MLF

First topic message reminder :

What is happening to this kid? He looked totally overweight and is now slower than when he was 17. Where has his talent gone? Up in smoke?

rugbydreamer wrote:

azania wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I am not talking about "intelligence" I am talking about the 1 in a million person who has the ability to do something truly extraordinary (like become a fields medallist or be Usain Bolt). That is not something you can measure by an IQ test, or as far as I know by any other way.

I'm sorry but I don't believe we're all born the same.

Anyway thank you for your considered response.

Maths and sports are two different things. Now everyone can be a world class sprinter and not everyone can be an Einstein type genius. But ethnicity plays no part on either mathematic ability or sporting ability.

Yes you did. Apologies if that was just a typo

Oooops, typo Not everyone.........

Mike Selig wrote:

azania wrote:But ethnicity plays no part on either mathematic ability or sporting ability.

I'm glad you can be quite so categorical about it. I'm not sure I agree, as I say I don't think the differences in success between various ethnic groups can be explained purely by cultural/opportunical (which isn't a word but you know what I mean) differences.

Soon it will be in the OED.

Science can be used to 'prove' anything once you have a hypothesis........until another scientists debunks it.

azania wrote:Being tall doesn't mean you will automatically be a good basket ball player. I'm still waiting to hear why West Africans do not dominate sprinting whilst people who are of mixed heritage do. Because Bolt, Lewis, Gay, Powell are black doesn't mean that down their ancestral line they don't have white and amer-indian heritage. They almost certainly do. I haven't seen or heard of any sub 10 Amer-Indian sprinters, but have read about a very good distance runner.

No. But being tall certainly helps your chances.

This is the point I first made, and have continued to make throughout this thread.

djlovesyou wrote:

azania wrote:Being tall doesn't mean you will automatically be a good basket ball player. I'm still waiting to hear why West Africans do not dominate sprinting whilst people who are of mixed heritage do. Because Bolt, Lewis, Gay, Powell are black doesn't mean that down their ancestral line they don't have white and amer-indian heritage. They almost certainly do. I haven't seen or heard of any sub 10 Amer-Indian sprinters, but have read about a very good distance runner.

No. But being tall certainly helps your chances.

This is the point I first made, and have continued to make throughout this thread.

Calvin Smith. Andre Casson, Leroy Burrell would disagree with you. So will Yohan Blake and the dude from St Kitts.

Being tall helps you be successful at basketball I meant.

djlovesyou wrote:Being tall helps you be successful at basketball I meant.

The best recipe for success is skill. You can be tall but if you cant do Jack all you will be is a tall Jack player.

BUT IT HELPS TO BE TALL YEP. YOUR CHANCE OF BEING A GOOD BASKETBALL PLAYER IS INCREASED BY BEING TALL.

Sorry for the caps, I just thought it might help you understand the very simple point I was making.

azania wrote:
Science can be used to 'prove' anything once you have a hypothesis........until another scientists debunks it.

This is misleading (the statement "science can prove anything" is a very harmful thing to say - it leads amongst other things to a justification of creationism being taught in schools): scientifical "proof" is in effect the absence of disproof, but things are only accepted as scientific Theory (i.e. fact) if backed up by facts and after a substantial effort by a lot of clever people to break them. Most things which have been accepted as scientific Theory stand the test of time: a few (such as the relative merits of Egg-whites vs yolks) change over time as methods evolve and get more sophisticated but these are few and far between.

I would much rather trust science than human perception which we know is flawed. Thing is, on this current issue science so far hasn't made any definitive pronouncements.

djlovesyou wrote:BUT IT HELPS TO BE TALL YEP. YOUR CHANCE OF BEING A GOOD BASKETBALL PLAYER IS INCREASED BY BEING TALL.

Sorry for the caps, I just thought it might help you understand the very simple point I was making.

Sigh!!!

I haven't said it didn't. But skill is more important that height. What part of that do you find difficult to understand. It would be better if people actually took part in sports as opposed to watching.

Mike Selig wrote:

azania wrote:
Science can be used to 'prove' anything once you have a hypothesis........until another scientists debunks it.

