Genetics - split from Rip critique thread

blackgold>>

Some simple things such as muscle insertion points, muscle fibre type and lever length.
Why are African Americans faster at sprinting? Genetics! Train as hard as you want and goodluck trying to beat them.
Bollocks to most of what you say on genetics. Of course they bloody matter don't be idiotic.
This is not about how hard you train etc etc.... Some things are out of your control.

And about squating lets see your expert squating videos . Show us how to do it then.

slemons

brianthebard wrote: »

FFS the idea that a random sperm and egg out of all the millions of random sperm and egg cells out there could come together and create an individual who's just perfectly gifted for their sport is beyond credibility.

Thats exactly what happens.
But its not even as random in this case.

Any given offspring will have a 100% chance of inheriting a trait if it is dominant in both mother and father. I dont know Bolts parents but he is from the carribean and there have been generations of sprinter from there.

So yeah id say he could be very genetically suited to sprinting.
Sprinting is not just levers and height. Its also about fuel and fatigue, or better lack there of

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

don't be idiotic.

This is not about how hard you train etc etc....

:rolleyes:

Mikel

brianthebard wrote: »

What exactly do you know about their genetics? Both of them have issues, Bolt is way taller than the average olympic sprinter, it makes him terrible out of the blocks. No running coach would teach a kid to run like he does. Konstanwhatsits back is too long, if he set up his deadlift properly he'd end up stiff legging it. Again you wouldn't teach it the way he does. Instead of being gifted with gold winning genes, both of them have made accommodations for what they've been given by their genetics. FFS the idea that a random sperm and egg out of all the millions of random sperm and egg cells out there could come together and create an individual who's just perfectly gifted for their sport is beyond credibility.

Why is it beyond credibility? Out of all the billions and billions that have successfully come together up to now?
Thorpe was a born swimmer, if you were to design a human swimmer you couldn't do much better, Maradona born footballer etc etc
Bolt might be terrible out of the blocks but his long stride more than makes up for it afterwards.
And why did he win the 100m by how ever many yards slowing down?
With other jamaicans in the field from presumably the same coaching regimen..
Did he just work harder? I get the impression that his winning margin suggests otherwise.

Hanley wrote:

But why is the elite coach elite?? He didn't just go from not coaching, to being elite. All things being equal, he probably worked his way up thru the ranks to get there. encountering many levels of trainee's during it. Presumably he excelled at all because he has continued to rise thru the ranks to become "elite".
Fair assumptions, no?

Depends doesn't it?
Some footballers go from playing at the top level to coaching at that level.
Give them a team of no hopers and they might struggle.
I don't know how it works in lifting though, what if your friend Ed went from competing to coaching, would he go down to the bottom of the foodchain first? Depends on the coach.

Hanley wrote:

Obviously. Where did I say anything to imply otherwise?
His ability to coach people to do what he wants is obviously there. But does one's capabilities as a coach matter if they're teaching the wrong thing???

The point was Transform = Expert.
By the same criteria Rippetoe = Expert.
So my problem is figuring out who is right.
What is obviously wrong may be obvious to you, but it's not to me.
There's also the possibility that you're wrong, or wrong about what he's wrong about etc etc..

Hanley wrote:

So is someone only an expert if they think they know everything about a topic and can't possibly learn any more?? That's pretty much the textbook definition of an arrogant ignoramus in my book.

No, but 32 and 10 years might be premature imo, Transform quotes Mc Robert a lot, but he changed his mind about some things after his first book, one exercise in particular I can't remember at the moment.
Still if he wants to that's his lookout, asking for trouble imo but that's irrelevant.

Hanley wrote:

How many hours have premiership footballers put in? AT LEAST 2 hours a day, 4-5x a week since they were 8 or 9 say? Probably more as they get older so it should average out. Now assume most players first break into the premiership at 20. That's approx 11 years of training 500 hours a year or arounf 5-6000 hours of training at the peak ages for motor development and fitness/strength adaptation.
Saying that you NOW couldn't do it is obviously true. Who has 6000 hours spare to train with a real life. But to say you couldn't do it THEN with the right coaching and right facilities isn't true in my opinion.
You MIGHT have. you might not too tho. But you have to admit with different circumstances, there is the chance you could have.

