Are African-(American)s naturally better athletes?
:smack:
I gather you believe that it’s impossible to know things via indirect evidence?
Ok, so is it your position that due to their relative poverty compared to (American?) whites, (American?) blacks put more effort into sprinting than whites?
Is this your sole explanation for the disparity?
Izzy, this point is entirely unrelated to the facts:
-
If by “three major American sports” you mean baseball, baketball, and football, why are we even discussing baseball? African-Americans are not particularly overrepresented in baseball. Really; add it up yourself, it’s true. LATIN Americans are certainly disproportionately represented.
-
As for football and basketball, I assume that you are kidding if you’re actually saying the level of participation is the same for black kids as it is for white. The level of participation and intensity of competition is vastly higher among urban blacks than it is for the population at large. That’s where the game is being played the most, and that’s where big colleges are drawing their talent from. Football has, to a lesser degree, the same effect; the NFL is drawing for the big colleges, who in turn draw mostly from large high school districts, especially in the South.
Sorry, that argument doesn’t wash. It is quite obvious that lower-income kids ARE much more likely to pursue a career in athletics. As the examples of Allen Iverson and Tony Fernandez show, sports superstars are not necessarily exceptional athletic talents; they are often just the hardest working. San Pedro de Macoris has produced what, 60-70 major league ballplayers?
You’;re simply ignorant of the facts, obviously, since baseball is not dominated by African-Americans. The races of American players in the major leagues more or less mirrors the general population. I assume you don’t follow baseball. Last year’s World Champions had one regular black player.
As I recall, your argument basically consisted of the fact that most recent stolen base leaders were black. This didn’t stop Ichiro Suzuki, though it’s generally true; nonetheless, it’s hardly real solid evidence. I would point out that the vast majority of Gold Glove shortstops have been Latin; are Latins biologically predisposed to turning the double play?
You could also point out that blacks seem disproportionately likely to be wide recievers in the NFL, but why does that necessarily mean it’s a biological component? It could be simply a matter of the patterns of recruiting. Until I see actual evidence there’s a biological component, that seems as logical a reason to me as any.
I’ve provided quite a few reasons why blacks could dominate football and basketball (but not baseball) and I’d be happy to hear some explanation as to what genetic components you think make them better athletes.
I think as always, the truth is somewhere in between the poles of opinion. Regarding black dominance in sprinting at the Olympic level, I can’t believe there isn’t some subtle structural difference in bone and/or muscle that gives just enough of an advantage to blacks for them to be just a hair better. When you look at the old communist bloc countries where Olympic preparation was a major national industry, somehow they failed to produce any sprinters. I can’t believe it was for lack of effort.
For the team sports, I think it’s more of a culture and effort thing. I don’t think the basketball gods breathed talent into Michael Jordan, he practiced. A lot. Ditto for Larry Bird, he worked his butt off for what he got. I think you see more black basketball players in the NBA because in the elementary school level there are a lot more black kids playing serious basketball than white.
Actually, the evidence that we have in this regard indicate pretty clearly that it is, indeed, artificial selection for cultural reasons that has led to this disparity.
Remember when there were no black quarterbacks in the NFL and it was assumed that they simply were not good quarterback material? That changed when a couple of people went out and studied what happened to outstanding black high school quarterbacks and discovered that when they got to college, their coaches were universally shunting them into receiver and other positions. Once that had been exposed and black kids (slowly) were allowed to pursue their dreams of quarterbacking in college, the number of black NFL quarterbacks jumped remarkably–including Superbowl quality players.
Black kids in projects in the Bronx realistically see they don’t have as much a chance of becoming a lawyer or doctor as most kids in suburbs. Then they think of ways to become rich. The first thing that pops into their head nowadays is being a rapper or a basketball player. So they try both and if they realize they’re a better basketball player they’re gonna practice all the time. This may mean skipping school to play one on one or waking up early in the morning or staying up all night practicing. Or they may play Baseball or Football for their school and practice just as much. Plus you don’t see white kids as devoted to basketball as blacks which is another reason the NBA is dominated by blacks. If white kids practiced as much surely there would be more whites in the NBA. And blacks dominate only certain sports such as Basketball and Football. You see very few in hockey and soccer in the U.S. because it’s not as popular and it’s not something they’re as devoted to.
monstro, eponymous, & RickJay,
Regarding motivation to play sports - I guess we will have to disagree. But my main point, which you should at least acknowledge, is that comparisons to other eras when professional sports were not as prestigious or as well paid as today are not valid. As are comparisons to sports that are played by a small subset of the population (e.g. volleyball).
