Paul, did you even read the rest of his post? He meant that you must average a pace under 10 second per 100 for the whole way. He even explained it after that.
Paul, did you even read the rest of his post? He meant that you must average a pace under 10 second per 100 for the whole way. He even explained it after that.
Poland,Russia,Germany,Sweden,Italy,Czech,Yugo,Hungary,Ireland,Bulgaria,Switzerland,Rumanmia.....would get clobbeed by tiny Jamaica in speed events, what they don't sprint in those countries or is it there are no black sprinters?
Pay attention.....
1.blacks have less fatty tissue per body weight
2.they have longer arms and legs in relationship to their torso
3.they have heavier bones
4.they have more fast twitch music fiber
5.they have a more narrow pelvis
If ya add up all those "facts" ya get a faster athlete......bingo!
Do coachs in Montana,Wyoming,the Dakota's,Idaho and Utah tell their white players they can't sprint or play running back or def back since it's all they have? Why no stud sprinters or footballers from there, could it be there are few black athlete's.
Open your eyes hell it's staring you right in the face....geesh!
Sprinters have been buying their steroids from Brutal for years.
white people's bodies don't respond to steroids as well as the blacks. Simple as that.
yea, in football all the great backs and receivers are black, and great quarterbacks are white. Like keanu reeves from The Replacements
Anyone remember Tim Dwight for a couple years back. Played for Greenbay and the Falcons I think, and was labeld the "fastest man in the NFL". He was white.
Okay, one white guy. Got any more theories, jackass!
Everyone is talking about black people being more gifted, blah blah blah. Remember this! The greatest basketball player of ALL TIME was/is white!
That's right, Larry Bird, baby!
aintnojoke wrote:
Anyone remember Tim Dwight for a couple years back. Played for Greenbay and the Falcons I think, and was labeld the "fastest man in the NFL". He was white.
Dwight never played for Green Bay. While at Iowa he ran a 10.33 100 meters which is slow as far as world class speed goes. Keep in mind the high school record is 10.13.
Yes he does have "good" speed but there are more than a dozen guys in the league faster, yep all black!
The fastest white guy ever in the NFL was a cat out of SMU back in the 60's named John Roderick, he was a receiver for the Dolphins. He ran a 9.3 100 yards. Couldn't catch.
Travis Jervey of the Atl. Falcons would have to be up
there. He used to play for the Packers. He is a backup
running back. His 40 is around 4.2! On another note, why
is there less of a difference between black women and
white women. If the longer legs,arms,shorter torso,less
bodyfat,etc. applies to the men,then why not as much with
the women. If you look at the fastest times in history
from the 60,100,200,& 400 for the women, there is a awful
lot of white women who could sprint there ass off! Why
is it different from men to women? Brutal?Anyone?
Larry Kennard(sp) ex-San Jose ST made 68 Olympic team at 200, as did Mark Lutz, Kansas, in 72. It is purely sociological reasons for blacks dominating sprints (and all running events). If you look at history, the poorer economical groups have always dominated sports, once they were given the opportunity to compete. There are probably plenty of great, white (sprinters) playing baseball , soccer, tennis, and swimming in the US.
I agree that sociological conditions influence sports performances considerably. It is very true, also, that leaner is faster. Research at a MO college showed that strength in lifting weights was not correlated positively with sprinting times. The only positive correlate was body leanness. So, like distance running, leaner is faster.
Stormmmy Thurmond
The number of athletes participating still have ALOT to do with there not being a white American not running a sub 10 sec 100m. The more white Americans to start running the 100m and the better the results will be.
A couple of decades ago it was unheard of a black being a quarterback in the NFL. The egghead of the game stated why. The misconception was broke by one then two, then three, then a black quarterback lead his team and won the Super Bowl. Most misconception are based on lack of knowledge and as soon a MUCH higher number of whites take up sprinting the sub 10's will come. The European and Asian countries even have a small number of athletes attempting to be sprinters vs. race-walking, field events, and distance running.
Remember even Kenya the country with the most SUPPOSEDLY GIFTED (genetically) distance runners produced Olympic/World medalist at 400m/400H and world class 200m when some of them tried the events.
The sub 10's will come from white Americans as soon as more than a handful take up sprinting. Then success will breed more to take up the event.
Vipam
No one is adressing the issue of why white women compete
at a much higher level in the sprints than white men do.
2 of the fastest 100 meter women in the world are white.
Zhanna Block & Thannou. Either of them can beat Marion on
occasion. There are also other women like Gaveault, Kislova,
etc. There are not white men that can break 10 seconds in
the 100 let alone beat Mo,Monty,Ato,Chambers,etc. You get
the point. Zhanna Block was the Worlds Fastest Woman at the
World Championships in 2001! She beat Marion Jones. Where
and when will a white man ever acheive this? I don't
understand why the diffence between the races is greater
for the men than the women.Opinions.
LESS white men try!
Posted this on a different thread recently.
