Michael Johnson - Why the progeny of slaves will strike gold at the Olympics

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167996/Why-progeny-slaves-strike-gold-Olympics.html

MJ Not afraid to face controversey it would appear

Mike Selig wrote:Really fed up with the bickering sometimes. Also confused as to how some (most?) people seem to see what is an extraordinary complex issue in such black and white (no pun intended) terms.

Personally I feel that obviously nurture does make a difference.

azania wrote:Because black people see sports more of a career option than whites due to economics.

Quite.

azania wrote: But more importantly there is a culture of excelling at sprinting which will bring more people into it who believe that they will win and put off people who believe they are 'naturally' slower.

I agree that those who think they can't make it won't, and certainly won't bother putting in the incredible amount of time and effort required. I refuse to believe that the will to win is a factor. At that level everyone wants to win. And

azania wrote: Plus there is a history of working harder to beat "the man".

Frankly that is insulting.

Finally I think natural ability obviously plays a part (but Matt Syed for example disagrees) - is your random Jamaican more likely to have that ability than your random scandinavian? We can't know for sure, but the statistical evidence would suggest it is likely.

You may find it insulting, but one of the kids mentioned it there. Likewise in cricket when Tony Greig made his grovelling comment, the Windies took it personally to beat the white nation. Also when Alvin Kalicharan went on the rebel tour to South Africa, Viv Richards is quoted as saying that he was glad as they now had a pure black team to beat the white man at their game.

Such themes are very prevalent in the Caribbean.

Is that why black people in the UK/USA dominate the sprint rankings?

Black people just work that little bit harder?

dj - it's a mix of a lot of things I would say, as opposed to being predominantly just one thing

But one of them is that black people work harder than white people?

djlovesyou wrote:Is that why black people in the UK/USA dominate the sprint rankings?

Black people just work that little bit harder?

Jaysus, you are a small minded person.

djlovesyou wrote:But one of them is that black people work harder than white people?

If you say so.

But isn't that what you were saying?

One of the reasons why black people dominate sprint rankings is that black people work that little bit harder than white (and Asian, etc) people?

I believe you said that explicitly. It's just an interesting concept.

djlovesyou wrote:But isn't that what you were saying?

One of the reasons why black people dominate sprint rankings is that black people work that little bit harder than white (and Asian, etc) people?

I believe you said that explicitly. It's just an interesting concept.

If that is what you think is all I was saying then it is all I was saying. I will not engage with a dishonest person.

I never said it was all you were saying, I said it was one of the things you said.

I was addressing one particularly reason.

Nothing dishonest in that.

Please point out where I said that and when you do point it out, quote me and source it.

"Plus there is a history of working harder to beat "the man"."

Wasn't too hard.

djlovesyou wrote:"Plus there is a history of working harder to beat "the man"."

Wasn't too hard.

Sorry but you really are a simpleton. A dishonest simpleton who enters into a debate and displays blind ignorance. It really is better to remain silent and be thought of as stupid that to write something to remove all doubt.

How on earth does comment equate to white people not working hard? Pathetic.

I don't think you even understand your own argument anymore.

Stooping to calling me names once you know you haven't got answer might work on the boxing board, I don't know.

Who are these black people working harder than then? If you think that hard work to beat white people is a factor in their success, this automatically implies that they must be working harder than the white people otherwise this can't be used as a factor.

(I never once said that you said white people don't work hard, that was you being dishonest suggesting I did, something I haven't been at all - perhaps you simply don't understand my posts but I feel I've kept them at a level even you can follow.)

Why don't you ask the jamaican kid on the tv show why he said that he wanted to show the whites.......?

You really don't understand much do you? Its like debating a Tory MP after he had been caught with a rent boy.

Good insult there - keep em coming, it's really helping your argument - which I see you've actually given up on now.

Unless that Jamaican kid thing was an actual serious answer.

