F**k you Sparkles the Cat
F**k you Sparkles the Cat
Christope Lemaitre is the one to watch. He just won the 100m at the Junior European Championships in 10.04 (wind +0.2 m/s)He just turned 19 last month. He is 1.89m and is relatively skinny. Huge potential considering Uain Bolt's PB only 2 years ago was 10.03 before making his miraculous previously unmatched leap forward to 9.76 within 8 months and then onto the 9.69 shortly afterwards.
I agree, Lemaitre is for real....wouldn't be surprised if he breaks 10 seconds this year. His 10.04 (wind +0.2 m/s)and Shirvington's 10.03 into a (-0.3 m/s) headwind are the two best performances for a 100% caucasian in the 100m. If they had a 2.0 m/s wind behind them (as did Woronin, etc), they would've gone under 10 seconds....
Go whitey!
Adjusted for their eras, the six fastest whities are:
Charlie Paddock, Hal Davis, Dave Sime, Bobby Morrow,
Armin Hary, and Borzov. Today, they'd be running around
9.85 (not quite fast enough)...
Interesting stuff on Dave Sime, the white guy from the USA who was second to Hary in Rome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sime
Sime came to Duke on a baseball scholarship, and had never run track in his life. The Duke track coach happened to see this long lanky figure while attending a baseball game. He asked permission from Duke's baseball coach to let him work out with the track team. His coach agreed provided there was not a baseball game that day. In his first track meet he was entered into the 100 yard event. Never having raced before in his life in his first track event (against the University of Maryland) he ran a 9.6, just .3 off the world record. He still holds the record at Duke for the 100 and 220 with best times of 9.3 and 20.0 which were world records in the 1950s.
A long and interesting version here:
http://www.theacc.com/sports/c-track/spec-rel/041608aaa.html
Ian Mackie ran 10.17 in blustery conditions to beat Linford Christie
Mackie ran 9.99 i think.
Christophe Lemaître 10.04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UInm-03VilE
This young talent will run 9.90s in a matter of time.
picture of Borzov.......big quads[quote]Hyde what wrote:
Whitey isn't doing so well this time around. I think he was all out before the semi-finals of the 100m in Berlin.
What do you have against genetic explanations? They are very real and obvious. Of course, PC weenies love to ignore the obvious because the facts often contradict their philosophies.
What annoys me about this entire argument is the fact that instead of it being an intelligent debate about Craig Pickering being fast people are using it as an excuse for a "blacks" versus "whites" debate. Surely, 2009 would be a good time to start realising that we're not in a race orientated society anymore.
Anyway, onto my point. "Black" athletes are definately fast, theres no doubting it. "White" athletes also have the opportunity to be just as fast. What I'd say the difference is however is the lack of true role models in the sport for either race. Think back to when you were a kid, you aspired to be just like your heroes, and maybe, due to all the race brain washing that has occurred over the years it just so happened that your own role models were of the same race as you. For example, whilst a "black" kid might admire the exploits of a "white" athlete, it is probable (not impossible mind) that the kid would instead look upto a "black" athlete. As such they'd probably want to be a sprinter, or a distance athlete where it appears they have more success. In contrast, I dont think there's a white guy out there who wouldnt want to be as fast as Usain Bolt (not a doper) but instead, as theres no-one really pushing the boundaries for "white" sprinters they tend to feel that they are not suited to the sprint events and instead focus on events more "suitable". Take for example swimming. I've heard numerous arguments for the reasons that "blacks" arent as good at swimming as "whites", from a higher % muscle fibres to, and my own personal favourite due to its sheer stupidity, lack of co-ordination. But now all of a sudden Cullen Jones has come along and is up there with the best freestyle sprinters and, shock horror, he's a black guy. And now there saying that more black guys are getting into swimming. Funny huh, black guys can swim now they've got a role model, just the same as if there was a top "white" 100 metre sprinter white guys would be able to sprint too.
Please can we just forget the whole race issue. Even Craig Pickering has said he's fed up of it.
