socio-economic vs genetics debate ( keep things polite )

Hanley

Slow coach wrote:

Was that necessary?



Or even correct?

From a purely non-scientfic view I would say that the average African-American guy has far superior genes to the non-African American. Just look at the NFL, the number of big, jacked coloured guys VASTLY outweighs the number of "white" guys in the league.

Same goes for basketball. Height wise tho.

And traditionally what colour skin do the fastest 100m runners in the world have?

I'm pretty sure "black" (I don't even know what the PC term is anymore) have a greater number of fast twitch muslce fibres as opposed to "white" guys. So yeah, they do have superior genetics.

Dragan

We're not going down the "black vs white" route again folks as it has a history of being argued particularly aggressively. Back on topic.

Pherekydes

Hanley wrote:

What are you talking about? I was agreeing with you.

Agreeing with me? Where? I'm quickly getting lost.

Hanley

Slow coach wrote:

Agreeing with me? Where? I'm quickly getting lost.

No sorry, I *thought* I was agreeing with Mloc, I'll edit it now.

My point about their superior genes still stands

nesf

Hanley wrote:

From a purely non-scientfic view I would say that the average African-American guy has far superior genes to the non-African American. Just look at the NFL, the number of big, jacked coloured guys VASTLY outweighs the number of "white" guys in the league.

Same goes for basketball. Height wise tho.

And traditionally what colour skin do the fastest 100m runners in the world have?

I'm pretty sure "black" (I don't even know what the PC term is anymore) have a greater number of fast twitch muslce fibres as opposed to "white" guys. So yeah, they do have superior genetics.

Not addressing the black/white debate here I'm just curious why you'd list only athletic qualities in order to defend a position of a certain race having better genes. Oh, and you forgot boxing.

Hanley

nesf wrote:

Not addressing the black/white debate here I'm just curious why you'd list only athletic qualities in order to defend a position of a certain race having better genes. Oh, and you forgot boxing.

I don't understand, if you're saying do they have better genes in general then I don't know. I was talking specifically from a sporting perspective and about the attributes that make someone a successful sports person.

nesf

Hanley wrote:

I don't understand, if you're saying do they have better genes in general then I don't know. I was talking specifically from a sporting perspective and about the attributes that make someone a successful sports person.

Cool, I misread it then as a more general point.

From a sports point of view, it depends on the sports you pick imho (i.e. gymnastics is a bit different and it's down to the primary attributes each sport benefits the most from), but I accept your point.

Hanley

nesf wrote:

From a sports point of view, it depends on the sports you pick imho (i.e. gymnastics is a bit different and it's down to the primary attributes each sport benefits the most from), but I accept your point.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this one too. This is in danger of going wildy OT but here's my thoughts;

You mention gymnastics... (I'm gonna talk about male here) it's traditionally a "white" guy sport, dominated by east european countries for the most part?

Think of the percentage of white population versus black in these countries. You could also throw in the economic factor and assume white folk are better off and have a higher disposable income. Therefore more money for coaching. So the white kid gets a better chance.

Does this mean that given an equal opportunity the coloured kid wouldn't do as well? No way of really knowing, but he'd probably do jsut as good or maybe better. There' sa definate correlation between being white and being a good gymnast, but does being white MAKE you a good gymnast. I see no real causation.

It's a similr argument to one I used when asked why if coloured people really do have superior sporting genes then why aren't there any olympic weightlifting champions who are black? Simply put the prospective pool of lifters in the dominant nations is almost exclusively white. Eastern europe in the heavier classes, moving towards aisa in the lighter classes.

This of course brings the argument out as to why America doesn't produce any since they've a very diverse pool to choose from. USAW produces sweet FA truly world class lifters ANYWAY. It's simply too hard to compete against the professoinal sports which generally get the most talented and gifted natural athletes because of the money involved.

Incidentally, one of america most talented weight lifters, Kendrick Farris is african-american.

Assuming the most talented and gifted athletes will always gravitate towards the most popular and beneficial sports to them in any country (gymnastics and weightlifting in eastern europe are big money business and a way out of poverty for ALOT of the athletes) I think it's fair to say that in a country where there's sufficint diversty, for example America, the number of coloured athletes at the top of their game, and the sheer volume of them shows that they're more gifted athletes on a purely genetic level.

Of course you can throw in a **** load of variables and even use my own argument against me (pro sports is a way out of poverty for black kids in america, they work harder because of it. White kids are generally better educated so they have the option of persuing professional careers etc etc).