Also, it is a fact that the percentage of black athletes steadily rises through high-school college and the pros. This seems to suggest that there is a natural advantage as opposed to to a sociological one.
Also, according to your theory, black professional athletes should, on average be harder working than white ones. This does not seem to be the case (if anything, the opposite may be true to an extent).
Oh, really. It is possible that you are simply ignorant of the percentage of the US population that is black. It is about 13%. I find it hard to believe that you seriously think that the percentage of US major leaguers who are black is close to 13%.
I don’t know about Latin Americans, if you mean Hispanic Americans. If you merely mean people from South and Central America, you’d have to compare it against the population of those countries.
It might be true that the level of play among those who are not talented athletes varies. But when you talk about those who are athletes, as in those who are good enough to make the high-school team, I am skeptical if black kids work at it any harder.
I’m not sure how you’ve managed to figure out that these guys (or any other specific guys that you’ve named) are not naturally talented athletes. But in any event, it is a meaningless argument. We all agree that hard work adds something to athletic ability. But hopefully we can all agree that there is a genetic component as well. So the question here is whether the disparity in question is a disparity in which underlying factor.
Quite possible, for all I know. You can’t dismiss an argument merely by bring up a parallel argument and then ridiculing it. (BTW, this is even presuming that your facts are true).
But the question is why would these patterns of recruitment begin. Why is it that the percentage of blacks is lowest at quarterback and offensive lineman and rises the more speed becomes a factor. Your hypothesis is that somewhere out of the blue the baseless notion popped into people’s heads that blacks were speed guys and began shifting blacks into these positions against all genuine self interest. I think this is absurd. YMMV.
Sorry, not a geneticist. My arguments here are directed at the notion that sociological explanatins such as yours are responsible for the disparity that exists.
I’m skeptical that you have any evidence that indicates anything “pretty clearly”, but if you want to link me up to a study that your “couple of people” went out and did I’ll take a look.
But I will note in advance, that an athlete might get shifted to another position for reasons other than racial stereotyping, most notably the possiblity that he might be better at the other position. Assuming that your study is true, it is quite possible that these quarterbacks were good quarterbacks but were also good as running backs or receivers. As long as they were playing at a level in which they were the bast quarterbacks available they preferred to play the most glamorous position, but when they reached the level at which there was more intense competition for the spot they shifted to other areas.
Now it happens - and this is important in its own right, because on it’s own it undermines your position - that a disproportionate percentage of the black quarterbacks in the league are also very mobile and good runners etc. A disproportionately low percentage are of the non-mobile pocket passer variety. (No good explanation of this, from the sociological angle). This would follow from the genetic argument, which suggests that the main black advantage is in running, as above. It would also follow that such athletes are also more likely to be shifted to other positions.
One good example if this, BTW, is Kordell Stewart, of the Steelers. Was a quarterback in college, was initially switched to running back and receiver in the pros. It would appear, based in his NFL career, that he is a more talented receiver than quarterback, but obviously he preferred to be a quarterback if possible. Of course this is only an example, but its a good illustration of the phenomena.
Oh. My. God. This pretty much ends the discussion.
What evidence do you have that black athletes work less hard than white athletes? The assumption that “negroes” are lazy? Holy crap, what other ethnic sterotypes would you like to trot out now? Jewish athletes are tougher in salary negotiations? French athletes smell worse? What ridiculous, bigoted nonsense.
Really, the discussion won’t get any further than this if you’re holding on to crap like that.
That is a neat cop-out. I said if anything the opposite may be true because that has been my perception over the years. If true, it is not necessarily a racial thing. It is possible that in urban ghettos, discipline is not as much a part of the culture as in middle class cultures. But this may be a false perception and a false rationale, so I qualified it. But my argument (even that particular one, let alone unrelated ones) does not rest on this assumption, so don’t try to weasel out by pretending that it does.
It is your claim that Blacks are over-represented because they have worked harder. It would follow that they would, on average, still be working harder. Your claim, not mine.
Eitzen and Sanford published their first study on this in 1975 and Eitzen and Schneider followed it up in 1986. Several others began doing serious examinations, notably Richard Lewis in 1995.
