European Athletes at a disadvantage

GreenDoor

Athletes of European have 2 major disadvantages it athletics. (this is not supposed to be racist and I don't want people complaining over nothing)

The first disadvantage is the age in which Europeans reach physical maturity. Europeans take between 18 months and 2 years longer that athletes of other races to reach their physical peak.

The second disadvantage is heat effect. The pale European skin absorbes the sun light more than darker skinned people. This effects performance and I think it was the main reason for Paula Radcliffes poor performances in hot conditions after being by far the best athlete in cooler conditions.

ecksor

Please back this up with some sort of fact, otherwise I don't see the point of your post.

With regard to your first comment, I've heard this referred to by some people, but not specifically to Europeans but rather specifically to Irish athletes. The implication was not that this was a disadvantage (long term at least), rather that it meant that athletes around the 19/20 age group had to be treated differently to their international counterparts by coaches.

Being "european" is actually quite broad. Both of the points you raise there seem more specific to the "celtic nations" part of the continent, but that's just my own impression.

Squirrel

I'd never heard the first one before. The second I agree with ecksor, there's a wide range, Portuguese people are much darker skinned than the Irish or British. Any links to back you up?

thirtyfoot

GreenDoor wrote:

The first disadvantage is the age in which Europeans reach physical maturity. Europeans take between 18 months and 2 years longer that athletes of other races to reach their physical peak.

The second disadvantage is heat effect. The pale European skin absorbes the sun light more than darker skinned people. This effects performance and I think it was the main reason for Paula Radcliffes poor performances in hot conditions after being by far the best athlete in cooler conditions.

I wouldn't think late development is a problem, means athletes can compete for longer in many cases.

Linford Christie always seemed to handle warm conditions, as did Colin Jackson, Sonia O' Sullivan seemed to run well in warm conditions most times. The Spanish runners are demons in the heat, while the Swedish jumpers regularly perform when its roasting. As for the Russian women, they perform hot or cold. Wasn't it the Italian Baldini that won the marathon in Athens in 2004. No I'd say most Europeans can handle the heat.

Pherekydes

Tingle wrote:

Linford Christie always seemed to handle warm conditions...

Christie wasn't European. He was born in Jamaica and lived there until 7, I think.

Maturing late isn't a disadvantage, in my opinion. Look at the under-age rankings. Lots of athletes who matured early didn't go on to do anything as seniors.

DaveH

Europeans dont really physically mature later really, There african counter parts are usually over age, thats the real reason.

As with skin color, thats just rubbish. The real reason is they arent training hard enough! It is sciencetiffically correct that darker skin absurbs heat better, but surely warm weather training etc will help you aclimitise.

thirtyfoot

Slow coach wrote:

Christie wasn't European. He was born in Jamaica and lived there until 7, I think.

Maturing late isn't a disadvantage, in my opinion. Look at the under-age rankings. Lots of athletes who matured early didn't go on to do anything as seniors.

I know, was just being smart throwing him in there (but he is European) to emphasise and agree with Ecksor's point that being european covers a broad spectrum - I think what the OP really wants to say is are white people at a disadvantage to coloured people when it comes to hot weather. The answer to that is no especially if the athlete is conditioned correctly. Using Radcliffe's problem with heat as an example can be countered by Baldini winning the mens equivalent at the same games. Not all white people are like Steve Staunton.

Dodge

Sprinters usually develop over time anyway. Very very few great sprinters under 23/24

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

Being "european" is actually quite broad. Both of the points you raise there seem more specific to the "celtic nations" part of the continent, but that's just my own impression.

I think thats a fair comment. Celtic people are at a disadvantage regarding heat. Anybody who thinks heat dosn't effect Celtic/pale people any differently than darker skinned people need to to realise that thousands of years of genetics have made people to suit their enviornment.

What I mean by developing slower is relevent. Europeans competeing with other races in under age competitions will probably be ignored and drop out of athletics because they are not winning. New Zealand rugby coaches have stated this fact as a reason why white kids are dropping out of rugby at a younger age because they must compete with polynesians who at the same age are more physically developed. These Polynesians will then attract the scouts etc. So it matters alright.