That Jamaican kid thing is a serious answer. I doubt you are black and you probably have extremely limited contact with black people. Yeah I know, some of your best friends are black. If you are black, Tom your name?

I grew up in a black household. Most of my friends are black. There is a common theme that says we must work twice as hard to get half as far. It is something drummed into many black kids across the world who grow up as minorities. If you are black you will know that is a 100% fact. If not, well you have just learned something today.

But my full quote in which you ignored the context is:

Because black people see sports more of a career option than whites due to economics. Plus there is a history of working harder to beat "the man". But more importantly there is a culture of excelling at sprinting which will bring more people into it who believe that they will win and put off people who believe they are 'naturally' slower. The will to win and self belief or self doubt can not be quantified. Why do you think Powell excells in GP meets but not at the majors?

It was a minor point which was followed by "more importantly..." No surprise that you chose to highlight the minor point to make a big issue of it. Typical abelungu.

Ah ok. Chip on shoulder stuff. If in doubt, that's always a classic ploy. You do realise that there isn't any valid proof that black people hating white people has had any bearing on their success. Surely Scotland would dominate England if resentment over history was any sort of defining factor.

So you do think that black athletes dominate sprinting due to working harder.

It's interesting watching the English Schools on TV this weekend. Black athletes seem to win a rather disproportionate number of the medals in the short sprints, despite being heavily outnumbered by white athletes.

Is it just coincidental that the obviously most naturally talented athletes seem to be of Afro-Carribbean origin every year, as training has not a great deal to do with things when you're talking year 8/9 athletes? Despite there being more white athletes competing overall, and that the overall Afro-Carribbean population in the UK is relatively very small.

Don't try to tell me that a fast Year 8 kid of any race believes that they are naturally slower than anyone because of their ethnicity. They just go out and run as quick as they can.

So typical. Chip on shoulder.. Typical but predictable. Actually its not a chip, its a canyon and on both shoulders so I'm well balanced.

Whoever said anything about black people hating white people. Your words not mine. Nothing I alluded to either.

One thing you should do is read a guy called Gus John. Read his works. I am not going down the route with you (who deliberately lies and twists words - see blacks hating whites as evidence of lies and word manipulation) or debating youths with you.

I don't have to tell you anything. You make up your own stuff and pass it on as other's words.

You got nothing. That's the problem.

I see where the issue is now though. You feel that any suggestion (despite the overwhelming evidence) that any success of black people put down to natural talent is taking away a win - and somehow devalues the success. Your only real comfort is, despite the overwhelming evidence, that you can attribute this concept to white jealousy and it strangely makes you personally feel better about yourself.

Therefore you howl and howl, but don't really come up with any real evidence to the contrary, just insult and attack and hope the person talking sense goes away.

Please stop trying telling me what I feel. You will be wrong because you create a hypothesis and fit everything around that despite what is said. At no point have I said that a supposed natural talent takes anything away from the individual. Your words again based on a baseless assumption.

Yes winners win because they harness their natural talents. Messi has natural talent for football. He works hard and credit him for all his success. Wish he played for Arsenal but that's another story.

But I do not support the theory that black people are genetically predisposed towards sprinting. Why haven't more Nigerians or Brazilians made it to the top? Nigerians in particular who are more 100% west african than their transplanted brethren in the Americas.

I'm sorry Azania, but when you say "there is a history of working hard [...]" it seems you are saying that part of the reason for Jamaican (and more generally west africans) of sprint events is they work harder than their competitors. That is insulting. Everyone at that level works astonishingly hard, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

If that wasn't what you were implying, then perhaps you could just say so.

Mike Selig wrote:I'm sorry Azania, but when you say "there is a history of working hard [...]" it seems you are saying that part of the reason for Jamaican (and more generally west africans) of sprint events is they work harder than their competitors. That is insulting. Everyone at that level works astonishingly hard, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

If that wasn't what you were implying, then perhaps you could just say so.

