How is Jamaica so dominate at sprinting despite having a small population?

kinda wrote:

This only makes sense to a point… if it is only genetics then West Africa should be better than Jamaica… people in West Africa have been enslaved long before the slaves they sold off the the Americas and long after the Americas quit having slaves. It would stand to reason that West Africa should be better than Jamaica at the sprints because they have a much larger population to chose from that is has a a large group of arguably more “survival of the fittest” type “specimens” as you say.

Aside from the “slavery” argument, this ignores the role of culture and investment.

The island is to small for long distance you start running and your at the other end so you have to stop and turn so sprinting just makes sense.

astro wrote:

Yes and the East Germans did it with clean living. LOLLLLL. The delusions run so deep.

So you think the Germans and Finns would be dominant sprinters if not for the roided Jamaicans? Perhaps Laotians and Cambodians?

kinda wrote:

hi wrote:

Slavery. Same reason USA does well at sprinting. Strongest ‘specimens’ in West Africa were chosen by the slave traders. So the gene pool is good.

This only makes sense to a point… if it is only genetics then West Africa should be better than Jamaica… people in West Africa have been enslaved long before the slaves they sold off the the Americas and long after the Americas quit having slaves. It would stand to reason that West Africa should be better than Jamaica at the sprints because they have a much larger population to chose from that is has a a large group of arguably more “survival of the fittest” type “specimens” as you say.

You don’t understand transatlantic slavery. Quite different from previous forms of slavery practiced in West Africa and the Arab world.

There’s also an obvious difference between a sub-set of a population being enslaved (in West Africa) and 100% of a population being enslaved across several generations and having slave status being passed from mother to child, thus making enslavement heritable (in the Americas).

kinda wrote:

hi wrote:

Slavery. Same reason USA does well at sprinting. Strongest ‘specimens’ in West Africa were chosen by the slave traders. So the gene pool is good.

This only makes sense to a point… if it is only genetics then West Africa should be better than Jamaica… people in West Africa have been enslaved long before the slaves they sold off the the Americas and long after the Americas quit having slaves. It would stand to reason that West Africa should be better than Jamaica at the sprints because they have a much larger population to chose from that is has a a large group of arguably more “survival of the fittest” type “specimens” as you say.

That is very poor reasoning from you. Presumably those with the best genes were picked from West Africa to become slaves, and those people went on to give birth to even more genetically gifted people. So what you have left in West Africa may no longer be the cream of the crop and there is much more generic variety as those perceived as inferior were not picked. The logical reasoning then is that there is more genetic variety in West Africa and thus a less concentrated pool of people with superior sprinting genes. If I’m West Africa they are harder to find and those who are very athletic are more drawn to sports like soccer, than it makes perfect sense that Jamaica is producing a consistent pipeline of faster sprinters.

Of course this only matters because their doping makes them even more superior. You can’t have a conversation about Jamaican sprinters without talking about the sauce. This is the way.

roho the ho wrote:

astro wrote:

Yes and the East Germans did it with clean living. LOLLLLL. The delusions run so deep.

So you think the Germans and Finns would be dominant sprinters if not for the roided Jamaicans? Perhaps Laotians and Cambodians?

Would unroided Jamaicans be sweeping the Olympic finals anyway?

Trollminator wrote:

roho the ho wrote:

So you think the Germans and Finns would be dominant sprinters if not for the roided Jamaicans? Perhaps Laotians and Cambodians?

Would unroided Jamaicans be sweeping the Olympic finals anyway?

The assumption that they are sweeping the podium because of roids presupposes that their competitors either don’t have access to roids, or that the Jamaicans have access to a superior roid protocol.

If everyone is doping, why are the Jamaicans still dominant? And if only the Jamaicans are doping, why aren’t they getting caught? They do not have the resources or background in pharmaceutical technology and research that Russia, China or even East Germany had. The USA never engaged in state-sponsored doping, but they had a large pharmaceutical company (BALCO) with money behind it to do the job for them, where is Jamaica’s?

The same argument that such a small poor country should not be able to dominate sprinting can be made as to why such a small poor country should not be able to produce superior undetectable juice. The only feasible explanation is that they are being protected by the governing authorities and even then, how does Jamaican dominance benefit WA or IOC? Bolt aside, most of their sprinters are rather boring and don’t bring much attention to the sport.

This isn’t the 80s where East Germany was pioneering state-sponsored doping, doping is available everywhere. Yet the Jamaicans still dominate.

