Why are Africans so bad at Cycling?

111 wrote:

I would say that less than 10% of the world have the oppotunity to compete in cycling, golf, football, swimming and many other sports.

Less than 10% can participate in swimming? All you need is some water to be a swimmer.

Africans also stink at almost every single track event except for distance and mid-distance races. Even if they swept all of the distance events, USA vs. Africa would be an absolute bloodbath in favor of the US of A.

What need do African's have in swimming? Athletes show up & do well in events that they practice a lot & are rewarded for their efforts. Traveling by foot is one example. So why again would African folks do well in swimming? In do time African cycling will emerge after.

Freddy Murks wrote:

Are bikes really that expensive? I got a decent one for $150 at WalMart

What percentage of the population will make that much money this decade?

This is the most moronic question posed at letsrun in recent memory.

Cycling is a much different physiological proposition than running. Sure it requires loads of aerobic strength, but what makes Africans have larger talent pools in running (more individuals with that famously lean, low muscle volume, lanky build and good running conomy) are useless in cycling. Geb would be a suck cyclist because he wouldn't be able to generate wattage on a bike - he'd have plenty of endurance, but no torque to generate power. Even in the lab, it has been demonstrated that elite Kenyans and elite European runners are indistinguishable when lab test are done on a bike rather than a treadmille. One might be able to field a few good Kenyan cyclists, but they simply don't have the power. And there are tons of frustrated distance runners of the 80-100 mpw variety mired in the low 15:00's/high 14:00's because of bad economy and less than ideal body configuration who would make fine cyclists if they had the nerve to make the switch.

Thinking it is only money that is the issue is silly. Rowing takes good aerobic endurance as well, but Kenyans generally would suck at that too - can't generate wattage to match their endurance.

1984 -

Why do black people suck at Tennis?

Why do black people suck at Golf?

I'll say it again, because you just don't get it:

"This is the most moronic question posed at letsrun in recent memory."

Yes, it is money. Kenyan *runners* fit the profile you describe, but not all Kenyans; there are plenty of big ones, small ones, fat ones, thin ones. Saying that Africans could never bike or row because lean Kenyan runners (the only Africans you know anything about) can't generate wattage is ignorant. There are plenty of Africans *perfectly* suited to rowing, or biking, but you'll never hear from them because IT TAKES A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PARTICIPATE AND EXCEL IN THESE SPORTS.

So stupid!

1984 wrote:

1984 -

Why do black people suck at Tennis?

Why do black people suck at Golf?

Well put.

and apart from the Williams sisters and Tiger Woods they still do - and they aren't as dominant as they were

"Yes, it is money. Kenyan *runners* fit the profile you describe, but not all Kenyans; there are plenty of big ones, small ones, fat ones, thin ones. Saying that Africans could never bike or row because lean Kenyan runners (the only Africans you know anything about) can't generate wattage is ignorant. There are plenty of Africans *perfectly* suited to rowing, or biking, but you'll never hear from them because IT TAKES A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PARTICIPATE AND EXCEL IN THESE SPORTS."

One must be blind to not see that pheotypical tendancies go along with ethnicity. How ignorant do people have to be to not understand the difference between variation in individuals and variation in populations. I am nto talking about "africans" I am talking about a small homogenous tribal area in a small part of Africa. Populations differ in many, many phenotypical respects. For example, while not all Samoans are bigger than all Kenyans, the average Samoan is way bigger than the average Kenyan and has a much more prevalent genetic dispostion for putting on fat and muscle. There are even huge phenotypicl differences between Native American tribes. Use your brain. The point of population tendancies is to look at the standard deviation of a certain trait. Certainly some Samoans may be leaner than some Kenyans, for example. But we are talking about how their populations are distributed. Genetic tendancies are not equally spread around the globe. Could it not be more obvious? Some tribes in Africa are short, some tall, some can stack on muscle (W. Africa and the Caribbean is as poor as East Africa, why all the W. African sprinters?? Iran and Turkey are poor...why all the powerlifters and wrestlers??) Do you honestly think that, for example, Kenyans could dominate bodybuilding if the "cultural" factors were in place?? Preposterous.