It is not what I am saying at all. There is a theme of "I'm not going to lose to the white man" that runs through many black sportsmen. That is a fact. Socially when it is said by a black person it is brushed away but when articulated by a white person hell breaks out. History of racism etc.

Yes everyone works very hard. I have never said otherwise. But with this supposed theory that whites are genetically inferior when it comes to sprinting, how on earth is a white athlete going to have the mental strength to compete with the belief that he is genetically inferior? Self belief is extremely important in sprinting. Look no further than Asafa for evidence. He had the talent but not the belief in his own ability to win when it mattered most.

2 guys line up. One feels he has already lost because of genetics. The gun goes. Who do you think will win?

Despite having very little infrastructure for athletics, Nigeria have always managed to produce a good number of fast sprinters.

In fact, 8 Nigerians have broken 10 seconds.

That's not that bad really. Particularly if you compare it to the number of Germans, Russians, Chinese who have gone under 10 seconds with great infrastructure, coaching and motivation.

djlovesyou wrote:Despite having very little infrastructure for athletics, Nigeria have always managed to produce a good number of fast sprinters.

In fact, 8 Nigerians have broken 10 seconds.

That's not that bad really. Particularly if you compare it to the number of Germans, Russians, Chinese who have gone under 10 seconds with great infrastructure, coaching and motivation.

One in 10 black people on earth is Nigerian. You would expect more that just 8. Plus how many of them have subsequently been banned for steroids?

No infrastructure - so 8 is pretty good.

Can't really bring steroids into it, because I would imagine a reasonable proportion of all times under 10 seconds are assisted anyway - not just by Nigerians.

Also, Russia/East Germany, etc, had a jolly good try at breaking 10 seconds without any restriction on steroids and couldn't manage it.

djlovesyou wrote:No infrastructure - so 8 is pretty good.

Can't really bring steroids into it, because I would imagine a reasonable proportion of all times under 10 seconds are assisted anyway - not just by Nigerians.

Also, Russia/East Germany, etc, had a jolly good try at breaking 10 seconds without any restriction on steroids and couldn't manage it.

You want it both ways. Probably to 'win' an argument. One moment you are casting doubt on Jamaican sprinters and drugs and the next you are ingoring Nigerian sprinters in which a host of them have been banned for taking steroids.

Two different discussions though, unless you're suggesting that black people are more likely to dope than white people?

If we take the, most likely correct, route that all ethnicities are equally likely to cheat, we're still left with a problem.

Nigeria (despite as you say, being a nation with a number of dopers) still has 8 sub 10 seconds sprinters. When all the nations with a lot of white people, despite many of them having a long history of doping, still only manage Lemaitre.

Jamaica's recent super success could be attributed to doping perhaps, but now breaking 10 seconds in Jamaica is not really a big deal. But it is still something no German (or white British) athlete has ever done.

I asked you once before to stop assuming what I'm thinking as you are usually way off base.

So you believe that the propensity of blacks to run faster is due to them being black. But please explain that the majority of black people outside of Africa are not 100% black. So one would assume that their genetics for speed has been tampered or lowered. Yet very few black people without any other ethnicity hardly break the world record or indeed run as fast as those of mixed heritage.

The bottom line is that this is a theory. You believe in it. I dont. In the 1930s there were other theories about physical abilities which many believed. Thankfully Jesse Owens proved that wrong emphatically.

azania wrote:The bottom line is that this is a theory. You believe in it. I dont.

That is too categorical, and reminiscent of those arguing against evolution. It is a theory, and at the moment there is strong statistical evidence and some scientific evidence to suggest there could be some truth to it. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that tradition, belief and other factors play a part. To simply state "genetics play no part" or "it is all genetics" is too narrow-minded at this stage.

Some individuals have an advantage over other individuals that gives them greater cadence, strength, endurance etc. But to suggest that the genetics benefits one ethnic group over others is what I do not support. That is the theory many here are trying to say or indeed are saying.