Even our favorite “blacks are more gifted athletes” sportswriter, Jon Entine, has noted that the racist beliefs cut off opportunities well before talented young black quarterbacks could make their way through the gauntlet of mostly white colleges to even get that look at the professional level. (And in the same article notes that superb black quarterbacks were “redirected” even after demonstrating record-setting skills at quarterback.)
Unless you have evidence that blacks underwent some miraculous evolutionary leap in the last decade, a claim that black athletes “suddenly” became more qualified to be quarterbacks is rather more reasonably explained by the sociological explanation.
There are also claims that black quarterbacks are “more athletic” than their white counterparts. However, all such claims are purely anecdotal. No one has actually studied the NFL quarterbacks to measure and quantify the respective abilities to run, weave, dodge, throw, etc. It is simply more “gut feeling” impressions from the sportswriters that even gets such claims into circulation. (Now that we’ve let them play, I guess we have to pretend that the “intelligence” aspect was not that important, after all, so we’ll make them physically superior to justify their accomplishments.)
(And, if we are now going to accept anecdotal evidence, I will submit the recollections and commentaries of several sports writers, notably Allen Barra, who have noted on several occasions that white kids have been falling away from the ranks of high school athletics for several years. This in contrast to your gratuitous assertion
Do you happen to have actual numbers indicating the percentage of white kids who have bothered to pursue sports careers from the 1970s through the 2000s? The same sports writers who are anecdotally judging the “athleticism” of quarterbacks are anecdotally saying that the white kids do not have the same motivation.)
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
I don’t see why examing the past isn’t a valid point to bring up. If you look at the histories of the NBA, MLB, and the NFL, I would venture to say that a good percentage of the players who have played came from the lower socio-economic realms. As the color barrier of professional sports came down, a greater number of blacks entered the professional ranks. Surely you would contend that blacks, in general, make up a disportionate number of people in the lower socio-economc strata in the US?
Even during the early years when professional athletes weren’t earning enormous salaries, in general, they were generally better paying than those jobs/professions that they were likely to have if they weren’t athletes. Tell me, do you think Ty Cobb, Johnnie Unitas, or Jerry West would have been able to earn as much as they did as professional athletes in some other profession?
Possibly, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that it’s soley based one some genetic determinant. Again, one needs to consider the social/cultural context in which this takes place.
Motivation doesn’t necessarily mean that one is willing to work hard. One also needs to account for options or choices. That is, in what activities should I be willing to spend my time on in order for me to achieve some kind of positive outcome/personal benefit, given a range of options or choices that are available to me? Often times, those choices are constrained by a given society or culture in which one has been raised.
Lets’ say we have a pool of 1000 young white athletes and 1000 younf black athletes. Of these, 100 in each have the potential to become elite athletes. However, the 1000 young white athletes as a group come from a different socio-economic strata than the 1000 young black athletes. That is, the white athletes belong to a socio-economic group that has a greater range of options or choices available to them then the black athletes. So, out of the the group of white athletes, only 10 achieve elite status. That’s because those athletes have a greater range of options available to them (some choose to spend there time training, others decide to become a lawyer or doctor or engineer, others decide to pursue other sports interests, etc.).
For the young black athletes, 50 achieve elite status. They worked as hard as their white conterparts (the 10 that achieved elite status). By why the disparity? Well, it could very well be the case that the black athletes had a limited range of options availalbe to them. Given the societal constraints, those young black athletes are motiviated to concentrate there time and energy in those activites that can afford them some sort of positive benefit or successful outcome. With regards to athletics, that has been a viable option (and also a very visible one) for those from the lower socio-economic strata (in the US, at least). If you have a (perceived) 1% chance to become an elite athlete, but an (perceived) 0.001% chance of becoming a doctor or lawyer or engineer, how motivated are you going to be in pursuing the first (elite athlete) as oppossed to the others?
Well, I’m a little disappointed that rickjay and Tars Tarkas chose not to flesh out their non-genetic explanations for black dominance of sprinting. In any event, I’ll respond to those explanations, as best I understand them.