Anyway I want to go to sleep so if anyone wants to pick up on this then I'll reply at some stage tomorow. I understand this is a sensitive subject for some, so if you've issue with anything I've said then shoot me a PM.

Dragan

Hanley is making some good points, so if anyone ( or you yourself Hanley? ) wants to keep this going then i will happily break it off to a different thread?

nesf

Dragan wrote:

Hanley is making some good points, so if anyone ( or you yourself Hanley? ) wants to keep this going then i will happily break it off to a different thread?

I'm interested in discussing the socio-economic vs genetics vs rational actor debate on this if Hanley and/or others are up for it.

RuggieBear

nesf wrote:

I'm interested in discussing the socio-economic vs genetics vs rational actor debate on this if Hanley and/or others are up for it.

/unsubscribes from thread

Dragan

New thread opened, keep things polite and provide some kind of back up for arguments.

First person to mention Rocky Marciano is banned.

thirtyfoot

http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_5940137

An recent article from Jeremy Wariner - the fastest white man over 400m and tipped by many to eventually beat Michael Johnson's record. He is skinny, weighs just over 11 stone and belies the myth that a white skinny man can't sprint.

An extract from the article..

But Jeremy Wariner will tell you his ethnicity is irrelevant.

"It doesn't matter what race you are when you're out there competing," says Wariner, whose top 400-meter time this year is 44.02. "I really don't even like to think of that stuff."

But he did tell the Denver Post recently, "I think the black athletes in our country have taken advantage of the opportunities to get their education (through track), while a lot of our white athletes are on the computer. They're driving their cars, they're playing golf. I don't think there's any physical reason. I think the white athlete is not as hungry as they used to be."

Only three men - the world record holder, Michael Johnson (43.18), Butch Reynolds (43.29) and Quincy Watts (43.50) - have run the 400 meters faster than Jeremy Wariner, whose 43.62 a year ago is his top time.

Pherekydes

Tingle wrote:

But he did tell the Denver Post recently, "I think the black athletes in our country have taken advantage of the opportunities to get their education (through track), while a lot of our white athletes are on the computer. They're driving their cars, they're playing golf. I don't think there's any physical reason. I think the white athlete is not as hungry as they used to
be."

This quote was actually given by Clyde Hart, who is Jeremy Wariner's coach.
The error is not Tingle's, I hasten to add. It was incorrectly attributed in the article quoted.

"I think the black athlete in our country has taken advantage of the opportunities to get their education (through track), while a lot of our white athletes are on the computer, they're driving their cars, they're playing golf," Hart said. "I don't think there's any physical reason. I think the white athlete is not as hungry as they used to be."

From here.

It's nearly all socio-economic, if you ask me.

Mickk

Isn't it just because most of the african americans were brought over as slaves? I would imagine that if you were buying a slave you would go for the natural mesomorph and so they sorta created a super race.

Hanley

Ah sure what the hell, here's more of what I'm thinking. And for the record I'm not really arguing any side per sé, just attempting to give an overview as I see it.

I think Hart/Warnier it raises a good point and also one which I alluded to in an earlier post as to why black (is it ok to just keep it simple and class people as black/white for the purpose of this thread?) athletes are more successful.

Hanley wrote:

Of course you can throw in a **** load of variables and even use my own argument against me (pro sports is a way out of poverty for black kids in america, they work harder because of it. White kids are generally better educated so they have the option of persuing professional careers etc etc).

Of course you could counter argue and say that for any majority there'll always be at least one statistical annomoly who lies way out side the normal distribution curve on one of the tail ends. Warnier could be such.

A fitting comparision would be to compare how many white kids of similar socio-economic status to the average black kid go on to play or compete in sport at a professional level. Obviously the numbers need to be scalable since on average white people in america are better educated and more wealthy than the average black person.

It would be a very interesting study to undertake. But I don't know if it would ACTUALLY prove causation. You'd have to put in conditions and tests that account for muscle bi-opises to determine fibre composition and the likes too.

Leon11

http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/Taboo55.html

Entine also cites empirical observations showing that black babies exhibit superior coordination at an earlier age than white babies[xxxiv] and that black teenagers have a “faster patellar tendon reflex time - the knee jerk response - and an edge in reaction time over whites”. [xxxv] Facts such as these, Entine concludes, derive from genetic predispositions that also explain the superior performance of black athletes.