Ah but what % percentage of kids who do all of that make it, I mean there's thousands every year, who put as much in as most of the guys who do make it.

Hanley wrote:

I mentioned the FAR right. The guys who are the absolute best. Using your argument of the bell curve, by definition there can only be a small number of these. They're what happens when you combine genetic potential and superhuman work ethic.
Since you can't have a competition where everyone is the absolute best, there has to be people who are less good, but still extemely good, to make up the places.
THEY'RE the guys that people should aspire to be (realistically).

Right, but on average the guys who take the medals and the records are going to be the 'gifted & hardworking' group.
Then we have the 'less gifted' and the 'even less gifted & super hardworking' groups.

I think people can aspire to be in the second and third groups but no matter how hard you work you'll never be in that first group unless you are born with whatever they have.
I was making the assumption from the comments that Konstantinos is in the first group.
You can admire him and aspire to it all you want, but unless you have the genetics you're not in his group.
That's not to say you can't achieve the group one or two below him and if someone can then go for it.
But I don't consider pointing out that he is in that particular group (if he is) with Bolt and Johnson and Thorpe and Co as being a loser or making excuses, it's just paying respect when you see it to real talent and ability, and admiring the fact that they're not content to coast by on their gifts but have the work ethic too.

I suppose it depends how far right you define the tail to be.
Everyone in that 100m final I would consider to be in it.

Roper

Do you know what I think??

I think that you all need to go off and do some research into the ACTUAL significance of genetics in sporting performance as opposed to just giving what you reckon it is this week. I seem to be one of the few people here to accept that I'm not a geneticist. This argument is pointless! It's not like saying "Robbie Keane is crap/no he's deadly". This a science that the average person has NO grasp of so you can't have an informed opinion.

Now squat technique, that's one we can debate. Even at that though we have to also accept that we may or may not be talking about the same thing but using different titles.

slemons

Roper wrote: »

I seem to be one of the few people here to accept that I'm not a geneticist.

Was that for me?
If so, then its true. Not yet anyway. Exams in 4 weeks...
And at the rate my stuy is going, thn probably never lol

Roper

slemons wrote: »

Was that for me?
If so, then its true. Not yet anyway. Exams in 4 weeks...
And at the rate my stuy is going, thn probably never lol

Well then I appoint you the official geneticist of this forum, or at least I will if you pass. All you need do now is clear up your spelling and you're set

Hanley

Roper wrote: »

Do you know what I think??

I think that you all need to go off and do some research into the ACTUAL significance of genetics in sporting performance as opposed to just giving what you reckon it is this week. I seem to be one of the few people here to accept that I'm not a geneticist. This argument is pointless! It's not like saying "Robbie Keane is crap/no he's deadly". This a science that the average person has NO grasp of so you can't have an informed opinion.

Now squat technique, that's one we can debate. Even at that though we have to also accept that we may or may not be talking about the same thing but using different titles.

Do you think people overstating or understating their importance?

Mikel

kevpants wrote: »

If anything I reckon Coan leads with his chest more than his hips

It's hard to see what his ar$e is doing though, is there anything which shows him from the side? Although maybe the dude with the mullet would be in the way.....

Mikel

Roper wrote: »

I think that you all need to go off and do some research into the ACTUAL significance of genetics in sporting performance as opposed to just giving what you reckon it is this week. I seem to be one of the few people here to accept that I'm not a geneticist. This argument is pointless! It's not like saying "Robbie Keane is crap/no he's deadly". This a science that the average person has NO grasp of so you can't have an informed opinion.
Now squat technique, that's one we can debate. Even at that though we have to also accept that we may or may not be talking about the same thing but using different titles.

But idle speculation is fun!
To be fair though we're really only bringing genetics into it for the extreme cases, I doubt many would dispute that genetics have an impact in those I mentioned above, though the quantum of the impact it has obviously we don't know.

