Olympic Athlete Claims Blacks are superior to Whites

reply to post by SaturnFX


The point, which you seemed to miss, is that it is socially acceptable to reference science when illustrating the superiority of a non-white group over a white group, but to do the same with the "superior" group being the white group is called racism.

To use one of your examples: an article made by a white man claiming that white people are physically stronger than black people, even if backed up with facts and statistics, would not have a good chance of making it into a newspaper or TV.

Just to keep this thread from being derailed, Michael Johnson did bring up a good point but it was too broad and he did not factor in the so-called "anomalies" such as 100m French sensation, Christophe Lemaitre. BTW, Lemaitre happens to be white.

He is only 22 years old and will be representing France in the Olympics. He is dubbed the "fastest white man on earth". He will need all his speed to beat guys like Bolt, Blake, Gay and Powell.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

Generally the only people that say that type of nonsense are white supremacists. The only time I ever hear a white person going on about white guilt is when another white is generally saying non-racist things towards minorities. Like that poverty is directly related with crime, in any race or country.

Not white.......From my perspective, white liberals are notoriously anti-white in any situation where they think doing so will redeem them in the eyes of non-whites. It's due to years of indoctrination and hateful brainwashing. They think being racial and hateful towards other whites is what non-whites want from them. It's classic self hating behavior.

You yourself are making assumptions based on skin color. You're even suggesting that white people who stand up for themselves against racial attacks are "white supremacists". You're the one with racial issues. Maybe you need to apply those standards you just laid on to yourself? Naaaaaaa!

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

The point, which you seemed to miss, is that it is socially acceptable to reference science when illustrating the superiority of a non-white group over a white group, but to do the same with the "superior" group being the white group is called racism.

To use one of your examples: an article made by a white man claiming that white people are physically stronger than black people, even if backed up with facts and statistics, would not have a good chance of making it into a newspaper or TV.

You mean articles Like This?

Presentation counts.
If Phelps said white people will dominate swimming for quite awhile due to physiology favoring whites in this sport..the only people whom would find that controversial are the perpetually hysterical..and they are typically dismissed.

Originally posted by Mimir
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I explicitly excluded marathon as endurance race even thou thats a bit wrong, its even in your quote. What i talk about is the longdistance races 100 or 200+ km.

Sorry, I missed that part.

BUT, when you are talking about those types of endurance, I think it is merely a head game. There is no amount of athleticism or training that can prepare someone for a 200 km race. That is just pure old stubbornness, or maybe a little bit of insanity.

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Not white.......From my perspective, white liberals are notoriously anti-white in any situation where they think doing so will redeem them in the eyes of non-whites.

I am white, I am a liberal.
I don't reflect what you said.
I don't feel the need for redemption from anyone or any group.
Your perspective is amusing, if a bit simple...but very inaccurate either way.

reply to post by SaturnFX

And that is the very definition of physical strength...if you can lift more than the person next to them, that means you are stronger. There is no gray line here..

What if that person next to you is twice your size, but only lifts 20% more weight? Who is stronger? Pound for pound, you are stronger, not them.

What about a guy that can bench press 550lbs, but he can only benchpress 225 lbs for 20 reps, whereas another person can only benchpress 440lbs, but they can benchpress 225lbs for 30 reps. Which one is stronger? The NFL Combines score the person that can lift 225lbs for the most reps as the stronger person, not the person that can do the most for a single rep.

There is science and reasoning behind that. Our muscle fiber recruitment is necessarily tempered by our brains. Anyone is capable of super-human strength when motivated by adrenaline and fear. We can overcome the safety mechanisms of our brain, and we can recruit up to 800% more muscle fiber for a single rep, but we risk injury when we do so, and we exhaust all resources when we do so, and therefore we are not capable of additional similar feats. A one-rep max as an indicator of strength is not very useful when it comes to translating it to athletic performance.

Originally posted by PvtHudson


Not white.......From my perspective, white liberals are notoriously anti-white in any situation where they think doing so will redeem them in the eyes of non-whites. It's due to years of indoctrination and hateful brainwashing. They think being racial and hateful towards other whites is what non-whites want from them. It's classic self hating behavior.