I thought the conversation was about Kenyans, not Africans in general. The "money" argument seems to fall apart when we see that South Americans have had plenty of good cyclists. Most of the damn globe is poor, so why do only Kenyans and Ethipians excel at running and not the poor huddled masses from the rest of the globe?

How hard is it to fathom that culture is some of the difference (that is, a huge budget to develop cyclists might help Kenyan exploit whatever talent they have) but not the whole thing and that culture is as much as EFFECT of certain facts than it is a CAUSE of those facts.

Swimming is downright dangerous in a lot of Africa.

I believe it has something to do with crocodiles inhabiting the rivers. Makes swimming seem less inviting in Kenya.

I guess they could weed out the weaker swimmers pretty fast.

Sorry my bad. Now where is my sensitivity training manual.

"Do you honestly think that, for example, Kenyans could dominate bodybuilding if the "cultural" factors were in place?? Preposterous."

Why? Don't just pretensiously say "preposterous" without backing your comment up! Why is it preposterous? Come on!

"I thought the conversation was about Kenyans, not Africans in general."

Then you should look at the title of the thread, genius. Get a clue, then start babbling, OK? Read with me, now: A-F-R-I...

They've yet to figure out the wheel.

Wait until some of the european coaches get a group of african cyclists together then look out. Cycling is quite big in ethiopia. On sunday morning running races are often preceeded by bikes races around the town. In Eritrea there is a group of riders with half decent bikes who ride the climb up to Asmara (0-8000ft elevation over a distance of 40km) and they dont hang around

It will happen when money and coaching arrives ...

"It will happen when money and coaching arrives ..."

Bang on. Just not yet. Even a relatively affluent country like UK is only recently catching up in track cycling and thats because we've only had a top class inddor velodrome for the last 10 years and the government has started funding a national talent ID and support program.

Theres so many people in africa that a lot of them HAVE TO be genetically predisposed to cycling but you need a decent bike (£1000 minimum), decent clothing (another £200 or so) and a nice track or decent roads to train on. Until then nothing will happen.

Incidentally the organisers of the Tour de France are also involved in organising the Tour de Burkina Faso so the process is already starting!

Even within Africa, tribes can identify each other by their phenotypical traits - one would rarely mistake a Kalenjin for an Ibo - they look very different though both are poor by Western standards. Native Americans make inside jokes about phenotypical differences between tribes. It is only not obvious to well-meaning whites who think it somehow must equal "racism" to note the obvious - that people who have lived in a fixed area for a long time with given environmental and cultural factors and marry homogenously are going to be more alike than people outside the area. There is so much evidence for this fact that there is a whole field of biology devoted to it. Folks who say "lets see some evidence" are just not accepting of the evidence that there is. Like creationists who say there is no "evidence" for evolution. Just get on a decent biology database at your library that has some full-text (the Nature journals database, Infotrac Expanded Academic Index, or whatever your biology databases your school has) and do searches on some keyword combinations like ("population genetics" and Africa) or ("ethnicity" and "genetic difference") and tell me what you come up with. Only people with some sort of pre-existing ideological commitment that can only be satisfied by imagining humans as all being born the same can ignore the evidence, just as only folks with a pre-existing ideological commitment to a God can ignore the evidence of evolution.

On example - Samoans and other ethnicities that lived in "feast or famine" environments, for example, developed the ability to put on fat and muscle quickly as a hedge against future want. It is pure coincidence that these adaptations are good for training for strong-man competitions, pro-wrestling (which historically has a disproportion of Samoans) and football positions where leaness isn't a priorty but strength is a necessity. And this trait is, of course, brought into prominence by culture and other sociological facts.