Link to Article:
http://www.amren.com/9210issue/9210issue.html#cover
May the Best Man Win
The connection between race and athletic ability becomes clearer every year.
by Evelyn Mackenzie
This summer at the Barcelona Olympics, the men's 100-meter dash was won by Great Britain, with the United States finishing second and third. Those were, at any rate, the official results. In fact, the event was a West African sweep or, as the British would say with unintended irony, a whitewash. Not one Asian, Arab, Hispanic, East African, or white even qualified for the final. Just as at the Seoul Olympics in 1988, all eight finalists were black. More precisely, all were West Africans or, like the medalists, descendants of West African slaves.
In international athletic competition today, sprinting events are simply battles between blacks. National honor no longer has a place, unless it derives from having the fastest black man living within one's borders. Of the 50 all-time fastest men in the 100-meters, 44 are racially West African. Today's top ?British?, ?European?, ?Canadian?, and ?American? sprinters are all on that list.
Though almost no one dares say so publicly, different racial groups clearly have dramatically different athletic endowments. Even among blacks, West Africans and East Africans excel in separate domains, with virtually no overlap. Athletic champions are born before they are made, and genetics can count for more than coaching. At the Barcelona Games, blacks of West African descent dominated the shorter distances, just as they have in all recent Olympics. In 1988, at Seoul, they won every medal in the men's 100m, 200m, 400m, 110m hurdles and 400m hurdles, and the gold in the 4 x 100m and 4 x 400m relays. At the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, of the 52 medals won by Americans in track and field, 42 went to blacks?and the events they won were all sprints and jumps. Black prowess in the long jump is, if anything, even more overwhelming than in the sprints. Blacks of West African ancestry have won every long jump medal in the last three Olympics, and have won the gold 14 times in the last 17 Games.
American blacks, who are almost exclusively of West African descent, also dominate the professional sports in which a player must sprint or jump. Sixty percent of all National Football League players are black, as are 75 percent of all professional basketball players.
The connection between race and running ability is just as clear in the longer distances. Once again it is blacks who win, but an entirely different group of blacks: East Africans. At the 1988 Olympics, East Africans won the gold in the 800m, 1,500m, 3,000m steeplechase, 5,000m, 10,000m and the marathon. In the 1988 World Cross-Country Championships the first 10 finishers were all from Kenya or Ethiopia. Kenyans have won the last seven World Championships. In the 1984 Olympics Kenyans won the 800m, 1,500m, 3,000m steeplechase and the 5,000m. Based on population percentages, the likelihood of this happening by chance is 1 in 1,600,000,000. In 1960, the Ethiopian entrant in the marathon, Abebe Bikila, had virtually no training and did not even run in shoes. He won a gold medal and set a world record. Only natural ability can account for success like this.
A natural talent for longer distances was humiliatingly obvious during a competition at a Kenyan high school, at which the Swedish champions in both the 800-meters and 10,000-meters were beaten by hundreds of 15- to 17-year-olds. These boys had no expensive coaching or fancy running shoes, yet they ran rings around the best Nordic talent.
East and West
Each group of Africans excels in its own domain. As Olympic results show, with the exception of the ?middle? distance of 800-meters, where East and West Africans meet in no-man's land, and of one or two freak Kenyan medals in the 400-meters, there is no overlap in medal-winning performances: No East African has ever won an Olympic sprinting medal. No runner of West African descent has ever won a medal at a distance greater than 800-meters. Every one of the 29 Olympic distance medals won by black athletes has gone to an East African, with 27 of them going to Kenyans and Ethiopians alone.
With the distances from 100-meters to the marathon in the hands of Africans, there is not much left for the rest of the world. At the 1991 World Track and Field Championships in Tokyo, blacks?East Africans and those of West African descent?won an amazing 29 out of 33 men's running medals.
What accounts for this? Racial superiority. West Africans can sprint and jump better than anyone else because they have the right genes. East Africans sweep the distance races for the same reason.
Shroud of Silence
Obvious as this may be, to say so is taboo. To admit that races have different physical capacities opens up the prospect of different mental capacities, and the race relations business knows no greater sin. Therefore, people who know better but who do not want to lose their jobs keep their mouths shut. When Amby Burfoot, executive editor of Runner's World, wrote a cover story for the August, 1992 issue on the reasons for black running success, he had to do it without the help of America's leading sports scientists. ?Go ahead and hang yourself,? said one, ?but you're not going to hang me with you.? It can be professional suicide to penetrate what Mr. Burfoot calls the ?shroud of silence? surrounding black running dominance.
Rather than proudly acknowledge their superiority, many blacks are angered by speculation about racial differences. Sports sociologist, Dr. Harry Edwards, is neither a geneticist nor a sports scientist, but he insists that talk of black physical superiority is nothing but racism. Dr. Edwards says there has never been ?any scientific study linking any supposed physical or genetic characteristics of race to athletic competence.? He even claims that race is a ?socially and culturally ascribed status,? with no roots in biogenetics.
