John Teeters 10.00

Clavin Von Zack wrote:

Where is that 225 pound 4.4 white RB, yep, they don't exist.

The one thing that doesn't exist is time you spent watching Stanford football. Name a single black player who rivals McCaffrey in terms of quickness and elusiveness. Just one, please. And his older brother, who doesn't have Christian's speed, just ran a 4.36 40.

Troll fodder wrote:

Clavin Von Zack wrote:

Where is that 225 pound 4.4 white RB, yep, they don't exist.

Name a single black player who rivals McCaffrey in terms of quickness and elusiveness. Just one, please. And his older brother, who doesn't have Christian's speed, just ran a 4.36 40.

You can't think of a single black player who rivals his speed, quickness, elusiveness?

Really?

I dont know of a single decent black athlete

bloated hgh face wrote:

Crackhead1290 wrote:

Exceptions to the rule don't matter. For every quick non black sprinter, there's 10 blacks just as fast if not much faster.

I think what you really wanted to say was that for every steroid abusing non black sprinters, there's 10 steroid abusing blacks. Surely there could be many more really quick whites if they gave in to steroid abuse. There could be dozens of sub 10s, and some 9.5 outliers.

Lol the white supremacists on letsrun are really entertaining folks. It's professional sports, everyone abuses steroids to get an edge/level the playing field. It's 2016 and I still can't f'ing believe people don't realize blacks are superior at running and jump, regardless of "dope" or not. The same reason why you won't see a lot of blacks being fast swimmers, and why Asians dominate in the lower weight classes in weightlifter and Slavs/Nordic people excel at strongman events.

There will NEVER be a "dozen" sub 10 white sprinters. And given the Eugene track controversies in terms of being a super fast track/faulty wind readings, Teeter's 10.00 run is suspect as well.

The african decent that is winning the medals in the olympics are from the slave gene pool. Whites took the biggest and best africans and bred them for 100's of years to create basically what we see today. Black people that dominate professional sports

yeah I am right wrote:

The african decent that is winning the medals in the olympics are from the slave gene pool. Whites took the biggest and best africans and bred them for 100's of years to create basically what we see today. Black people that dominate professional sports

Most people that I know (this is outside the US) do not follow the 1 or 2 sports where there is a huge black influx. Millions of blacks likely go for those.

In the real world sports whites dominate.

Him and Richard Kilty are not black and under sub 10.10 that is what was stated earlier. Not two white guys.

bloated hgh face wrote:

I think what you really wanted to say was that for every steroid abusing non black sprinters, there's 10 steroid abusing blacks. Surely there could be many more really quick whites if they gave in to steroid abuse. There could be dozens of sub 10s, and some 9.5 outliers.

Lol, the fact that Teeters , who is probably one the most muscular sprinter in the World right now and is twice the size than his fellow collegiate, could only run 10"00 with nearly max tailwind in that Eugene track is pretty telling. And shows that your statement couldn't be further from the truth

Remember this is what Teeters looked like right out of high school (second to left)

Now, I fully understand that high schooler will naturally bulk up, and are bound to take mass once they lift but come on, just compare this to what he looks now and you will understand that he is as likely to be on an heavy "protocol" that the next sprinter.

It's nice to see your back and contributing to another topic...

I can't think of a single athlete white or black thats cured a major disease

We had a preponderance of white sprinters into the 1960s because great numbers of blacks didn't have the chance to take part in athletics. Many didn't finish high school. Schools in the South had no facilities or coaching. The percentage of blacks who went to college was very low as well. White kids with leg speed didn't get started in club sports in the old days and specialize in high school. It was a different era and cannot be compared to the present.

[quote]Coach J46 wrote:

We had a preponderance of white sprinters into the 1960s ....

WE did?

Per Track&field News US rankings, there were 7 sprinters who achieved an American # 1 rating on the 1960s: Ray Norton, Frank Budd, Bob Hayes, George Anderson, Charlie Greene, Jim HInes, and John Carlos.

I had to look up Budd and Anderson. Both were black men. As were all of the other five.

I agree. And if you're a realist you'll honestly state that whites have higher average IQ's than blacks. Asians have slightly higher average IQ's than whites - but whites do have a much wider SD (Standard Deviation) hence the reason there's a higher percentage of whites when it comes to the IQ stratosphere. Go on, admit there are racial differences that transcend sports. You can't, because you're a SJW cuck who sucks off his zio soc professors, lol.

What is Teeters weakness? It's not the first 60. He can't sustain the jets, he lacks SE.

You can't be serious.

The late 50's early 60's we saw tons of black sprinters and few white ones.

How about...

Stone Johnson Grambling

Leamon King Cal

Dennis Johnson SJS

Ray Norton SJS

Paul Drayton Villanova

Richard Stebbins Grambling

Henry Carr ASU

Mel Pender Army

Bob Hayes FAMU

Bobby Poynter SJS

Ronnie Ray Smith SJS

Frank Budd Villanova

George Anderson SoU

John Moon Tenn St

Charlie Greene Nebraska

Jimmy Hines TSU

John Carlos SJS

match that with white sprinters in the 60's.

Tullamore Dew wrote:

[quote]Coach J46 wrote:

We had a preponderance of white sprinters into the 1960s ....

WE did?

Per Track&field News US rankings, there were 7 sprinters who achieved an American # 1 rating on the 1960s: Ray Norton, Frank Budd, Bob Hayes, George Anderson, Charlie Greene, Jim HInes, and John Carlos.

I had to look up Budd and Anderson. Both were black men. As were all of the other five.

Ray Norton had no business being ranked number one in the US at the end of the 60 Season. He blew up at the biggest meet of his life and was a non factor in both short sprint events. Sime won the silver at the Olympics and was a top 5 sprinter in the US rankings for the 100. White sprinters were already drying up by the early 60's. For whatever reason be it genetics or socio-economic reasons you had a Teeters type once every few years and poof he would disappear.

Ps I think it weighs more to genetics but while their were virtually no White American sprinters European and Australian sprinters were making finals and winning medals.

Teeters should move to the 110m hurdles. Guys with his build have won golds in that event. Plus his speed would be exceptional there and not marginal like it is in the 100m.

This subject is much easier if more understood what a Bell Curve is. That way you would understand why there are "exceptions to the rule." (the occasional elite white sprinter).

Blacks of West African descent are better at sports that require explosive traits, such as sprinting and jumping. They also suck at long distance.

East Africans (Kenyans) are better at long distance and are terrible at sprints. I believe the best Kenyan in the 100 meters isn't in the top 10,000 times of all time (or something like that)

Interesting that the event that's in between the sprints and long distance, the 800 meters, has a mix of races who do well.

Different races take different evolutionary paths. From John Derbyshire:

"If a species is divided into separate populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations. After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.

Our species separated into two parts 50, 60, or 70 thousand years ago, depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask.++ One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland. The other crossed into Southwest Asia, then split, and re-split, and re-split, until there were human populations living in near-total reproductive isolation from each other in all parts of the world. This went on for hundreds of generations, causing the divergences we see today. Different physical types, as well as differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality, are exactly what one would expect to observe when scrutinizing these divergent populations."