Common Sense

Dodge wrote:

Sprinters usually develop over time anyway. Very very few great sprinters under 23/24

Not so sure, Dodge. Powell, Spearman, Carter, Wariner, Felix, Sherone Simpson are hardly OAPs.

GreenDoor

Once an anthropologist said something interesting about race and athletics. He said white runners should not even show up for the 100 meters in the Olympics. This was a bone course so what he said he turned into a lesson. Coloured people have smooth, relatively round tibia and fibula bones. They are also set rather close to each other. This is not idea for muscular development which was the anthropologist's point.

He said coloured people, because of smaller calve muscles, had less weight to pick up than did other races. Less weight meant quicker movement, all other things being equal. Calves produce power for walking or running up hills but strong calve muscles are nearly useless on flat surfaces. Further, Negro calves are shortened in comparison to Caucasian calves and the achilles tendon is longer leaving the calve bunched up nearer the knee. Long tendons and short muscle bellies are characteristic of savannah animals which need to run on flat land.

thirtyfoot

GreenDoor wrote:

He said coloured people, because of smaller calve muscles, had less weight to pick up than did other races. Less weight meant quicker movement, all other things being equal. Calves produce power for walking or running up hills but strong calve muscles are nearly useless on flat surfaces. Further, Negro calves are shortened in comparison to Caucasian calves and the achilles tendon is longer leaving the calve bunched up nearer the knee. .

Apparently Jesse Owens calves and foot structure were very much like a white man's calf and foot structure, but then again he wasn't the norm.

Squirrel

GreenDoor wrote:

He said coloured people, because of smaller calve muscles, had less weight to pick up than did other races. Less weight meant quicker movement, all other things being equal. Calves produce power for walking or running up hills but strong calve muscles are nearly useless on flat surfaces. Further, Negro calves are shortened in comparison to Caucasian calves and the achilles tendon is longer leaving the calve bunched up nearer the knee. Long tendons and short muscle bellies are characteristic of savannah animals which need to run on flat land. This gives us a clue as to the origin of Blacks and the non-shared origin they have with Caucasians.

Then why are the Africans to the front of Cross Country running? This argument can work for on the flat track, but not on the hilly courses of XC

Dodge

GreenDoor wrote:

This gives us a clue as to the origin of Blacks and the non-shared origin they have with Caucasians.

Mightn't be meant this way but that last line is pretty rascist

Gurgle

GreenDoor wrote:

The pale European skin absorbes the sun light more than darker skinned people.

Theres something called 'Physics' (pronounced fisix, look it up) which is a bit of a stumbling block for your point there - darker surfaces absorb more energy than lighter ones.

Actually, that means that darker skin could act as a kind of solar panel, providing more power to the athlete.

Hmmm....

Dodge wrote:

GreenDoor wrote:

This gives us a clue as to the origin of coloured people and the non-shared origin they have with Caucasians.

Mightn't be meant this way but that last line is pretty rascist

Anthropology (pronounced anthropology, look it up)
The origin of coloured people at some point diverges from the origin of white people. We can tell because, among other reasons, they are darker skinned.

GreenDoor

Gurgle wrote:

Theres something called 'Physics' (pronounced fisix, look it up) which is a bit of a stumbling block for your point there - darker surfaces absorb more energy than lighter ones.

Actually, that means that coloured skin could act as a kind of solar panel, providing more power to the athlete.

Hmmm....

Darker skinned people developed darker skin over time because they needed it to live in their hot enviornment.

Although what you say is correct it isn't that simple when dealing with skin.

GreenDoor

Squirrel wrote:

Then why are the Africans to the front of Cross Country running? This argument can work for on the flat track, but not on the hilly courses of XC

They are East Africans. Their main advantage is not that they are running up hills all the time but because they live in an enviornment that has thin air so their lungs get used to it.

Physically they are thinner than Europeans so they have less weight to carry and have longer limbs.

Squirrel

GreenDoor wrote:

They are East Africans. Their main advantage is not that they are running up hills all the time but because they live in an enviornment that has thin air so their lungs get used to it.

Physically they are thinner than Europeans so they have less weight to carry and have longer limbs.

But then their skin colour has nothing to do with it?

Gurgle

GreenDoor wrote:

Darker skinned people developed darker skin over time because they needed it to live in their hot enviornment.

Although what you say is correct it isn't that simple when dealing with skin.