If you were to measure race, blacks will fare better in sports that require endurance, speed, reflexes etc.

White people tend to fare better at the likes of soccer, weightlifting

Hanley

Mickk wrote:

Isn't it just because most of the african americans were brought over as slaves? I would imagine that if you were buying a slave you would go for the natural mesomorph and so they sorta created a super race.

How do you account for black dominance in boxing (where alot of the fighters are British) and in long distance running where the african dominate.

But again on the long distance running it's subject to the same conditions I outlined for the weightlifting and gymnastics.

[quote="Leon11"}http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/Taboo55.html

Quote:
Entine also cites empirical observations showing that black babies exhibit superior coordination at an earlier age than white babies[xxxiv] and that black teenagers have a “faster patellar tendon reflex time - the knee jerk response - and an edge in reaction time over whites”. [xxxv] Facts such as these, Entine concludes, derive from genetic predispositions that also explain the superior performance of black athletes.

If you were to measure race, blacks will fare better in sports that require endurance, speed, reflexes etc.

White people tend to fare better at the likes of soccer, weightlifting[/quote]

I think I've already dis-proved most of that. I espeically take issue with Soccer. Look at the Chealsea team, ALOT of them are coloured/black. As was the greatest soccer player ever - Pele.

Black people aren't big on an international level in weightlifting because it's an extremely complex sport that takes years and years (decades) to master and they simply don't have access to the coaching that goes on in the dominant countries (eastern europe).

In addition, black people are "too good" for weightlifting and gravate towards sports where there's more money to be made, ie professional football in the US. Look at some of the top combine numbers and invariably it'll be the black kids putting them up. You can use the argument that why aren't their names on OL or PL record books and I'll respond with they're not because they don't care about minor stuff like that when they're staring down the face of a $10 million a year pro contract.

EDIT: you said "If you were to measure race, blacks will fare better in sports that require endurance, speed, reflexes etc."

Isn't that ALL sports??

brianthebard

Hanley is the british boxers example to say that the Slave trade doesn't have much to do with the genetic argument? If so you should know that many, maybe even the majority of black people in Britain can trace their heritage back to the slave trade.

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but I would like to see some figures, from both sides of this argument. What percentage of black people are in professional sports in the USA;
as a part of the whole population?
as a part of the black population, which is 13% of the US population?
are the figures similar for white people?

Just some curiousities I'd like to know. tank ewe.

Pherekydes

Hanley wrote:

...the greatest soccer player ever - Pele.

Isn't that ALL sports??

Haha, Maradona. Case lost.


We can't really quantify Soccer greatness, can we? It's a matter of opinion.

Tap dance is a (black) American art form. Why are the fastest proponents white (Irish)?

If the black American gene pool is derived from Ghana, why does the USA have far more world class sprinters than Ghana. Indeed, why does Jamaica?

Did the slave traders capture the best/fastest? Surely the fastest would've gotten away?

If socio-economic factors play no part, why is Nigeria's 100m record 9.85, while Niger's (same ethnic groups/tribes) is about 10.7?

There may be a correlation between skin colour and success in sport, but the old statistical mantra applies:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Hanley

BTB, coming to you know. I'm just finished reading the study and wanted to say something while it's fresh in my mind.

http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/Taboo55.html wrote:

This is an outrageous overgeneralization. Do African and African descended athletes do better in most sports? Or is it rather that they do best in sports based on running and jumping? What about sports such as swimming, wrestling, gymnastics and judo instead of running and jumping? Using these as the standard, we might find that black athletes do not perform as well as whites. By choosing running and jumping as exemplary of athletic activities, the deck is already stacked, and we are predisposed to the conclusion that blacks are naturally better athletes than whites.

My problem with this is they're all highly skilled and technical sports, and cycling is VERY expensive too. I would belive most black people simply do not have access to the coaching needed to excel in these sports and thus it's a moot point. It's only "fair" to compara sports where both races have an equal opportunity, no?

Golf was alos mentioned earlier in the text, I guess Tiger gave the big middle finger to that one!!

As a matter of fact, in many sports blacks are not the superior athletes they are made out to be. Whites continue to dominate in hockey, skiing, bicycling, gymnastics, fencing, wrestling, as well as Track and Field events such as the discus, the javelin, the shot put, and the pole vault. As University of the Pacific sociologist John Phillips argues, if we were to look at all the sports, and not just running and jumping ones, we would see that blacks do not dominate, except in the high profile activities central to spectator sports

Again I re-iterate my point about coaching and access to coaching on these particular sports.