A. the general “cultural/poverty issues” explanation.
This explanation is nonsense for a couple reasons:
First, although poor people in the United States are disproportionately black, they don’t make up 95% of poor people. In fact, my understanding is that the majority of poor people in the United States is white. Thus, if poverty was turning blacks towards sprinting in higher numbers (and there were no genetic component in the black dominance of sprinting), you’d still expect that at least half of the top sprinters would be non-black. You just don’t see that.
Second, if poverty were turning blacks towards sprinting in higher numbers (and causing them to dominate sprinting), you’d expect them to dominate other track and field events, or at least be disproportionately represented at the top levels in those events. Take a look at the top javelin throwers, shot putters, and discus throwers. Not only are blacks not disproportionately represented, those events are dominated by white people.
B. The institutional resources explanation
This explanation is also ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that governments and sports authorities in third-world countries like Gabon or Jamaica put more resources into recruiting and training sprinters than China or the former Soviet Union? Get real.
C. The pipeline explanation
Again, this explanation is based on fantasy. Ask anyone who did high school track & field in the United States and you will learn that there are LOTS of highly motivated, hard working white sprinters in high school; most of these people would stick it out and try to make the olympics if they had the talent; and even in high school, you have a pretty good idea of who’s a talented sprinter. Oh, and they don’t all go to law school. Plenty of them are from middle and lower class backgrounds too.
D. The “speed guys” explanation
This explanation – that more blacks go into sprinting because they have a reputation of being fast – fails for the same reason as explanation C. There are plenty of motivated white sprinters who would go to they olympics if they had the talent. And talent isn’t too hard to measure in sprinting.
Huh? This is NOT a link to what you asserted earlier, i.e. that a couple of guys found that black athletes were being shifted in accordance with racial stereotypes. What this is is a study that purports to show that stereotypical attitudes exist. Of course, this would provide a rationale for such a theory, but is not the same thing as showing that the theory is based in reality.
Of course, they’ve quoted from some guys who have theorized about blacks being excluded. That’s great – so you have someone out there who agrees with your theory. There are a lot of people out there with various theories, as the article notes. Again, if you want to show any actual evidence for your theory, go ahead.
As for the study itself, essentially they attempted to assess the attitudes of those who wrote the Sporting News NFL draft guide, by comparing how they rated draft prospects of different races physically and mentally. They claim to have found a meaningful difference. I am skeptical, both of the sample size and of the ability to objectively assign a numerical value to an assessment. Particularly as it is unclear if the assessors were unaware of the race of the draft pick, and also if the prospects represented a genuine cross-section of the draft. (Also, the connection between the attitudes of Sporting News writers and head coaches is not necessarily completely valid).
I’ve not quoted Entine or based anything on something he said.
There is a conservative poster to these boards who is fond of saying “such-and-such op-ed columnist is a liberal and he agrees with my opinion about X”. Despite your regularly expressed disdain for this poster, you evidently share his MO.
How did the word “suddenly” get involved here? Has there been a sudden change in anything? IMO, the number of starting quarterbacks in the NFL is small enough that one might expect some fluctuation. Beyond this, there may be a general increase in the number of blacks at all positions. Also, it is possible that the style of play has evolved somewhat – to the extent that the quarterback position is played as a mobile position it will favor those with speed, to the extent that the game plan looks for pocket passers it will not.
Are they now? Actually the difference between a mobile passer and a slower footed one can be pretty obvious to those who follow the game – it’s not at all like trying to assess patterns of athletic endeavor for an entire country based on your own personal experience.
But never mind that. For your edification, I will now make such a claim that is not purely anecdotal. So pay close attention, as you are evidently about to see something new.
The measure I will use is rushing yards from scrimmage. And here I note that the top four rushers among quarterbacks in the NFL last season were all black (i.e. McNabb, McNair, Vick & Culpepper). I’m not sure how many starting black quarterback there are in the NFL, but it is not a whole lot more than four. Ergo, my claim that a disproportionate percentage of black quarterbacks in the NFL are very mobile and good runners has been proved by an objective criteria, and we may consider this issue settled.
And of course, we are not going to accept anecdotal evidence, especially if these purport to be seizing up the entire country based on anecdotes, so we may ignore your final two paragraphs, pending new evidence.
Hmm…now just what does this mean? Looks to me like you are trying to denigrate those who would claim a genetic advantage by claiming that they are all-purpose racists, grasping at any random theory that would justify their prejudices. Particularly coming from a guy who gets all worked up (& trots out the same bogus jive to “rebut” it) at the slightest suggestion that PC considerations motivate some of those in his position, I would consider this a sleazeball cheap shot.