Hanley

Mikel wrote: »

Depends doesn't it?
Some footballers go from playing at the top level to coaching at that level.
Give them a team of no hopers and they might struggle.

Football and the likes would be more political imo, so I'm not sure how valid a comparison it is. Like the fans might demand a manager and the board will do it to keep them happy.

I don't know how it works in lifting though, what if your friend Ed went from competing to coaching, would he go down to the bottom of the foodchain first? Depends on the coach.

One of the quirks of powerlifting is that you coach and lift at the same time if you lift in a group.... So not a great example to use again!! Weightlifting's different, as are most individual sports (I think the coaching dynamics in team sports are probably different, but am not sure).

The point was Transform = Expert.
By the same criteria Rippetoe = Expert.
So my problem is figuring out who is right.
What is obviously wrong may be obvious to you, but it's not to me.
There's also the possibility that you're wrong, or wrong about what he's wrong about etc etc..

I agree, by my definition, and most others, Rippetoe = expert. Buuuuut back in the 15 and 1600's there were a lot of Astronomy experts who thought the earth was the centre of the universe too...

Ah but what % percentage of kids who do all of that make it, I mean there's thousands every year, who put as much in as most of the guys who do make it.

But sometimes fate intervenes and when they're 15 or 16 they have a bad few games were a scout just happens to be watching and as a result they don't move on to bigger and better things. Or maybe a slighty above average kid has a few good games when the right people are watching and things change for him as a result (I take myself as an example, I had a string of game of the season performances when I was 15/16 which had the right people there watching, I ended up being scouted for the league team as a result but then decided to go and tear apart my shoulder the very next training session. I've no illusions that I could have made it as a footballer, I wouldn't. In truth I probably may not have even deserved the spot I was about to get, but at the right time things came together for me, and if I had stayed injury free I might have got even better as a result). Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

Right, but on average the guys who take the medals and the records are going to be the 'gifted & hardworking' group.
Then we have the 'less gifted' and the 'even less gifted & super hardworking' groups.

I agree.

I think people can aspire to be in the second and third groups but no matter how hard you work you'll never be in that first group unless you are born with whatever they have.

Again, I agree. I don't know how true this is, but I would say in most sports there's 3 main subgroups.
1) The championships/hardworking & good genetics
2) The mid tier who never quite break true, but are still better than most
3) The hangers on - the guys just about elite, but have to fight tooth and nail to be there or they'll get dropped.

I don't see why most people can't at least aspire to be in the second or third group given the right circumstances, opportunities and work ethic.

I was making the assumption from the comments that Konstantinos is in the first group.
You can admire him and aspire to it all you want, but unless you have the genetics you're not in his group.
That's not to say you can't achieve the group one or two below him and if someone can then go for it.

Agreed again, see above!

But I don't consider pointing out that he is in that particular group (if he is) with Bolt and Johnson and Thorpe and Co as being a loser or making excuses, it's just paying respect when you see it to real talent and ability, and admiring the fact that they're not content to coast by on their gifts but have the work ethic too.

He most certainly is in the group. I think he still has the 3rd highest deadlift of all time! There's nothing wrong with saying people can't all be like him per se, but when it's used to drag people down, or is used as an attempt to demoralise them or impair their work ethic, that's when I take issue with it.

I'd imagine the people on my side in this argument would be the same.

I suppose it depends how far right you define the tail to be.
Everyone in that 100m final I would consider to be in it.

I would consider the measure of "success" in this instance in sport as getting to a level of international representation. I believe that given the right circumstances, most could do it on some level.

Hanley

Basically, when i squat with hip drive, i feel more solid, and that i'm working my legs more than if i don't use it, like the work is spread between the quads, hamstrings, glutes and adductors. If i don't drive my hips, i feel it way more in my quads. So i feel as though i'm gettoing more out of my squats this way.

I don't understand how you can "feel" anything when you're squatting. I know if I started trying to think about the muscles being worked instead of form and positions I'd be stapled.

Maybe you mean the subsequent DOMS tho?

Yeah, but if you hold the top while you kick the bottom, you won't have a problem.

