Olympic Athlete Claims Blacks are superior to Whites

reply to post by Debunkology

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 ’.

You are confusing or conflating the terms athlete and athleticism. An athlete is anyone involved in a sport. Athleticism refers to the ability of an athlete.

I'm not creating my own definition for athlete. How interested are you in sports? I've been watching basketball religiously for the last 10 or 15 years. I keep an eye on hockey, football, baseball and soccer as well. I am very attuned to what qualifies as a good athlete which I already enumerated: lateral quickness - how fast one moves from side to side. Point to point speed - how fast one moves from one spot to another. Vertical jump - in a standing position, two foot jump. One foot Jump - a one foot run up for a jump. Bench press - to test one's upper body strength, agility/stamina, etc.

This is what is meant by athleticism. Athlete and Athleticism are two different indirectly related things, akin to the relationship between 'plane' and 'aeronautics'. The plane is the object itself - the athlete; aeronautics is the study of the object - athleticism (the study of any athletes 'ability').

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.

I'm more impressed by raw athleticism - physical explosiveness, foot speed, vertical - than agility. In every sport which the above criteria apply, in the 100 meter sprint, or in basketball, football (for instance, running backs) blacks seem to dominate.

Those sports which you highlighted are 'specialty' sports, more derivative than basic athletic competitions like the 100 meter sprint.

Again, I simply cannot understand why the opposition to this. Any evolutionary biologist would admit that human beings differ, and that environment would be the chief cause of any differences; in skin color, and most other physical features, this is already accepted. Why is it so unacceptable to surmise a slight athletic advantage to blacks in sports which demand greater raw athletic prowess??? It is unscientific to ignore the evidence. The evidence suggests an advantage and its the job of the scientist to explore possible explanations for those advantages.

Originally posted by dontreally
I'm more impressed by raw athleticism - physical explosiveness, foot speed, vertical - than agility. In every sport which the above criteria apply, in the 100 meter sprint, or in basketball, football (for instance, running backs) blacks seem to dominate.

Wait, are you saying that explosiveness, foot speed, and vertical are more important than putting them together to be used as agility?

Good thing you are not a scout!

I don't know, maybe it is juts me, but I would prefer an athlete that knows how to use their abilities rather than one that has great abilities and doesn't know how to use them together.

Must be why nobody uses individual testing like that for scouting any more...any more representing a decade or two in physical testing reports.

Edit to add:

For every major team sport, ask your self this:

Why is the greatest player of current times never the biggest, the strongest, the fastest, etc?

reply to post by peck420

Wait, are you saying that explosiveness, foot speed, and vertical are more important than putting them together to be used as agility?

where did i say it was less important? I'm just saying people don't tune in to watch basketball because they can play 40 minutes a night (although that is undoubtedly indispensable) but because they are explosive - quick, jump high, etc.

Must be why nobody uses individual testing like that for scouting any more...any more representing a decade or two in physical testing reports.

huh?? Every year every major sports league - NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, MLS etc, tests prospective draftees in the above categories.

2012 NBA Draft combine/measurements

Originally posted by dontreally
Those sports which you highlighted are 'specialty' sports, more derivative than basic athletic competitions like the 100 meter sprint.

LOL. Derivative? Derivative meaning that there are many functions in the sense that you need complete athletic ability in order to compete? And not one function like the ability to run fast for 100m for a few seconds in time?

You’ve been watching a sport religiously where the average height of a player is 6ft 7inches tall. And this seems to have dictated your opinion on what defines a true athlete.

Decathletes in my opinion are amazing athletes and if anyone was looking for a true athlete, then decathletes are it.

The 100m, 400m, 1500m, shot put, high jump, 110m hurdles, long jump, javelin throw, discuss throw are all VERY BASIC sports.

The big difference is that these athletes are good at ALL of them.

reply to post by Debunkology

LOL. Derivative? Derivative meaning that there are many functions in the sense that you need complete athletic ability in order to compete? And not one function like the ability to run fast for 100m for a few seconds in time?

Derivative in that it bases itself on something basic, like running, but adds a whole lot of other technical details that rely more on skill than raw physical ability.

You’ve been watching a sport religiously where the average height of a player is 6ft 7inches tall. And this seems to have dictated your opinion on what defines a true athlete.

What does height have to do with it? What a weak and completely irrelevant thing to make mention of. First, my main argument is from the 100 meter sprint. Secondly, the height of a basketball player is irrelevant. Tall white people are far more aplenty than tall black people. Height is completely incidental. Though, height with athleticism - as in a freak of nature like Lebron James - surely adds awe to the entire spectacle of professional basketball.

I'm not denying that rowing, long jump, etc, are sports, but they are sports that move away from the most elementary kinds of physical activity: i.e. running. To row a boat is different, fun, and surely requires athleticism, but it is a poor touchstone in judging athleticism altogether.