Darker skin afaik is good protection in hot environments for sunburn & melanoma etc.

Doesn't mean it helps people function in very hot conditions.

In my own experience the opposite is true. In egypt (in july) the locals have more trouble dealing with the mid-day sun than the Irish & English tourists.

Squirrel wrote:

But then their skin colour has nothing to do with it?

Thats my opinion on the subject.

I think there are other factors which give a competitive advantage:
- Long daily hours of physical labour from a young age gives better fitness and muscle development
- Higher lung capacity to compensate for thinner air, as GreenDoor said
- And the controversial but historically accurate one: Americans bred slaves like cattle to be big & strong. Its only half a dozen generations since the end of slavery in the US and the effects of selective breeding have not averaged out yet.

Linford

GreenDoor wrote:

Once an anthropologist said something interesting about race and athletics. He said white runners should not even show up for the 100 meters in the Olympics. This was a bone course so what he said he turned into a lesson. Coloured people have smooth, relatively round tibia and fibula bones. They are also set rather close to each other. This is not idea for muscular development which was the anthropologist's point.

He said coloured people, because of smaller calve muscles, had less weight to pick up than did other races. Less weight meant quicker movement, all other things being equal. Calves produce power for walking or running up hills but strong calve muscles are nearly useless on flat surfaces. Further, Negro calves are shortened in comparison to Caucasian calves and the achilles tendon is longer leaving the calve bunched up nearer the knee. Long tendons and short muscle bellies are characteristic of savannah animals which need to run on flat land.

I once read - and although I have searched for it I can't find it now - that people who's origin is west africa (i.e. all the top sprinters from the last 23 years with the exception of Frankie Fredericks) have lighter bones, this therefore gives them a greater strength to weight ratio which is ideal for sprinters.

I didn't think much of this till I met Maurice Greene and Ato Boldon at the Sydney Olympics (I was a spectator), they were both about the same height as me but had much more muscle (I reckon that he was about 1 1/2 times wider than me not to mention his arms and legs), then I was told that Greene weighed 155 pounds (11 stone), I was pretty slim at the time with a bit of muscle and was weighing in about a stone heavier!

I know if I could be twice as strong and lighter, I know it would have been a good deal faster.

Any one else heard this before or agree with this opinion or is it complete bull...

GreenDoor

Linford wrote:

I didn't think much of this till I met Maurice Greene and Ato Boldon at the Sydney Olympics (I was a spectator), they were both about the same height as me but had much more muscle (I reckon that he was about 1 1/2 times wider than me not to mention his arms and legs), then I was told that Greene weighed 155 pounds (11 stone), I was pretty slim at the time with a bit of muscle and was weighing in about a stone heavier!

Any one else heard this before or agree with this opinion or is it complete bull...

Negroes look wider from the front because of their body shape. Whites look bulkier from the side. Whites have also a bigger neck and head so that would make the body look smaller.

Those sprinters look more than 11 stone to me though. I might be wrong but I'd say about 13 stone.

ecksor

Discussing body shape of people with an african origin so generally seems off to me. As in, comparing the stereotypical Nigerian sprinter with the stereotypical Kenyan distance runner seems to me to quite different. And those are still just the stereotypes, we've seen stocky kenyans and lanky nigerians.

As for the weight of sprinters, I recall being surprised that I was heavier than very bulky looking athletes such as Ato Boldon and Dennis Mitchell who I could roughly match in height but certainly not in muscle mass.

GreenDoor

There are also differences between Europeans. In ancient times there were cro-magnon's and Nordid.

Irish people would be mostly Brunn (cro-magnon) people. Brunns are described below