This is misleading (the statement "science can prove anything" is a very harmful thing to say - it leads amongst other things to a justification of creationism being taught in schools): scientifical "proof" is in effect the absence of disproof, but things are only accepted as scientific Theory (i.e. fact) if backed up by facts and after a substantial effort by a lot of clever people to break them. Most things which have been accepted as scientific Theory stand the test of time: a few (such as the relative merits of Egg-whites vs yolks) change over time as methods evolve and get more sophisticated but these are few and far between.

I would much rather trust science than human perception which we know is flawed. Thing is, on this current issue science so far hasn't made any definitive pronouncements.

It is misleading. So are the people claiming that because runner X is black he stands a better chance of being a world class sprinter. Runner Y who is not black may as well give up.

Science is now being attempted to prove that people of west african origin have a genetic predisposition that makes them run faster. But it conveniently ignores that those of mixed heritage have actually run faster.

It was an accepted fact at the turn of the 20th century that blacks were less intelligent that whites. Oh and they used science to 'prove' that bunkum also. English Osprey has never heard of those theories either.

To be fair, they haven't proven anything of the sort in terms of intelligence.

It's widely known that, at least in the US, that black people on average have a lower IQ than white and asian populations.

It's perhaps cultural, but it doesn't really back up your fake research that you insist on relying on but never referencing.

Hahahahaha. Now we're getting to the crux of what you really believe. But for your information IQ is rather meaningless and a poor reference for anything relating to intelligence.

Furthermore you have not come up with anything other than visual references.

Social Darwinism is not dead after all.

Ah, ok. Only 100 plus post before your argument comes down to 'you're a racist, therefore I'm right'

That's a lot better than Ryan, but still you had to do it.

Massive facepalm.

Nope. I have not referred to you as a racist. You were the one who said that is was well known that blacks in USA have lower IQ levels than whites and Asians. Its a theory. Much like the Nazi theories perpetuated by Hitler before Jesse Owens blew it apart. Also much like theories used to justify slavery and colonialism. Sad to see that people buy into that nonsense.

You still haven't answered why people of mixed heritage seem to run faster than the rest. You would have thought as you said that those of west African origin dominate sprinting west Africans would indeed dominate sprinting. They don't. Any ideas why?

So it's pure coincidence that those 'mixed race' people that have broken 10 seconds just so happen to have a certain level of West African background?

Shall we go with that?

djlovesyou wrote:So it's pure coincidence that those 'mixed race' people that have broken 10 seconds just so happen to have a certain level of West African background?

Shall we go with that?

No no no. Answer the point please. The supposed gene that makes west Africans run faster would be more prevalent in 100% pure west African blood. But those with mixed 'blood' run faster. Science eh?

And now we've got nonsense backed up with a laugh smiley.

I despair.

Still avoiding.

If there is this gene which is prevalent in west africans to make them run faster, how come it is those with less that 100% west african heritage who seem to run faster? It doesn't add up.

azania wrote:
You still haven't answered why people of mixed heritage seem to run faster than the rest.

Possibly because there is genetical advantage in being of mixed heritage with regards to running faster. Possibly because they have had more opportunities, trained harder, been better coached. Possibly for a mixture of all of the above.

azania wrote:Still avoiding.

If there is this gene which is prevalent in west africans to make them run faster, how come it is those with less that 100% west african heritage who seem to run faster? It doesn't add up.

Nobody is saying anything about a gene are they. Being genetically predisposed to sprinting doesn't mean you have a sprinting gene.

It's pretty funny that you think that the domination of BRITISH sprinting of athletes with a West African background is purely due to training harder and believing in themselves.

Mike Selig wrote:

azania wrote:
You still haven't answered why people of mixed heritage seem to run faster than the rest.

Possibly because there is genetical advantage in being of mixed heritage with regards to running faster. Possibly because they have had more opportunities, trained harder, been better coached. Possibly for a mixture of all of the above.

Now you're speculating. Just like those who believe that west Africans have this special gene are also speculating. dj et al were very forthright and now a cat seems to have their tongue.

No dj. You have been hammering away that West Africans have something in them that makes the elite runners run faster than all others (my paraphrase). But that;s not entirely accurate as the fastest are not 100% west african are they. Why i that?

I can almost guarantee you that MLF, Christie et al have some non west African blood in them. In fact they are most certainly not 100% west African.

Azania - it's an opinion, dj is perfectly entitled to it, as are you to yours.

This is the whole point of a forum - to debate opinions, not slate people for them.

This is a point that I think a couple of posters on this thread have been missing.

I quite agree. We are all entitled to our opinio. But if you look at the thread I have been constantly attacked and insulted until I decided to respond in kind. But still I'm waiting for dj to give some backing to his opinions

I believe I gave backing to mine and put my views up there to be shot. It would be nice for that to be reciprocated.

Azania - I've had to remove insults from numerous posters, you included.

And an opinion doesn't always need backing, it's simply that, an opinion. If it was stated as a fact then yes, it would need backing.

I would just simply like there to be more mature debate on this part of the forum, as apposed to what seems to be attacking each other for a difference in opinion is all

azania wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

azania wrote:
You still haven't answered why people of mixed heritage seem to run faster than the rest.

Possibly because there is genetical advantage in being of mixed heritage with regards to running faster. Possibly because they have had more opportunities, trained harder, been better coached. Possibly for a mixture of all of the above.

Now you're speculating. Just like those who believe that west Africans have this special gene are also speculating. dj et al were very forthright and now a cat seems to have their tongue.

Erm, yes. Because we don't really know. What we do know is that an inordinate amount of sprinting medal winners and current top sprint performers have an Afro-American background. I think we are all speculating as to why that is, I have never claimed to have the absolute truth, but am forming opinions based on what I see and what I think. I assumed that's what we were all doing...

Actually scratch that, you have stated unequivocally that ethnicity has nothing to do with it. So one of us at least is certain of his position. Not sure that makes him/her right...

azania wrote:But if you look at the thread I have been constantly attacked and insulted until I decided to respond in kind. But still I'm waiting for dj to give some backing to his opinions

The first post I did on this thread attacked no one in particular (I talked about having to read through some nonsense, but that applied equally to everyone, because frankly reading all these trading insults hid some very valid points). Your first response to me was "oh dear god". So forgive me if I point out that you have at times attacked pre-emptively.

Yep I have stated that ethnicity has zero to do with it. I stand by that. Many say its the west African gene thingy or whatever. Well in that case west africans (100%) without any mixture of their west african gene thingy would be smashing all records. But that isn;t the case. Therefore it leads me to believe that it is somethng else. I reckon my opinion has more credibility than others. But thats just my opinion.

Mike Selig wrote:

azania wrote:But if you look at the thread I have been constantly attacked and insulted until I decided to respond in kind. But still I'm waiting for dj to give some backing to his opinions

The first post I did on this thread attacked no one in particular (I talked about having to read through some nonsense, but that applied equally to everyone, because frankly reading all these trading insults hid some very valid points). Your first response to me was "oh dear god". So forgive me if I point out that you have at times attacked pre-emptively.

Yep. Guilty as charged and hold my hands up. But look at the thread. We have osprey deliberately misrepresented what I've said just to score cheap points and not for debate. This is supposed to be an exchange of opinions and mine has been attacked in a disresppectful manner so pardon me when my guard's up.

Bottom line is dj has done a sprint away from here and constantly refused to address my point.

azania wrote:
Yep. Guilty as charged and hold my hands up.

Fair play for that.

I genuinely think that ethnicity has to play a role to some extent: the prevalence of West African descent seems too much to be purely explained by other reasons.

As to why people from mixed origins seem to do better than those from "pure" West African origin we can but speculate: perhaps the "mixed-origins" genetical make-up is actually better for sprinting, perhaps it is because being of mixed origin they have been less beaten down than others, perhaps (we are after all talking of very small sample sizes here) there are more potentially great "pure" West Africans but for whatever reason they haven't made it... There are quite a few reasons potentially, many of which don't invalidate the theory that ethnicity does play a part.

Well if the 'mixed gene' make up has a role to play then it isn;t west african origin then. Its a mixture. Personally I don't believe that ethnicity has any role. The research that has been carried starts with that hypothesis and finds 'evidence' to support it.

There are a variety of things that come together to make great sprinters. The predominace of sprinters from a particular assortment of backgrounds doesn't necessarily establish a fact in terms of the outright capacities and potential of certain groups over others. At present, what we have are statistics; unless we can somehow find definitive evidence, that's all they are, and we can choose to make inferences and interpretations, draw our own conclusions, and debate them here...

For me, attamepts to link Race and Ethnicity to sprinting [ or any other event ] is deeply problematic, because both race and ethnicity are socially constructed - and as such we do not use biological or physiological attributes / characteristics in necessarily describing these populations.

The danger, in the first instance, is to attach a scientific basis for things such as race or ethnicity. Interestingly, even within a certain ethnically or racially defined group, we will find differences between local populations - aspects that may vary hugely. For example, a very specifc local population of a broader ethnic group that's poverty stricken, may over time grow to become perhaps lighter or shorter than a another specific population of the same ethnic group. Take the example of the North Koreans and South Koreans - and the discussion around diffreence in height between the two groups. The two nations are form the stock of people - yet within the the space of a number of decades, poverty and different social structures and philosphies have led there to be a reported general difference in heights. What we see how one effectively ethnic group can be so hugely divergent. The poverty that drives the physiological differences between the two populations is a politcial and social phenomena and cause. See below link and article;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17774210

So might this be more about environment and what a society does with its people?!

Where there is a prevalence of a certain activity, amongst certain populations, under certain conditions, then we might observe something that sets a group apart. This might be the result of perhaps a longer tradition or history of focus in a certain area. It is not necessarily tied to the populations gene pool so much as a deeper ongoing history and focus - i.e. you do something long enough, with enough people, you might get particularly good. Certainly, one thing you don't want, in general terms, is an environment that is prohbitive. An environment that is conducive, with enough numbers of particpating, and the right moitivation and wider societal culture, and you have the chance of producing enough talent...

But these these are just my own thoughts - sadly, I ain't a sicentist

[ Edit: have had to change typos and grammatical errors to help make leigible ]

Mike - very good posts particularly your first one. Agree with virtually everyting especially the elephant in the room!

"I genuinely think that ethnicity has to play a role to some extent: the prevalence of West African descent seems too much to be purely explained by other reasons."

Surely this is the crux of the matter? If ethnicity doesn't explain west-african dominance, then what does?

Simple question. What's the answer?


And before our friend gets carried away surely the question of mixed-heritage is obviously a complete smokescreen? How does he or any body else know the genetic make-up of any particular athlete? Does bolt have a complete west-african 'heritage or not? It doesn't really matter. Obviously some of his ancestors carry the gene and that's self-evidently enough.Doesn't the mixed-race strengthen the genetic arguement rather than weaken it?

azania
"Do your research and stop being so slack. And no I will not show you the link as I want you to make up the excuse that I am making things up as you surely will."

I love this comment it made me smile for quite a while, at least until I found this one


"Go find the link as I have zero intention of producing. You are not the only one who can be difficult in what was an open and decent exchange of opinions"

Great entertainment. Many thanks for that!

With the caveat that there is no "white" or "black" man as a uniform category, one has to look at the data.

Data Required
100 metres male
1a) How many times has the 10 second barrier been broken by a "white man"
1b) How many times has the 10 second barrier been broken by a "non-white man"
http://www.thesportreview.com/tsr/2010/07/christophe-lemaitre-first-white-man-under-ten-seconds/

200 metres male
1a) How many times has the 19.9 second barrier been broken by a "white man"
1b) How many times has the 19.9 second barrier been broken by a "non-white man"

...

800 metres male
1a) How many times has the 1:42.00 barrier been broken by a "white man"
1b) How many times has the 1:42.00 barrier been broken by a "non-white man"

etc.

english_osprey wrote:Mike - very good posts particularly your first one. Agree with virtually everyting especially the elephant in the room!

"I genuinely think that ethnicity has to play a role to some extent: the prevalence of West African descent seems too much to be purely explained by other reasons."

Surely this is the crux of the matter? If ethnicity doesn't explain west-african dominance, then what does?

Simple question. What's the answer?


And before our friend gets carried away surely the question of mixed-heritage is obviously a complete smokescreen? How does he or any body else know the genetic make-up of any particular athlete? Does bolt have a complete west-african 'heritage or not? It doesn't really matter. Obviously some of his ancestors carry the gene and that's self-evidently enough.Doesn't the mixed-race strengthen the genetic arguement rather than weaken it?

azania
"Do your research and stop being so slack. And no I will not show you the link as I want you to make up the excuse that I am making things up as you surely will."

I love this comment it made me smile for quite a while, at least until I found this one


"Go find the link as I have zero intention of producing. You are not the only one who can be difficult in what was an open and decent exchange of opinions"

Great entertainment. Many thanks for that!

So what you don't agree with or understand is a smokescreen. Way to go Einstein.

Absolutely top class comeback my friend!

But in your haste to reply you seem to have missed out your reply to this question

"I genuinely think that ethnicity has to play a role to some extent: the prevalence of West African descent seems too much to be purely explained by other reasons."

Surely this is the crux of the matter? If ethnicity doesn't explain west-african dominance, then what does?

Simple question. What's the answer?

Dear Lord. You seem to be deliberately missing the rampaging elephant in the room.

Allow me to give you a little history lesson. Nearly every single black man in the Americas is not of 100% West African heritage. The only country where you will find Black people of 100% West African heritage in the Americas is Haiti after the revolution led by Toussaint Louverture and to some extent descendants of the Maroons from Jamaica. Even the Maroons are probably mixed with the Caribs. Nearly 100% of the rest are of mixed heritage.

Now given that the above is an absolute fact (look it up) and also the fact that very few actual West Africans have broken 10secs what you say is factually incorrect. Unless you want to say that all blacks in the Americas are of west african descent (factually incorrect as many came from what is now Mozambique, Angola, Congo and others) and ignoring their mixed heritage gene. So how therefore are you certain that it is their West African heritage that makes them run fast?

Ethnicity doesn't explain West African dominance because your hypothesis that West Africans dominate sprinting is factually incorrect.

Could the harshness and brutality of Slavery have something to do with it? A little history may give us a clue. A leading University Of The West Indies Scientist once suggested that reason. Just a thought!

But a relatively weak sporting nation like Nigeria - a country without huge heritage in athletics from back in the earlier part of the century have produced perhaps 7 sub 10.00 runners whilst the whole white population of the planet only one.

All this without much in the way of organisation and infrastructure?

Any explanation for this, or are Nigerians just harder working? (I love it when people come out with that one.)

"About 97% of the population is of partial or total African descent."

Read more: Ethnic groups - Jamaica http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Jamaica-ETHNIC-GROUPS.html#ixzz1wwuYOul2



"According to the 2001 census, the majority of Jamaica's population is of African descent (referring to those who have origins mainly in Africa). The most common ethnic groups among all Africans taken to Jamaica were the Akan (known as the "Coromantee") and the Igbo"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica

Apparently the Akan came from present day Ivory Coast and Ghana and the Igbo from Nigeria. Don't the two articles suggest that jamaica is populated almost entirely by people of African descent and that those people overwhelmingly came from West Africa?

I would suggest that virtually every athlete under 10.00 has some genetic connection to West Africa and I am afraid that pointless semantics can't really side-step the issue.

How about the following from 2008
"Jamaicans dominated the Olympic 100-meter sprint this weekend, with Usain Bolt setting a world record and his teammates taking all three medals in the women's event. Jamaica is a poor, tiny nation about half the size of New Jersey. What makes its people such champion sprinters?

A combination of nature and nurture. Runners of West African descent—which includes Jamaicans as well as most African-Americans—seem to be built for speed: In 2004, they held all but five of the 500 best times in the 100-meter dash. (East Africans, such as Kenyans and Ethiopians, rule the long-distance field.) Several biological factors may be coming into play here. One study conducted in Quebec in the 1980s found that black West African students had significantly higher amounts of "fast-twitch" muscle fibers—the kind that are responsible for short, explosive bursts of action—than white French Canadians did. (So far, there is no evidence that even extensive training can turn slow-twitch muscles into fast-twitch ones, though moving in the other direction is possible.) "

"Exercise physiologists at the University of Glasgow and the University of the West Indies are currently researching the genetic, nutritional, and sociological factors behind West Africa's sprinting success. The team has just begun to analyze the genetic data it has collected, but preliminary findings suggest that 70 percent of Jamaicans have the "strong" form of the ACTN3 gene—which produces a protein in their fast-twitch muscle fibers that has been linked to increased sprinting performance. That's a significantly higher percentage than in the United States, where about 60 percent have the gene variant. A further 28 percent of Jamaicans are heterozygous for the gene—which has the same effect, but to a lesser degree—compared with about 20 percent of Americans."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/08/jamaican_me_speedy.html

Does this science make you reconsider at all, azania?

english_osprey wrote: ... Runners of West African descent—which includes Jamaicans as well as most African-Americans—seem to be built for speed: In 2004, they held all but five of the 500 best times in the 100-meter dash. ...

If true, that is an impressive data statistic.

Think it's true, look in this database

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

english_osprey wrote:"About 97% of the population is of partial or total African descent."

Read more: Ethnic groups - Jamaica http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Jamaica-ETHNIC-GROUPS.html#ixzz1wwuYOul2



"According to the 2001 census, the majority of Jamaica's population is of African descent (referring to those who have origins mainly in Africa). The most common ethnic groups among all Africans taken to Jamaica were the Akan (known as the "Coromantee") and the Igbo"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica

Apparently the Akan came from present day Ivory Coast and Ghana and the Igbo from Nigeria. Don't the two articles suggest that jamaica is populated almost entirely by people of African descent and that those people overwhelmingly came from West Africa?

I would suggest that virtually every athlete under 10.00 has some genetic connection to West Africa and I am afraid that pointless semantics can't really side-step the issue.

How about the following from 2008
"Jamaicans dominated the Olympic 100-meter sprint this weekend, with Usain Bolt setting a world record and his teammates taking all three medals in the women's event. Jamaica is a poor, tiny nation about half the size of New Jersey. What makes its people such champion sprinters?

A combination of nature and nurture. Runners of West African descent—which includes Jamaicans as well as most African-Americans—seem to be built for speed: In 2004, they held all but five of the 500 best times in the 100-meter dash. (East Africans, such as Kenyans and Ethiopians, rule the long-distance field.) Several biological factors may be coming into play here. One study conducted in Quebec in the 1980s found that black West African students had significantly higher amounts of "fast-twitch" muscle fibers—the kind that are responsible for short, explosive bursts of action—than white French Canadians did. (So far, there is no evidence that even extensive training can turn slow-twitch muscles into fast-twitch ones, though moving in the other direction is possible.) "

"Exercise physiologists at the University of Glasgow and the University of the West Indies are currently researching the genetic, nutritional, and sociological factors behind West Africa's sprinting success. The team has just begun to analyze the genetic data it has collected, but preliminary findings suggest that 70 percent of Jamaicans have the "strong" form of the ACTN3 gene—which produces a protein in their fast-twitch muscle fibers that has been linked to increased sprinting performance. That's a significantly higher percentage than in the United States, where about 60 percent have the gene variant. A further 28 percent of Jamaicans are heterozygous for the gene—which has the same effect, but to a lesser degree—compared with about 20 percent of Americans."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/08/jamaican_me_speedy.html

Does this science make you reconsider at all, azania?

