KIPCOD wrote:
You or what you describe makes no sense at all.
A slow 240lb white HS plyer will get "moved" to an offensive guard position because thats where he will excell. Are you saying the 180lb 4.5 white player will get placed in a "white" position? Thats not typical or believable or else you would have slow black guys playing speed positions and fast white guys playing slow positions. Typically the corners/receivers and sometime quarterbacks are the fastest on the team and they are typically black. So where are all the equally fast white guys on the team. On the bench? at tackle? at guard? Where?
PS - Matt Jones, former QB is playing receiver in NFL now because he's big and fast.
Exactly...
Lets be sensible here too...remove the top 3 sprinters in the world (Gay, Bolt, Powell) statistical outliers and you're left with a lot of 9.90 guys.
Take the top white sprinters in the world, Hession, Pickering, and they're not that much slower, 10.10.
I think what's interesting here is that some are taking this too far- There seems to be one small group of West African descent that has the most speed out of the entire world. Most African Americans aren't descended from this group, probably most Jamaicans aren't either. The lucky few who are and do sprint are maybe a few thousand world wide professionally so if you want a genetic explanation, its possible.
But this one small group, which probably represents less than .5% of the World African population somehow equates to whites being inferior in sprinting. I don't think this is the case at all. A lucky few tens of thousands of descendants of a certain group with genes for sprinting are faster than any other group including other Africans, Whites, Asians, and others, but not by a whole lot, and only really exclusively in the 100 meters.
This is similar to a group in North Eastern Europe that seems to excel in the throws, or the Asian group that excels in Diving/Gymnastics. These lucky small groups of descendants don't mean the entire race has these genes, it means a very small group within them does, and even then the difference is small.
Without doping, and any bias whatsoever in training and selecting talent in young athletes I'd say the difference would be .15 in the 100, and effectively nil in the 200.
As far as East Africans and their dominance in distance, I'd say that has more to do with environment/diet and sedentary societies vs. non sedentary ones than actual talent.