If you kick it with sufficient force you won't be able to hold on to it tho. Just like if you squat with sufficient weight, eventually trying to move your hips first will be the reason you miss the lift!

I see it differently, he relaxes his upper back, and thats why his hips rise first, if it was locked, they would move together.

And if he kept his head up instead of looking down, and drove his elbows forwards instead of looking up, he'd probably come out of the squat better (which is another issue I have with his teachings which I think compound the hip drive problem!)

DM-BM

Hanley wrote: »

I don't understand how you can "feel" anything when you're squatting. I know if I started trying to think about the muscles being worked instead of form and positions I'd be stapled.

Maybe you mean the subsequent DOMS tho?

Correct, that is what i meant.

Hanley wrote: »

If you kick it with sufficient force you won't be able to hold on to it tho. Just like if you squat with sufficient weight, eventually trying to move your hips first will be the reason you miss the lift!

Perhaps your right, I'm presently at 1.5xbw for 5 reps, i don't know what will happen when the bar gets heavier.But i haven't lost one for that reason so far.

Hanley wrote: »

And if he kept his head up instead of looking down, and drove his elbows forwards instead of looking up, he'd probably come out of the squat better (which is another issue I have with his teachings which I think compound the hip drive problem!)

Can you explain the elbows forward thing a bit more i tried it during warm ups yesterday but didn't feel any advantage to it, then again i don't know if i was doing it properly.

Roper

Hanley wrote: »

Do you think people overstating or understating their importance?

I think I don't have a clue because I'm not a geneticist!

I have spoken to a person in the know, and his contention was that genetics are important but not so important as you think. Like the top .001% are special for one specific trait and after that we're all degrees of normal. He reckoned that most Olympians were NOT genetically awesome but just poeple who had maximised their potential.

I don't have a clue, there's no way I can without going and commisioning a study on it.

Hanley

Roper wrote: »

I think I don't have a clue because I'm not a geneticist!

I have spoken to a person in the know, and his contention was that genetics are important but not so important as you think. Like the top .001% are special for one specific trait and after that we're all degrees of normal. He reckoned that most Olympians were NOT genetically awesome but just poeple who had maximised their potential.

I don't have a clue, there's no way I can without going and commisioning a study on it.

:eek:

I'm speechless. It looks like we agree on something.

kevpants

Roper wrote: »

I have spoken to a person in the know, and his contention was that genetics are important but not so important as you think. Like the top .001% are special for one specific trait and after that we're all degrees of normal. He reckoned that most Olympians were NOT genetically awesome but just poeple who had maximised their potential.

Spot on. The belief that every successful athlete or sportsman was born to do it is ridiculous, the chances of the 0.01% of people who have a genetic advantage in any sport actually taking up that sport are minute to begin with, as is the likelihood of them implementing the correct training to maximise or even semi-maximise that potential so that they make it to an olympic level.

I mean do you know what you're genetically advanced in? Maybe I've got the elbows of an olympic javelin gold medalist and I don't know it.

The most succesful sportspeople are the ones who work the hardest.

Nothingcompares

How do you know there isn't a gene (or group of genes) responsible for the behaviour that is working hard? Maybe I have a lazy person gene and Tiger Woods has a hard worker gene. There is a genetic component to behaviour.

Roper

Nothingcompares wrote: »

How do you know there isn't a gene (or group of genes) responsible for the behaviour that is working hard? Maybe I have a lazy person gene and Tiger Woods has a hard worker gene. There is a genetic component to behaviour.

Yes, but there is also doubtless a psychological component (some might say that's genetic but not me coming from a psychological slant) and an environmental component. We can't accurately assess that without some mega and very unethical trial involving exposing genetically superior babies to lazy parenting...:D

PeakOutput

i cant find the link now but i remember reading that no matter what we are pre programmed to be good at sports/science/maths whatever how we turn out is only 10% nature the other 90% is how we are raised / nurtured

so i know one family that has 3 absolute geniuses in it. two are exceptional at science and one exceptional at music so if you want to know how to raise your kids their family has the answer i have no idea what it is but it is definitely not to go out and buy micheal phelps sperm and michelle smyths eggs and bam you have a swimmer but apparently that will get you 10 of the way

slemons

kevpants wrote: »

The most succesful sportspeople are the ones who work the hardest.