There are some truths is what you said, but there are far to many abnormalities to rule out doping.

TrackCoach wrote:

There are some truths is what you said, but there are far to many abnormalities to rule out doping.

I’m not ruling out doping, but there’s no evidence to suggest that Jamaica has access to superior dope or doping protocols that no other nation has.

One might have assumed after the 2012 exposé of the resignation of their board and the ineptitude of their out-of-competition testing that their success would have slowed down, but the results in 2016 and now 2021 have been just as impressive.

astro wrote:

Of course it's PEDs. When you are beating other PED users, it isn't hard to figure out. It is just impolite to say. I recall in 2017 when Gatlin beat Bolt, who suddenly looked very human. I always thought Bolt just did not want to pull an Armstrong and get caught on the way out.

+1. It's this. They figured out how to dope and beat the tests, and now they've got it on lock. It will continue until they get caught.

None of these ideas. Doping , genetics explain why Jamaica would be so good.

Their gene pool isn't any different than the US in terms of blacks and it's not like we don't dope here in the US.

Yet they are often better than the US even though less million blacks live there and 42 million here.

They certainly are way better than expected given their size.

Trollminator wrote:

roho the ho wrote:

So you think the Germans and Finns would be dominant sprinters if not for the roided Jamaicans? Perhaps Laotians and Cambodians?

Would unroided Jamaicans be sweeping the Olympic finals anyway?

I have no idea. I didn’t see the JA men sweep anything this time around.

I do know that sprinters such as Ben Johnson, Linford Christie, Donovan Bailey and Sanya Richards Ross were all born in JA and immigrated out as children. JA lost many medals to immigration.

Bolt, et al stayed on the island, unlike previous generations.

roho the ho wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Would unroided Jamaicans be sweeping the Olympic finals anyway?

I have no idea. I didn’t see the JA men sweep anything this time around.

I do know that sprinters such as Ben Johnson, Linford Christie, Donovan Bailey and Sanya Richards Ross were all born in JA and immigrated out as children. JA lost many medals to immigration.

Bolt, et al stayed on the island, unlike previous generations.

Additionally, both of Dina Asher-Smith’s parents are Jamaican, and Gabby Thomas’ father is as well.

Their men won a grand total of 0 (zero) medals in the 100, 200, and 4x100 at the Olympics. They are not dominant.

Slavery is ALWAYS the same as far as Inhumane and Sadistic. I know The Far Left Professors who hate Whites (Even thought they are almost all White Themselves) teach The White Slavery was Worse, Slavery is Brutal and Evil REGARDLESS of who is doing it.

The argument about slavery is completely fallacious, simply because West African slaves in the New World were generally part of the losing side of tribal warfare .

It was the winning side selling the losing side (and their families) to another party.

Remember that it was called the slave "trade".

Secondly, when talking about genetics, Jamaicans are not better predisposed than pure West Africans or even East African Bantus, it is even the reverse.

Kenyans Bantus for example have an higher frequency of the so-called "sprinting gene" than Jamaicans.

But both population are not comparable, one (Jamaicans) live in relative poverty, the other (Africans) in extreme poverty and they are culturally different...

I will give you a concrete example. Both Nigerian Basketball teams (M/F) in the last Olympics were nearly exclusively made of Nigerian-Americans 2nd gen. immigrants which is tiny subset of Nigerians, (200 000 vs 200 millions).

As far as I know, Nigerians that recently immigrated in the USA were not selected for their BBall skills, so logically their national teams should be composed mostly of natives who are 1000 times more numerous, but that is not the case, why ?

douglas burke wrote:

Slavery is ALWAYS the same as far as Inhumane and Sadistic. I know The Far Left Professors who hate Whites (Even thought they are almost all White Themselves) teach The White Slavery was Worse, Slavery is Brutal and Evil REGARDLESS of who is doing it.

Of course it's always inhumane and sadistic. That doesn't mean that its particular method of organization, its structure, is always the same. Every system, including every slave system, is different.

Sham 69 wrote:

How is this even possible?

The Jamaicans are NOT dominant.

They have two great female athletes and one great male athlete who is retired!

Their next best thing, Yohan Blake couldn't even make the 100m final or even the 200m.

They are not dominant. The Americans are.

Now, English is NOT my first language. It i NOT even my second languge. May be I don't understand the meaning of 'dominant'.

Sham 69 wrote:

How is this even possible?

How is it possible you don't know the word "dominant?"