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?

azania wrote:

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.

Irrelevant point though. Sprinting is a sport that is taken seriously and has always been taken seriously in every major sporting nation on the planet. It's in its simplicity that means the talent pool available for the sport is greatly widened. If you're fast at 10 years old in Germany/Spain/Canada, etc, you get sent to an athletics club. A far greater percentage of talents in sprinting are discovered than say table tennis or golf, because these sports require the person to discover the sport without prior evidence of talent, and then for that talent to be nurtured to the point that success is gained.

Sprinting is not like that. A kid is simply fast on the playground or in a football match. So it can be argued that there is an equal or at least close culture for sprinting in most countries.

Don't you think that in countries like Russia or China, who's governments actively recruit natural talents at a young age and train them specifically for future success would have been able to find success in probably the most natural and probably the most obvious and simple to scout for event in the world of sport? They managed it in sports like gymnastics - why not sprinting? It should be far easier.

There are plenty of opportunities and facilities for "white" runners and sprinters: Europe, Spain, Italy, Australia, USA, Canada, South Africa, Argentina etc. Many of these have impressive school and college systems and being good at running generates kudos for them.

djlovesyou wrote:

azania wrote:

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.

Irrelevant point though. Sprinting is a sport that is taken seriously and has always been taken seriously in every major sporting nation on the planet. It's in its simplicity that means the talent pool available for the sport is greatly widened. If you're fast at 10 years old in Germany/Spain/Canada, etc, you get sent to an athletics club. A far greater percentage of talents in sprinting are discovered than say table tennis or golf, because these sports require the person to discover the sport without prior evidence of talent, and then for that talent to be nurtured to the point that success is gained.

Sprinting is not like that. A kid is simply fast on the playground or in a football match. So it can be argued that there is an equal or at least close culture for sprinting in most countries.

This is simply not true. It is a very ideallic point of view. But sadly not true. Talented kids aren't picked up even here in the UK, they slip through the system. Just ask around, who was the fastest kid in school? how fast did they run? What are they doing now? Did they ever get picked upby a coach? Did their PE teacher send them to the right places? The answer in UK is generally no.

Countries like China and Russia with a much poorer infrastructure will be even worse than the UK. So the answer above is impossible to be true regarding picking talented youngsters up.

Don't you think that in countries like Russia or China, who's governments actively recruit natural talents at a young age and train them specifically for future success would have been able to find success in probably the most natural and probably the most obvious and simple to scout for event in the world of sport? They managed it in sports like gymnastics - why not sprinting? It should be far easier.

It's a good point about China: in China if you show a particular aptitude for anything at an early age, they basically pounce on you and from that moment on pretty much all you do is work at it (obviously I exaggerate slightly for dramatic effect, but it's the general idea). Now I understand the Chinese aren't all that keen on sprinting, but still... No sub 10 sprinters. Jamaica's population is about 3/1000 that of China, right? So if the Chinese were as well disposed genetically to sprinting as the Jamaicans surely they'd have picked up a few by now...

djlovesyou wrote:

azania wrote:

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.

Irrelevant point though. Sprinting is a sport that is taken seriously and has always been taken seriously in every major sporting nation on the planet. It's in its simplicity that means the talent pool available for the sport is greatly widened. If you're fast at 10 years old in Germany/Spain/Canada, etc, you get sent to an athletics club. A far greater percentage of talents in sprinting are discovered than say table tennis or golf, because these sports require the person to discover the sport without prior evidence of talent, and then for that talent to be nurtured to the point that success is gained.

Sprinting is not like that. A kid is simply fast on the playground or in a football match. So it can be argued that there is an equal or at least close culture for sprinting in most countries.

Don't you think that in countries like Russia or China, who's governments actively recruit natural talents at a young age and train them specifically for future success would have been able to find success in probably the most natural and probably the most obvious and simple to scout for event in the world of sport? They managed it in sports like gymnastics - why not sprinting? It should be far easier.

It may be simple to run fast, but to run faster takes a high level of technical skill which has to be trained into the runner. Many kids are fast on the football ground but dont get the proper training or simply give up as it takes a lot of dedication.

China is interesting in that they have super fast sprint hurdlers and they will soon make the breakthrough I believe and will probably dominate most sports.

So if sprinting is so technical (it's not, by the way) why hasn't a country like China (dominant in a lot of technical Olympic sports) got even close to 10 seconds?

Unlimited resources, unlimited people, unlimited scope to do whatever they want with those people. Not even close still.

It doesn't make any sense.

Besides Liu Xiang and that one other guy, China are not exactly setting the world alight in the hurdles. They clearly have a good coaching set-up in what is an incredibly technical event (unlike pure sprinting - the complete opposite, despite what you're saying.)

Ryan, some talented kids are obviously picked up by the system - if we are so bad, why do we do well (and much better) in sprints than a lot of other similar countries? I appreciate some people get tearful when race is mentioned, but despite a decent (not all) amount of the talent is found, they tend to have certain 'characteristics'. Why?

