You’re not counting Tiger Woods twice, are you?
Nope.
**
If you care to describe a few, I’ll try to explain the problems with them. However, I would request that you be specific about the explanation and allow me to ask questions to nail down exactly what your explanation is.
**
I’m honestly not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that because incorrect genetic explanations were advanced in the past, genetic explanations advanced today are presumptively incorrect?
**
The concept of being a “better athlete” is really too vague to have an intelligent discussion about. You’ll see that I carefully avoided the “better athlete” question in my first post.
Perhaps I should clarify. Upon speaking with my friend, I see that he wasn’t speaking of any proficiency in sports per se, but more along the lines of a natural physical diffirence; i.e. as he said that they are naturally more toned. In my defense, I did search on GQ, but not GD, not realizing where this topic would naturally end up. I apoligize, and offer to reimburse any expenses incurred in the area of pole-buying or asprin that this thread has incurred.
Luc, you’re going to have to explain to me first what you want explained. Which sport do you claim blacks dominate due to naturally enhanced athletic ability?
Basketball? Gosh, that’s easy to explain; most NBA players are black Americans because black Americans play more basketball than anyone else, have access to the best and most competitive high school, recreational, and college leagues, and are almost certain to choose ty play in the NBA if they’re good enough. Kids from other countries, and even most white kids in the USA, do not play the sport as much, do not have access to leagues the play at the same level, don’t idolize NBA players as much, and are less likely to choose basketball as a career path, and frankly, unti lrecently, even if they WERE great the NBA didn’t do much scouting outside of big U.S. colleges, so great players who weren’t Africa-American were going unnoticed (perfect example: . African-Americans are disproportionately successful basketball players for EXACTLY the same reason that kids from San Pedro de Macoris are disproportionately successful baseball players, or the same reason that kids from Canada make up two thirds of the NHL; they play the game more than anyone else and have the best and most competitive development structures.
If blacks were born better basketball players, then logically they should also totally dominate volleyball, which requires the same basic skill set and physical attributes - but they don’t. And it’s pretty obvious that many black NBA stars are not so much amazing physical specimens as they are just really well practiced. Allen Iverson, an MVP and scoring champion, is 5’11" and isn’t any better an athlete than ten million guys his age. (Similarly, Wayne Gretzky, a kid from a small Canadian city, isn’t much of an athlete, either. Neither was Tony Fernandez, a kid from San Pedro de Macoris. Why’d they succeed? Practice, strong local development, and an obsession with the sport.)
Of course, black dominance of the NBA may wane in the years to come. Hello, Yao Ming! And last year’s Rookie of the Year was a kid from Spain.
What else you wanna know?
My point is that the “(Race) are better athletes” has been used for over a century as a subtly racist dig. It’s always been wrong before, and until someone shows me actual evidence to the contrary I see no reason to believe that this is anything but the same urban legend with a new label slapped on it. Black domination of ANY sport is a recent historical phenomenon - we’ve just seen it in basketball and to a lesser extent track and football in the last 60 years or so. If you want to argue that blacks make better athletes, show me biological evidence. Any circumstantial evidence that claims they just succeed in athletics more is very easily shot full of holes.
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
No, (I think) what he’s saying is that, given our current knowledge, we can’t conclusivelsy rule out other explanatory factors. That is, genetic explanations can’t be conclusely shown (at this time) to be the primary determinant in understanding differences in athletic performances. There’s still “too much noise”. Our best available evidence (now) suggests that there isn’t a genetic determinant. Or if there is one, then it’s not as significant as other factors. However, that could change as we accumulate additional information, particularly from the genetic side.
RickJay - if I’ve misinterpreted your position, by all means correct me.
Let’s go with sprinting.
**
Ok fine, let’s see if your explanation for black dominance of sprinting holds water or not. (By the way, for the third time, I’ll point out that I’m not making any claim about who is the “better athlete” - the concept is just too vague.)
I happen to think that maybe there is some truth in the idea that
peoples of African origin are naturally better athletes. Not in terms
of skill, but from a basic physical starting point. Just look at how quickly they have come to dominate many world sports in a relatively short space of time, athletics is to me the prime example. They dominate the sprinting and long distance running.
Long jump, triple jump. American football is another, i couldnt tell you the percentage, but by observation a very large proportion seem to be non white. Soccer in Europe is also seeing this happen. Many coaches and manages have said that these players seem to be bigger faster and stronger on the whole.
rogue
And then there’s golf, dominated by someone who’s all three. 
This statement is entirely ridiculous. The only thing that can suggest a genetic component, would be direct evidence of a genetic component. Evidence relating to, oh, I don’t know, genes and biology and stuff.
You claimed:
If it’s your position that blacks are dominating some sports as a result of genetic components, then you are in effect saying blacks are naturally superior athletes, at least with respect to the athletic abilities called for by the sports you say they dominate. I would define a naturally superior athlete as being someone who is genetically presdisposed to athletic ability. What else would it mean?