Hockey is an absolutely farcical example to give. How much of Africa is covered in ice ffs?

Now, to read that study again and find some numbers for BTB.

Hanley

Slow coach wrote:

If the black American gene pool is derived from Ghana, why does the USA have far more world class sprinters than Ghana. Indeed, why does Jamaica?

Did the slave traders capture the best/fastest? Surely the fastest would've gotten away?

If socio-economic factors play no part, why is Nigeria's 100m record 9.85, while Niger's (same ethnic groups/tribes) is about 10.7?

There may be a correlation between skin colour and success in sport, but the old statistical mantra applies:

Correlation does not imply causation.

The US has a far better system in place for training sprinters, they have better coaches and better facilities (<-- based off ZERO solid evidence, just conventional wisdom).

I never said socio-econmic factors weren't involved, I think they're definately a contirbuting factor.

I think the reason the US has more top level sprinters is because of the expousure level to the sport. Since high-school sports are so popular, and generally lay the foundation for all pro-sports in america the statistics and performance is highly measured, in fact a HUGE measure of potential ability seems to be the 40 yard time it would be easy to cheery pick the fastest sprinters at that age and then put them into a training camp and take it from there.

Does that make sense??

Also, TOTALLY agree on correlation V causation and it's something I'm battling to get around in the context of this thread but without any hard science this is all really speculation.

Hanley

brianthebard wrote:

Hanley is the british boxers example to say that the Slave trade doesn't have much to do with the genetic argument? If so you should know that many, maybe even the majority of black people in Britain can trace their heritage back to the slave trade.

Touché

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but I would like to see some figures, from both sides of this argument. What percentage of black people are in professional sports in the USA;
as a part of the whole population?
as a part of the black population, which is 13% of the US population?
are the figures similar for white people?

Ok, now this could get messy becuase I've no doubt there's literally thousands of applicable figures out there, and depending on how or who reported them they could quite easily be skewed either way. For the sake of simplicty, unless otherwise noted, my figures come from here http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/Taboo55.html

"since 1996, a group comprising 1.8% of Kenya’s population has produced 20% of the winners of major international distance running events. And 90% of the top Kenyan athletes come from a 60-mile radius around the town of Eldoret in the Nandi Hills"

Nature v nuture on this one. Are they good because they come from there and that specific area has "good" genes, or is it because more is expected of them and the belief and support systems are there so they work harder?


The following is taken from the Encycolpedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States.

"during the 92-93 season, 68% of pro football, and 73% of pro basketball players were black, but only 16% of pro baseball.".

So that's roughly 52% of black people on average making up the pool in the big 3 professional US sports. BUT basketball and football are much more popular than baseball, so lets assign them a weighted average of 1.25 (Assuming they're 25% more popular). So if my calculations are correct, or even applicable, 63% of professional sports men in the big 3 sports in the US are black.

In 1997, according to http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr67.htm , white people made up 72.8% of the population of the US and it was projected to decline over future years. Therefore, since I quoted figures from 92-93 earlier it would be only logical to assume that since the numbers are showing a downward trend now, they'd have been higher then. So lets say 74-75% for the sake of simiplicity.

Now, to compare figures.

In 1992-1993 25% of the american population were black (OR non-white), but they made up 52% of the professional sports (63% if using weighted average).

75% of the population are white, but only made up 48% or 37% of the number of professional sports men depednign on the method used to calculate it.

Incidentally, white people had over 90% of the highest paying CEO and exectutive jobs at that time too.

Again, NONE of this implies causation. But there's certainly a strong correlation.

How are those figues Brian?

Mickk

Hanley wrote:

How do you account for black dominance in boxing (where alot of the fighters are British) and in long distance running where the african dominate.

I never said they are better at sports, I was replying to your original post of why they dominate NFL, basketball and 100m sprinting and I think its because a much larger percentage are natural mesomorphs. Bigger taller stronger sports will be dominated by them because if it. I think the rest of it comes down to regional differences, eg what sports you are exposed to as a kid and what lifestyle you have and what climate and height above water you live at.

Also it has been tested and found that african americans have 50% more testosterone and GH than average europeans and more than twice as much as asians.