GSM

Daaaaayuuuuuuuuuum,

Why couldn't you have just posted that in your first few posts; would have saved us pages of nonsense.



emancipator - Intergalactic referee - This game is OVER!

djlovesyou wrote:But a relatively weak sporting nation like Nigeria - a country without huge heritage in athletics from back in the earlier part of the century have produced perhaps 7 sub 10.00 runners whilst the whole white population of the planet only one.

All this without much in the way of organisation and infrastructure?

Any explanation for this, or are Nigerians just harder working? (I love it when people come out with that one.)

The only sports taken seriously in Nigeria is football and sprinting (not athletics but sprinting). Its a tradition. One would have thought the Hausas would have been involved in distance running, but they aren't as distance running is not a tradition.

english_osprey wrote:Think it's true, look in this database

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

Thanks, I am always looking for potential datasets to analyse, although I never have the time to analyse them

english_osprey wrote:"About 97% of the population is of partial or total African descent."

Read more: Ethnic groups - Jamaica http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Jamaica-ETHNIC-GROUPS.html#ixzz1wwuYOul2



"According to the 2001 census, the majority of Jamaica's population is of African descent (referring to those who have origins mainly in Africa). The most common ethnic groups among all Africans taken to Jamaica were the Akan (known as the "Coromantee") and the Igbo"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica

Apparently the Akan came from present day Ivory Coast and Ghana and the Igbo from Nigeria. Don't the two articles suggest that jamaica is populated almost entirely by people of African descent and that those people overwhelmingly came from West Africa?

I would suggest that virtually every athlete under 10.00 has some genetic connection to West Africa and I am afraid that pointless semantics can't really side-step the issue.

How about the following from 2008
"Jamaicans dominated the Olympic 100-meter sprint this weekend, with Usain Bolt setting a world record and his teammates taking all three medals in the women's event. Jamaica is a poor, tiny nation about half the size of New Jersey. What makes its people such champion sprinters?

A combination of nature and nurture. Runners of West African descent—which includes Jamaicans as well as most African-Americans—seem to be built for speed: In 2004, they held all but five of the 500 best times in the 100-meter dash. (East Africans, such as Kenyans and Ethiopians, rule the long-distance field.) Several biological factors may be coming into play here. One study conducted in Quebec in the 1980s found that black West African students had significantly higher amounts of "fast-twitch" muscle fibers—the kind that are responsible for short, explosive bursts of action—than white French Canadians did. (So far, there is no evidence that even extensive training can turn slow-twitch muscles into fast-twitch ones, though moving in the other direction is possible.) "

"Exercise physiologists at the University of Glasgow and the University of the West Indies are currently researching the genetic, nutritional, and sociological factors behind West Africa's sprinting success. The team has just begun to analyze the genetic data it has collected, but preliminary findings suggest that 70 percent of Jamaicans have the "strong" form of the ACTN3 gene—which produces a protein in their fast-twitch muscle fibers that has been linked to increased sprinting performance. That's a significantly higher percentage than in the United States, where about 60 percent have the gene variant. A further 28 percent of Jamaicans are heterozygous for the gene—which has the same effect, but to a lesser degree—compared with about 20 percent of Americans."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/08/jamaican_me_speedy.html

Does this science make you reconsider at all, azania?

Why research it when Usan Bolt said its chicken nuggets, yams and ackee and saltfish.

97% of Jamaicans are black. The remainder are of Indian, Chinese and european descent. But with that 97%, how many have mixed heritage? What those stats say is that 97% are black. Its like saying Walcott is of West African heritage. Yes he is, but not 100%. Even his father is not 100% of west african descent.

How hard is that for you to understand?

Do you think 97% of black Jamaicans are 100% pure west Africans heritage?

emancipator

I only wish I had. Just found them today!

it's no good Az, emancipator has awarded the match to EO. The only way you can argue with emancipator is by summoning the long-lost spirit of BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo

Haha. But can you ask Osprey if the 97% of Jamaicans who are of African heritage are 100% pure West African or of mixed heritage. The term west African heritage should be studied itself.

Id Kelly Holmes 100% West African heritage even though she's black? An easy one; is Barack Obama of East African Heritage?