Johnson, have all been caught or admitted using PEDs at some point in their career, which ultimately taints any record or times they have generated in their career.

The other names of sprinters on your list have not been caught or have been in any scandal, to date. That, however, does not rule out their use of anabolic steroids or PEDs. They just were never caught using drugs.

You have to remember historically that track and field has been rife with the use of PEDS and every new record or great time is highly scrutinized. The Eastern European runners in the 70s and 80s used steroids heavily until there was a major crackdown. That didn't stop drug use but the modern athletes have found many different ways to mask their performance but newer tests are around the way but I am afraid they are losing the battle against drug cheats in TnF.

Originally posted by dontreally
What other criteria is there besides physical explosiveness? I.E lateral quickness, vertical jump, one foot vertical jump, 100 meter sprint?? This is how we determine athleticism.

Like someone already mentioned

You are creating your own view of what is athleticism and what defines an athlete. Athleticism can be simply defined as ‘physically strong and well developed; muscular ’.

In that case. We could simply look at the strongest man competitions. Competitions that northern Europeans dominate.

Or you could look at Wrestling. Olympic wrestling, a competition that the Russians dominate.

However athleticism can be defined in many ways. Being explosive for a short period is just one factor.

A world class sprinter for 100 meters is not anymore of an athlete or any more athletic than a world class mountain biker that rides cross country for 50k.

For all round athleticism then you’d have to look at sports like the Triathlon, Decathlon, and Gymnastics.

The Decathlon consists of ten track and field events. 100m, 400m, 1500m, Shot put, high jump, 110m hurdles, discuss throw, pole vault, javelin throw, and long jump.

Decathletes are the ultimate track and field athletes.

Medal winners since 1984 (ethnicity)
2008 - Gold - (black/asian), silver (white), bronze (Cuban)
2004 - Gold - (white), silver (black/asian), bronze (white)
2000 - Gold - (white), silver (white), bronze (white)
1996 - Gold - (white), silver (white), bronze (white)
1992 - Gold - (white), silver (white), bronze (white)
1988 - Gold - (white), silver (white), bronze (white)
1984 - Gold - (black/white), silver (white), bronze (white)

reply to post by Jaellma


If most or all athletes in track and field use performance enhancing drugs, it still doesn't change the fact that the 10 fastest sprints (actually, top 14) are blacks. Because if all use - as you claim - all are equally guilty of cheating the sport. But still, blacks lead the pack, just as they would lead if they weren't doping.