As for sprinting, you can draw essentially the same conclusions. Blacks dominate the sport largely because they’re the ones who get into it - ESPECIALLY at the level of elite high school athletics and adult competitive meets, which is where the Olympic athletes mostly come from.
In international play, the effect is magnified by the fact that the reigning powers of track tend to be countries with black populations; this feeds off itself, as kids from those countries have access to more coaches, training facilities, professional advice, and a better scouting and development system. Not only does this mean that existing sprinting powers recruit and train more talented athletes, but it also means that within those countries, the track team has more access to top athletes, thus perpetrating the cycle.
One thing you have to keep in mind about amateur athletics is that success results in more government and corporate funding, which leads to more success. The U.S., Canada, Jamaica, Nigeria, Algeria, Kenya, and other nations with extremely successful track teams give more funding to those teams than teams in less successful events. Funding for amateur athletics has a HUGE impact on success; in fact, it’s probably the #1 determinant of Olympic and other international victories. Why does Australia win so many international and Olympic events? Because the Australian government pours money into athletes. East Germany? Same thing. Why does India hardly ever win Olympic medals? Because they don’t put a lot of money into it.
You can see this with other sports. If blacks are naturally better sprinters, why are there so few black speed skaters? It’s the same physical skill set. Well, because they aren’t into it, and the money is not there, and black kids in the U.S. and Canada simply don’t go out for speed skating. Or, why don’t blacks make up the majority of elite speed cyclists? Again, same basic skill set as sprinting and skating. Logically, if blacks have stronger or faster leg muscles, universities and national teams should be recruiting them into speed skating and cycling programs. They all ask for the same muscles (in fact, in Canada we have a woman who’s won Olympic medals in cycling in the Summer Games and in speed skating in the Winter Games.)
The number of black kids who stick with sprinting as a primary sport is disproportionate, so we would expect them to dominate the elite levels of the sport. It’s mostly black kids who join, and stick with, the track programs. In the U.S. the lure of sports scholarships, too, has an obvious positive effect on recruitment of black athletes.
And I have a prediction for you: Within 25 years, black domination of elite sprinting will erode significantly. More Asians will begin to win major events.
Now: Do you have any evidence that blacks have some genetic or physiological component that makes them better sprinters?
Just a quick recap of some old discussions …
a) Is there such a biological thing as “race” any way? Many a past thread has debated this (with strident voices appearing on all sides) but in general in can be concluded that “race” is a real and useful construct sociologically and at best, a poor construct of very limitted value biologically … only to be used as a stand-in until you have a genetic marker of more utility, or a different but still more precise way to define the population that you are wishing to study.
b) Also from these old threads was an agreed-up conclusion that sociologic factors have a strong influence on the types of activities that individual invest time in, and thus on which sociologic group dominates what activity. Which does not disprove a genetic component.
c) Also agreed was John’s point: populations of African origin have greater genetic diversity. It is therefore a reasonable speculation that, given equal opportunity and interest, and equal numbers in the denominator, the sigma outliers in any field of endeavor that depends on a large component of genetic potential would likely contain many of African origin. Even if the mean of genetic predisposition was exactly the same for all groups. Which may or may not be the case for any relevant skill set. Obviously though we wouldn’t expect professional basketball to be dominated by Eskimos.
Carry on.
let’s begin with my old nemesis lucwarm (cut to cartoon character yelling at sky “NEMESIS!!!”)
yes, some but not all.
examples? I’ll give one:
Blacks spend more time playing sports than whites, due to cultural/poverty issues
No, if what you said was true (and i disagree with it) than it just suggests no one has found the correct reason. You cannot say it shows proof of a genetic difference when no one has used genetics to find a difference that is provable.
sounds like it to me, but it looks like you are trying to avoid the “All blacks are better athletes” argument and go for the “Some blacks are better athletes” argument, which is the only one of the two that could be true (and if it is, it is only a small percentage, which would be dwindling due to interbreeding with outside populations. Africans are the most genetically diverse populations, so it is possible that some tribe somewhere has some gene that helps with short running bursts. But as they leave their tribe, they are going to start marrying outside of it, and spread the gene around, so soon not just africans will have it, also there is a chance some other population has the gene as well)
Okay, lets find a list of the top sprinters in the world.
actually, i couldn’t find one, but i found a site that said this
which i currently cannot confirm. (stupid google).
Evedence for black dominence in running: a fast twitch study i cannot find the abstract for. Some other muscle study involving Africans and scandinavians, which i can also not find the abstract for. Study is also refuted here and here.
abd
from here is also interesting.
However, saying since Kalenjin are better runners, does not mean they are better basketball players, hockey players, sumo wrestlers, neither does it mean non- Kalenjin will perform at the level of that tribe, so a blanket blacks are better than whites argument is not proved.
unfortunatly, i have spent too much time on this and need to get back to work, so i have to cut this short.
