I wasn’t even talking to you. However, what I DID was ask a question to which the other side has no answer, and we both know it.
As far as the Lithuanians go, I’d say there are several things happening.
–Russians, culturally, don’t give a fuck about basketball.
–Lithuanians, apparently, really do. ( don’t ask me why, people like weird things sometimes)
–in the USA, most really good basketball players go pro before they even have a chance to play in the Olympics. This was true even back in the 1980s. The summer Olympics are once every 4 years, and a player’s eligibility window is only 4 or 5 years.
Nowadays, we let our best professional NBA players play, and they, predictably, almost always win gold. That’s not entirely fair to the rest of the world, since we have a VERY large population compared to most countries, we love basketball, and our population is quite tall, compared to most of the world. However, that’s how the rules are today.
I’d also say the large number of West-African-descended people in our country confers a slight advantage as well. However, I admit that’s under dispute in this thread, if not in a world that includes common sense.
Fine, why are AMERICAN sprinting champions always West-African-descended, and AMERICAN shotout/discus/hammer throw champions always Northern/Northeastern European?
Sheesh. I can’t believe I had to define it down like that. It doesn’t speak well for your impartiality on this issue.
What would those biases come from? Why would blacks have cultural biases toward sprinting, and away from ALL the strength-based events? Why would whites have biases against sprinting?
If you’re going to postulate that something exists, you might want to provide some actual evidence. ROFL
Why do Americans like Football and no other country does (except, sort of Canada). Why does France like cycling so much? Why does Canada love hockey so much? These are culturally important sports, and they’re reinforced over the generations. And certain sports are also more important to regions and smaller cultures as well. It’s sociology.
Incidentally, one of the top shotputters (and a former world champion) on the US team is Reese Johnson, who is black, and the current US champion hammer thrower is Kibwe Johnson. Also black.
Actually I think it was more like 8 out of 12 despite being only 1% of the country and the same was true for the 1980 and 1984 Soviet Olympic teams.
The Soviet Union basketball team depended on Lithuanians and when Lithuania became an independent country, the country which took the Soviet Union’s place, Russia, never became dominant again.
Here’s a link discussing the Soviet fears of losing Lithuania.
This comment is utterly moronic. First of all, I never suggested that Lithuanians had a “genetic advantage in basketball”. I simply pointed out that using your logic we should be arguing that Lithuanians have a genetic advantage over Russians and most other Europeans when it comes to playing basketball.
Also, I nearly pissed myself laughing at your claim that there are “0 currently playing in the NBA.”
As has been pointed out, there have been African-Americans who’ve done quite well in the strength events in Track and Field.
Moreover, do you really think that genetics is why most of the shot putters, discus throwers etc. are usually “Northern/Northeaster European”(as you define them)?
Again, for myself, I suspect that quite a few people like Warren Sapp would have made excellent shot putters.
In fact, if “Northern Europeans” had genetic advantages over African-Americans in those events then shouldn’t around 95% plus of all Offensive and Defensive linemen in the NFL be of “Northern/Northeastern descent”(including apparently Russians and Bulgarians)?
OK, first off, one or two black men in strength events doesn’t prove either side, yours or mine. They might have overcome cultural biases, OR they might be part white (and have picked up the relevant genes for strength), or they might be outliers in their own genetic group, in terms of the actual genes they carry.
Secondly, I find it sad or funny, not sure which, that you don’t understand the difference between the sudden/explosive movement off the line of football linemen, versus the gradual buildup of momentum in discus/shotput/hammerthrow.
Also, you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of major skeletal muscle differences between Africans and Northern Europeans are in the lower body. That’s what makes them better runners, on average, and also part of what makes them more explosive off the line in football, not anything to do with arm strength.
Would you like some cites on the various lower-body differences in skeletal muscle between blacks and northern Europeans? They are actually quite visible to the eye, in most individuals.
Speaking of white Europeans in the NBA, why are so many people from the former Yugoslavia good enough for the NBA? Are those populations taller on average than other Europeans, or do they value basketball, or what? It’s an oddly large number, for the population size of their countries.
What we seem to be talking about it a genetic cause for genius, in this case athletic genius. Gladwell rejects this, saying that what made Bill Gates a great programmer or Wayne Gretzky a great hockey player was their obsession or devotion to computer programming and playing hockey respectively.
You should read up on his story. While he undoubtedly had athletic talent, he was spending hours every day on a skating rink from the time he could stand up straight. He was most definitely not an impressive physical specimen, and even as an early pro was generally considered too small to play the game.
No doubt training had a lot to do with his success, but it is extremely difficult to see how such early success doesn’t have at least some roots in genetics. It’s also tough to imagine that Wayne would have been as great as he was if he were 3 inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter like his brother.
Well like I said, sure he almost certainly had some built in talent. But none of the physical characteristics that you supposedly need to excel at hockey were there. He wasn’t big (average height for a hockey player, well on the skinny side), he wasn’t exceptionally fast. It was all the work he put in combined with having a baseline level of ability. He certainly wasn’t dominating ten year olds at age six by physically overpowering them.
No one’s saying that it’s purely effort, but effort influences the direction we take our talents. If he’d spent that time working at baseball (and he was a decent ball player in his youth) he’d probably have ended up as the best baseball player Canada had ever produced.
If we reject a genetic basis for athletic greatness then race goes out the window.
Gretzky didn’t have exceptional physical characteristics compared with elite hockey players, yes that’s true. But that still puts him a couple standard deviations away from the average person. As you say he wasn’t big, but he still was taller than the average Canadian. For comparison, the top 5 skaters on hockey-reference.com are 6’ 197, 6’ 205, 6’4 230, 5’10" 195, and 6’ 185. Gretzky is the 6’ 185 one. So yeah, he was on the skinnier side, but it’s not like he was that far of an outlier.
No one doubts that hard work and dedication are extremely important in becoming an elite athlete, but you absolutely have to have a certain baseline athletic ability and size.
Is anyone here rejecting that there is a genetic component in athletic greatness? And again, what does this have to do with ‘race’? It’s one thing to say that genetics form the basis for athletic greatness. It’s totally another to say that the genetics are determined by ‘race’.