Leon11

Just another thing that I'd pick up on. When you mention nfl those positions are very specific as regards to who plays where. Tight ends are genreally white along with the majority of winning superbowl QB (accuracy) whilst recievers (speed + co-ordination), running backs (speed + power) and full backs all tend to be black. Line backers generally seem to be white guys (power).

It would be very interesting to see a study conducted whereby different races are matched according to height/weight/sex/sports played. In each sample a common sport should be chosen where no prior experience of participating in it exists. Train the chosen people together and measure performance related gains over an extended period.

I think football is too subjective to comment on due to the fact that it is a worldwide game. If you were to take England as an example how many of the top players are white? J Cole/Lampard/Gerrard/Scholes/Carrick/Rooney. Move to Brazil and how many are white? I believe the population has something to do with it also as you already pointed out regarding eastern europe and weightlifting.

Could it also be that in America sports is a way out for black kids whose families may not have the neccesary means to support them through college where as white kids may not have to try so hard because they don't have financial insecurity.

I'm feeling like ****e at the moment so when my head clears up I will make some more, clearer valid points.

Hanley

Mickk wrote:

I never said they are better at sports, I was replying to your original post of why they dominate NFL, basketball and 100m sprinting and I think its because a much larger percentage are natural mesomorphs. Bigger taller stronger sports will be dominated by them because if it. I think the rest of it comes down to regional differences, eg what sports you are exposed to as a kid and what lifestyle you have and what climate and height above water you live at.

Also it has been tested and found that african americans have 50% more testosterone and GH than average europeans and more than twice as much as asians.

Thank you!!

If things like, coupled with better "knee jerk reactions" don't prove they've superior sporting genetics then I really don't know what does.

brianthebard

Good work Hanley, I knew it was an awkward set of questions but I think one way of proving the genetics argument would be to show that a higher percentage of people within the black ethnic group are gifted at sports compared to the white ethnic group. Are you sure that blacks in America make up 25% of the population? I think that might include hispanics, I'll have a google.

Incidently, I think its funny that you used stormfront to prove an argument in favour of black people.

Edit: some more recent population stats can be found here
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Blacks make up just under 13% of the population, Hispanics 14%-ish. How does this affect the argument, or does it?

Hanley

Leon11 wrote:

Could it also be that in America sports is a way out for black kids whose families may not have the neccesary means to support them through college where as white kids may not have to try so hard because they don't have financial insecurity.

I competely agree.

About 1 in 10,000 kids play professional sports in the US. Only 33% of white kids believe they ever will as opposed to 66% of black kids. Black parents are also 4 times more likely to beleive their child will go onto be a professional sports person.

The above from: http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/Taboo55.html

So I think it would be fair enough to state that succeeding in professional sports for black kids is akin to going to one of the Ivy Leaugue schools for middle/upper class white kids.

Again, nothing there proves casuation.

You know what would be REALLY interesting... finidng the numbers to figure out what percentage of black kids go to universaty who DON'T get there on sports scholarships vs the white kids who don't go on scholarships either. I think it would be a pretty wide gap.

Hanley

brianthebard wrote:

Good work Hanley, I knew it was an awkward set of questions but I think one way of proving the genetics argument would be to show that a higher percentage of people within the black ethnic group are gifted at sports compared to the white ethnic group. Are you sure that blacks in America make up 25% of the population? I think that might include hispanics, I'll have a google.

I noticed that myself actually and edited it to include non-whites right after I posted it!

I don't think it does anything to prove it tho. It only shows correlation right?

Like you're more likely to play pro sports if you're black, FAR more likely actually.

VERY STRONG correlation, possibly leading to causation when other factors are considered?

Incidently, I think its funny that you used stormfront to prove an argument in favour of black people.

I lol'd at that one too

Edit: some more recent population stats can be found here
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Blacks make up just under 13% of the population, Hispanics 14%-ish. How does this affect the argument, or does it?

It doesn't effect the calculations I made out of the Encycolpedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States because it specifically talks about negros when quoting those figures.

What it does do however is say that, on weighted average, 63% of the professional sports people in America are made up of <13%** of the total population.

**<13% assuming that 15 years ago the number of black people living in America was lower than it is now, possibly 10-12%

nesf

A few points:

First, forget the whole tabla rasa bull**** you hear from modern overly politically correct culture. A phrase that I heard a lot growing up was the conventional wisdom of “you can’t train a great sportsman”. The idea being that a person either has it in them or they don’t (they do have to train to become great but the idea is that people have “caps” on their abilities, i.e. you can’t make a world class marathon runner out of a world class shot putter, the innate qualities needed are fundamentally different). If you are being honest about it I don’t think you can dismiss genetic differences as being of no impact, so we at least have to give some weight to the idea of different races or different subsets of races having different tendencies on average towards different qualities.

