Tony Reavis 'Quote Of Day' on Kenyan 26.2 success is BS.

what a wrote:

Left Said Fred wrote:

That there are physiological factors we know contribute towards one's ability to do well in these disciplines (body type and oxygen delivery capability) and that so many individuals from these tribes exhibit those characteristics over and over again, these tribes must, as groups, have those characteristics expressed much more frequently in their individual members than are found in the world populace as a whole.

Body type and oxygen delivery are not factors that we know contribute to success in running.

You're wrong (Left) & it's not even an argument.

Here's the final line from a similar article on the science of Sport website:

"It must be, as I’ve now written often, the realization of genetic potential through training that produces those great performances."

In other words, I refuse to take a stand one way or the other. Weak conclusion.

Frankly if you put all the PC crap aside, its pretty evident to anyone who follows the sport that there is something the Africans have that is making them this dominant.

Do they train hard? Yes they do. Are they fully committed? Yes again. But so are the top runners everywhere in the world.

Which doesn't leave much else to pick from. Its a unique group of people living a unique lifestyle, who see this as a way out of abject poverty, and have nothing to lose from going for it.

Bottom line: Its genetics, used to their full advantage. And whats so wrong about saying it?

what a wrote:

HRE wrote:

There's no way Kevin Garnett was going to make a living as a professional distance runner. There's no way Kimetto makes a living as a professional basketball player and their genes have a huge role in that situation.

Based on what??? How do you know they couldn't succeed at each other's sports?

OK, literally, I don't "know" they couldn't succeed in each other's sport. I could only know that if each played the other's sport. But I don't think there's much doubt.

How much doubt you have is irrelevant. Short people have excelled at basketball and tall people have excelled at running.

Hohum wrote:

Seriously, you guys. A fair treatment of the complexity of humans (at the genetic level and especially the epigenetic level) would require more nuanced thought than the biological determinism that you guys are pushing. Go read some freaking anthropology texts. Jesus.

.

Look, it is fundamentally about genetics. And I said genetic "combination". I'm not arguing that there is one combination....there are probably many. By that, I mean that one could have all the aerobic characteristics...but be to large to be the Olympic champ...in other word his size is a bit to much. The other has the aerobic + the best size....see?

Think about this...from the "human" perspective, there are no female humans equal to either the best male sprinter or distance runner...why... it's CLEARLY genetics. We've eliminated the environmental factor. Training and desire is irrelevant in this case.

It's GENES you knuckleheads. Give it a rest.

what a wrote:

How much doubt you have is irrelevant. Short people have excelled at basketball and tall people have excelled at running.

Yes, but the fact that so few short people have excelled at basketball suggests the conclusion that height is an advantage in that sport. If "short" is considered to mean below the height of an average American man, consider that only 24 short men have made it to the level of playing in the National Basketball Association.

Math Major wrote:

Yes, but the fact that so few short people have excelled at basketball suggests the conclusion that height is an advantage in that sport. If "short" is considered to mean below the height of an average American man, consider that only 24 short men have made it to the level of playing in the National Basketball Association.

No it doesn't suggest that. There's no way you are a math major.

what a wrote:

How much doubt you have is irrelevant. Short people have excelled at basketball and tall people have excelled at running.

And people win their state lotteries on their first try...or on any try.

what a wrote:

Math Major wrote:

Yes, but the fact that so few short people have excelled at basketball suggests the conclusion that height is an advantage in that sport. If "short" is considered to mean below the height of an average American man, consider that only 24 short men have made it to the level of playing in the National Basketball Association.

No it doesn't suggest that. There's no way you are a math major.

Yes it does. If you seriously believe that height is not an advantage in basketball, I just don't know how to argue with you. It's not just the correlation of height and high achievement - one can actually articulate reasons why height is an advantage in basketball. Their being closer to the basket helps them with shooting on the inside and with rebounding. Being taller than a shorter player makes them more likely to be able to block the shorter player's shots.

Body type and oxygen delivery are not factors that we know contribute to success in running.

Did someone actually seriously say that?

There is a huge difference between the body types of East Africans and West Africans.

what a wrote:

[quote]HRE wrote:

There's no way Kevin Garnett was going to make a living as a professional distance runner. There's no way Kimetto makes a living as a professional basketball player and their genes have a huge role in that situation.

You missed the point. Basketball, baseball and football pull millions of kids into these sports. Many of them (not necessarily the best ones) are lost from the running group that may have had a chance to be great.

We never talk about the 100s of thousands of Kenyans who don't make it in running. Why aren't their genes helping them? The fact is that the more people you have participating in a sport, the more apt you are to find a genetic superstar.

Math Major wrote:

Yes it does. If you seriously believe that height is not an advantage in basketball, I just don't know how to argue with you. It's not just the correlation of height and high achievement - one can actually articulate reasons why height is an advantage in basketball. Their being closer to the basket helps them with shooting on the inside and with rebounding. Being taller than a shorter player makes them more likely to be able to block the shorter player's shots.

No, height is not an advantage over being short. You can come up with just as many reasons why being short is an advantage in basketball - speed, stealing, agility, fouling, and even rebounding.

Okay, perhaps those are advantageous, but they don't cancel out the advantages of height. I suppose you can't demonstrate that height is an advantage in basketball the way that you can demonstrate that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but you can in the sense of it being more likely than not; even beyond a reasonable doubt.

what a wrote:

No, height is not an advantage over being short. You can come up with just as many reasons why being short is an advantage in basketball - speed, stealing, agility, fouling, and even rebounding.

And that is why the average height in the NBA must be under the average height of a man in the US 5' 10".

BTW average height in the NBA is 6' 7"

Math Major wrote:

Okay, perhaps those are advantageous, but they don't cancel out the advantages of height. I suppose you can't demonstrate that height is an advantage in basketball the way that you can demonstrate that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but you can in the sense of it being more likely than not; even beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, they do cancel out the advantages of height. Who is going to win a one on one match - Shaq or Rondo?

a) Rondo plays point guard, while Shaq played center. Height is more important for a center than for a point guard

b) Basketball is a team sport; one-on-one is something else, and I am not offering any analysis of how height may affect that sport. Shaq arguably contributed more to his team than Rondo does to his.

c) Rondo, at 6'1", is not short.

d) Who knows who would win a game of one-on-one between Shaq and Rondo anyway.

Math Major wrote:

a) Rondo plays point guard, while Shaq played center. Height is more important for a center than for a point guard

b) Basketball is a team sport; one-on-one is something else, and I am not offering any analysis of how height may affect that sport. Shaq arguably contributed more to his team than Rondo does to his.

c) Rondo, at 6'1", is not short.

d) Who knows who would win a game of one-on-one between Shaq and Rondo anyway.

A) Exactly my point. Height is not an advantage in basketball. Being tall means that you play a different style or role not that you have an advantage.

B) No, one on one is a sport too. And even within NBA basketball, they defend with one on one defenses.

C) Irrelevant. You are talking about differences in height not absolute height.

D) Everyone who knows anything about basketball knows that Rondo would win.

Just admit that you are wrong about the importance of height in the NBA.

what a wrote:

Just admit that you are wrong about the importance of height in the NBA.

How many players in the history of the NBA have been shorter than 5ft?