Agreed.
But the rest, about genetics not counting for much?
I dunno man.

How come no white man has ever ran under 10sec in the 100metre? We surely all cant be lazy?

A normal joe can get to relatively high levels of competition with dedication and intelligence, but be the best in the world at something with millions of competitors? You have to have something special to get that far.

Maybe its easier looking at cyclists. Indurain and his lung capacity being the standout example. If he ate Mcdonalds all his life, he would still beat me up that alp. And probably a lot of other dedicated cyclists...

blackgold>>

Good point slemons.

And what do you make of this below?

of the top 200 official times at 100 metres, not one has been run by a white athlete. Only black sprinters have (officially) run under 10 seconds. Solomon Wariso, a graduate in biotechnology and 400- and 200-metre runner, says: "It's just stating facts that black athletes can run faster and for longer. Among themselves athletes don't even bother to discuss it. It's just like saying the track is red."

Genetics cause Black Athletes to run Faster and DO better than white athletes!
Anyone disagree?

slemons

lol, i have no idea what is being discussed here now...

kevpants

The ability to make your muscle fibres twitch as quickly as possible over 100m's is not the be all and end all of sport. Nor is the ability to stride repetetively for 2 hours.

West African's are loaded with fast twitch muscle fibres and east africans, specifically people from on particular tribe in Kenya, are gifted long distance runners.

But Sonya O'Sullivan with her big dirty lanky squinty Cork genes did a fairly good job of sticking it to a few of them.

I think running for running sake is a pretty simplistic format to discuss genes in any case.

And all black athletes aren't better. Asimbiyava (how the jaysus do ya spell that) can leap small buildings given a big enough stick, they had to make the javelin heavier or Jan Zilezny (could I have picked harder examples to spell?) was gonna kill someone in the crowd, no one is denying genes here but I object to every example of sporting prowess being met with the response:

"Genes"

It undermines the work athletes put in and the genetic disadvantages they've overcome to become so good. All I'm saying is don't go claiming everyone who's a freak at their chosen sport got there because their genes helped them until you're finished running the lab tests to prove it.

Hanley

Nothingcompares wrote: »

How do you know there isn't a gene (or group of genes) responsible for the behaviour that is working hard? Maybe I have a lazy person gene and Tiger Woods has a hard worker gene. There is a genetic component to behaviour.

Wow. That's ridiculous. Taking the genetics argument to the next level.

blackgold>> wrote: »

Genetics cause Black Athletes to run Faster and DO better than white athletes!
Anyone disagree?

I disagree. TRAINING is what makes them run faster. A black guy doesn't just step on the track and run faster than a white guy. He has to TRAIN for it. His genetics might mean that potentially he can be faster, but he sure as hell wouldnt be if he sat around on his ass all day eating crisps.

blackgold>>

Hanley can you run 100m in under 10 seconds?
No and neither can any other white man.

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

Hanley can you run 100m in under 10 seconds?
No and neither can any other white man.

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING???

Blackgold, do you have the ability to objectively respond to specific points and questions without resorting to childish tactics?

No, but lots of other people can. Guess that makes you genetically disadvantaged?

Have you ever dedicated yourself to a sport or achieved anything worthy of note that would qualify you to discuss what it takes to get to a decent level? Without citing rhetoric and second hand information. That is to say, other than what you've read, have you seen a genetic freak whip everyone without trying? Or someone of average genetics rise above the vast majority thru sheer force of will alone?

blackgold>>

Do you not feel the white lads try their hardest?

BobbyOLeary

I disagree. TRAINING is what makes them run faster

I don't really care about the rest of this argument but this got me. You're inferring here that it's simply the training style of black sprinters that has them running faster than their white counterparts. So you're saying that every single white sprinter is a relative layabout, that we would have competitive white 100m sprinters if they'd only train as hard as their black equivilants?