In blunt terms, Asians are on average shorter and have a more slender/lighter build than whites or blacks as a simple and relatively uncontroversial example. This would make them, on average, not the best race at producing people who can perform slam dunks in basketball for instance. Different genetic groups (be they small families or larger races) will set the bedrock that (on average) makes a big difference at the top level where every tiny advantage can make a very large difference. An easy way to think of this that is relevant to this forum is with Olympic weightlifters. There is a certain subset of “builds” that suits the sport at the top level where there is an “optimum range” for certain attributes to be in.

The problem in all this is separating socio-economic factors (essentially rational actor arguments) from genetic factors. Are the best boxers black because they are genetically the best suited or because poor people have more reasons to commit to the very harsh training needed for professional boxing despite the very slim odds of making it big, or a combination of the two?

HammerHeadGym

My ex-wife did a thesis on this vary subject.
Supposedly it is a very proveable fact in the states that the biggest strongest slaves were bred to each other in an attempt to make a race of super slaves that could do more work than their counterparts. That combined with the 'survival of the fittest' type conditions that they lived in anyway ensured a race of superior(?) chaps and lassies.
The particualr sports at which they excell are influenced largely by socio-economic factors though. Not many fairways in the ghetto. Or kayaking academies.
This is why the afro-americans make up just over 10% of the population but almost 90% of the final four in almost any sport.
Unfortunately my only evidence was the missus telling me a different fact every time she found one in her bleedin' history book. But I doubt she was lying, this was before she knew what a bastard I am.

Diamondmaker

Leon11 wrote:

Just another thing that I'd pick up on. When you mention nfl those positions are very specific as regards to who plays where. Tight ends are genreally white along with the majority of winning superbowl QB (accuracy) whilst recievers (speed + co-ordination), running backs (speed + power) and full backs all tend to be black. Line backers generally seem to be white guys (power).
.

Accuracy!!

The QB is white mainly from a traditional perspective it is a position of prestige and only in a few generations from now will we see if this changes.
QB as a whole overtly or otherwise is still tricky for a black kid to get a game at. Only with the current rise of equality and black coaches etc will we see this. I think this point needs to be parked for a few generations....not very useful now!

Population of blacks is 13% and concentrated in the south. This would further go to explain the white QB as there are more white kids gunning for the prestige position in most of the country ( geographically) based purely on the pop stat.

Now on the flip side of that we have yet to see a maori, black or any other non caucasion person fill a world class out half role world rugby. Even in NZ where things are most equal.

NZ is a good place to do the study as the Maori and white population are more equal ( paradox ) than many other nations.

The all blacks are dominated in the out wide and backs by the maori and Islanders but the forwards and the OH, as above, maybe a bit more white.
Much less if any, racial issues that apply to NZ than the US.*

Obviously this is statistically impossible / hard to back up. *

Anecdotally hard to argue with though if you know the sport and many kiwis....

Diamondmaker

Hanley wrote:

It doesn't effect the calculations I made out of the Encycolpedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States because it specifically talks about negros

Black / white, afro american / caucasion....just dont use that word, what ever source its from ! Its way out dated and in poor taste and PC now.

I was schooled in US.

Diamondmaker

brianthebard wrote:

Blacks make up just under 13% of the population, Hispanics 14%-ish. How does this affect the argument, or does it?

This fact goes further to prove it I believe, why are there virtually NO hipanics in Pro sport outside of a baseball? where they do not make up any sort of dominant % as Blacks do elsewhere. They come from a similar disadvantaged social background in many areas too.

Hanley

^^I've tried to be as PC as possible thus far, but the book specifically mentioned it so for accuracies sake I said it.


Point duly noted tho. it's not something I'd ever use in the normal course of life anyway.

Diamondmaker

Hanley wrote:

^^I've tried to be as PC as possible thus far, but the book specifically mentioned it so for accuracies sake I said it.


Point duly noted tho. it's not something I'd ever use in the normal course of life anyway.