How come during the pre-steroid era whites were just as fast as blacks. The first guy to run 9.5 was Charley Paddock. The first guy to run a 9.4 was a white who ran on the same relay as Jesse Owens. The first legal 9.3 was run by Mel Patton. Hal Davis was the fastest in the world at one time. Then there was Lindy in 52. In 56 Morrow won both sprints and was world record holder. Sime also tied the world record in several events. Whites won all three medals in the 1960 100 meter dash and Armin Hary was the first guy to run a 10 flat hand time before the Olympics. And a white Italian also won the 200 meters in Rome. It wasn't until the steroid era that blacks started dominating the sprints. I even believe that maybe blacks are slightly better in the sprints do to their genes. But just a small percentage, like 3 to 2 or 3 to 1. There should be whites in every sprint final but there is not. In the old days (1950's and early 1960's) there were always several white sprinters in the finals of national championship races. Now you have to go down to quarter finals or heats to find even a white sprinter or two. How come now there are 30 to 40 black guys faster than the fastest white guys in the country. It is because the drug tests don't do their job and catch more people. Blacks have proven over the last 30 to 40 years that they are better on steroids than the whites sprinters on steroids.
KJS wrote:
How come during the pre-steroid era whites were just as fast as blacks. The first guy to run 9.5 was Charley Paddock. The first guy to run a 9.4 was a white who ran on the same relay as Jesse Owens. The first legal 9.3 was run by Mel Patton. Hal Davis was the fastest in the world at one time. Then there was Lindy in 52. In 56 Morrow won both sprints and was world record holder. Sime also tied the world record in several events. Whites won all three medals in the 1960 100 meter dash and Armin Hary was the first guy to run a 10 flat hand time before the Olympics. And a white Italian also won the 200 meters in Rome. It wasn't until the steroid era that blacks started dominating the sprints. I even believe that maybe blacks are slightly better in the sprints do to their genes. But just a small percentage, like 3 to 2 or 3 to 1. There should be whites in every sprint final but there is not. In the old days (1950's and early 1960's) there were always several white sprinters in the finals of national championship races. Now you have to go down to quarter finals or heats to find even a white sprinter or two. How come now there are 30 to 40 black guys faster than the fastest white guys in the country. It is because the drug tests don't do their job and catch more people. Blacks have proven over the last 30 to 40 years that they are better on steroids than the whites sprinters on steroids.
you may be trollin', but either way you are both retarded and racist. A lot of people don't seem to get that correlation does not equal causation.
Here's a thought: the steroid era also coincided with the end of amateurism in athletics. There was a greater incentive to do well: money.
Blacks are far more likely than whites to be from economically disadvantaged backgrounds; therefore, they are less likely to compete when you can't make any money doing so (they are less likely to afford it). You still have guys like Larry James (sub 44 in 1968!!!), who compete and win - probably largely because they can gain college scholarships through athletics (avenue to social mobility).
With the advent of the "steroid era" (read professional era), there was an influx of black sprinters because: (1) it coincided with greater social equality = more access; and (2) it became a viable avenue for making money = greater incentive to compete.
I'm not sure whether blacks are physically more gifted sprinters than whites, but I'm inclined to believe they are not. The main factors are cultural and structural - there are great sprinting programs that are concentrated in places where blacks live (inner cities / Caribbean). The perception that blacks are more genetically gifted leads to the filtering of fast black youths into the sprints and fast whites into the distances or middle distances. And also the fact that there are better distance programs at white high schools, and better sprint programs at black ones.
Maybe we should ask ourselves why the Jamaicans are so consistently good at sprinting versus let's say the Brazilians. There are about 13 million black Brazilians versus 2.5 million black Jamaicans. There are a lot fewer Brazilian sprinters. You could argue that Jamaica has a systematic doping program, but Brazil and other countries have just as much incentive to dope (we could also use the US or Trinidad and Tobago in this argument). The Jamaicans are better because they have a systematic and functional program for identifying and training sprint talent - plus a culture that identifies with good sprinters (see Penn Relays).
The bottom line is that most results come from a combination of talent and training, not doping. I would even argue that pretty much no one dopes until they are close to the top of the sport anyhow - and by that point the majority of sprinters are black anyhow.