Yes, but that percentage was higher in those past eras. And this, because the game was not as lucrative, as compared to other fields, as it is today.
I don’t know about any specific guy. But in any case, the risk/reward ratio changes as the disparity grows. IOW, if you have a 50% chance of making $100K as a lawyer vs. a 1% chance of making $10M as an athlete you might make a different decision than if you had a 50% chance of making $25K as an athlete vs a 1% chance of making 50K as an athlete.
Anyway, as Exhibit A, I point to Byron White. He led the NFL in rushing two of his three seasons, but dropped out to go to law school (eventually reaching the USSC). Do you see any athletes of that caliber dropping out to go to law school today?
Fortunately, I am not making any such claim. All I am saying is that I don’t think any environmental difference could account for nearly the level of disparity that exists.
Your final three paragraphs appear to be a statistical or logical error. The basis for your position here is that the distribution of pure genetic ability is about the same between whites and blacks. Therefore it would follow that if a greater percentage of blacks than whites are successful in pro sports, that these have, on average, less pure talent than the average white of the same current ability. You are saying that they have compensated by having worked harder at the sport. It would follow that they would still be doing it.
Well, gosh, I’m convinced. Some anecdotal examples have convinced me that the overrpresentation of blacks from the United States in three particular sports in the last 60 years proves blacks are better athletes, despite the total lack of evidence of a real physical difference and the fact that, curiously, they didn’t seem to dominate any sports further back than 60 years ago, and don’t seem to dominate the dozens and dozens of other sports that rely on the same physical attributes.
(Sarcasm off)
Izzy and lucwarm, you’re the ones making a positive assertion here. Do you have evidence of the genetic or physiological advantage blacks have? Yes or no?
This is a synopsis of the various studies. The multiple actual studies (noted in the footnotes) by Eitzen, Sanford, Johnson, Johnson, Croakley, Sage, etc. did find that the black quarterbacks were being shunted into new positions, regardless of ability.
No. I did not claim that you were relying on Entine, but he has appeared in every race and sports thread that has been posted in the last couple of years. My point in noting him was that he specifically indicated players who broke records as quarterbacks who were re-assigned, anyway. Rather than simply vague assrtions, he provided specific examples.
We had one black QB in the 1950s, none in the 60s, a couple in different years (never starters) in the 70s, a couple in different years (never starters) in the 80s, a couple in different years (never starters) in the early 90s, and, at the end of the 90s, a sudden discovery of eight starting black QBs. You may wish to portray that as a statistical “fluctuation,” but its occurrence after the Eitzen studies began to get published and the colleges began to change their QB selection process suggests rather more than a “fluctuation.”
Ahh! So when we look at the history of the NFL and see a “sudden” rise in black quarterbacks it is a “fluctuation” related to a different “style” of playing, but when we look at the numbers for a single season (with, apparently, this new “style”), the numbers are conclusive? Interesting view of the world.
As to the last couple of statements that you (correctly) dismissed as anecdotal, that is exactly the acceptance that I give to your anecdotal and gratuitous assertion that “The motivation is the same for kids of all races.”
It may be that among the blacks of the U.S. there is enough wide genetic variation that a certain number of outstanding black athletes are disproportionately represented in sports. This is a view that has been mentioned in earlier discussions and (barring evidence one way or another) may be as plausible as any other. However, your claim that the sociological explanation is on shaky ground when we have evidence of stacking and redirection is wishful thinking.
Of course I cannot speak for Izzyr, however as I mentioned before, I have no direct evidence, such as a study of fast-twitch muscle fiber, or the ability to point at a particular allele, to support the theory that some subset of blacks is naturally superior at sprinting.
Nevertheless, it’s possible to know things because of indirect evidence. I gather that you aren’t going to bother trying to defend the non-genetic explanations you have proposed for black dominance in sprinting. Given that the non-genetic explanations don’t stand up to scrutiny, it’s reasonable to assume that something genetic is going on.
(I would add that it’s hardly outrageous to hypothesize that there is some allele or group of alleles that confer an advantage in sprinting ability and are present in greater frequency in certain subgroups of black people.)
I swore I would never get into this debate again, but I am so fascinated by the diverse opinion and so convinced by the ultimate conclusions that I’ve drawn ( to explain the superior back athlete phenomenon ) as a result absorbing so much information from past debate participants that I feel compelled to respond.
