Actually, that’s why I included a link to the LPGA 2010 money leaders.
Seven, seven, of the top 10 are … Asians.
But somehow Tiger’s 25% black heritage overwhelms his 50% Asian heritage? :dubious:
(Maybe it’s his penis, or his lack of a vagina? )
Where are all the great African golfers other than; Ernie Els, Tim Clark, Trevor Immelman, Nick Price, Gary Player?
All strangely melanin deficient for Africans. Hell, might they actually be Europeans who just were born Africans?
Doesn’t that last sentence throw the whole notion that there’s a huge worldwide sample for this scientific experiment with a rigorous simple measurement regimen out the window?
Why would White N. Americans and Europeans waste their energy on something that doesn’t have much money or fame in it when they have other opportunities that do?
Is there any reason that we shouldn’t assume that West African Olympic sprinters aren’t in the exact opposite situation? That being an West African Olympic level athlete is their best opportunity for money and fame?
If you were going to conduct a scientific experiment on sprinting speed wouldn’t you select a random sample from the various groups? And if you’re not going to use a random sample wouldn’t you really have to test every White N. American and European child to see if they have any potential to break the 100m 10 second wall and forcibly, rigorously, train them to find if there are any that can? Since we don’t do that might there not be an untapped pool of sprinters hiding in all the other extracurricular activities that are available? (Or maybe realizing that throwing the dice on a career in baseball using their speed to become a great base stealer is more lucrative than the first White guy to 9.76 the 100m?)
Honest questions (not directed at The Flying Dutchman) that I IMHO haven’t seen explored enough.
Oh, good fucking grief, I mention 82% black players in basketball, 65% black players in football, and the need to stop pretending that blacks don’t have superior genetics when it comes to athletics and to confront allegations of black intellectual inferiority when it arises rather than cling to the utter supidity of pretending there is no difference of any kind between the races, and all you self-righteous schmucks can do is home in on Tiger Woods.
You can pretend that Tiger’s black heritage hasn’t predominated all you want, but I would defy anyone who knew nothing about him to look at this photo and not conclude that he was black.
People like you are the reason we’ve made so little progress on racism in this country. Political correctness insists on dishonesty and it refuses to allow frank discussion of the issues connected with race, and therefore all it accomplishes is to drive racism under the surface rather than eliminate it.
At this point in American (and world) history I know it’s not a good idea to make assumptions about the ancestral background of anyone based solely on their appearance.
Huh? I’m not the one who’s still seeming to be promulgating the “One Drop Rule”, am I?
Like ignoring someones actual genetic background, ignoring cites that suggest it’s his majority Asian heritage and not his minority Black heritage that’s responsible for his success in golf.
And to be clear, I don’t doubt for a minute the major thing that’s driven Tiger is having a childhood molded by his father,
Anybody really think that if Earl Woods’ dad had handed him a tenor sax, Tiger’s childhood wouldn’t have been filled with musical instruments and not sporting goods?
Don’t dance around it, spell it out. Exactly what frank discussion isn’t being allowed?
(And if what’s being driven under the surface is racism then it seems kinda inescapable that the frank discussion of the issues connected with race not being allowed must be the rantings of racists.)
I would tend to think that this is a strong demonstration that the folks who want to concentrate on “race” are in error.
We KNOW that Woods’ ancestry is less than 25% African, yet you want to focus on your perception of his appearance to indicate that somehow the African ancestry “dominates.”
Pray tell, how would it do that? And if the Afrcian ancestry is so strong as to overwhelm all his other ancestry, what is the mechanism?
Is there some other black person dominating golf in the last few years that I don’t know about that you were hinting at?
Was it this “Black” guy?Vijay Singh
Birthplace: Lautoka, Fiji
Gender: Male
Religion: Hindu
Race or Ethnicity: Asian/Indian
Nationality: Fiji
Father: Mohan Singh (aircraft technician)
Mother: Parwati
Brother: Krishna
Brother: Mira
Sister: Anita
Wife: Ardena Seth (one son)
Son: Qass Seth (b. 16-Jun-1990)CMC fnord!
PS If “Blacks” have superior genetics when it comes to athletics why don’t they dominate every sport?
Well, Iginla’s pretty good. Nice assist on the gold medal-winning goal! Yay Iggy! I believe he’s also of mixed descent, but I’m confident that his black heritage dominates.
Arguments like this just gives the “culture only” side lots of ammunition to respond with. I suppose Gretzky’s singular success in hockey is owed to his Ukrainian genetics .:rolleyes:
Unless you can point to an unusual representation of blacks in golf and present some scientific studies on variant physiological characteristics of blacks vs whites that may be applicable to the performance of athletes in this sport, you are just blowing smoke.
You inadvertently, unintentionally make a good point.
Phenotype, that is the physical features we use to make what we call racial distinctions, can be extremely misleading. Tiger’s genetics are mostly Asian. That’s a hard cold fact. Nothing PC about it. In fact the forces of PC are usually arrayed against Tiger calling himself what he is, a mixie. PC folks insist that Tiger is actually black.
I’ll go further and point out that the way we reckon “race” here in the US is batshit fucking insane. The US is the only country where someone who looks like Tiger could be called “black”. Everywhere else in the world, there’s a general recognition of the fact that there are people who are mostly black, people who are mostly white, and people who are mixed. Brazil, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela.
Here in the States we lump together all the people who are mostly black, all the people who are mixed, and some of the people who are mostly white, and call them all “black”. And everyone buys into this. So, you think Tiger looks “black”. But there aren’t any full blooded, native born Senegalese or Nigerians who look like Tiger. The only people in those countries who resemble Tiger are mixed bloods.
My apologies (and I mean that sincerely). This thread showed up in my User CP subscription list and I clicked on it from there. Enough time has gone by since my last posts that I forgot which forum it was in.
More to follow regarding subsequent posts later tonight if time permits.
The idea is not that they have superior genetics for athletics in general. It is that they may have superior genetics for explosive speed, leaping ability, etc.
These are not the key requirements for many sports. Your time in the 100 m in tennis is really not all that important. If basketball was ONLY about jumping and quickness and exploding to the basket, maybe the numbers would be even more skewed.
How many kids in the US have any idea who the top sprinters in the world are? Not many. How many kids in the US have an idea who the top basketball stars are? An awful lot. Not a whole lot of fame from running track. And comparing money between track and other professional sports? Not even close. So how is track their best opportunity for money and fame?
Agreed. And the tendency to do so is as much driven by “blacks” as any other group, perhaps aided and abetted by the many special programs and funding available to that group. If a Barack Obama applies for matriculation to collge, or for a job in corporate America, he is vastly more likely to get the role as a black candidate than a white one, for instance. The NAACP is looking to advance colored people, whether the color is from a 20% African contribution or an 80% one.
)
