A century ago Irish and German players dominated baseball. I suppose one might speculate that they formerly had some genetic predisposition for it, but now have somehow lost it. Nowadays, obviously, Latin Americans have a much greater genetic predisposition for baseball than the Irish or Germans do. Given that most sports have been dominated by different ethnic and “racial” groups at different periods during their history, it is far far more likely that economic and social factors play the decisive role rather than that genetics do.
Still though, does anyone really believe that an NFL or a major college team would prevent anyone from being a quarterback if they thought they could win games?
Maybe, maybe it happens in high school. Still, that doesn’t really matter. Talented players from high schools are noticed, regardless of positions. Just as many talented high school quarterbacks change positions in college.
In high school football, coaches will pretty much take whomever they can find to play. Unless it’s some huge high school football powerhouse.
No, and nobody has suggested that. What has been suggested, and in fact shown to happen, is that a black kid who plays quarterback won’t be watched carefully by selectors. After all they normally have to watch two whole teams at once, and they already know the black kid will stink as quarterback. So they miss all his great plays an. Similarly they willbe watching the black fullback like a hawk to be sure they get him before the competition if he’s any good.
Added to that coaches, even at the college level, will push black kids into fullbackor other ‘black’ positions. It doesn’t matter how good or bad they are, theywill be given a chance in that position because all coaches know that the best quarterbacks are black.
And of course the black kids themselves know these things. A lot of them won’t even want to try for quarterback because they know they won’t be any good at it.
And so on, throughout their entire lives. Nothing to do with being ‘prevented’ from playing. A lot to do with being constantly pushed to other positions.
But are they noticed regardless of colour? That is the question. If a black kid playing quarterback is simply ignored because eveyone lknows balck kids can’t play that spot what does that do?
Yes, but once again what we need to know is if just as many Black HS quarterbacks change positons. Is that the case?
No, I wouldn’t dismiss it outright, but I’d want to see some actual scientific evidence before I believed it. And that would mean taking random samples and doing experiments, not looking at self-selected groups. You’d have to control for environment, nutrition, training and God knows what else. So far, I’ve never seen this done.
I see no reason for any explanation beyond a social one. Some people have the innate physical abilities (whatever they might be) to excell in a particular sport. Of those, some will be sufficiently motivated to develop those abilities to the point where they can compete on a professional level. But the decision to develop one’s athletic abilities is, of course, highly influenced by society. In our current society, those who identify themselves as “black” are much more likely to be sufficiently motivated to be profesional halfbacks. So you get more black pro halfbacks. Of course, this is self-perpetuating, to some degree: Given a successful pro halfback who happens to be black, a black kid is more likely to consider him a role model, and to therefore strive to match him.
I wouldn’t suppose if I were you. I’m betting that no one has ever speculated that the Irish and Germans had a genetic advantage for baseball.
Not obvious to me
Is that the “scientific” answer? Given that organized sports have a history of about 100 years, you obviously need to consider the social factors to explain the flux in ethnic performance. Hell, I remember when the NHL was comprised of 100% Canadians. It isn’t that way now and we will never see those days again.
I feel confident however that we will never see the end of black dominance in the 100 m sprint, basketball and football. Certainly they weren’t dominant 50 years ago when social factors held them back
It is more plausible to suggest that along with the emergence of the global village and recognition of the rights of minorities and the general trend away from racism and ethnicism, that full opportunity and access to the various sports has greatly expanded. Except for soccer where West Africans only lately have shown dominance , it appears the high level of black participation at the elite levels of sprint demanding sports has remained somewhat constant.
The genetic argument for the basis of black success in the sprint demanding sports lies in the West African heritage of American elite black athletes. I do not understand the validity of the counter argument based on the genetic dilution of American blacks. Not every black American will be an elite athlete and genetic dilution doesn’t mean the genetic advantage will be compromised. I know there are a number of professional sportsmen who have followed their fathers. Their mother’s genes didn’t hold them back. I wonder what kind of runners wiould be produced in the marriage of an elite athletic Kenyan with an elite athletic NFL running back. A middle distance runner? 
The genetic argument is also the default position when the social factors are considered. However blacks from a variety of different societies and economic standing have succeeded at elite levels. No common social factor can be determined.
Well since this is GQ, the place for factual answers, and not IMHO can we see the facts that led you to that degree of confidence?
What does that even mean? It’s a statement with no meaning at all. A totally nonsensical non-sequitur.
“The argument for the basis of black success in the sprint demanding sports lies in the southern heritage of American elite black athletes.”
“The argument for the basis of black success in the sprint demanding sports lies in the illiterate heritage of American elite black athletes.”
All those statements make just as much sense ie, none at all. All are complete non sequiturs.
Nonetheless you feel able to sate that various alternatives are “more plausible’ than such arguments.
How very peculiar.
You just conceded that you don’t have the foggiest understanding of the genetic dilution argument, yet you feel able to conclude that it won’t compromise any putative genetic advantage. How exactly can you know what something you don’t understand the validity of doesn’t compromise the genetic advantage?
Or is this simply another non-sequitur?
Once again, since this is GW and not IMHO can we see the evidence for this claim. And I mean the claim that their mothers genes didn’t hold them back.
How did you determine their mother’s genes didn’t hold them back?
What genes, suites of genes or markers did you analyse to reach this conclusion?
O r do you mean you don’t want to *believe[/I[ their mother’s genes held them back so you stated it as fact, even though there is no evidence for it?
Just trying to work out how much credence to give any future statements of fact you make WRT genetics.
No it isn’t. In fact quite the opposite. Refer Regoli, R. 2000 “looking inside the hobby of baseball card collecting” Race & Society 3,. McCormick, R.E. & Tollison, R.D., 2001 “Why do black basketball players work more for less money?” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 44, Hall, R.E., 2002 “The Bell Curve: implications for the performance of Black/White athletes” The Social Science Journal 39
Can we please see you’re your references for your claim made above? IOW
CITE!
That’s right. And whites from a variety of different societies and economic standing have succeeded at elite levels. Therefore no common racial factor can be determined either.
That’s the whole point. With that once sentence you have demolished your entire argument.
You claim that if people from a variety of different societies and economic standings succeed at elite levels we have to discount claims of a social explanation.
What then does it mean if people from a variety of different races succeed at elite levels? Doesn’t that mean that we also have to discount claims of a racial explanation?
Or do you only want to apply that argument when it suits you?
How few? This is the only one I can remember. *
I’m sure there has been at least one more, hasn’t there?
*Played for Tampa Bay from 85-90
Have there ever been any studies suggesting that one group has faster reaction times/muscle reflexes than another? I remember reading something about that but I honestly can’t remember what it was.
What was also not obvious to you was the fact that I was being facetious. I guess I do need to be more careful and spell things out as simply as possible for the sarcasm-impaired. There is exactly as much support for Irish and Germans having a genetic advantage in baseball a century ago, or Latin Americans having such an advantage today, as there is for blacks having a genetic advantage in football or basketball now. If you think the assertion about the Irish, Germans, and Latin Americans is not plausible, then I don’t know why you would think the same assertion is plausible when it comes to blacks.
Exactly. Social, cultural, and economic factors are what govern dominance of certain ethnic groups in particular sports. Blacks are not genetically predisposed to be bad at ice hockey.
I feel equally confident that black dominance will eventually wane as they gain more economic equality, but this is likely to take a long time.
Even if there were a genetic advantage for some particular athletic trait, such as the sprint, this hardly explains the strong dominance of blacks at a wide variety of different positions in football. What genetic trait explains black dominance in heavyweight boxing? What genetic trait explains their incompetence at ice skating?
This is pure nonsense. Why should the genetic argument be the default position when there is no evidence for it? A common social factor in professional sports for more than a century is that they have been a route for advancement for people from lower socioeconomic groups, whatever those have been at the time. What particular sports have been favored by particular ethnic groups has been determined largely by cultural factors, especially the presence of role models who have been successful in that particular sport, leading to a positive feedback effect.
Its tough to deal with this question in GQ but I will take a swing at anything.
For most middle class blacks, athletics are not usually pursued as a “ticket out” but rather as something that everyone seems to do. While playing sports helped me out significantly in terms of financing college, it was never intended as a tool to escape my situation. Every older black kid that I knew played 2-3 sports and I wanted to be like them. Initially, I did not even care which sport I played.
In my case, I kicked for about half a season when I started playing high school football because I had been a soccer player my entire life so it seemed logical to be a kicker. My coach switched my position because I was the fastest on the team (I also ran track for several years prior). The interesting thing to note here was that I was still the best overall kicker. However, he stated that he was afraid to rely on me as the starter once I started playing halfback due to the increased potential for injury. My best friend (who also ran track with me) was switched, by the coach, from quarterback to halfback to add to the speed in the backfield.
I do concede that it is difficult to tell how good a quarterback he would have made since he was switched in 9th grade, but he was a smart guy (ivy league educated) with the strongest arm out there.
All of the younger black kids who watched our games are now halfbacks because they saw that the only 3 blacks on our high school team were all in the backfield. Which gives support to the claim that the overrepresentation of blacks in certain positions is due in part to social factors as well.
If you subscribe to Scientific American I recommend digging up this issue. Otherwise, you can always find it at your local library.
Thanks. That is a good recommendation. Scientific American is really good about dealing with these types of subjects. I may just buy the article.
They are indeed two different samples, which is exactly the point. The OP asks why are the proportions so different, and simply restating that they are different does not address the question. John Mace’s post responded to Shagnasty’s statement, as quoted: “There is a massive overreprentation of blacks in other positions but it isn’t as strong at QB.” He confirmed rather than debunked that statement by showing that indeed the representation at QB is about the same as in the general population. So if it’s “about right” for the QB proportion to be the same as the general population–that this is the expected ratio and there should be nothing surprising about this–it invites the question of why wouldn’t we expect all other positions to also be in the same proportion to the general population? I think that someone who invites a question oughtta let it come in.
Blake later makes a fair point which highighted my lack of knowledge about genetics, although after seeing the explanation I might have referred to it as fallacy of cause and effect or possibly common cause, rather than composition.
Speaking of fallacies, this is a strawman fallacy. Although I described what I felt was plausible, I did not follow that by concluding that it was inescapable fact. I was simply making an observation relevant to the discussion.
I added my last line to make it clear that it was not an analysis by someone trained in the field of genetics, and I was not putting forward professional research for a refereed paper. Although that hardly bars one from participating in the discussion in this forum.
That’d be Jerry Mondesire, FYI.
This question (the OP) was a topic on the local 24 hr talk radio station recently & the debate went on for hours.
What I was asking is if there was a factal reason for this, such as why almost all shortstops in baseball are right handed. I never tried to imply that there might be adaptations.
From looking at the rosters at the schools in Southwestern Athletic Conference, it looks like most of the teams have Latinos as kickers. Despite all the schools being historically black colleges.
Other people are all too glad to add the implications. You open the can, you’re going to get some worms on you 
Despite eventually becoming a hall-of-famer, Warren Moon had to start his career in Canada. I wonder if he would have been given a chance if he had entered the NFL draft?
“In Canada I was able to play without stereotypes or racism,” – Warren Moon
(From this article)