In fact, many racial differences are quantifiable. Research on differences is now virtually impossible in the United States, but Canadians and Europeans are not afraid to investigate them. Runner's World lists the characteristics that have been found to separate blacks of West African descent from whites: ?Blacks have less body fat, narrower hips, thicker thighs, longer legs and lighter calves. From a biomechanical perspective, this is an impressive package. Narrow hips allow for efficient, straight-ahead running. Strong quadriceps muscles provide horsepower, and light calves reduce resistance.? Body type can confer the decisive advantage. To take an extreme example from the dog world, a dachshund could train forever, but never outrun a greyhound.
Blacks have also long been known to have proportionately more ?fast-twitch? muscle fiber than whites?67.5 percent vs. 59 percent, according to one study. Fast-twitch muscles are thought to give explosive power, while slow-twitch muscles give the steady contractions needed in swimming or rowing.
Fashionable Nonsense
Despite the complaints of black spokesmen, it is nonsense to insist that American blacks succeed in sports only because it is one of the few avenues of financial success open to them. A glance at the history books confirms the early beginnings of black dominance, a dominance for which the lure of material gain was insignificant. American blacks have been winning Olympic medals in the sprinting and jumping events since 1904. Why should they have bothered with something that held no hope of financial reward?
Furthermore, why would a ?racist society? have permitted blacks to compete and win in the 100-meters but not in the 10,000-meters? When Jesse Owens came home from Berlin in 1936 with his four gold medals he was welcomed with ticker-tape parades. Would he have been snubbed if he had won the marathon instead?
Blacks of West African descent have been winning Olympic medals for Britain for almost as long as they have for the United States. The first time was in 1920, when a native of British Guyana won bronze medals in the 100-meters and 200-meters. Guyanese blacks, like Caribbean blacks, are descended from West African slaves, so British blacks excel in the same events as American blacks.
It is often argued that blacks do well in sports because they are ?channeled? into them for cultural reasons. But what else but physical differences can account for studies done in Kansas City showing that black children are already outrunning and outjumping white children in the fourth grade? It is unlikely that black eleven-year-olds have been channeled into sports; it is equally unlikely that these black American children could beat Kenyan children at distance running.
Athletes from all-black countries such as Jamaica cannot argue that their success in sprinting and complete failure in swimming, for example, has anything to do with racism or racial channeling. The former tennis player, Arthur Ashe, claims that Africans are natural swimmers. If that were so, the beaches of the Caribbean would be nurseries for black swimming talent. Yet, with only one exception, no black man has ever won an Olympic swimming medal. Tests show that blacks have faster reflexes than whites. Biological theory says this tends to create stronger muscles, which leads to denser bones. It is probably bone density, not ?racism,? that explains why no black has ever qualified for the U.S. Olympic swim team.
The evidence for race-linked success in athletics is overwhelming, but it is denied or ignored because it cannot help but raise questions about race and success in other areas. Sports are one of the few things left in America unaffected by quotas or affirmative action, and it is the best man who wins. Although the best man is often a black man, there are no cries for white quotas on the Olympic team. If superior genes bring success on the field, they must be allowed to play their part off it as well.
Author Note: Some of the information in this article is from Black Olympian Medalists, by James A. Page. The book chronicles every black medal-winning performance since the modern games began, and includes short biographies of all the medalists. Obviously, there could be no such book about white Olympians.
Common Vipam, less white men try. How do you come up with
that analogy? I respect your posts because I believe you
have a pretty good knowledge of sprinting and track &
field but thats not a valid answer. I guarantee that there
are either as many or more white men that try to be elite
sprinters than white women. One reason why is that no white
guy has gone sub 10! Matt Shirvington was offered 1 million
dollars by Addidas in Sydney in 2000 if he became the 1st
white man to go sub 10. Thats not motivation. I believe it
will happen eventually but I can't believe it has taken
this long.Also, even if a few whites go sub 10, will they
be able to take it to another level to be a olympic or
world champ?Its hard to say.
BUT, vipam, those Kenyans who tried sprinting and had success, were, GET THIS........BLACK. Are not Africans? That's our (me n Brutal) whole point. Black based athletes are naturally more gifted, hence successful black QB's (no duh).
Good try.
runnerman and Thurmond
I understand your points and would like to continue this at another time (tomorrow), its past 2 a.m. and I jumped online to pay bills and ended up here.
Vipam
kritter wrote:
Larry Kennard(sp) ex-San Jose ST made 68 Olympic team at 200, as did Mark Lutz, Kansas, in 72. It is purely sociological reasons for blacks dominating sprints (and all running events). If you look at history, the poorer economical groups have always dominated sports, once they were given the opportunity to compete. There are probably plenty of great, white (sprinters) playing baseball , soccer, tennis, and swimming in the US.
Try Larry Questad from Stanford and Lutz was a 76 Olympian. Neither made the final.