Actually, this is something I have noticed alot just in the later years, although I wouldn't really blame the liberalists for this, or atleast not the TRUE liberalists, but rather the extreme-lefties; you know, the ones claming Gender doesn't really exist, everyone should be a feminist and that the one to blame for all evil in the World are the white, heterosexual Male.

I have noticed that these groups, are in actuality not only the worst racists but also the worst sexists, and, also the most dangerous, as they are not even realising how condemning they actually are but tries to project their own prejudices unto others only for disagreeing with them.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Hess88

 

It is fairly obvious that black people are generally more athletic than white people. Faster twitch muscles, more muscle tone, less bodyfat retention. They are also more prone to certain health problems like sickle-cell anemia and diabetes.

Genetics are partly random. The dominant genes which are not always the best genes for any single thing are the ones most likely to be passed on.

I think if anything could correlate the random circumstances of various sports, it is this. Black people overall have less health ailments and healthier joints than white people. Making them more likely to take up high impact sports like sprinting and football (runningback). While white people are more likely to enjoy strength exercises and defensive line/quarterback/linebacker.

Being white or black doesn't affect your ability to succeed. I've never met a black person that can outsprint me. Although a few that had build advnatages over me almost managed to.

Which leads me to another point, running is largely based on form.

reply to post by Hess88


Africans, especially the males, have always and always will dominate athletic sprinting just as those whose past ancestrial origins from the Nordic nations (Americans, Australians, Canadians etc) will always dominate swimming for their tall posture, long legs and very broard wide shoulders. It's all about genetics and DNA.

reply to post by SaturnFX


That is a welcome article, I must admit I did not expect such an article to be published.

Still, there are two main factors that make this article "publishable":
1) The fact that the article also mentions the "superiority" of black runners over other races (the focus is not simply that whites are better swimmers than other races)
2) The study that the article references was conducted by both a white man and a black man (the findings did not come from a white man exclusively)

reply to post by getreadyalready


I see what your saying about size, endurance is a different matter entirely though.

I would say a human is stronger than an ant...but then again, that changes if we shrunk down to ant size. I am not sure if strongman competition seperates based on height.
I got long arms, I can beat someone in an arm wrestling competiton with shorter stocky arms due to leverage. that makes me "stronger" in some respects.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

That is a welcome article, I must admit I did not expect such an article to be published.

Still, there are two main factors that make this article "publishable":
1) The fact that the article also mentions the "superiority" of black runners over other races (the focus is not simply that whites are better swimmers than other races)
2) The study that the article references was conducted by both a white man and a black man (the findings did not come from a white man exclusively)

2 = which is how all studies should be conducted so there is no subconscious desire to promote or suppress anything.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Not white.......From my perspective, white liberals are notoriously anti-white in any situation where they think doing so will redeem them in the eyes of non-whites.

I am white, I am a liberal.
I don't reflect what you said.
I don't feel the need for redemption from anyone or any group.
Your perspective is amusing, if a bit simple...but very inaccurate either way.

Nothing you said disproves what I said. Just turn on the news on any given night and you're likely to see whites being demonized (by other whites) and non-whites being put on a pedestal. Just look at the Trayvon Martin case and how the media (dominated by democrats and liberals) fell over themselves to call a clearly Latino man "white". There are countless examples and if you like I can spend an hour laying them out.

Frankly, I find your perspective to be quite simple. You simply closed your eyes and ears and lobbed insults.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I suppose it is a sliding scale between max strength and max endurance, but when I talk about someone "stronger," I am thinking along the lines of someone with the perfect combination of both. They don't need to be able to run 200 km or bench press 500 lbs, or bench press 50lbs 1000 times, but if they can excel at running 400m and benchpress 300lbs for more reps than anyone else, and have better than a 30 inch vertical, and have eye-hand coordination to hit a basic fastball or return a tennis serve, then they are a superb athlete in my opinion.

When coaches are recruiting for sports, they look at raw athletic capability, and they figure they can train the person in the skills they will need to succeed.