Physical movement, as demonstrated in sports like basketball, football, hockey, soccer, are better suited to displays of physical ability than the sports you make mention of.

Decathletes in my opinion are amazing athletes and if anyone was looking for a true athlete, then decathletes are it.

I take it you do still don't understand what athlete means. Decathlons are interesting and 'decathletes' probably display the greatest versatility, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the best athletes. One can easily argue that the failed 100 meter sprinter becomes a decathlete simply because he can't compete in those events which require raw physical explosiveness.

THIS IS WHATS BEING ARGUED. Watch a sport. Follow a league. Pay attention to the pre-draft combines the the NBA, NHL, NFL carry out - sometimes televised - on potential draftees, and you will understand what teams are looking for. If the guy isn't very fast, doesn't jump very high, a little slow on the lateral quickness, his draft stock plummets; conversely, if they shine in the pre-draft combine, their draft stock rises. THIS IS THE YARDSTICK FOR ATHLETICISM.

Only someone who hardly watches sports would argue what you've been arguing.

Originally posted by Hess88

Olympic Athlete Claims Blacks are superior to Whites

You should write for the MSM with this thread title.

Nowhere did he make this statement.

He did talk about one event type in track and field.

Your title is super stretchy.

Originally posted by dontreally
I take it you do still don't understand what athlete means. ..........................................raw physical explosiveness.

No No. That is YOUR definition. And you seem to not grasp that point.


Also. The difference between me and you, is that you watch sports that are confined to 4.5% of the world population in what is called the United States.

I'd rather play in a sport than watch it, I play soccer. But every week I watch the English Premier League (soccer) and not on TV, the soccer league that is the fastest in the world which rely on more physically strong and quick players but also the ability to run at least 8 miles in a game. The fastest recorded player is Gareth Bale. A white guy.



I mentioned the average height of a Basketball player (6ft 7inches). Because the avereage height of a person in the United States is 5ft 9inches. One factor of being a Basketball player is obviously height. Compare this to boxing, where the more "athletic" by your definition is in the lower weight divisions.

I have just come across this article which attempts to explain the differences between black / white athletes etc.

The article is quite old, it lists Maurice Greene as the World 100m Record Holder, yet it gives some interesting and believable reasonings.

Apparently the "speedsters and jumpers" are of West African descent and the have an absolute dominace in sprinting based events.
However they appear to

hit a biomechanical wall after about 45 seconds of intense, anaerobic activity (distances longer than 400-meters in sprinting and all measurable distances in swimming, in which Africans are believed to be genetically disadvantage on average) when aerobic skills come into play

Reasons given for their remarkable dominance are;

Blacks with a West African ancestry generally have:

•relatively less subcutaneous fat on arms and legs and proportionately more lean body and muscle mass, broader shoulders, larger quadriceps, and bigger, more developed musculature in general;
•denser, shallower chests;
•higher center of gravity, generally shorter sitting height, narrower hips, and lighter calves;
•longer arm span and "distal elongation of segments" - the hand is relatively longer than the forearm, which in turn is relatively longer than the upper arm; the foot is relatively longer than the tibia (leg), which is relatively longer than the thigh;
•faster patellar tendon reflex;
•greater body density, which is likely due to higher bone mineral density and heavier bone mass at all stages in life, including infancy (despite evidence of lower calcium intake and a higher prevalence of lactose intolerance, which prevents consumption of dairy products);
•modestly, but significantly, higher levels of plasma testosterone (3-19 percent), which is anabolic, theoretically contributing to greater muscle mass, lower fat, and the ability to perform at a higher level of intensity with quicker recovery;
•a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscles and more anaerobic enzymes, which can translate into more explosive energy.

But at events above this distance it seems East Africans come into their own and they seem to have a dominace that almost equals that of Western Africans over the speedier events.

The article does touch on the athletic prowess of other racial groups - aboriginal Australians starting to excel at Rugby as are Maori's and other Micro / Polynesians etc some of whom are also a success in the AFL.

It then states that white people are somewhere in between these two;

White athletes appear to have a physique between central West Africans and East Africans. They have more endurance but less explosive running and jumping ability than West Africans; they tend to be quicker than East Africans but have less endurance

But before we get carried away the article finishes off with the astute observation;

It is critical to remember that no individual athlete can succeed without the X factor - the lucky spin of the roulette wheel of genetics matched with considerable dedication and sport smarts.

A very interesting article and well worth a read.

run-down.com...

Originally posted by dontreally
2012 NBA Draft combine/measurements

Just out of curiosity, how does the measurements from league provided fitness testing relate to scouting reports?

Or do you think scouts just leave it at that?

You wanted to discuss scouting reports, so post some actual scouting reports.