-
Forget classical notions of race. They have been disproved by genetic studies and I don’t think anyone here is advancing that concept.
-
Populations of humans develop certain physical characteristics as a result of environmental influences over 10’s of thousands of years, through selection and remain residually through genetics for a period of time after the environmental influences have been removed. For example the longer and narrower noses of caucasians breathing cold air that needs to be warmed up first.
-
As humans “evolved” for most of their history in Africa, when they were least technically advanced in transportation and communication, many distinct populations were developed. Sixty thousand years ago, less than half the history of mankind, a small part of the human population broke through the Suez and rapidly expanded along the coast into Australia. Another breakthrough occured not to much later and migrated to Central Asia whereupon this group expanded to all the rest of the world. The restraints on population for this out of Africa group did not exist like it did in Africa, so this gene pool came to represent the majority of the population of the world while Africans continually fought and starved for limited resources much as they do today. Their many distinct populations remained but did not expand.
-
Therefore, Africans as a whole possess much greater genetic diversity than people from other regions of the world. When we see a black person, all we see is a person who may have descended from many different distinct populations of 40 to 60 thousand years ago, while a white person may have descended from only one distinct population of that earlier period of time.
-
If we insist in looking at blacks as a whole, considering the greater genetic diversity, it stands to reason that we will find particular characteristics within the black population that stand out. For example running and jumping. but on closer examination we find that East Africans dominate long distance running and that West Africans (including black Americans) dominate the sprint and jumping. Physiologically this has been born out through studies in ratios of fast twitch and slow twitch muscles of superb athletes.
The East African long distance running superiority is interesting in that that dominance is most evident at Eldoret and the frequency of superb performance in this area diminishes as one moves away from this city suggesting that the frequency of the genetics responsible for superiority in long distance running is concentrated there. Alternative explanations citing the mountainous environment as responsible for this East African anomoly (not genetics) ignores the frequency gradient of performance within the region as well as the lack of evidence for athletic superiority in this sport from any of the other numerous mountain regions of the world.
The sprinting/jumping superiority of West African is not so geographically distinct as long distance running thanks to the slave trade. The dominance of west African genes in American football, basketball and world sprinting is indisputable however. As West Africa itself has begun to learn the European sport of soccer, Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon are showing superiority. But American blacks and West Africans are noticeably absent in long distance running.
-
It must be clear however that the demonstrated superiority of these two populations can not be characteristic of these populations as a whole. Superior characteristics by definition exist at the outlying portions of the bell curve and there has been no evidence that suggests the average black whether of East West or South African origin is athleticly superior.
-
It has been suggested that cultural factors rather than genetics are responsible for the evidence of black superiority today. For example impoverished blacks are motivated by poverty to excel in basketball. My answer is that there are far more impoverished white kids in America than black kids, and that the greatest black basketball player of all time, Michael Jackson had a middle class upbringing. Certainly culture plays a big part in athletic performance, because I remember when almost all the players for American hockey teams came from Canada. But the only cultural influence that separated black performance from whites in professional sports occured before Jackie Robinson. After that the flood gates opened up. Today there are no cultural restraints on blacks in football, basketball or track and field. Neither on whites I might add.
There are restraints on impoverished blacks in hockey, tennis, golf, all sports that require considerable cash and facility to prosper. I wonder where the Williams sisters would be today if they were raised in the projects of Chicago.
In closing, we can often determine who is a superior athlete when they are very young. These kids, black or white by virtue of their very gifts work hard at it because the results are evident and the rewards are tangible for them. All great athletes have gifted genes and all great athletes have worked hard to develop their talents, given the opportunity.
The reason I find it important to respond to those who wish to promote a cultural/environmental reason only to explain the superior black athlete phenomenon is because intuitively I think this argument is dismissed by most people without giving it a second thought. It is generally regarded as an elitist opinion, and given little weight by the masses. Those who promote the cultural reason only for black athletic superiority wish to stamp out racism, but I fear that the argument only raises suspicion of social engineering and thus counter productive to the proper and admirable intent of those who advance it.
Was it the glove that helped his shooting, or did the hyperbaric chamber improve his jumping?
[ Sorry ]
I’m glad you’re paying attention Tom 
…:o …:smack: