If the athletes are not doping, I'm happy for them whoever they are, wherever they are from.
In my mind, it's not all about who wins the medals anyways. It's a celebration of the athletic spirit. To be the best in one's country and compete to the best of one's ability - to me - that's what it's all about.
Tommy2Nuttz wrote:
Different species? How dumb can you get?
all Africans are not great distance runners..they come from a small area of the continent and are clearly genetically gifted..despite anything anyone cares to say. it takes more than training to be this good..or coaches and science could make up the difference...it can't.
how many male white runners have gone under 13 for the 5k and under 8min for the steeple? despite the very best in science, coaching and nutrition?
Just because we enjoy superior nutrition, we have grown by ca. 15 cm during the last 150 years. Our European bodies no longer fit in the long distance races, where you must be small and thin. But how many men would wish to be small and thin?
Lets go with black athletes them. Why do people fight the obvious?
nice pc blather
as you know, field events are the provenance of rich countries - like swimming, you can't be much of a pole vaulter in a poor place without any equipment. or a hammer thrower. or a discus thrower. or a high jumper. I mean really - do you think before you post or do you just look up facts in your pc handbook and repost?
Do you not think that it is at last noteworthy that the sons and daughters of africa win virtually every running race? interesting at all? historical note,maybe?
Rich countries enjoy high nutritional standards. Which means that they grow very tall. Which means that they have a much higher talent pool for the majority of events in athletics - especially for those requiring extreme body height like high jump, discus throw and shot put.
BTW, I wouldn't make any big fuss around the running success of Africans, because in some events - especially the 110 m h, and 400 m-1500 m, international competition is apparently hilarious. But I admit that the current ethnic composition of champions can have a significant psychological impact (which is another story).
lpd wrote:
Whites used to have the likes of Viren,Vasala,Morecroft,
Coe,Ovett,Cram.Now,whites have all but disppeared on the track since the testing for EPO began.
A coicidence ? I think not.
Er...I think it has more to do with the fact that running didn't take off in Kenya until T&F went pro.
Performance tires wrote:
Africans score 70-85 on IQ tests set by non Africans. You could not score 50 on an African IQ test based on how to survive in the jungle or deal with a lion while herding cattle barefoot in the savannas.
IQ tests are subjective, and biased based on the examiners
"AFRICAN AMERICANS currently score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and mathematics tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. This gap appears before children enter kindergarten (figure 1-1), and it persists into adulthood. It has narrowed since 1970, but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests. On some tests the typical American black scores below more than 85 percent of whites?
The black-white test score gap does not appear to be an inevitable fact of nature. It is true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white children attend the same schools. It is also true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white families have the same amount of schooling, the same income, and the same wealth."
From
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.htmlReggi Nytrid wrote:
Whaaat? wrote:Hopefully you're not reproducing that ignorance.
Yes, acknowledging reality is "ignorant".
So let me see... "We're very selective about which Nigerians we allow into this country."... Who's doing the selecting, you? Are you an expert on Nigerian migration? Are the other unintelligent blacks simply allowed to flood in? "When compared to human beings"... So are they not human? You obviously haven't traveled either. Look, if you're an obvious idiot, you have no place criticizing others based on race or any other criteria.
lpd wrote:
Whites used to have the likes of Viren,Vasala,Morecroft,
Coe,Ovett,Cram.Now,whites have all but disppeared on the track since the testing for EPO began.
A coicidence ? I think not.
Whites actually disappeared from track much earlier, in late 80's, and Africans remained there alone. And in mid-90's, their participation in track was apparently very poor. Track was even not worthy of EPO doping then. Otherwise we would have seen a flood of Europeans running sub 3:30-times.
lpd wrote:
The truth is in terms of AQ(athletic quotient) whites score very low.
lol
I understand that you need to boost your self-confidence. Believe in what you want.
There are many theories for East African dominance in distance running. The Kalenjin excellence points to a genetic advantage in certain respects. But then how do you explain the incredible Ethiopians, who are part of perhaps the most genetically diverse country on the planet?
The West African sprinting dominance is equally difficult to understand. Is it genetic, or is it because slavers preferred the best physical specimens, who then formed families, the descendants of whom were not only strong, but were those who survived (along with their kids) decades of unbelievable physical challenges.
I don't know the answers. These are difficult questions.
But I do know that I love track and field. I also know that plenty of white guys and gals compete for and sometimes win medals. So if there is a genetic advantage, it is extremely small. No matter the color of the competitor, I'm a fan of the athletes who who smile a lot, who have balls (figuratively speaking), and who compete with guts and verve. These qualities are colorless.
kalenjin descended from an ethiopian tribe, right? i'd have to say that your response here sounds as racist and condescending as some of the pinheads, although it is obvious you are trying to be enlightened and that its just the nature of the beast when one discusses this topic.kalenjins have genetic advantages, work harder, likely cheat a bit more, and a very high % of the talent pool is introduced to extensive training. even if the genetic advantage is having a body type that is advantageous, that is an advantage. The best white athletes don't go out for track and field.
SFbayRunner wrote:
There are many theories for East African dominance in distance running. The Kalenjin excellence points to a genetic advantage in certain respects. But then how do you explain the incredible Ethiopians, who are part of perhaps the most genetically diverse country on the planet?
The West African sprinting dominance is equally difficult to understand. Is it genetic, or is it because slavers preferred the best physical specimens, who then formed families, the descendants of whom were not only strong, but were those who survived (along with their kids) decades of unbelievable physical challenges.
I don't know the answers. These are difficult questions.
But I do know that I love track and field. I also know that plenty of white guys and gals compete for and sometimes win medals. So if there is a genetic advantage, it is extremely small. No matter the color of the competitor, I'm a fan of the athletes who who smile a lot, who have balls (figuratively speaking), and who compete with guts and verve. These qualities are colorless.
SFbayRunner wrote:
There are many theories for East African dominance in distance running. The Kalenjin excellence points to a genetic advantage in certain respects. But then how do you explain the incredible Ethiopians, who are part of perhaps the most genetically diverse country on the planet?
The West African sprinting dominance is equally difficult to understand. Is it genetic, or is it because slavers preferred the best physical specimens, who then formed families, the descendants of whom were not only strong, but were those who survived (along with their kids) decades of unbelievable physical challenges.
I don't know the answers. These are difficult questions.
But I do know that I love track and field. I also know that plenty of white guys and gals compete for and sometimes win medals. So if there is a genetic advantage, it is extremely small. No matter the color of the competitor, I'm a fan of the athletes who who smile a lot, who have balls (figuratively speaking), and who compete with guts and verve. These qualities are colorless.
The questions actually aren't much difficult to answer. Nilotic Kenyans are lightly built (with low BMI), with long, slender legs that contribute to their excellent running economy. Ethiopians and Somalis (Cushites) are even more slender, which suggests that their performance in the 3000 m steeple and the 10 000 m (where BMI is the lowest) should be even better than in Kenyans (which is largely true in the latter case, but not in the former, apparently due to the lack of tradition). In the marathon, the trend towards lower BMI values again reverses, because the ability to store energy becomes equally important like running economy (more muscle=more glycogen=higher speed throughout most of the race). Hence marathon runners are heavier than 5-10 km runners and they actually resemble stunted milers. This can also explain, why non-Africans are more competetive in the marathon than in the 5-10 km.
The body types of Nilotes and Cushites don't fit so well in the 800/1500 m, however. First, these distances require a much higher body height than we encounter in the famous "running tribes", and second, the height/BMI relationship in these distances is the exact opposite of what we see in East Africans: taller 800/1500 m runners tend to be heavier, because they rely on speed and anaerobic capacity. In contrast, BMI in East Africans progressively decreases with body height (Bergmann's rule), which means that at the body height necessary for the 800/1500 m (ca. 180 cm), they would be too thin and they would probably lack most anaerobic prerequisites for these distances. This can also explain, why so many East Africans tested positively on steroid use. (It may seem bizarre that steroids would help distance runners, but in this case, it could apparently be beneficial).
Historically, Kenyans have been more successful in the 800 m than in the 1500 m, which is a physiological nonsense. This fact indicates that the 1500 m has always had a much higher prestige and hence the level of international competition was much higher. In contrast, the 800 m has been a "poor neighbour" of the mile.
The West African sprinting dominance is equally easy to understand. Laboratory testing demonstrated that West African students in Canada had 9.3% higher proportion of fast-twitch fibers in the vastus lateralis of thigh muscle than white Canadians (68.3% vs 59.0%). Similarly, black university students in USA had 7.9% more fast-twitch fibers (62,8% vs. 54,9%) than white students. Besides that, some anatomical characteristics like short, massive thighs and long, thin calves with lower inertia during fast movement can contribute, too.