Your argument is stupid to say the least - I just get sick of racist people like you trying to make excuses based on genetics or doping. The same argument could be made for the Kenyans and Ethiopians in the distances - those guys train really hard; (see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dmjQfCYEtQ&feature=related)
Sorry for the long post. Please respond KJS, I want to see what you (or others) can come up with to back up your stupid argument.
well said prime
Prime-
You tend to think blacks are not more talented than whites in sprinting? Thats completely obsurd.
Why are the fastest players in the NFL black? Dont tell me coaches preselected based on race. No, they line guys up and run 40yds. Same in basketball.
Most slaves/imports from Brazil did not come from the same place in Africa as those in US and Carribbean.
There are great support structures in the carribbean because they are good at sprinting, their talent has been discovered, just as distance running in east Africa, football in Hawaii etc..
Why are the best sprinters from European countries typically black? England, Spain, France etc..
XY wrote:
Prime-
You tend to think blacks are not more talented than whites in sprinting? Thats completely obsurd.
Why are the fastest players in the NFL black? Dont tell me coaches preselected based on race. No, they line guys up and run 40yds. Same in basketball.
Most slaves/imports from Brazil did not come from the same place in Africa as those in US and Carribbean.
There are great support structures in the carribbean because they are good at sprinting, their talent has been discovered, just as distance running in east Africa, football in Hawaii etc..
Why are the best sprinters from European countries typically black? England, Spain, France etc..
I will concede that they may be more genetically talented; HOWEVER, I think that we still put way too much emphasis on genetic rather than environmental factors. I think that if we removed cultural factors that funnel talent into certain sports / occupations, then it would look A LOT more equal than it is now. Like I said, there is often a greater incentive for blacks to do sports (and practice them) because it often seems the most rational way to gain social mobility, and because they have a lot of role models that do so.
Trust me, if you go take 100 eleven-year olds from the ghetto and ask them what they want to be when they grow up, a far greater proportion will say "basketball or football player" versus the kids from the suburbs, there will still be athletes but a lot more "doctors and lawyers".
I think it simply comes down to the law of probabilities, if you have more people attempting and training to do well - more of those people will ultimately do well.
In the instance of the East Africans, I STRONGLY believe that distance-running talent is normally distributed across all populations at birth. East Africans have an advantage by adolescence because of activity up till then (Geb running to school, etc.) vs. our obese adolescent population.
Then Kenyans, for instance, have hundreds, if not thousands of kids who go out and try to be distance runners so they can represent their country and make money. They have incentive to train as hard as they can and either break themselves or succeed. Go look at that youtube video. It's the eggs against a wall metaphor - throw enough and a few won't break. It would simply be impossible to have a similar phenomenon with American distance runners because they are (on the whole) not as willing to break themselves to succeed - and more likely to seek social mobility in other avenues outside of sports.
Although I do not know as much about the details, I think that a similar phenomenon occurs in the sprints. Even if blacks are more genetically talented, I think if there were not the cultural perception, we would see far more white sprinters running against the blacks.
I think that this acceptance of the status quo being the result of genetic factors, or others out of your control, is a huge problem in our society. It is that same line of thinking that leads to thinking that blacks are inferior because they are still stuck in ghettos; versus the truth that they are in ghettos because of environmental factors (poor schools, racism, etc.). Sorry for the tangent at the end, and the long post again.
Trust me, if you go take 100 eleven-year olds from the ghetto and ask them what they want to be when they grow up, a far greater proportion will say "basketball or football player" versus the kids from the suburbs, there will still be athletes but a lot more "doctors and lawyers".
I think that this acceptance of the status quo being the result of genetic factors, or others out of your control, is a huge problem in our society. It is that same line of thinking that leads to thinking that blacks are inferior because they are still stuck in ghettos; versus the truth that they are in ghettos because of environmental factors (poor schools, racism, etc.). Sorry for the tangent at the end, and the long post again.
________________________________________________________
There is so much wrong with what you posted and what you apparently project to others thinking.
Anyhow, people are physiologically different, and thats OK, its not racist. People are diverse, with diverse abilities and talents.