Sorry but thats b*llocks. I'm fully aware that their training brings them the vast vast majority of the way but the reason that no white man has run a sub 10s 100m is that they're not genetically suited to do so. I could train all I wanted from a young age but I never would have been an olympic gymnast, I could have been a national competitor alright but never the best, or even in contention for the best. Putting someone's achievements down to genetics is wrong but so is thinking that its 100% due to their training.

I realise that this only applies to the far right of the bell curve but it does apply, and sprinting is a clear example.

brianthebard

I think that what hanley's saying is that black athletes of carribbean descent are often targetted from a young age by US (and native) athletics schemes designed to push all potential sprinters as far as possible. The same attention is not always given to white sprinters. Its also worth noting that the group people are referring to is a very small population, which makes the targetting of potential athletes much easier. When trainers and sports programmes equate black athletes of carribbean descent with good sprint times, its very easy for that to become "true", without necessarily being true.

amacachi

Right, so do we all agree that if Rippetoe was black then he could run 100m in 10seconds?

DM-BM

i dunno, hip drive out of the blocks would cause him to fall forward,no hope of doing it in under 10 seconds after that.

Hanley

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

I don't really care about the rest of this argument but this got me. You're inferring here that it's simply the training style of black sprinters that has them running faster than their white counterparts. So you're saying that every single white sprinter is a relative layabout, that we would have competitive white 100m sprinters if they'd only train as hard as their black equivilants?

Sorry but thats b*llocks. I'm fully aware that their training brings them the vast vast majority of the way but the reason that no white man has run a sub 10s 100m is that they're not genetically suited to do so. I could train all I wanted from a young age but I never would have been an olympic gymnast, I could have been a national competitor alright but never the best, or even in contention for the best. Putting someone's achievements down to genetics is wrong but so is thinking that its 100% due to their training.

I realise that this only applies to the far right of the bell curve but it does apply, and sprinting is a clear example.

Did you just not bother to read my post? Or did you purposely ignore the parts that I mentioned genetics so you could go off on a little rant?

Where did I say it was 100% training? (don't bother wasting your time looking, you won't find it).

Now, read my post underneath again and try to pick up on the key points. Namely that you can't be a good 100m sprinter without TRAINING, but you could potentially be even better due to your genetics.

:rolleyes:

Hanley wrote: »

Wow. That's ridiculous. Taking the genetics argument to the next level.



I disagree. TRAINING is what makes them run faster. A black guy doesn't just step on the track and run faster than a white guy. He has to TRAIN for it. His genetics might mean that potentially he can be faster, but he sure as hell wouldnt be if he sat around on his ass all day eating crisps.

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

Do you not feel the white lads try their hardest?

How old are you?

slemons

lol, how about this...

Winning and losing is all in the head.

How many more pages can we argue over that one

Hanley

slemons wrote: »

lol, how about this...

Winning and losing is all in the head.

How many more pages can we argue over that one

No, it's all in your genetics.

No, wait, I think it's all in your training.

No, no, wait. Could it be a combination?? :eek:

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

Do you not feel the white lads try their hardest?

At best that's trolling. At worst it could be considered cacist. Can we ease up on the 'white guys'-type terminology please, it adds little credence to the argument?

People here keep referring to 'genetics' accounting for an advantage. What, pray tell, are these advantages? Some literature to back that up would be just super too please. If you want to claim that race x is genetically superior to race y for purpose b I'd like to see some proof and not simple conjecture, otherwise y'all are talking through your bitter arses.

amazingemmet

blackgold>> wrote: »

Hanley can you run 100m in under 10 seconds?
No and neither can any other white man.

White guys have gone under 10secs can't think of some names off the top of my but gfe :pac:

Also on the whole black thing, The last I read on the blacks being better sprinters has more to do with them have longer achilles tendons and shorter femurs then whites giving them a better lever for sprinting.

Kenya also is on a plateau at some really high point above sea level giving the long distance runners that come from there a higher hemocrite then other runners thus being able to transport more oxygen then others

BobbyOLeary

Genetics cause Black Athletes to run Faster and DO better than white athletes!
Anyone disagree?

I disagree. TRAINING is what makes them run faster.