What is bizarre, however, is that people read these numbers and deduce that they guarantee blacks an equally strong advantage in all distances that we call "sprints". This is wrong. First, the 400 m distance has fundamentally different physical and physiological determinants of performance than the 100-200 m. The runners here are much taller (about +5 cm) because their performance depends on anaerobic capacity that increases with body size (=stride length). Naturally, the height factor alone favours Europeans, because they are by far the tallest humans on Earth. Further, although this distance is still overwhelmingly anaerobic, the proportion of aerobic energy is almost 3-times higher than in the 100-200 m.
It is unfortunate that I couldn't find any trustworthy data on the typical fast-twitch muscle fiber composition in 400 m runners, but at least, I estimated it from their typical VO2 max. values (around 60 ml/kg.min), based on equations developed from studies of endurance runners. I got 58% fast-twitch fibers. For a layman, it would be a shocking finding, because it would mean that at worst, white 400 m runners shouldn't have worse physiological prerequisites for the 400 m than West African blacks. And while in men, we still could discuss some nuances of these numbers, in women, the situation is rather clear: The average proportion of FT fibers in Europeans (55% or slightly more) corresponds to a long sprint lasting something below 1 minute.
Second, the height advantage of Europeans should translate even into the 110 m hurdles. In fact, the average height of international medal winners from the period 2000-2013 is 186,7 cm. In the 100 m, it was only 181,2 cm. Apparently, a sprint is not always the same sprint.
Therefore, based on these data, it is quite clear that we shouldn't make much fuss around the current situation in the 400-1500 m. It is hilarious and it has nothing to do with the real distribution of global athletic talent. Consider, for example, that the degree of dominance of West Africans in the 100 m and 400 m is almost the same (which is utterly absurd), and out of mere two white 400 m runners among historical Top 30, one set his personal best in 1976. If you take these stats seriously, you are a fool.
What a tedious bore.
El Keniano wrote:
What a tedious bore.
Well, it is much easier to say that "East Africans are born long-distance runners and West Africans are born sprinters and jumpers"(quoting Entine). And the simple-minded folk can understand it without problems. Not knowing, how large the differences among athletic events are. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
Latest count on the track anyone? It seems like the women are leading the way for the white runners. They got a few medals I think.
Well, Africa is a continent, not a country.
You could not score 50 on an African IQ test based on how to survive in the jungle or deal with a lion while herding cattle barefoot in the savannas.You've never been to Africa, have you?
final count:
Men: 13/13 golds to africans or african descendents
women: 11/13 golds to africans or african descendents
the female non african winners were the 400h and 4 x 4
I think this is amazing and terrible for the sport. There is no cure, but if this goes on it will continue to damage t/f.
non africans will migrate to other sports where they can win, and bring fans along with them.
Reggi Nytrid wrote:
currypotato wrote:Latest count on the track anyone? It seems like the women are leading the way for the white runners. They got a few medals I think.
Doping is more effective for female athletes.
Doping is not an issue in white runners. It is an issue in Africans.
The ethnic situation in women is far closer to the reality than in men, apparently because track is not the most rewarding sports choice for males. Actually, the situation in women is still unexpectedly skewed, especially in the 400-800 m distances.
Whaaat? wrote:
under siege wrote:They are simply a DIFFERENT SPECIES. It is as simple as that. So obvious to anyone who is honest.
Meanwhile Africans only score 70-85 on IQ tests. 15-30 points lower than non-africans.
Sadly no one can say REALITY anymore.
Do you mean IQ tests taken in a part of the world where blacks were systematically enslaved, splintered and denied access to education for almost 400 years? The last living slave died as recently in 1971. Do you think that just maybe, those effects are still being felt? This is not a matter of intelligence as you may think. Eventually, it will all even out. Blacks will score higher on the IQ tests created by whites and whites will grow less ignorant and racist.
Here is a lil tidbit for you.
"Estimates indicate that a disproportionate percentage of black students at elite universities are immigrants or children of immigrants. Nigerian immigrants have the highest education attainment level in the United States, surpassing every other ethnic group in the country, according to U.S Bureau Census data."
IQ doesn't change according to education level...it is not dependent on cultural factors. Also, IQ data has been collected from both the US and the African continent. Africans score lower than African Americans, not higher.