Yeah you scrawny f*ck Gringo*

*relative to these dudes we are discussing

vorbis

Hanley wrote:

BUT basketball and football are much more popular than baseball

Not to nitpick but basketball isn't anywhere near baseball in popularity terms

I'd believe that the extra desire due to a disadvantaged background is a key reason. The Klitchko brothers have somewhat disproved the notion that only black people are good at boxing. Your average middle class white kid typically does not have the same motivation to succeed at pro sports as a working class black kid.

In a sense, pro athletes are freaks (a very small minority of a population) so what applies to them might not apply to the rest of us.

rubadub

HammerHeadGym wrote:

Supposedly it is a very proveable fact in the states that the biggest strongest slaves were bred to each other in an attempt to make a race of super slaves that could do more work than their counterparts. That combined with the 'survival of the fittest' type conditions that they lived in anyway ensured a race of superior(?) chaps and lassies.

That is simple common sense, might upset some people to say it. I expect some other countries involved with the slave trade of other races had a similar result. As mentioned current distance runners are african, but I doubt they would have been attractive to a slave trader (no joke and no offence meant.)

white people made up 72.8% of the population of the US and it was projected to decline over future years.

I would expect it to be in decline. Mixed race relationships are more common these days, and if a black man/white woman, or white man/black woman have a child then he/she is usually considered "black". I wonder how many of these atheletes (whatever colour you want to brand them) are of "mixed race", perhaps getting superior genetic traits from both races.

ali.c

Right since no-one has mentioned it and i think its kinda important i will. On the whole nature Vs nurture debate, it should be noted that africa has the most diverse genetic base and a wide variety of environmental conditions. therefore at least in my opinion its difficult to generalise and get a good arguement for there being a genetic reason for everything. Long distance runners tend to come from Kenya and Ethiopia where they have lived and trained at high altiude, this does give them a significant advantage when it comes to racing against those from lower altiude nations.

i personally dont think that you can say that black people have naturally better sporting abilities, prehaps it is more suitable to say that different sections of the world produce elite athletes highly suited to a specific field.

To prove a genetic relationship is difficult particularly when there are such a wide range of genes controlling are physiological make-up. Sure there are statisical correlations but that doesnt prove that genetics are the cause. Humans evolved as generalists (i.e. they can survive almost anywhere) and when you talk about one country being better than others at sports purely on the basis on genetics then you leave out all the environmental conditions which also played apart.

Incidentially on the persons of mixed race, an estimated 25% of the african american populations gene pool are causian.

Hanley

We're not attempting to leave out socio-ecnomic conditions when talking abou this tho.I think I've said 3 times they're definately a contributing factor.

Broken down to the lowest common denominator tho, regardless of what specific gene pool they came from, black people have been more successful in the sports in which they have equal access as the whites too.

Case in point, <13% of the american population makes up over 52% of the atheletes in the big 3 professional sports in the US (football, basketball and baseball).

Hanley

ali.c wrote:

To prove a genetic relationship is difficult particularly when there are such a wide range of genes controlling are physiological make-up. Sure there are statisical correlations but that doesnt prove that genetics are the cause. Humans evolved as generalists (i.e. they can survive almost anywhere) and when you talk about one country being better than others at sports purely on the basis on genetics then you leave out all the environmental conditions which also played apart.

Again, not the argument. We're talking about black people as a race. Not as specific to the countries they were born in.

Hell, the argument isn't even about specific sport. We're generalizing.

Very simply, if your skins black then you have a better chance of being a professional sports person.

There's DEFINATE undeniable correlataion, and whne you factor in things such as being naturally more fast twitch dominant, higher natural GH levels and having better infantile reaction speeds I think it leads on to a pretty clear cut case of causation no?

Hanley

Hmmm now that I think of it...

Another interesting set of figures to obtain and take into account would be how many professional black sports men come out of families that are of a similar socio-economic class to the average white person?

If it's not proportional to the whole black population then I think the case for socio-economic factors being a big part of it is strengthened.

ali.c

right sorry i think i need to clarify my point. Environmental factors (rather than socio-economic factors) pertains solely to the environment the person grew up in and lived. high altiude, extreme cold etc. Now if there was no advantage purely from being in a high altuide environment why would other athletes from low altuide areas train in high altuide areas? Now this may not be the core of the arguement but it is a factor and therefore shouldnt be ignored IMO?

Hanley

ali.c wrote:

right sorry i think i need to clarify my point. Environmental factors (rather than socio-economic factors) pertains solely to the environment the person grew up in and lived. high altiude, extreme cold etc. Now if there was no advantage purely from being in a high altuide environment why would other athletes from low altuide areas train in high altuide areas? Now this may not be the core of the arguement but it is a factor and therefore shouldnt be ignored IMO?