This runs into problems with the 3 major US sports, which are widely practiced by all races. Particularly those who are talented athletes. And the idea that Blacks have access to better facilities than Whites is not very likely.
This is why the historical arguments that get tossed about - here, by RickJay - are specious. They relate to times in which the various sports were non-glamorous, lower paying jobs, not aspired to by the middle and upper classes. (That may still hold true for boxing). But you can’t tell me that some white kid who is a superb athlete and might possibly make the NBA can’t be bothered to practice because he’d rather become a lawyer. The motivation is the same for kids of all races.
Of course, for sports that are NOT well paying or glamorous, the argument still holds. This is why pointing to sports like volleyball (or hockey) is equally specious. Volleyball is not nearly as widely played in the US as the major sports, and it is not hard for a subgroup that does play it to dominate the field. Again, there are three sports that are almost universally played, and whose top players are widely admired by all races, and which offer incredibly lucrative rewards and prestige to anyone who can be successful at them. And all of them are dominated by Blacks.
I’ve also made a point in previous threads that even within these sports, Blacks are disproportionately represented in running aspects of the sport and opposed to throwing or pure strength. This puts the sociological explanation on even shakier ground.
Heh…he said “genitical”
Not necessarily. The motivation to go into many fields aren’t equally distributed among all cultures and creeds. Likewise, hoop dreams need not be equally distributed across all cultures and creeds.
There are disproportionately more white people in a lot of arenas. This doesn’t mean other people are being intentionally excluded, nor does it mean that white people are better in these areas.
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
I have to disagree with this assessment. Motivation is not the same for kids of all races. Sure, a white athlete may have the athletic ability to become an NBA caliber player, but does he have the motivation? Why should I, as a superb white athlete, undertake the rigerous training that’s required to become an NBA caliber player when there’s little guarantee that I’ll ever make it to the NBA? What if, because of my socioeconomic background, I have other options available to me? That is, why invest a lot of my time into an activity that doesn’t guarantee a payoff? Why not invest my time into an activity that I can reasonable assume some return on my investment (say, becoming a lawyer)?
Now, look at it from the perspective of someone who may not have the same options. You are a young, black athlete that has the potential to become an NBA caliber player. However, given your socio-economic status, the choices available to you are more limited. Therefore, given your limited options, it wouldn’t necessarily be foolhardy to invest your time in training to becoming an NBA caliber player. Sure, there are no guarantees. But if it comes down between becoming an NBA caliber player or a blue-collar factory worker, the motivation would be greater for someone whose choice is becoming an NBA caliber player or a lawyer.
Of course, one could debate the level or degree of motivation, but I disagree it’s the same for all races. I’d have more reason to look more favorably towards genetic determinants if one could “normalize” or “factor out” socio-economic (and/or cultural) determinants.
The Peppered Moth shifted from an almost-all-light-colored population to an almost-all-dark-colored population in less than a century.
Hmmm … you’ve got a point there.
yes, but they have a considerable shorter generation span, plus they weren’t forced to breed with lazy white slaveowners, nor subject to semiconstant increases to the genepool arriving from Africa.
Well, the qualifier that you now add is significant. Different sports/events require different skills - stamina, coordination, fast reflexes, upper body strength, etc. If a group of people is blessed with an advantage in one narrow area, it absolutely doesn’t follow that that group is better in general.
Moreover, it is certainly possible that black dominance in sprinting is the result of the superior abilities of some subset of blacks.
So I’m not saying that blacks are naturally superior athletes - I’m saying that some subset of blacks is naturally superior at sprinting, however. I hope you understand the difference.
**
Ok, so it sounds like you are proposing the following explanation for black dominance in sprinting:
(1) Blacks participate in sprinting to a larger degree than non-blacks both in High School and beyond.
(2) Authorities in certain countries with large black populations put more resources into recruiting and training sprinters, and do so because they have been successful in the past.
Do I have your position correct? Do you have any other explanations, or is that pretty much it? And do you have a reason for number 1?
I assume you are asking for direct evidence. I don’t have any to offer, although I suspect there might be some out there. In any event, I would request that you stick to the discussion of the issue I presented: whether non-genetic explanations for black dominance in sprinting are satisfactory or not.
Okay, here are my 2 cents. In my opinion, the reason so many black athletes are better than white athletes is because of motivation and determination, and just plain working harder. In football, the Oakland Raiders had a player by the name of Jack Tatum. I think he was the one whose hit on Darryl Stingley left Mr. Stingley paralyzed. Mr. Tatum, who is black, wrote in a book of his that he practiced more drills, lifted more weights, and watched countless hours of film in order to lift his playing ability over his other teammates, whether white or black. Michael Jordan didn’t enjoy immediate success on the basketball court, but he learned to prepare and refine his hard work ethic.
I don’t have any cites for my above views, but Jack Tatum’s book shouldn’t be too hard to find.