Description:
Like the Dalo-Falid type, Brünns are typically tall, broad-shouldered, and large-headed, with big bones and heavy musculature. In its unmixed form the type is usually quite easily distinguished from other local varieties, such as the shorter-statured, more gracile and more leptomorphic Keltic Nordid, with which it is cohabitant.
The modern Brünn inhabitants of western Ireland are mesocephalicto sub-brachycephalic,whereas their more easterly Cro-Magnid counterparts are typically long-headed. This is possibly due to the presence of a shorter-headed strain (such as Borreby) in the former, or to a local process of brachycephalization. The ancestral Cro-Magnid skull form was clearlydolichocranial.
The Brünn forehead is high and broad, and the face broad and mostly orthognathous. The malars are wide, the lower jaw deep and broad (yet usually not as broad as in the Dalo-Falid type), and the chin is prominent and typically clefted (the latter is foremost a male trait).
As with the other Cro-Magnid types, male Brünn facial features can be very ruggedly masculine, often with exaggeratedly pronounced browridges and deep jaws; the degree of sexual dimorphism is high, and a corresponding ruggedness is not usually observed among the females. As with Borreby women, these are typically rounder-featured and larger-breasted than the European mean.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva]The nose is moderately large, mesorrhine to leptorrhine, and straight in profile, with a considerable concave minority. The tip is somewhat thick, and frequently upturned. The mouth is large and the lines around the oral cavity are deeply drawn, while the lips are moderately thick and little everted. The upper lip tends characteristically towards length and convexity. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva]The skin, typically freckled, is very fair, and does not easily tan. The hair is brown and wavy, and often rufous (the Irish Brünn is known for its frequent red-headedness). Curly hair seems to be an Irish specialty. The eyes are light-mixed blue in the great majority of cases.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva][/FONT]

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

Discussing body shape of people with an african origin so generally seems off to me. As in, comparing the stereotypical Nigerian sprinter with the stereotypical Kenyan distance runner seems to me to quite different. And those are still just the stereotypes, we've seen stocky kenyans and lanky nigerians.

The point of the thread is to see what suits Irish athlete's best. Its not about Africans. Africans are being used as an example because they are the best runners.

From my last thread regarding the Irish body type non running events would suit us better. Sports like swimming should be encouraged.

ecksor

Greendoor wrote:

There are also differences between Europeans. In ancient times there were cro-magnon's and Nordid.

I'm not stating otherwise, in fact I've already stated on this thread that I think there are differences between Europeans.

What I am saying is that your generalisations about Africans seem dodgy. Whether or not Europeans are very similar has absolutely nothing to do with that.

ecksor

GreenDoor wrote:

The point of the thread is to see what suits Irish athlete's best. Its not about Africans. Africans are being used as an example because they are the best runners.

I mention athletes of an african origin in that post only in response to your post about athletes of an african origin. If the point of this thread is about what suits Irish athletes best, then it is odd that you didn't once mention Irish athletes specifically in your first post.

Mad Finn

Stepping very tentatively into the 'Is race a factor in racing?' debate. I seem to remember a program some time ago which tried to analyse the physiology of athletics and the tendency of one race to excel at a particular sport. It pointed out that just about every male 100m Olympic Champion has originated in Western Africa, whereas the truly great distance runners tend to be from East Africa and also tend to have come from places at high altitude.

The only times in recent decades when a white man has won the 100m Olympic title it was because of extenuating circumstances. In 1980, the Scot Alan Wells won but was certainly helped by the fact that there were no US athletes there. They boycotted the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Similarly, Valeri Borzov of the Soviet Union, who won in 1972, didn't have to face the top Americans because the two US contenders missed their sem-final owing to a mixup over scheduling.

All other champions (pharmacologically assisted or not) have come from the descendants of West Africans in the US or Carribean.

It was more to do with fast twitch fibres in the muscles than bone shape, if I recall.

Curiously, soccer is the one game where race or size doesn't seem to matter at all. Look at the truly great players of the last 50 years.

Pele: a short compact Negro gymnast
Maradonna: a barrel-chested Latino with only one usable foot
Cruyff: a skinny wispy pale-faced northern European
Best: ditto
Zidane: a six-foot plus Arab with no pace but the grace of a ballerina

You don't get that in rugby where the top players tend to be Polynesians with massive bone and muscle density and pace to boot. Or in boxing where the bigger you are the blacker you need to be and the smaller you are, hte more Latin you need to be.

Or so it seems.

Linford

Mad Finn wrote:

The only times in recent decades when a white man has won the 100m Olympic title it was because of extenuating circumstances. In 1980, the Scot Alan Wells won but was certainly helped by the fact that there were no US athletes there. They boycotted the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Similarly, Valeri Borzov of the Soviet Union, who won in 1972, didn't have to face the top Americans because the two US contenders missed their sem-final owing to a mixup over scheduling.