Nothing replaces raw athletic ability. An average person playing tennis their whole life, would probably be defeated by a Lebron James, or a Terrell Owens if that athlete just trained with a coach for a few weeks.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Africans in Africa or Africans with various other racial background mixtures? I'm writing a thread along those lines stay tuned.

I'm waiting on that thread. Even though i have a feeling of where you are going

If you are.. interesting observation isn't it? i wonder if some black folks realize how african we really are.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Nothing replaces raw athletic ability. An average person playing tennis their whole life, would probably be defeated by a Lebron James, or a Terrell Owens if that athlete just trained with a coach for a few weeks.

That is simply not true. You cannot compare a sport such as sprint running with one such as tennis. Tennis involves more than physical skill in order to be successful; the mental aspect of the game is very underrated. Many sports require more than raw athletic ability in order to succeed.

reply to post by Hess88


Maybe LeMatrie is descended from a white slave?

Honestly though, I don't think that theory of selective breeding and survival of the fittest is all that flawed. The attrition rate of the slaves was atrocious during the middle passage. It was atrocious on the Island of Jamaica. Slavery on the Islands was known to be several degrees more harsh than in the States. If you have only the strongest surviving, and then the slave masters breeding their prize specimens only with other prize specimens for lack of a better term. You can get certain traits to exhibit themselves. Homo Sapiens Sapiens are animals as well. The same way any other type of animal can be bred to get certain traits, humans can be bred to get certain traits also. While the slave masters definitely weren't trying to breed slaves who could run fast, they were breeding for strength, size, health, and hardiness, one could even say they were breeding athleticism. The work the slaves did was back breaking. A man or woman would have to have some athleticism, body/muscle structure to deal with that type of workload. Not to mention the behavior and mind state that was probably a side effect of that same process.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Nothing replaces raw athletic ability. An average person playing tennis their whole life, would probably be defeated by a Lebron James, or a Terrell Owens if that athlete just trained with a coach for a few weeks.

Here's the problem, all of that is still subjective. Define "average", define "raw athletic ability". You are mentioning benchpressing as some kind of measure-It's not. You can lift all day and still not be fit. The elite of the military actually use crossfit or bodyweight workouts, suspension training is also popular. Different sports require different things. Most people look at ballet dancers and think they are weak because of their size, ballet dancers must hold their own bodyweight frequently and are very flexible and strong. I've seen a benchpressing gym (who actually won championships) rat burst into tears of sheer frustration doing barre because his ankles couldn't hold his weight. Strength isn't some sheer raw number nor would I look to the NFL for a number considering their players die 20 years on average before the average athlete.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Nothing replaces raw athletic ability. An average person playing tennis their whole life, would probably be defeated by a Lebron James, or a Terrell Owens if that athlete just trained with a coach for a few weeks.

That is simply not true. You cannot compare a sport such as sprint running with one such as tennis. Tennis involves more than physical skill in order to be successful; the mental aspect of the game is very underrated. Many sports require more than raw athletic ability in order to succeed.

I disagree.

The best-rated and most-feared tennis players are the ones with the powerful serves. Beyond serve, it becomes important to cover a large portion of the court.

Sure, there are the tedious skills such as spin and strategy that make certain players better than the rest, but you can teach those things to anyone.

Really, in tennis, heighth and reach are also extremely important. A 6'5" black athlete will have a better angle above the net, giving them more surface area across the net to use that raw athleticism to drive home a killer serve. Their sprinting ability and long reach will help them cover more of the court when a ball does get returned.

Here at Florida State University, Deion Sanders is said to have run the 40 yard dash in 4.3 seconds in sweat pants and tennis shoes, without warming up. He was called out of a meeting by a pro scout, ran the sprint 1 time, and ran back to his meeting. He became the greatest corner to ever play football, because he could cover half of the field by himself! He was so dangerous because of "closing speed." Closing speed is not a 40 yard dash, it is more like a 10 yard dash. He would let people look like they were open, and then he would close on the ball in a miraculous time. It would be akin to a car's 0-60 acceleration speed. Maybe a car can't go 200mph, but if it goes 0-60 in 3 seconds, then it is a monster!

Nothing is a substitute for raw athletic talent.