Let's make a distinction:
The black sprinters (100-400m), are MOSTLY of WEST African descent.
The black distance runners (800m-marathon), are MOSTLY of EAST African descent.
There is a VERY big difference.
The fact that a white (CAUCASIAN) runner won a 400m gold is out of the ordinary and thus it is NEWSWORTHY.
Alan
Relativity, Malmo, relativity.
Of course Little's impressive -- in fact, he can quite right boast of his career for the rest of his life, but we're not comparing him to mere mortals or coach poataoes. We're talking about his relevant success as compared to the best in the world.
Not being "top" in that respect is no disgrace. (Clearly)
You can be very childish at times, by the way.
Martin
Ok, another way to prove the old saying statistics can be used to make any point. Yes, 250th all time in an event with over a century of competition, that's impressive, you are a "top" competitor, etc etc. But- you're not olympic champ, you're not a favorite in any major international championship, and you're most definitely not in the same league as Wariner. So comparing the two and wondering why Little doesn't get the same credit- not really legit.
That being said- of course all of us on here would love to be 250th best at something, who wouldn't? (except the other 249).
I just wanted to point out that "race" really has no scientific meaning, therefore we could say that races don't exists in the human species. What we consider to be a race is a collection of physical attributes controlled by genetics that cover a broad spectrum of range. Obviously many people defy any particular race label because of their "mixed heritage". Tiger Woods is no more "African American" than he is "Asian American", yet he is commonly known as a Black golfer. The concept of race is used to pigeon-hole people into convenient, stereotypical groups.
How did a white guy win marathon gold?
F.Y.I.
The national high school indoor 4x400 record of 3:17 set in 1976 by Brockton H.S., Brockton,Ma. had one black kid and three white kids! The record has since been broken but I think it stood for about 18-20 years!
also, he is FAG like me!!
What about the black french swimmer that was the first black female swimmer to win a medal? THAT was special to the announcers, but when Wariner is the first white guy to win in 40 years nobody really cares. Either it is a big deal, or it isn't, I tend to think none of them are big deals, but please be consistent.
Jeremy Wariner: I salute you.
Thank you for ending some of this descrimination and showing that white man can win in the sprints. Personally I've been getting tired of all this "only blacks are fast" talk. I appreciate a white warrior like yourself coming forward and renewing our sense of pride. Now all we need is a white heavyweight champion.
"The national high school indoor 4x400 record of 3:17 set in 1976 by Brockton H.S., Brockton,Ma. had one black kid and three white kids! The record has since been broken but I think it stood for about 18-20 years!"
Err ... that record was *crushed* less than 10 years later by an all-black foursome from Southern California (which included future Gold medalist Mike Marsh).
1986 National Record
Hawthorne 3:07.40 Hawthorne, CA April 6, 1985.
Martin
to the max wrote:
Thank you. That was exactly my point.
Ethnicity/race/whatever you call it is NOT a factor in running.
And you know that for a fact huh? The scientific community hasn't been able to figure it out yet, but of course some guy on a message board happens to know the answer. amazing.
9 wrote:
no, its not; be a bit more open minded. "double edged sword": if you are celebrating that a WHITE guy won a 'sprint', then i could look it at the other way, you being happy BLACK guys lost.
You're an idiot. People aren't CELEBRATING the fact that a white man won, they're merely noting the fact that it's an unusual occurence. That's the natural thing to do. If you claim not to have noticed Wariner's race, then you're either a liar or a retard.
I was wondering what the fuss was about the posters being quoted in SI and as someone stated very nicely, the writer is known for doing pieces on unusual/seldomly reported topics but with unique angles and generate great interest. The posters were merely stating their opinions and wasn't aware they would be quoted by a magazine. Its good that Track and Field and LetsRun.com are getting publicity in a magazine so widely known.
Honestly I don't think its a big deal that he's white. It's plain n simple he was the best guy at Athens. All I have to say it doesn't matter what race he is. I think its more important that he has natural talent and can compete at that level without using performance enhancing steroid. I mean just look at at Marion Jones she won 5 Olympic medals and she's involved in a the Balco Scandal. Thank you Jeremy Wariner for bringing back the integrity of the sport.
iflyboats wrote:
9 wrote:no, its not; be a bit more open minded. "double edged sword": if you are celebrating that a WHITE guy won a 'sprint', then i could look it at the other way, you being happy BLACK guys lost.
You're an idiot. People aren't CELEBRATING the fact that a white man won, they're merely noting the fact that it's an unusual occurence. That's the natural thing to do. If you claim not to have noticed Wariner's race, then you're either a liar or a retard.
Here is why it's unusual to see a white guy win in the sprints: Out of the 100 some guys who have broken 10.0 in the 100m dash, only 3(yes, three)have been white. But I guess genetics would have nothing to do with that, and it's a mere coincidence.
How about a Chinese guy winnning the 110 hurdles? That was bizarre, am I racist?
the reason it is a big deal is because America always has been and always will be racist. i personaly could care less if Jeremy Wariner is black or white just like i don't care that Meb wasn't born in America. These are two great AMERICAN athletes and that is all that should matter.
nope.
Ironman wrote:
How about a Chinese guy winnning the 110 hurdles? That was bizarre, am I racist?
That surprised me too, but there was less hype about that in the US mostly because he wasn't from the US. Everyone talks more about people local to them.
I agree with what people like Trackshard said on here.
Imagine you're a white sprinter. Everyone knows that sprinting ability is largely genetically determined. You can only train so much. You notice and overwhelming trend that almost all of the people beating you are genetically very different in their appearance. You can say to yourself appearance doesn't matter, it's your muscles not the exterior. But you probably can't help but think that there's some link to the genes for how the winners look and the genes that make them fast. It's purely correlational sure, but that's how most people start to form their theories.
chow wrote:
Out of the 100 some guys who have broken 10.0 in the 100m dash, only 3(yes, three)have been white. But I guess genetics would have nothing to do with that, and it's a mere coincidence.
Actually, only 44 people have broken 10.0 in the 100m dash, and ZERO of them have been white! Only one non-black person has ever broken 10 flat: Patrick Johnson of Australia, an aboriginal Australian.