First many said that the Kenyans are better at distance running than others. Then the Ethiopians came along followed by arab north africa. All of a sudden that theory looks redundant although many are still pushing.

Now sprinting. Not too long ago a certain Austrian had a theory of racial supremacy and master race. He was backed up by scientists at the time. One black man came along to blow that theory wide apart. Now that theory is being reversed with scientists claiming that certain fast twitch muscles are more prevalent in one group over pthers. Fair enough. But when that one group is in itself racially diverse another theory comes up which is selective breeding due to slavery and the middle passage survivors. Well the biggest slave holding nation on earth has very few of these "genetically superior" athletes who are running serious times in the speed events. Interesting.

I saw something that said along the lines of...

Ancestors of West Africa are built to be quicker because of the jungles etc in West Africa and that the people living there had to run fast to hunt and escape from wild animals.

People from east Africa are better at long distance events because that area is much drier and they had to travel long distances for water and food.

The programme also suggested why Europeans, Asias, Australians where better at certain events too.

It seemed to focus more on how humans had developed differently in different environments over thousands of years and didn't really mention slavery at all.

To all the normally intelligent non-politically motivated readers of the boards.

Surely even a brief recap of the various theories put forward here,

1. 495 of all the worlds 500 best ever 100m times are held by athletes of west african origin.
2. Only 1 white man has ever run under 10.00 secs for 100m
3. No asian has ever run under 10.00 sec or won an olympic or world 100m or 200m medal of any colour
4.No east african athlete has ever run under 10.00 or won an olympic medal at 100m or 200m
5. No west african has ever won any olympic medal at any distance from 1500m upwards

would suggest that nature does play at least some part in athletic performance?

Culture, diet and training obviously play large parts in deciding performance but to deny entirely the existing of a 'sprinting gene' is surely perverse? Even to the non-athlete the above points might suggest the following. Athletes with their origins in Africa are undoubtedly the besr runners in the world but why is that? Some Africans are predominantly sprinters but some are predominantly middle-distance, why is that? Perhaps the answer is that there is some sort of genetic advantage in certain events for those athletes of african origin?
Is that true? One of the greatest sprinters of all time, Michael Johnson who happens to be intelligent, erudite and of course black certainly thinks so. More and more evidence (see earlier postings) is being produced to support this idea. I have no doubt that in time scientists will be able to give us more idea of the relative values of the nature/nurture debate.

What really depresses me though in the middle of what should be a very interesting debate is the absolute refusal of some posters to even acknowledge that there might be something in this. Of course I am not claiming that this 'sprinting gene' idea is certainly correct. That would be rather presumptious. What I am saying is that it's an interesting area for debate. The depressing aspect is that certain posters will not for politcal reasons countenance discussion. To them any debate in this area is 'racist', the catch-all response to anything that suggests that black athletic achievement is not down solely to individual effort. If hard work, 'wanting it' and mental strength were enough then why don't west african athletes win olympic medals at middle-distance? Indeed why not put those three virtues to the test at the London marathon and win that? Prize money for the first man home is $55,000. Surely that would solve the economic imperative arguement suggested by one poster?

Whatever the outcome it is surely morally wrong for anybody to attempt to stifle genuine debate by trying to label it as racist? Incidentally wouldn't the implication that only black sprinters work hard be racist in itself?
Or is it impossible for a black person to be racist? That's a question for another time perhaps.

Good post for a change although tampered with many factual innacuracies.

These isn't a sprinting gene imo. There are people more talented at certain sports that others. Miguel Indurain would have excelled at any endurance sport with his pulse rate of less that 30. Henry Rono had a ridiculously low pulse rate also. So did Borg. That helps in endurance events. Is that a gene for endurance events displayed in those guys? Probably. But its spread across ethnic groups.