Did you simply not understand what I said about China and Russia? To suggest their infrastructure (and system for developing talent) is worse than here is laughable. If China could have developed sub 10 second sprinters with technical know-how alone and if genetics wasn't a factor, surely China would be dominating the sprints - particularly with their liberal attitude towards 'additional help'.

Again with the caveat that there is no such thing as a heterogeneous white / black category: How does the "white man" v "black man" statistic for hurdles compare to that for the 100 metres?

I think athletes tend to gravitate towards the event they are naturally good at, or towards the event they are more likely to win in.

djlovesyou wrote:So if sprinting is so technical (it's not, by the way) why hasn't a country like China (dominant in a lot of technical Olympic sports) got even close to 10 seconds?

Unlimited resources, unlimited people, unlimited scope to do whatever they want with those people. Not even close still.

It doesn't make any sense.

Besides Liu Xiang and that one other guy, China are not exactly setting the world alight in the hurdles. They clearly have a good coaching set-up in what is an incredibly technical event (unlike pure sprinting - the complete opposite, despite what you're saying.)

Ryan, some talented kids are obviously picked up by the system - if we are so bad, why do we do well (and much better) in sprints than a lot of other similar countries? I appreciate some people get tearful when race is mentioned, but despite a decent (not all) amount of the talent is found, they tend to have certain 'characteristics'. Why?

Did you simply not understand what I said about China and Russia? To suggest their infrastructure (and system for developing talent) is worse than here is laughable. If China could have developed sub 10 second sprinters with technical know-how alone and if genetics wasn't a factor, surely China would be dominating the sprints - particularly with their liberal attitude towards 'additional help'.

If you think sprinting is not technical, you don't know sprinting at all. You probably assume as soon as the gun goes off, you just run.

How long have China been involved in the olympic movement and taking part in global sports. Xiang is a former Olympic champ, broke 13 secs and is the second fastest hurdler of all times. I reckon he has set the world alight. Isn't he the fastest this year also? It wouldn't surprise me if he won gold again.

After the fall of communism, investment in sport stopped. Other priorities.

Nore Staat wrote:Again with the caveat that there is no such thing as a heterogeneous white / black category: How does the "white man" v "black man" statistic for hurdles compare to that for the 100 metres?

I think athletes tend to gravitate towards the event they are naturally good at, or towards the event they are more likely to win in.

I have no idea what the stats are, but hurdlers are created as opposed to the runner choosing the event.

What? You don't think that Russia invest in sport?

Yes. I know Xiang is very very fast. Sometimes people are just very very talented.

You can't say a nation is 'setting the world on fire' in an event based on one athlete. Kenya/Ethiopia in distance running yes, Japan in hammer, no. Syria were never a world power in heptathlon, despite one outlying athlete.

The only sport less technical than sprinting is distance running, but probably made even by the tactical aspect of distance running. How much 'technical' training do you think MLF was doing when he was going down Birchfield a couple times of week and running crazy times as a junior? Essentially none.

I agree with the fact that hurdlers are created. Often because they don't have the natural attributes to win on the flat. No kid joins an athletic club with an ambition to be a hurdler - it comes later on.

djlovesyou wrote:What? You don't think that Russia invest in sport?

Yes. I know Xiang is very very fast. Sometimes people are just very very talented.

You can't say a nation is 'setting the world on fire' in an event based on one athlete. Kenya/Ethiopia in distance running yes, Japan in hammer, no. Syria were never a world power in heptathlon, despite one outlying athlete.

The only sport less technical than sprinting is distance running, but probably made even by the tactical aspect of distance running. How much 'technical' training do you think MLF was doing when he was going down Birchfield a couple times of week and running crazy times as a junior? Essentially none.

I agree with the fact that hurdlers are created. Often because they don't have the natural attributes to win on the flat. No kid joins an athletic club with an ambition to be a hurdler - it comes later on.

[b]

This is the problem I have debating with you. You look for cheap points and make a meal out of it. If you don't know what I meant then its pointless.

You still haven't even addressed the points about heritage. All you said about that is that it's irrelevant.

There are 3 main phases in sprinting which is drilled to any junior as soon as they take a keen interest in the sport. You think he had no technical training? That is pure nonsense. Beyond nonsense in fact.

You can't possibly think that Russia or China have better infrastructures for picking up talented individuals than the UK. They have enough trouble looking after the poor let alone finding talented individuals amongst them. Utterly ridiculous to think otherwise and very very naive.

My guess is that you've never been there and are making up answers through perhaps reading something on the internet or a book or what you heard in the news. Research is done using more than one source. I bet you can find stuff on the internet to prove just about any theory you want.

I do think DJ underestimates the technical challenges of sprinting, and the work coaching and training has in it. Sprinting is actually surprisingly technical (or at least surprising to me, from a non-sprinting background, when I went to a workshop on running technique), and like with any sport the input of quality coaching is minimal but essential.

However:

ryanbailey wrote:You can't possibly think that Russia or China have better infrastructures for picking up talented individuals than the UK. They have enough trouble looking after the poor let alone finding talented individuals amongst them. Utterly ridiculous to think otherwise and very very naive.

I think this is one of the most uninformed things I have ever read. I have been to Russia (not China, so I won't comment on there) and there is massive state investment in anything which could be described as international competition: sport, research, the army, etc... Far more than here in the UK, and far more than even in France (where the investment into sport is far greater than in the UK). Moreover this investment is exclusively "top down": you won't hear anyone talking about grass-roots; in the UK the distribution is mostly top-down (the grass-roots do fairly poorly) whereas in France it is very much bottom-up (every sports club in France gets significant financial help from the state providing they fulfill criteria like reaching out to youngsters and stuff).

The system finds talented people (e.g. those who run fast, or those who do exceptionally well on class tests) and then offers them an intensive training course. I know this because I know Russian accademics who have been through it. There are rights and wrongs to all systems, and the caricature of being forcibly removed from your family to go and live as a monk for 8 years and come back either broken or a man is very far from the truth (at least now): but you do get placed in the best school, given the best ressources (paid for by the state), etc. I presume this also happens in sport.

ryanbailey wrote:I bet you can find stuff on the internet to prove just about any theory you want.

You can't "prove" any theory. You can find facts to back it up.

I repeat that I don't think "culture" has to do with anything about sprinting (or football say): sprinting is popular in all countries, everyone can run; and clearly the UK, France and Germany invest in coaching etc. (not to the same extent as Russia, but to big enough extent that if all other aspects were equal they ought to be producing medal winners)

I DO think other factors come into it: in particular opportunities and belief. let me explain: it takes an incredible amount of hard work and dedication to get to the top of your sport in any sport and in any country (some people talk about sacrifices - I don't because sacrificing has a negative connotation and I don't think trying to be the best can be a negative thing); for the professional sports, at some point you have to decide to dedicate yourself almost exclusively to your sport (for amateur sports, I know from personal experience we ask people to balance their work-life/family life/studies with the sport, and sometimes it is a real struggle - these guys spend a lot of their hollidays practising or playing, away from their families, sometimes even have to take unpaid leave; it's very tough). More and more people are asked to make this decision early on in their lives (certainly by the age of 16 for the vast majority, and much younger for many).

Now imagine a fast-running 13 year old white kid in say the UK (or Germany, France, Spain, Italy): he is told that he may have the potential to run in the Olympics but if he wants to do this he has to concentrate almost exclusively on running. This kid is also a whiz at maths, and he knows that he can make a career out of Maths easily enough (well, he'll have to work hard, but the career is almost guaranteed, because those countries are good at that kind of thing as well); he also knows that there are very few white top sprinters (take this back 4 years and replace "very few" by "none"); does he believe he can reach the top? And if he doesn't, how on earth is he going to commit the time and investment needed to do so? So in a sense the fact that in these countries there are so many other opportunities is probably a factor.

I DO think there are white Usain Bolts out there (that is white people with similar physiological attributes). And the above described scenario is one of the reasons why they are slipping through the net.

Having said all that, I DON'T believe you can explain some of the statistics purely with external factors. The question as to why Russia and China have failed to produce top sprinters is a good one.

"You can't possibly think that Russia or China have better infrastructures for picking up talented individuals than the UK. They have enough trouble looking after the poor let alone finding talented individuals amongst them. Utterly ridiculous to think otherwise and very very naive.

My guess is that you've never been there and are making up answers through perhaps reading something on the internet or a book or what you heard in the news."

Ryan oh ryan oh ryan. Where to begin with you?
Do you recall we spoke about opinion? This is a definition of opinion,
"In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts"
What you have just said in order to rubbish DJ's theory is opinion.

Fact on the other hand could be defined as,
"A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience"

Do you see the difference?

Here's a fact that took me ohhh about 30 seconds to find,

"After the break-up of the USSR, the system of children and youth sports in Russia passed through difficult times, but managed to retain the network of sports schools, and Physical Training Clubs (DYuKFP) were created in addition to them.

In 2005 some 4,951 sports schools and DYuKFPs functioned in the system of education and in the system of Rossport. To the former belonged 2,944 institutions of physical culture and sports education: 1,917 sports schools, 464 Specialized sports schools of the Olympic Reserve, 556 DYuKFPs and 7 centers for physical culture. Only sports schools of the system of education were attended by some 2 million children and youth,[5] and they had more than 13,000 departments in 122 sports disciplines. Rossport institutions were attended by some one million young athletes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_school (this bit refers to the source of my facts)

Can we assume that an apology will be sent to DJ fairly soon because to call someone utterly ridiculous and very very naive when in fact they are correct surely isn't on?




"Research is done using more than one source. I bet you can find stuff on the internet to prove just about any theory you want."

You're right here! Your problem is that you evidently can't be bothered to use any source. That's why your opinions are valid but relatively worthless.

To be fair, Wiki isn't necessarily the most accurate of sources, but the article itself does refer to a series of articles in Russian (which I can read, in the sense that I know what each letter is pronounced, but can't understand unless what I read happens to be one of the 4 words I know) which I presume corroborate what it states.

In any case Russia certainly does have a talent spotting program which is far more sustained than that in the UK. It has its rights and wrongs, and you can argue over the morality etc. but the facts are there.

mike

very interesting post.
Funnily enough my son finds himself in almost exactly that same scenario that you use as an example. Although he's pretty good now and hopefully will improve I can't see a pathway to him making a living in the sport. Unless you are ranked very highly in world sprinting for examples your rewards aren't great. Simply watching any major meeting will furnish him with the information that he's the wrong colour for that, so as you suggest he would weigh up his options and do something else. In his case rugby in which we are lucky to have several local role models.

This was the case I tried to suggest earlier with MLF. I think he looks at the competition and realises that despite all his natural advantages the only he can progress is through peds. He's not willing to do it so why train like a madman to be ranked 86th in the world (or whatever)?

Id say there is a lot more incentive for a UK junior sprinter to work hard and stay in the sport than say an American one. Someone like Christian Malcolm has made a good living, he will get a lot of media work. In the States a guy with Malcolms record would be a mere footnote in their sprinting history.
Over here the standards are lower and the rewards are higher yet it is America who produces far more quality sprinters. Sure they have more numbers but those guys have to put the work in just the same way MLF would have had to.

english_osprey wrote:mike

very interesting post.
Funnily enough my son finds himself in almost exactly that same scenario that you use as an example. Although he's pretty good now and hopefully will improve I can't see a pathway to him making a living in the sport. Unless you are ranked very highly in world sprinting for examples your rewards aren't great. Simply watching any major meeting will furnish him with the information that he's the wrong colour for that, so as you suggest he would weigh up his options and do something else. In his case rugby in which we are lucky to have several local role models.

Thanks.

In my experience that is not an unusual scenario. I do worry whether the way sport is going/has gone we are asking people to make what amounts sometimes to almost irreversible decisions very early on. I coach cricket in a non-cricket playing country and we do ask for a lot of commitments from our youngsters (I coach the juniors and of course a lot of our players have their A/O-level equivalents - they are still expected to find time to train and play most week-ends, and certainly cricket is expected to be more important than anything bar school work); this in a non-professional environment (but essentially creating a professional ethos). I don't know whether this is a good thing or not, certainly standards are driven upward and the games are more competitive with added spice. But the flip side is the professional sports which can afford to do so can sometimes make what I think are unreasonable demands on young people. I don't think this will change, and I'm not sure how you could change it should you wish to.

Great to see a bit of lively debating on the athletics forum! Would love to join in but its not a subject i know a lot about so would probably embarrass myself! Makes interesting reading though(both sides).

english, I'm not really sure where to begin with you.

You seem to try and go up against every post i make. If i were to try and argue that the grass is green, you'd try and say it was purple. I guess this is really an endearment to me. So thanks for that, but its really not necessary. If you search the net to find links for purple grass you will find them.

If you care to do a bit of research on the deprivation in China and Russia. Look at the poor (that is the majority of the population). You'd know that i was correct in saying that more Chinese and Russian talent slips through their net than through ours (in the UK). This is because they do not have the infrastructure to cope with this matter.

If you doubt me, why not post something to prove me wrong.

ryanbailey wrote:
If you care to do a bit of research on the deprivation in China and Russia. Look at the poor (that is the majority of the population). You'd know that i was correct in saying that more Chinese and Russian talent slips through their net than through ours (in the UK). This is because they do not have the infrastructure to cope with this matter.

If you doubt me, why not post something to prove me wrong.

I can't comment on China, but on Russia you are wrong, sorry. The poor (as you call them) are frequently talent-scouted and those who are talented are invited to commit to one of the schools linked to by English. They do have the infrastructure - as I said they spend a lot of money on sport/research/any other area of international competition. This is part of the reason (I oversimplify totally) why the poor there are so poor.

Did you miss this Ry? It was originally posted a little bit higher than this one.

"After the break-up of the USSR, the system of children and youth sports in Russia passed through difficult times, but managed to retain the network of sports schools, and Physical Training Clubs (DYuKFP) were created in addition to them.

In 2005 some 4,951 sports schools and DYuKFPs functioned in the system of education and in the system of Rossport. To the former belonged 2,944 institutions of physical culture and sports education: 1,917 sports schools, 464 Specialized sports schools of the Olympic Reserve, 556 DYuKFPs and 7 centers for physical culture. Only sports schools of the system of education were attended by some 2 million children and youth,[5] and they had more than 13,000 departments in 122 sports disciplines. Rossport institutions were attended by some one million young athletes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_school (this bit refers to the source of my facts)

I know there is relatively quite a lot of words so I'll try and precis that for you,
They have nearly 5000 sports schools which deal with 122 sports disciplines
Clear enough?

Oh, and without checking I'm willing to gamble that they have won medals in every olympic track and field event
What point are you trying to make by the way? That the Russians squander more athletes than we do? Are you talking in total or as a proportion of their population?
If they are squandered then, by definition you wouldn't know they had been squandered so how on earth could you prove that proposition?
Can I refer you to the definitions of the words 'opinion' and 'fact' again.

You have an opinion completely unsupported by any attempt at evidence. You just think they are poor and don't have any infrastructure and therefore don't spend any money on athletes?
This is the same poverty-stricken country that sent the first manned vessel into space, which I'm sure is news to you.

Didn't you read Mike? He's been there and seen it first hand and you still think you're right!

Well posted Mike.

Not sure really what you are on about english, you are like a wiki spout. Normal meaningless post filled with an empty meaningless dig/insult.

I do know for a fact that good Russian athletes do slip through the net. I'm forced into actually stating the all SO obvious (so english can understand something) I can't prove by percentage or population because that is indeed impossible.

And I do know as a fact that the 'problem' is huge in China. It actually makes our schooling method look good. They have a population of over 1 billion. How many times bigger than the USA? How many medals and world class athletes are they producing?

english, a little tip don't take every word written as gospel. You seem to take everything ever so seriously. Relax and post nicely. You seem to think that you are in a court of law all the time, and want to prove everyone else wrong with links to wikipedia of all places.

This forum is a place of discussion and not belittlement, as you to want to make it. Can you please change your mentality and stop just trying to put everyone else down with your pathetic insults and digs?

"Not sure really what you are on about english"

I know that ry, I know that.
Here's a tip for you, you should try and relax, you'll stress yourself out!

I notice you make absolutely no attempt to answer any of the points raised (as usual)

What point are you trying to make again? I am sure that many russians slip through their net. But then so do many Bangladeshis and French and Turks slip through theirs. What's your point? Do you hate the Russians?



"Well posted Mike"
which bit did you like? I liked this part

"I think this is one of the most uninformed things I have ever read"

in relation to you.


I also love the last few lines written in green. Way to go crazy! (although if you could actually identify any insults in my last few posts i would be happy to rectify them)

Also what were you doing up at 6.21am, paper round?

[quote="english_osprey"]"Not sure really what you are on about english"

I know that ry, I know that.
Here's a tip for you, you should try and relax, you'll stress yourself out!

I notice you make absolutely no attempt to answer any of the points raised (as usual)

What point are you trying to make again? I am sure that many russians slip through their net. But then so do many Bangladeshis and French and Turks slip through theirs. What's your point? Do you hate the Russians?



"Well posted Mike"
which bit did you like? I liked this part

"I think this is one of the most uninformed things I have ever read"

in relation to you.


I also love the last few lines written in green. Way to go crazy! (although if you could actually identify [b]any[/b] insults in my last few posts i would be happy to rectify them)

Also what were you doing up at 6.21am, paper round?


[/quote]

What the hell are you on? It truly is some powerful stuff because you make no sense.

Ryan. Nobody said that China and Russia find every single talented athlete and develop them. That's similar to what azania does, take a simple moderate statement and turn it into sometime ridiculous and extreme.

But your premise that Russia and China and poor so therefore don't succeed at sports is stupid.

For example, to be a gymnast in this country, you would have to be taken by parents to a gymnastics class and go from there. In China, they find the most suitable 5-6 year olds and essentially force them to become gymnasts. They don't discriminate on background. This was their tactic for topping the medal table in Beijing.

The reason for their relative lack of success on the track is the saturation of talent worldwide. If there was no natural component due to background, China would be smashing the sprints. They would have made sure of it for Beijing.

[quote="djlovesyou"]Ryan. Nobody said that China and Russia find every single talented athlete and develop them. That's similar to what azania does, take a simple moderate statement and turn it into sometime ridiculous and extreme.

But your premise that Russia and China and poor so therefore don't succeed at sports is stupid.

For example, to be a gymnast in this country, you would have to be taken by parents to a gymnastics class and go from there. In China, they find the most suitable 5-6 year olds and essentially force them to become gymnasts. They don't discriminate on background. This was their tactic for topping the medal table in Beijing.

The reason for their relative lack of success on the track is the saturation of talent worldwide. If there was no natural component due to background, China would be smashing the sprints. They would have made sure of it for Beijing.[/quote]

Hi dj,

I wasn't making a big issue at all. And i certainly wasn't saying anything stupid as english and now yourself are trying to make out. I was trying to have a nice pleasant debate, unlike english and now yourself.

Thanks for your input on the point in question. Would be nice to be said without the jibes and insults.

Ps. I also never said that they were developing every potential. I was saying they are missing more than we are due to how good our infrastructure is.

I can't believe that on this board, you have to post with clauses in your statement. Are we all this pathetic? Or can we not have a pleasant debate????

But Russia has a far better infrastructure for developing athletic/sporting talent than we do.

That is why people are getting a bit frustrated with you.

That's pretty common knowledge, but you keep ignoring it. You even agreed with Mike's post which said that your contradiction of this was one of the most ignorant things he's ever read.

As for the 'nice pleasant debate thing' - you called me worse than I've called you the first time I mentioned Russia and China, despite the fact I was right and you were wrong.

Coming back to MLF, the initial subject of the thread interesting that IAAF still list the 9.97 MLF did when he was 18. even
though the time was never ratified due to a faulty wind gauge;

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=j/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=100/detail.html

"Ps. I also never said that they were developing every potential. I was saying they are missing more than we are due to how good our infrastructure is."

But the point we are making is how can you possibly know this? You are simply assuming a situation and then passing it off as fact.

We think the russians do have a pretty good sporting infrastructure and have supplied facts to back up that point of view.

you on the other hand have supplied (as usual) nothing at all to back up your opinion. Therefore your opinion, while valid is relatively worthless.

Why do you get so upset when this is pointed out to you so often?

Come back with specific reasons why russia has a poor sports infrastructre. Just saying 'they are poor' doesn't really do it. In fact their enormous mineral wealth alone makes them potentially one of the richest countries on earth.

djlovesyou wrote:Ryan. Nobody said that China and Russia find every single talented athlete and develop them. That's similar to what azania does, take a simple moderate statement and turn it into sometime ridiculous and extreme.

But your premise that Russia and China and poor so therefore don't succeed at sports is stupid.

For example, to be a gymnast in this country, you would have to be taken by parents to a gymnastics class and go from there. In China, they find the most suitable 5-6 year olds and essentially force them to become gymnasts. They don't discriminate on background. This was their tactic for topping the medal table in Beijing.

The reason for their relative lack of success on the track is the saturation of talent worldwide. If there was no natural component due to background, China would be smashing the sprints. They would have made sure of it for Beijing.

Talk about dishonesty here. I pulled up on doing exactly this and now you accuse me of doing it.

Anyway, nothing about the mixed heritage thing?

Thanks for the tips and polite comments. I did not mean to insult anyone here. So apologies if i offended anyone.

I have personal experience of the lack of opportunity in Russia (2nd and 3rd hand). So please do not believe that talent coaches go round the villages collecting the gifted ones and honing their skills. It is not the case. There are so few opportunities to join clubs and get the training. You'll more likely end up in the forces or working (that is if you can find a job). Please don't look through rose tinted glasses at these places.

I have knowledge of China through work. The story is quite similar. Whilst you are correct in that some do get picked up and lead to great heights and treated like heroes. The ones that develop slightly later, do not get picked up and will have no opportunity.

Here in the UK, there are so many opportunities develop great athletes. So many clubs in and out of school, at universities and of course all your local clubs and national clubs. The list is almost endless in opportunities here in the UK.

I guess here in the UK, we lose more through their own personal choice rather than lack of opportunity.

It's a shame that what could be an interesting debate turns so quickly into pettiness.

Ryan presumably wasn't aware of the current state of sporting infrastructures in Russia (and China). There is nothing wrong in that; I don't know anything about (for example) javelin-throwing technique - I could of course do a load of research on the matter, but frankly life is too short, and Javelin-throwing technique is not one of my main interests.

However I should avoid making definitive statements about something I don't know much about, and if I give my view on things (say I come up with a reason why the Norwegian guy - I shan't try to spell his name - didn't win last night) and someone more knowledgeable than myself tells me my view is unfounded then I should take note and possibly change my view. Admitting you are wrong is not a bad thing (and one thing which annoys me about politics nowadays is how every change of mind is called a "U-turn" as if that were necessarily a bad thing - changing your mind can be a good idea).

On the other hand I don't think the fact you aren't an expert should mean you can't or shouldn't comment. Nor does it mean your view, even if wrong, should be attacked because you dared to give it. If nothing else, a non-expert giving a non-expert opinion allows the expert to set the record straight, and thus we all gain. Nobody gains from personal attacks (to pick one from each side: "what are you doing up at 6.21 AM? Paper rounds?" and "what are you on?") and they do nothing to advance the debate. Let's leave them out.

I have no idea how many Russians slip through the net: I presume there are some, but we can't know how many as EO rightly points out. What I do know is that their system is far more effective (I don't like to say "better" because I know which system I prefer, and it ain't the more effective one) at identifying and nurturing talent than the one in the UK (or France, or Germany, etc.) at least in absolute terms. I know this because Russia produces more world class athletes across all disciplines. I also suspect this because I have second-hand experience of the way Russia goes about this (with very good infrastructures in place) in another area of international competition, and it works, and I suspect their system for sport is similar (as corroborated by EO's online material) and works similarly well (because there is no reason it shouldn't).

On the role or not of ethnicity in performance/talent it is all at the moment conjecture: the time-frame is still relatively recent and research very much in its infancy. I suspect within 20 years time the answer will be more or less clear, although as with everything (even evolution) the dissenters will remain. Until then, people should be free to speculate, but try to back up their speculation where possible

Returning to MLF, I do wonder if there is some mental frailty there: that was an awful false start yesterday, and whilst I suppose these things do happen, to my untrained eye I would say that is a sign of anxiety. To be fair, I did find the starter quite slow, but that seems to be the norm rather than the exception nowadays.

Oh, and can anyone shed any light as to why the Norwegian didn't throw the javelin as far as expected? :-)

"Anyway, nothing about the mixed heritage thing"

azania, azania have you heard the news?
this thread is over, you lose.

re emancipator several posts back

mike

agree with you mike. i'm not saying ryan shouldn't make a comment. I make the point that his opinion is valid. however surely he (or anybody else) can't be allowed to make a comment without even trying to support it?

I'm certainly no expert but even the briefest look at Google will give you the information you need. It's not hard or irksome. As you say

"Ryan presumably wasn't aware of the current state of sporting infrastructures in Russia "

and indeed there is nothing wrong with that. HOWEVER what is a problem is that he gives us his opinion as fact. A very brief perusal of google would have given him some ammunition or perhaps made him rethink his view. But no, he insists he is correct without the slightest reference to anything but at the same time refuses to acknowledge any support that we have produced.
THATS the problem, not his views which of course he and all of us are perfectly entitled to . Simply, if you are going to rely on 'facts' to support your arguement then surely you should be able to prove that those 'facts' actually exist. Otherwise logically you have nothing to rely on.

As regard the 'paper round' joke I just thought it was funny at the time(sadly) apologies.

english_osprey wrote:"Anyway, nothing about the mixed heritage thing"

azania, azania have you heard the news?
this thread is over, you lose.

re emancipator several posts back

Such arrogance from someone who hasn't produced a shred of evidence to counter anything other that dismiss it because you dont agree with it.

Once again, there is little to zero evidence to suggest that black people (west African) have a genetic advantage when it comes to sprinting. There is as much evidence as the Darwinism theorists gave in the early 1900s which said that blacks were athletically (and others) inferior.

Besides the fact that they dominate the world's best performances to the point that it's almost complete dominance? And not from just one country, from just about any country that has a reasonable population of people with a West African background. That's not 'zero to little' evidence to any non-biased person with half a brain.

But you don't accept that sprinting is all about natural talent - you think that the super infrastructure and high technological coaching nations such as Ghana and Trinidad use their knowhow and vast resources to dominate sporting minnows like Germany and Russia who clearly just don't have the input.

Simply put, anyone who is not stupid can see there is a correlation and with the nature of the sport, it's obvious that there is something genetic at play. (A common mistake is to think that when someone says that it's genetic, that they're saying there is a 'sprinting gene'. This is not what is meant.)

It's clear, it's obvious, you just refuse to accept it for reasons you fail to explain but I'm sure are important to you.

You seem to think that you 'win the argument' until someone shows you a thing that says 'West Africans have a sprinting gene'. The fact that you think this is what I and others are saying probably means you're out of your depth in the discussion.

"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!."

Look at this! A fair and impartial decision in my opinion


"hasn't produced a shred of evidence"

Now you're having a bit of a laugh. Do you remember it was me with the '97% of jamaica is west african' research. Don't you remember it was me with the 'fast twitch' research to name just two

Whereas your evidence amounts to... errr nothing.


Anyway as the intergalactic referee said, it's GSM to me. Accept defeat like a man and lets move on.

djlovesyou wrote:Besides the fact that they dominate the world's best performances to the point that it's almost complete dominance? And not from just one country, from just about any country that has a reasonable population of people with a West African background. That's not 'zero to little' evidence to any non-biased person with half a brain.

But you don't accept that sprinting is all about natural talent - you think that the super infrastructure and high technological coaching nations such as Ghana and Trinidad use their knowhow and vast resources to dominate sporting minnows like Germany and Russia who clearly just don't have the input.

Simply put, anyone who is not stupid can see there is a correlation and with the nature of the sport, it's obvious that there is something genetic at play. (A common mistake is to think that when someone says that it's genetic, that they're saying there is a 'sprinting gene'. This is not what is meant.)

It's clear, it's obvious, you just refuse to accept it for reasons you fail to explain but I'm sure are important to you.

You seem to think that you 'win the argument' until someone shows you a thing that says 'West Africans have a sprinting gene'. The fact that you think this is what I and others are saying probably means you're out of your depth in the discussion.

Just because they are black doesn't mean that their background isn't mixed. It mainly is. Just because they look black doesn't mean that they are of 100% west African extraction. A false assumption which you refuse to acknowledge or probably understand.

english_osprey wrote:"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!."

Look at this! A fair and impartial decision in my opinion


"hasn't produced a shred of evidence"

Now you're having a bit of a laugh. Do you remember it was me with the '97% of jamaica is west african' research. Don't you remember it was me with the 'fast twitch' research to name just two

Whereas your evidence amounts to... errr nothing.


Anyway as the intergalactic referee said, it's GSM to me. Accept defeat like a man and lets move on.

Silly silly boy. A common mistake there. 97% of Jamaicans are black. Within that black population there is a high percentage of mixed heritage. Barack Obama is considered black. But he is mixed race. Muhammed Ali is black but is he of 100% West African extraction? When I mentioned it in this thread, you conveniently ignored it. When pressed you dismissed it as irrelevant. I suppose you think all black people look alike also.

Oh I have read about this so called fast twitch fibre. Everyone with an interest in sport of sprinting has probably read it also. They're supposed to be more prevalent in black people and can be developed quicker. Its a ridiculous science. As I said, you get a hypothesis and you can say all manner of things to suit that hypothesis. Its BS you do know that dont you? Or at least you should.

Carry on diddums.

Did you just say that you don't believe in fast twitch fibres? Really?

djlovesyou wrote:Did you just say that you don't believe in fast twitch fibres? Really?

No.

You seemed to imply that when you said 'so called fast twitch fibres'. You do know it's very basic physiology, yep?

As for 'being more prevalent in black people'. That's you paraphrasing again to make a more moderate statement seem dramatic.

I would say you're certainly more likely to get a Nigerian with a high proportion of Type IIb fibres than a Rift Valley Kenyan. You can tell that just by looking.

You can tell by looking at them? Really? I mean really are you actually being serious or are you taking the pi$$? I suppose you can tell by looking at them that MLF is a faster runner than Bolt or Calvin Smith. Man, you are a comedian.

You just did that thing that apparently I always do, but strangely it seems to be you every time. Twisted my post. Did you not quite understand it?

I didn't say 'tell who was the faster runner'. I said, you could tell who had the bigger proportion of Type IIb muscle fibres. To be honest, looking at Bolt's endurance capacity compared to MLF, I certainly would have a guess that MLF was more Type IIb dominant.

Just because this is true, doesn't make him a faster runner. Other factors too.

How about between Tergat and Chambers? Could you have a guess as to which one was more Type I dominant just by looking? Of course you could.

But production of TypeIIb muscle fibres assists in speed no?

Go ahead, what other factors make Bold run faster than say Powell? Can you tell between Henry Rono and Tergat? Or Juanterena and Coe?

No, I never said you could predict every person just by looking. That's why I gave you an obviously straightforward example. It was you that twisted my words (again) to saying that I said you could predict who was fastest out of two sprinters.

You can't produce Type IIb muscle fibres though, only increase their size. You can, however, change type IIb fibres into Type I fibres with cardiovascular training.

Of your examples, I'm not saying you can tell by looking, but Rono is clearly more fast twitch than Tergat and Juanterena more than Coe. That's just common sense based on their respective events.

tanzania my friend, defeat hurts I know but why take it out on DJ?

Let's leave it and move on. You're wrong and I think you know you are. But, and this is my last question to you, why are you so determined to 'prove' that west-africans don't have natural advantages in the sprints?

If it's of any use to you here's a list of things that I would be interested in talking about (in no particular order)

1.Drug-taking and general cheating in athletics
2.The terrible coverage of athletics that the BBC thinks is acceptable
3.Why sebastian coe is more is more interested in power-politics than the well-being of athletics
4.Why Jamaica with a population slightly greater then Wales has 3 of the 4 fastest 100m times of all time
5.Daley thompson and why a double olympic champion is such an unpopular and peripheral figure
6.How are athletic clubs still run very poorly and controlled by the very elderly
7.Exactly how many jamaican athletes are taking PEDS
8. How smug is Michael Johnson on a scale of 1-10
9. The utter contempt that the Olympic organisers have treated the clubs in terms of ticket allocation
10. The reason for the complete dominance of sprinting by athletes of west african origin....oh no we've done that one.

Add more if you want

djlovesyou wrote:No, I never said you could predict every person just by looking. That's why I gave you an obviously straightforward example. It was you that twisted my words (again) to saying that I said you could predict who was fastest out of two sprinters.

You can't produce Type IIb muscle fibres though, only increase their size. You can, however, change type IIb fibres into Type I fibres with cardiovascular training.

Of your examples, I'm not saying you can tell by looking, but Rono is clearly more fast twitch than Tergat and Juanterena more than Coe. That's just common sense based on their respective events.

Isn't Tergat a distance and so was Rono?

english_osprey wrote:tanzania my friend, defeat hurts I know but why take it out on DJ?

Let's leave it and move on. You're wrong and I think you know you are. But, and this is my last question to you, why are you so determined to 'prove' that west-africans don't have natural advantages in the sprints?

If it's of any use to you here's a list of things that I would be interested in talking about (in no particular order)

1.Drug-taking and general cheating in athletics
2.The terrible coverage of athletics that the BBC thinks is acceptable
3.Why sebastian coe is more is more interested in power-politics than the well-being of athletics
4.Why Jamaica with a population slightly greater then Wales has 3 of the 4 fastest 100m times of all time
5.Daley thompson and why a double olympic champion is such an unpopular and peripheral figure
6.How are athletic clubs still run very poorly and controlled by the very elderly
7.Exactly how many jamaican athletes are taking PEDS
8. How smug is Michael Johnson on a scale of 1-10
9. The utter contempt that the Olympic organisers have treated the clubs in terms of ticket allocation
10. The reason for the complete dominance of sprinting by athletes of west african origin....oh no we've done that one.

Add more if you want

Osp, the most dishonest poster here. I'm not out to prove anything. Just stating that if you word hard with your natural talents, you can improve. Working hard also includes self belief.

Why does NZ produce far more better rugby players that all the UK with 60m people? During apartheid and shortly after, why did 4m white south africans produce far better rugby players than all UK and France? Kudu meat? Biltong? Sadze? Milee meal?

If you're interesting about talking about those things (as opposed to trying to impose your warped ideas) feel free to start a thread.