His genetics might mean that potentially he can be faster

I'm confused. You're disagreeing that genetics cause black athletes to be faster but you're agreeing with it at the same time? Eh?

DM-BM

Did anybody see a documentary on BBC around the time of the olympics, where Colin Jackson was looking in to this .

My recollection of this isn't the best to be honest, but he went to a university in the US, where a sample of his quadricep was analysed, he was told he had "super fast twitch" muscle fibers, and that only 1% on the people tested there had these.

I'm not making any claims about this, just wondering if anyone else remembers this or knows more about it?

kevpants

FFS!

The genetics argument is getting a little pedantic now. If myself or any of the people arguing they aren't as important as some would believe even acknowlege that humans have genes we're seen to be contradicting ourselves. We're not.

If your genes screw you over and you have a hunch-back and a club foot you probably aren't going to pip Usain Bolt over the line in London 2012. Indeed the indian cricketer Murrilitheran (my God why can't they be called Jones) has a congenital elbow defect that would have meant he wouldn't have made it as a Darts player but made him the greatest bowler in the history of cricket.

But look at the genetic differences between champions. Say Usain Bolt and Ben Johnson (I know Johnson was on the juice but surely the genticists here would agree it MUST have been his genes that were the main reson for his times). Bolt is a lanky rangy highjump-lookin fella. Johnson was squatty and looked like he might have been more suited to Olympic weightlifting. Both black, but defintely coming from different gene pools yeah? If you took all of Johnsons 100m races and combined his best start with his best first 40m and his best finish he would have run the 100m's in 9.58 seconds. Faster than Bolt.

Is that not an argument for two fairly different genetic specimens being capable of similar feats?

Indeed look at the WR holders since Lewis "won" in 88. Not one of them, the short ones, the lanky ones etc EVER (though I'm not sure on Bolt) broke a top travelling speed of 43.47kph over a 10m segment of the race. What this means is that they were all capable of getting to this magic speed which humans at the moment don't seem to be able to surpass and their technique and race tactics would have been the only thing to improve their times after that.

My point then is, even if you have the genetics to travel at 43.47 kph the guy with the better start, acceleration technique, stride pattern Is gonna whip your ass and make you look slow.

Hanley

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

I'm confused. You're disagreeing that genetics cause black athletes to be faster but you're agreeing with it at the same time? Eh?

I'm going to make it as simple as I possibly can;

No matter how good your genetics are, you won't reach the top of a sport without dedication and the right kind of coaching, training and opportunities. Regardless of race.

If you're one of the lucky ones with good genetics you'll probably reach the top of your chosen sport faster and be more competitive.

If you've average to slightly above average genes, you probably aren't ever going to be the best in the world, regardless of work ethic. BUT you should be able to break into an elite level group if you work hard enough (I'm talking 10-15 years training from when you're 8 or 9 years old here) and have a decent enough genetic make up.

I'm sure we all know of freaks who never were because they didn't have the opportunity or training, and average guys we might not have thought would make it who've gone on to be quite successful.

Is there something contradictory about that?

Roper

Coming over here, stealing our women... taking our jobs... winning our races.

Hanley

You guys just need some Powerthirst, then you can run as fast as Kenyans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs

blackgold>>

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

Asians has 50 percent of the worlds population. Where's the fast asians? Anyone? There's none! There not fast enough are they...
But they have one of the toughest training regimes in the world.They produce the best gymnasts.Ponder that for awhile.
Anyway back to sprinting.
The best caucasian(whites) ranks 200th on the all-time list. I wonder why that is? He must be eating chips thats it ya. I'll finish my post with this sentence.
No sprinter of any other race,(except africans"black"...) are able to crack the 10 second barrier.

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

Asians has 50 percent of the worlds population. Where's the fast asians? Anyone? There's none! There not fast enough are they...
But they have one of the toughest training regimes in the world.They produce the best gymnasts.Ponder that for awhile.
Anyway back to sprinting.
The best caucasian(whites) ranks 200th on the all-time list. I wonder why that is? He must be eating chips thats it ya. I'll finish my post with this sentence.
No sprinter of any other race,(except africans"black"...) are able to crack the 10 second barrier.