All other champions (pharmacologically assisted or not) have come from the descendants of West Africans in the US or Carribean.

I think that is a little unfair on Wells and Borzov. At the time of the olympics both were the top sprinters in the world at the time and Wells proved it after the Olympics. Borzov was favourite for the 100m and won the 200m also, if it was any other nation than the whinging US, no one would know to this day that they were late for their semis. In 1976 as far as I can recall there were no US medalists in the 100m and Borzov was third.

Armin Harry in 1960 was also white and I think one of the winners in the 50s was too.

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

I mention athletes of an african origin in that post only in response to your post about athletes of an african origin. If the point of this thread is about what suits Irish athletes best, then it is odd that you didn't once mention Irish athletes specifically in your first post.

Look at the title. We're European.

Sorry for not being PC but I think the topic should be talked about for the good of irish athletics.

GreenDoor

Mad Finn wrote:

You don't get that in rugby where the top players tend to be Polynesians with massive bone and muscle density and pace to boot. Or in boxing where the bigger you are the blacker you need to be and the smaller you are, hte more Latin you need to be.

You must also take into accout their background. There is high unemployment among these groups of people. That generally leads to the people to take up sports.

New Zealand rugby is an interesting topic. There are 2 main reasons why there are so many polynesians playing for the All Blacks. The first is because of their poor background. And the second is (according to the NZ coaches) that Polynesians grow up about 18 months faster than whites. Imagine what that does to youth teams.

Ironically NZ's best athlete (usually no 7's ie David Wallace, Lewis Moody, Schalk Burger, George Smith etc) is Richie McCaw.

ecksor

GreenDoor wrote:

Look at the title. We're European.

Sorry for not being PC but I think the topic should be talked about for the good of irish athletics.

It's not a question of being PC, it's a question of saying what you mean. Paula Radcliffe is not an Irish athlete but she was your only specific example in the first post. You seem to equate race with nationality but the reality is more complex than that.

Mad Finn wrote:

It was more to do with fast twitch fibres in the muscles than bone shape, if I recall.

Curiously, soccer is the one game where race or size doesn't seem to matter at all. Look at the truly great players of the last 50 years.

There's no arguing that physical talent is a strong factor in whether someone can be an elite athlete, but the reasoning given behind certain areas of the world producing more champions in a given sport isn't as logical as being implied.

Elite performers are individuals, they are not average representatives of their race or background. If they were, they wouldn't be elite. There's a lot of anthropological evidence presented on threads like this, but what relevance does it have? No scientist will make definitive connections between racial body types and elite athletes. There simply isn't the correct type of evidence out there to do it.

My two main points:

1. Individual athletes who get to the top are certainly exceptional physical specimens, but there's more to getting to the top than having physical talent. You must have a certain psychological bent towards succeeding at your chosen sport. I believe it is more likely for a talented athlete to attain that frame of mind if they come from a culture or background where success in the particular sport is seen as possible. For example, it seems that ever since we had Neil Ryan, Gary Ryan and Eugene Farrell run at the Olympic games in 1996 we've had more and more sprinters running times that you hardly ever saw being run 10 years ago by Irish athletes. But that is still not a good example of a national culture oriented towards success in a particular discipline. A better example of that would be Russian chess players, who I have trouble believing are genetically superior at the game despite their huge international reputation.

2. Drawing a comparison between elite performers in a group and the average ability of the group is nonsense. Again looking close to home, the Irish record in the 100m at the start of 1996 was 10.61s. 10 years later the improvement was nearly .3 of a second with many athletes running faster than the old record. Has the average Irish man improved by .3 in that period of time? I think not.

This isn't about being PC or not, it's about the argument making sense. If a freakishly talented 14yo 100m runner turns up in Kerry next week then we're not doing him or her any good at all by pointing out that Irish people haven't traditionally done well at that event. He / she is either talented enough or not. The key thing is to discover and develop individuals.

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

It's not a question of being PC, it's a question of saying what you mean. Paula Radcliffe is not an Irish athlete but she was your only specific example in the first post. You seem to equate race with nationality but the reality is more complex than that.

I think your reading it from a point of view that it wasn't intended.

ecksor wrote:

This isn't about being PC or not, it's about the argument making sense. If a freakishly talented 14yo 100m runner turns up in Kerry next week then we're not doing him or her any good at all by pointing out that Irish people haven't traditionally done well at that event. He / she is either talented enough or not. The key thing is to discover and develop individuals.

Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not saying people shouldn't give everything a go. What I'm saying is more money should be put into sports that suits Irish athletes. This will increase the chances of winning medals.

ecksor

GreenDoor wrote:

I think your reading it from a point of view that it wasn't intended.

Well, if you start off by talking about a broad european issue and then narrow it down to Irish athletes (despite acknowledging that 'european' is very broad) then you'll have to be prepared for people drawing their own conclusions. Feel free to clarify at any point.

Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not saying people shouldn't give everything a go. What I'm saying is more money should be put into sports that suits Irish athletes. This will increase the chances of winning medals.

Do you think there are athletics events which are overflowing with money in Ireland?

thirtyfoot

Mad Finn wrote:

Curiously, soccer is the one game where race or size doesn't seem to matter at all. Look at the truly great players of the last 50 years.

I'd argue that soccer is one sport where size does matter. The beauty of athletics or rugby is that any size can participate, the same cannot be said of soccer. If you are 5ft 10 and 18 stone, you can be an elite thrower or in the front row in rugby, yet in soccer you'd be in the stand eating pies if you were built like that.

Rugby probably has the widest spectrum of body types in any team sport much more so than soccer, athletics is the same.

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

Well, if you start off by talking about a broad european issue and then narrow it down to Irish athletes (despite acknowledging that 'european' is very broad) then you'll have to be prepared for people drawing their own conclusions. Feel free to clarify at any point.

Draw your own conclusions so. :rolleyes:

Do you think there are athletics events which are overflowing with money in Ireland?

Thats the point I was making!

ecksor

Well, one specific suggestion you made about funding is that swimming should get more than running. If you agree that athletics is not getting much money to begin with then I'm confused about what you think the correct implication for your theory is in terms of athletics events which should presumably be the focus of this thread.

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

Well, one specific suggestion you made about funding is that swimming should get more than running. If you agree that athletics is not getting much money to begin with then I'm confused about what you think the correct implication for your theory is in terms of athletics events which should presumably be the focus of this thread.

Anything that helps Irish athletes win more. Thats the whole point of the thread. I started the thread because it's an interesting subject that isn't discussed at all because people fear being called racist (by a tiny minority). Your the only one who seems to have a problem with this thread.

Most people find it informative and interesting but your picking faults where there are none.

ecksor

If I had an actual problem with the thread then the thread wouldn't be here. I'm picking faults where I see faults. I've explained at length where I see flaws in the logic of some arguments here. Feel free to argue your case.

For example, I ask you what you think the implications of your theory is and you say "anything that helps Irish athletes win more". Does that mean that you're not sure yet if it actually has implications or if we should just discuss it at length to see if it does have implications? If the latter, then I'm offering reasons why I don't see it as a productive line of investigation.

I think you're talking about a lot of stuff on the basis "sure, everyone knows that" whereas I'm arguing that the development of an elite athlete is about more than simple body types. I don't think I've actually said you were wrong at any point here. I don't know if you're right or wrong. All I'm offering are counterexamples to your arguments to show why I think they aren't convincing or useful.

GreenDoor

I've explained the reason for starting the thread. If Irish athletes had a better chance of winning in a particular sport than why not put more resources into that sport.

I know that not everybody is the same and I'm generalising but being realistic is another way to describe it.

Look at the recent success of the Irish rowing team. Another example of a sport that suits Irish athlete's. What I'm saying is this sport should be encouraged more than sprinting for example.

ecksor

Rowing and swimming, the only two sports you've mentioned as being worthy of funding, aren't on even on topic on this forum.

Ok, so you started the thread to somehow help Irish athletes in their chances of winning. The plan looks like this apparently:

1. Discuss apparent shortcomings of Irish athletes.
2. Fund sports where these shortcomings aren't so apparent (preferably non-athletic sports).
3. Success!

GreenDoor wrote:

I know that not everybody is the same and I'm generalising but being realistic is another way to describe it.

Instead of claiming that you are realistic, please answer my arguments on this thread.

GreenDoor wrote:

What I'm saying is this sport should be encouraged more than sprinting for example.

