This is the root of it. This is being ignored over and over here. The genetics might exist and might give a slight advantage, such that a black person of West African decent will get to the bus he’s running for a step or two before someone else, but will only become a successful sprinter with a massive amount of training and resources applied to making him a successful sprinter.
Training and resources mean everything in the equation, to the extent that the genetic factor is near worthless. That’s sort of the sad thing about sports, if you look at it in enough detail: generally the most successful people or teams in any sport are the ones with the most resources applied to them, as opposed to some more romantic notion of inherent skill or special circumstances.
You overstate the case for training in that speed can only be improves so much. You can take someone like me who was fast for my HS football team, but never in a million years would have made the track team at even a small college. You could have put me in the hands of the best coaches in the world and I, no doubt would have gotten faster, but never near what it takes to be considered an elite sprinter. The genetic factor is the opposite of worthless. It is the most important ingredient. If it weren’t, you’d see more whites winning sprints in the Olympics and at the speed positions in the NFL
Yes, and people have repeatedly agreed that there is, at least for the modern era.
But the fundamental idea where you and most of the other posters part ways is that this correlation is not sufficient to prove a genetic link.
That’s been repeatedly stated and yet it’s ignored once again.
Look at it from the other side. Nobody has yet claimed that there is absolutely no genetic link. Only that the evidence for it is not currently there. Also that cultural factors have not been properly eliminated.
Baseball is a good example. In the MLB, blacks were overrepresented, as a percentage of population, in the 80s. Did that imply a genetic advantage? If so, what explains the current demographics, where Hispanics are now currently overrepresented? Genes for entire populations don’t change that fast. So, how much is genetics and how much cultural?
You don’t see more whites winning because you don’t see more whites training. Period. Genetics are like a dash of salt in a baking recipe. It does something, but the bulk of the result comes from everything else. And you might well have been world class with the right training and resources. You don’t know that you wouldn’t be because you never had the chance. I’m guessing you didn’t grow up in Jamaica or somewhere with a heavy emphasis on sprinting training, with top coaches and such. Maybe if you had we’d be cheering you on instead of Usain Bolt.
Basically, I think that a lot of people really want to believe in simple answers to things, like this or that athlete is the best because of genetics. It’s easier that way, because of a few factors. 1) It makes it easier to accept the fact that you (generic you) aren’t as good as him or her, and 2) it wraps up the story without needing to think much about it. But the world just isn’t that simple. The reason for something is rarely just one straight-forward reason. Usually there are bunch of factors. Why are Canadians so good at hockey? Nothing genetic, I guarantee. We’re good at it because we invented it, fell in love with it, and developed strong systems for turning people into good hockey players while adapting to the increase in skill of other parts of the world. Why are Spanish people good at soccer? Nothing genetic there, it’s the same thing about having a system and resources dedicating to making them better.
Sure, some sports are more simple, like running, where a genetic component might be more readily evident. But if you really want to know what East Africans succeed in distance running events, it’s because in part that’s what a particular subset of the people in that area do, like all the time. They run, everywhere, across long distances and over many years. And they have systems and resources set up to create great runners. So genetics may play a factor, but training is the most important one.
But the fundamental idea where you and most of the other posters part ways is that this correlation is not sufficient to prove a genetic link.
I don’t think anyone has stated that it “proves” anything. Certainly not me. Can you point to someone who holds that position?
This seems to be the crux of the issue. There is evidence that suggests the correlation. It even is suggestive of a genetic link. That’s what evidence is. You, along with others, seem to use it interchangeable to mean two different things: 1) evidence, 2) proof. There is evidence. There is not proof.
Did you read the whole thread? Baseball is a horrible example. There is a world of difference between sports that require the acquisition of a skill and those that are largely dependent on something that requires virtually no training. Sprinting is an example. The speed positions in football are another. Every kid runs and races with his friends and plays tag, etc. You don’t have to be taught how to “not get caught”. You RUN as fast as you can. You race with your friends and try to win by running as fast as you can. As has been stated numerous times, one can improve one’s speed, but not to the level that a kid who couldn’t make the college sprint team one year will be going to the Olympics the next.