Not debating it at all!!

I complelty agree, but think that since it's most applicable to long distance running/cycling it doesn't explain why they're successful in other sports. BUT it does explain why 90% of the top Kenyan runners come from with in a 60 mile radius of each other, from Eldoret in the Nandi Hills.

ali.c

Hanley wrote:

I complelty agree, but think that since it's most applicable to long distance running/cycling it doesn't explain why they're successful in other sports.

That was what my other point was getting at. Basically AFAIK, there is alot of evidence to suggest that different populations groups evolved pigmentation independently of each other (i'll check that and edit with references later). So when we are taking about black people well IMO its a little like talking about with brown eyes. Yes they share genes for skin colour but there are wide ethnic variations across the " black" race. Though there are different selection pressures in different regions so in saying that maybe historically the traits which are applicable to sporting activities were differentially selected for in sub groups within the "black population" whereas us more causians would of undergone a different set of selections pressures??

nesf

ali.c wrote:

That was what my other point was getting at. Basically AFAIK, there is alot of evidence to suggest that different populations groups evolved pigmentation independently of each other (i'll check that and edit with references later). So when we are taking about black people well IMO its a little like talking about with brown eyes. Yes they share genes for skin colour but there are wide ethnic variations across the " black" race. Though there are different selection pressures in different regions so in saying that maybe historically the traits which are applicable to sporting activities were differentially selected for in sub groups within the "black population" whereas us more causians would of undergone a different set of selections pressures??

How do you explain things like certain drugs for heart disease only working for the "black population" and such things? There can be substantial differences between races, versus brown and blue eyed people where (everything else being equal) there isn't much of a difference. I don't disagree about there being large variations within the races, I just disagree with the idea of race being meaningless when it comes to genetic differences.

ali.c

Sorry i was being flippant with that remark. Anyways i was under the impression that the heart disease drug specifically was proven to be more suitable in the treatment of african americans (a sub group within the race?) of pretty similar locational descent?
Basically though i think the whole race thing is too big. Take the aborginal population in Australia (presumably they are belonging to the black group) how similar are they genetically to say kenyans or african americans?

nesf

ali.c wrote:

Sorry i was being flippant with that remark. Anyways i was under the impression that the heart disease drug specifically was proven to be more suitable in the treatment of african americans (a sub group within the race?) of pretty similar locational descent?

I thought it hadn't been tested outside of the US tbh. Not money to be made in most of Africa after all.

Sangre

Hanley wrote:

Broken down to the lowest common denominator tho, regardless of what specific gene pool they came from, black people have been more successful in the sports in which they have equal access as the whites too.

but do they have equal desire? I think the fact that sports is one of the few areas the disadvantage can access without education is a reason why blacks can dominate the sport. The same can apply for R&B or whatever.

poor kids wake up and dream of being a pro-footballer. rich kids wake up and dream of being doctors, lawyers and CEOs. its a gross generalisation but for a poor black kid training to be pro probably wont affect his educational aspirations but for a rich kid it will, the effort put in will affect his study/college ambitions.

It just so happens that most blacks are poor and vice-versa. blacks also know its one of the few areas they can be treated and/or worshipped as equal.

I agree with the poster earlier, the kiwis are a great example of Caucasian versus Islanders. Think of the great kiwi rugby players off the top of your head and its not dominated by either blacks or whites. NZ is a country when it isn't easier or harder to get access to rugby because of your colour (from what I know).

edit- rush all that playing poker so hope it comes across as somewhat coherent.

Hanley

Sangre wrote:

but do they have equal desire? I think the fact that sports is one of the few areas the disadvantage can access without education is a reason why blacks can dominate the sport. The same can apply for R&B or whatever.

poor kids wake up and dream of being a pro-footballer. rich kids wake up and dream of being doctors, lawyers and CEOs. its a gross generalisation but for a poor black kid training to be pro probably wont affect his educational aspirations but for a rich kid it will, the effort put in will affect his study/college ambitions.
.

I made several posts about how I agreed with what you're saying already.

I also put forward the idea that it would be interesting to see how white kids lower class kids growing up in black areas did when it came to pro sports!

Sangre

in my haste i forgot to add that you've alluded to that already. i was just elaborating on the point that equal access accessed equally.