How is the funding being given to Rowing relevant to the Athletics forum? Again I ask you, do you think there are athletics events in this country that are being over-funded?

Why should sprinting not be encouraged? Actually, let me be more specific. What is your evidence for suggesting that Irish people are somehow not suited to sprinting?

thirtyfoot

GreenDoor wrote:

Look at the recent success of the Irish rowing team. Another example of a sport that suits Irish athlete's. What I'm saying is this sport should be encouraged more than sprinting for example.

You sound like Pat Hickey. Irish sprinters aren't supported, DOR is on 12k, Joanne Cuddihy on 5k. You'd get more on the dole.

air

On the subject of African long distance running, in the book "Running for Triathletes" by Ken Mierke, he mentions extensive physiological testing that took place on elite european and african distance runners at one point. The conclusion of the tests IIRC was that the Europeans and Africans were practically identical in terms of aerobic capacity, VO2 max and all other quantifiiable physical attributes but that the running economy of the Africans was something like 8 -10 percent better than the europeans.
This was put down to their lifestyle which typically involved longer distances at a younger age, thus developing an efficient footstrike etc which was then further honed as they became athletes.

ecksor

That's bonkers. I didn't realise it was possible to have that much discrepancy between running styles in terms of efficiency amongst elite athletes. Did they have any comments to make upon how much this could be improved by drills or specific training?

air

Thats actually a primary theme of the book, he has another one called "Evolution Running" I think where the whole book is dedicated to running technique. In the triathlon book, the first 50 pages or so cover technique - body position, foot strike and turnover rate etc, the rest of the book covers training and preparation etc.
Anyway the specifics of the books are a bit OT, pm me if you want any further info.

BTW to quote the book directly:
"No doubt, these athletes are extraordinarily gifted and extraordinarily fit, but so are the other professional runners they beat so easily, what sets the great african runners apart is that they are more efficient than their competitors. They run faster without expending more energy. Many experts in running economy agree that running barefoot through childhood contributes significantly to the extraordinary success of these athletes."

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

Rowing and swimming, the only two sports you've mentioned as being worthy of funding, aren't on even on topic on this forum.

Ok, so you started the thread to somehow help Irish athletes in their chances of winning. The plan looks like this apparently:

1. Discuss apparent shortcomings of Irish athletes.
2. Fund sports where these shortcomings aren't so apparent (preferably non-athletic sports).
3. Success!

1. You see it as shortcomings but I'm showing where Irish athletes' strengths are.
2. Fund sports that suit Irish athetes best. Whats wrong with that? I'm not saying do away with sprinting but only give grants to sprinters who can show medal winning potential.
3. More success than we have now, guarenteed!

Again I ask you, do you think there are athletics events in this country that are being over-funded?

I think sport is underfunded in general.

Why should sprinting not be encouraged? Actually, let me be more specific. What is your evidence for suggesting that Irish people are somehow not suited to sprinting?

I quoted an Anthropologist. It's well known in anthropology that every race has it's strengths/weaknesses. All the fastest men in the world are black and all the strongest men in the world are white. This is no coincedence and backs up the anthropologists.

GreenDoor

air wrote:

BTW to quote the book directly:
"No doubt, these athletes are extraordinarily gifted and extraordinarily fit, but so are the other professional runners they beat so easily, what sets the great african runners apart is that they are more efficient than their competitors. They run faster without expending more energy. Many experts in running economy agree that running barefoot through childhood contributes significantly to the extraordinary success of these athletes."

"Experts"? I don't think so. They are saying that running barefoot in childhood makes you run faster which is stupid.

The real reason (so simple) which I've explained is because of the bone structure around the hip area. The Arficans have narrower hips and are angled straighter. Thats why they need less energy to run compared to whites.

ecksor

GreenDoor wrote:

1. You see it as shortcomings but I'm showing where Irish athletes' strengths are.
2. Fund sports that suit Irish athetes best. Whats wrong with that? I'm not saying do away with sprinting but only give grants to sprinters who can show medal winning potential.
3. More success than we have now, guarenteed!

In order:
1. I haven't claimed to see any inherent strengths or shortcomings, you have. I'm merely trying to say what seems to be your "plan" for this thread.
2. In principle, it depends upon your point of view of what funding should be for, but without going down that road I still don't accept that you've shown that any particular sport does or does not suit Irish athletes.
3. I'm not convinced.