Forgive me, but this is really nonsense. I’ve played organized sports my whole life. A bunch of them. Not once do I recall a slow kid becoming fast, or a fast kid becoming a speed demon. And I’m unaware of any instance of that happening anywhere. NO doubt that being part of a sprinting culture would have helper me improve my speed, what 2%, 5%, 10? Regardless, I would never become a speed demon like a couple other guys on my teams. It’s just an impossibility. Really. The degree I was improve would not be enough. And that assume the other guys wouldn’t train at all! Allan R. and Richie A. were going to blow my doors off no matter what. Not tom mention Jimmy C. and James C. who didn’t even play on any teams.
See my post above regarding baseball. Hockey and soccer are the same. It requires the acquisition and honing of various skills. Unlike sprinting.
Absolutely not. You are either super fast or you aren’t.
Carl Lewis wouldn’t have been considered a “black” had he been born in Havana, Santo Domingo, Rio, or Dakar because in those places you’re only considered “black” if you’re of %100 Sub-Saharran African descent and while Carl Lewis isn’t what one could call high yellow, he’s not exactly blue black either.
Your definition of “blacks” seems to be anyone who is of Sub-Saharran descent.
By that standard there are huge number of “whites” who are “winning sprints in the Olympics” and plenty of “whites” at “the speed positions in the NFL”.
Until Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile many argued that it was impossible for a human being to run so fast. Nowadays, every year large numbers of high school runners break the four minute mile.
Similarly, look at the speed times in the Olympics.
Jesse Owens gold medal winning and world record setting times at the Olympics were vastly, vastly slower than times of today. He ran a 10.4 whereas barely more 20 years later at the 1968 Olympics, the winning time was 9.95 and by 1988 not only would his time not even have placed him among the top 150 male sprinters at the Seoul Olympics, it was only a fraction faster than the world record for the women’s 100 meters.
Clearly there’s far more than just genetics involved.
Perhaps some people would like to believe that Jesse Owens was so much slower tan all the sprinters of the 60, 70, 80s and through today because of his genes, but I think most people would recognize that a far more likely explanation is that they had access to training methods and other resources he didn’t have.
I have little doubt that had Jesse Owens been born in 1988 instead of 1913, he’d have no problem running a 9.9. rather than the times he ran in the 1930s which are regularly bested by high school students nowadays.
He would they have known he was not 100% Sub-Saharan?
What? Did you not see the chart supplied in this very thread concerning the NFL? And please tell me how many white guys came in 1st 2nd or 3rd in the Olympics in the past 10 years.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Did you know, also, that the most common jacket size for American soldier’s uniforms for WWII was a 36? :roll eyes:
No one is claiming that training, coaching, nutrition can’t and don’t help improve speed. The point is that to be an elite sprinter you need to be born fast to start with. And those with a West African heritage seem to have a gene that enables them to run faster then whites who have the same training available to them. While most colleges might have white sprinters on their team, how is it that none of these white guys make it onto the Olympic team? Jeeze, what in the world could it possibly be…
The mixture of African and European genes, for one*. If there is a genetic component, it’s hard to say where it comes from when you’re looking at African Americans. They are a sociological ethnic group but not a genetic one.
We don’t know to what extent genetics plays in this and we don’t know where those genes come from. Like most complex attributes, it’s likely to be a suite of genes-- not all of which must be from Africa.
*Not saying it is, just pointing out that it’s important to keep an open mind until the actual cause is determined.
There’s a reason why there’s professional coaching, even for sprinting. It’s not just a matter of being the fastest person out there. There actually are a set of skills (admittedly very specialized) for sprinting. Clearly, natural talent and physical qualities play a role, but that’s not enough.
Why are the top sprinters most often American or Jamaican and not also Brazilian, Haitian, or any other nationality with significant black populations? Why has Jamaican dominance at sprinting only occurred in the last few decades, while Americans have been competitive for longer?