Your logic is so twisted it's actually comical.

Serious question: do you know the difference between environmental influences and genetic influences?

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

Asians has 50 percent of the worlds population. Where's the fast asians? Anyone? There's none! There not fast enough are they...
But they have one of the toughest training regimes in the world.They produce the best gymnasts.Ponder that for awhile.
Anyway back to sprinting.
The best caucasian(whites) ranks 200th on the all-time list. I wonder why that is? He must be eating chips thats it ya. I'll finish my post with this sentence.
No sprinter of any other race,(except africans"black"...) are able to crack the 10 second barrier.

God yeah... those Chinese guys suck. Only winning like 40% more gold medals than everyone else at last years olympics across a wide range of sports.

And the way they've come from nothing to dominate the womens and lighter mens weightclasses in weightlifting in the last 8 years or so is crap too.

Now if they could produce a SPRINTER, then they'd be the ones with the good genes.

Once again I'm forced to ask, how old are you? Not trying to insult you, but your arguments and logic seem to be akin to that of someone with no real world experience with anything atheltic/sports related, so I assume you're quite young?

If you are, maybe that can help us to understand your reasonaing and respond appropriately. You never know, you might learn something!!

Roper

The only other person I know who used the term "the blacks" was my dear old aunty, who was 85 and also used the term "sambo".

On the other hand, did you know that Paul Hession is the fastest white man in the world? He's slightly ginger so could it be that the ginger gene is best?

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

If your able to discuss facts I would be more than welcome to.

If you could present some of your own that would be just super.

Ninja edit: If you post something up, be prepared to have it quoted

blackgold>> wrote: »

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

But it's not down to simply genes. I don't think anyone here will deny that absolutely - at the elite level that yes, genetic discrepancies between individuals will play a part. But really, when you have an even playing field (surely we can agree that individuals competing in an Olympic 100m race are all elite and therefore all on a genetically even keel?) it's not just genetics that determines the winner.

Likewise, if youwant to extrapolate teh argument and say "well actually, it's genetics that gets people from average to intermediate to advanced to elite levels". Well, again genetics isn't not a factor, but it's not a largely important one.

Are black guys good at GAA?

Who knows? Last time I looked it wasn't on the Ethiopian national syllabus. That doesn't mean they can't play, simply that they don't. Similarly, sprinting and Athletics isn't a largely popular sport in Asian countries. In Jamaica however, athletics is a HUGE deal, and kids are encouraged to participate and take part from a very, very young age. The same goes for Canadians and ice hockey. Or Kiwis and rugby.

If you are so convinced that genes play such a large part to play then tell me, what are these genes?? What are the genes called and what do they do? I know of one gene that has been linked to sprint performance but event he paper authors wouldn't dare to herald it as a magic super-speed gene.

blackgold>>

Lets be a bit logical about this.
I'm not a brilliant debater but if you put master infront of it who knows.


1)No caucasian has broke the 10seconds barrier.

Now lets discuss this one fact ok and not get all emotional.
Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it.

Thats as far as i'll go with this one part.
Discuss if you think, not feel I'm incorrect so far.

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

g'em wrote: »

People here keep referring to 'genetics' accounting for an advantage. What, pray tell, are these advantages? Some literature to back that up would be just super too please. If you want to claim that race x is genetically superior to race y for purpose b I'd like to see some proof and not simple conjecture, otherwise y'all are talking through your bitter arses.

I remember hearing that black people have a higher bone density which is the reason caucasians dominate in swimming

a quick internet scan produced this link

http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/philly_daily_news.htm

the person writing it is commenting on a book by Jon Entine called taboo

he goes into both socio/geographical and genetic reason as to why there is a dominance and lack of dominance in some sports by black people

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

1)No caucasian has broke the 10seconds barrier....
Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it.

Are you saying that black people are born with more fast twitch muscle fibres than while people? Prove this with scientific literature. Everything else is just conjecture.

After we're done perhaps we can discuss how no black man has ever been to the moon?