I think sport is underfunded in general.

In that case then even if you are correct then identifying more suitable sports for Irish athletes is beside the point since NOBODY is getting enough money. There is no spare money in any allegedly less suitable sports, so identifying them isn't going to free up any more money. So, I still don't see how this thread / discussion helps Irish sports people to win more medals.

I quoted an Anthropologist. It's well known in anthropology that every race has it's strengths/weaknesses. All the fastest men in the world are black and all the strongest men in the world are white. This is no coincedence and backs up the anthropologists.

Yes, but why are the fastest men in the world black? See my earlier post about generalising from statements about a race to the elite sportspeople from any given race. Do you think that anthropologists are claiming that russians are better chess players due to genetics or culture (if they're expressing an opinion at all)? This does not answer the question I asked.

Please take account in your reply the sudden dramatic improvement of sprint performances in Ireland in the last 10 years, the coaching structures within BLE/AAI and changing attitudes towards sprint events in Ireland in that time.

Greendoor wrote:

"Experts"? I don't think so. They are saying that running barefoot in childhood makes you run faster which is stupid.

Explain please. In sprint events in particular, although the same would apply to distance events, the reactiveness of the foot to the ground is dependent upon the strength of the muscles in the foot. Each millisecond you can shave from a given foot contact removes a lot from your overall sprint time. From personal experience I know that running a couple of miles cross country will exercise muscles you never even knew you had in your foot if you're used to just using modern running shoes.

GreenDoor

ecksor wrote:

Please take account in your reply the sudden dramatic improvement of sprint performances in Ireland in the last 10 years, the coaching structures within BLE/AAI and changing attitudes towards sprint events in Ireland in that time.

But are they in the same league as African sprinters? This is the point i'm making.

Explain please. In sprint events in particular, although the same would apply to distance events, the reactiveness of the foot to the ground is dependent upon the strength of the muscles in the foot. Each millisecond you can shave from a given foot contact removes a lot from your overall sprint time. From personal experience I know that running a couple of miles cross country will exercise muscles you never even knew you had in your foot if you're used to just using modern running shoes.

Why do athletes wear footwear when they run so?

Do you agree that race plays a big part in sporting success? I look at what anthropologists say and they're usually right.

Take the 2 main European types. Cro-magnon of which we irish are mostly (and the best examples of cro-magnon in europe) and Nordid of which the purest are in central Sweden. The famous anthropologist Carleton Coon said that Cro-magnon man was more powerfully built than the thinner Nordids. This could explain why Sweden produces so many good high jumpers. Their lighter frames and longer limbs gives them an advantage there. It could also explain why Britian have a really good rowing record. Powerful upperbody with a high lung capacity. The Irish are more cro-magnon than the English so theres no reason we shouldn't win medals if rowing became popular here.

ecksor

GreenDoor wrote:

But are they in the same league as African sprinters? This is the point i'm making.

Why are you consistently failing to answer my questions?

WHY are elite african sprinters better? Please re-read my question above.

Why do athletes wear footwear when they run so?

What? Please think about what you're saying. Most sprinters lift weights to strenghten various parts of their body but they don't usually do their track sessions or races carrying weights. Does that mean that weights don't help with strengthwork?

Running barefoot strengthens the foot. A better question is why do so many people in this part of the world seem to have gait problems?

Do you agree that race plays a big part in sporting success? I look at what anthropologists say and they're usually right.

It appears to play a part, yes. However, you haven't shown one consistent argument for why this is the case and until you do then I don't accept that it should direct funding for sports in Ireland or any other country.

Take the 2 main European types. Cro-magnon of which we irish are mostly (and the best examples of cro-magnon in europe) and Nordid of which the purest are in central Sweden. The famous anthropologist Carleton Coon said that Cro-magnon man was more powerfully built than the thinner Nordids. This could explain why Sweden produces so many good high jumpers. Their lighter frames and longer limbs gives them an advantage there. It could also explain why Britian have a really good rowing record. Powerful upperbody with a high lung capacity. The Irish are more cro-magnon than the English so theres no reason we shouldn't win medals if rowing became popular here.

Again, these are general average characteristics. Averages do not make for elite performers.