While are the top endurance runners for distances longer than 26 miles not actually “black” by any definition of the word?
The same arguments are often made about swimming. The idea that you simply swim “as fast as you can” is bogus. Or even speed skating or bicycling, which is slightly more specialized but essentially comes down to being the fastest.
I opined upthread that this was a valid theory. If it were to actually be the case, wouldn’t you expect see more people who appear white/whiter? Not that that would prove anything one way or another, but wouldn’t you expect that?
While many high schools and colleges in the 40s and 50s had basketball teams, how is it that professional basketball had an unusually high number of Jewish men? And yes, I understand that your rejoinder is that basketball involves a number of skills. But the counter is basketball today.
Most professional US basketball players are black. But predominantly from cities, rather than from smaller towns, i.e. cities are overrepresented? Why? Is there an “urban” basketball gene?
Jumping straight to genetics as a baseline is premature.
Not necessarily. Them genes is all mixed up, man! They’re like crazy! White folk and black folk been doin’ the nasty for about 400 years in this country. If you was a gene bouncing around that long, you wouldn’t know which was up.
You seem to be defining as “black” anyone who is of Sub-Saharran African descent.
By that standard, you’d define as “white” anyone who is of European descent which includes virtually all the major sprinters and people at the “speed positions” in the NFL.
Have you ever met people from Nigeria, Senegal, or Ghana?
If possible watch some videos of people from there and then take a look at Lewis.
On that note, it’s also worth noting that I’ve never seen any evidence that African-American wide receivers, cornerbacks and sprinters are more likely to be of 100% African descent than most African-Americans. For example, I’ve never seen any evidence that they’re darker than most.
This does get at the root of… assertions being made without any evidence and which anyone involved in power or endurance sports would know is not true (based on a zillion or two studies).
Study after study shows that genetics means everything at the elite level, because everyone who gets there is plenty motivated (i.e,. they all train as hard) and very slight differences make all the difference. Why do you think bicyclists risk their reputations to dope if training and resources drown out everything else?
To back up, do you have any cites for your statement–a number of studies have been cited already that say the opposite (and there are plenty more…).
The point is that for 99% of it you don’t have to “learn” anything. You already know how to do it.
And how do you think the coaches select who to spend their time and efforts on? Randomly? Or might they give them a test of sorts. A non-written, non-oral test. How about a question like, “How fast do you run the 100 in? Okay, show up on Tuesday and I’ll time you.”
Well, Jamaica is easy. It’s a tiny country that competed very little in anything. If anything, the fact that they’ve been able to so SO well, along at a look at the rest of the elite world sprinters argues strongly for the genetic component being key.
Haiti? Please. Have you been to Haiti? Sadly, if it’s it’s not wallowing in poverty it’s suffering from corruption. Throw in a natural disaster here and there and track and filed fall way down on the list of things you give a shit about. Brazil? Don’t know. Could be that if they put time and money into it they’d do as well as the U.S. But the more important thing is not where might those with West African heritage not be dominating (and for all I know they may be when it comes to brazilian competitions), but where is there an example of whites doing as well as the West Africans. The U.S. is a great place to look, because we know that, at the very least, West Africans are not excluded form the opportunity to compete. Whites have every advantage they have, PLUS much greater raw numbers. Yet, the WAs totally dominate sprinting events and speed positions in the NFL. And that is an understatement.
Don’t know. Perhaps the gene that enables East Africans to do so well in marathon evens is ill-suited to centuries and the like? Maybe they’ve just never tried? What do you think?
Did you read the links regarding swimming earlier in the thread. It appears that whites are better suited for it, having to do with torso length. And as you indicate, all those are less pure than printing.
Question for you: in the array of athletic endeavors, would you say that sprinting might have the greatest “natural” component? If not, which sport/athletic endeavor do you think has a greater one?
That’s why I didn’t say “necessarily”. I asked “wouldn’t you expect” that. But I guess that might force you to actually take an opinion on something. And I certainly wouldn’t want you to do that.