You obviously don't understand the economic argument. Take boxing for example. From the 1960s onwards (up until the naughties)it was dominated by black people. Was there a gene for fighting? Now mainly eastern europeans, hispanics dominate. Ask yourself why.

80 years ago many jews were active boxers. Not now. Ask yourself why.

Sprinting has become an event which black kids identify with. The 10sec barrier has been broken with regularity only over the past 25 years. Prior to the mid 1980s, people sat up when someone broke the 10s barrier. Now it means little. Had white sprinters broken that barrier earlier, I am certain more would have followed. But the argument that white kids do not take sports as seriously as their black counterparts is valid in that blacks will see sports as an outlet more so than white kids who have other/more options open to them.

One of the greatest sprinters of all time, Michael Johnson who happens to be intelligent, erudite and of course black certainly thinks so

I personally find that comment offensive. It assumes that because Johnson is black and talking about an issue you support that he is right. You should be aware that black people also have different opinions with one another......just like white people or any other group.

495 of all the worlds 500 best ever 100m times are held by athletes of west african origin.

How many of them have mixed heritage? You start of accusing others of being politically motivated, yet you come out with that politically motivated comment like the above. You are using a US Jim Crow definition which defines a black person as one who has 1/16 black heritage.

I have never said there wasn't anything in it. I said that I do not support the theory that black people are genetically predisposed to fun faster. Research supports me also given that most blacks who have broken the 10s barrier are of mixed heritage. Who knows if it is the combination of that mixture that permits certain individuals to run faster than others.

A mixed heritage maybe, but a heritage that always involves a significant proportion of West African history.

Are you suggesting that this is merely coincidental, despite 495 of the top 500 times being from these athletes? (I can't see how this is political, it's a statement of fact.)

The whole 'black kids want/need it more' for socio-economic reasons sounds like a good idea, but it falls down when you look at British sprinting. Although the country has a relatively small black population, the all-time rankings are still dominated by athletes with some sort of West African heritage. Although, if you were to count the number of kids who are involved in sprinting in this country, the large majority of them will be white (as you would expect).

That theory also falls down because a lot of black British sprinters seem to be pretty switched on and not from 'da streetz' as you would expect for kids taking up sport to drag themselves out of poverty. Many have degrees and come from supportive and often fairly 'middle class' upbringings. You also have plenty of white kids from very poor backgrounds, who could perhaps use sport as a means of making money where limited other options are available. Or are you suggesting that black kids are the only ones who are capable of motivating themselves in order to do this?

I certainly don't accept the theory that white kids 'beat themselves' when lined up on the start-line and accept they're going to lose. If this were the case, why are they not running top class times in races where the field is completely made up of white athletes?

Yet those without any mixed heritage rarely break the 10s barrier.

I reckon Johnson's theory has more credibility than these fast gene theory that is supposed to be in west Africans. Selective breeding of slaves to create bigger field hands etc could lead to speeding up evolution (or want of a better word) and bigger, stronger and faster black people came about. Is it a coincidence that they are from the Americas and not in west Africa? Who knows. I reckon if you selectively breed people of any ethnic origin may have the same result. So I reckon it could debunk this fast twitch nonsense.

Cut out the street talk also. It's insulting in a John Terry manner. And also quit attributing your interpretation of my thoughts onto me. You are always wrong and more interested in point scoring than debate.

How does any of this explain the British all-time rankings?

I think your argument falls down again when those will 100% West African heritage (clearly those from West African nations) come from places with very little infrastructure for the sport - they still do remarkably well when compared to white athletes (a lot of whom come from nations with world class infrastructure).

The USA has a top class system for recruiting and developing talent - this system works equally for white and black athletes yet we see an obvious trend in their results.

I don't see how saying 'da streetz' is 'insulting in a John Terry manner'. Street talk isn't limited to black people you know, people from all ethnicities engage in such practices.

I never once said anything about a 'sprinting gene' anyway, my point was that certain populations have a great genetic propensity for sprinting - those are two completely different things.

I appreciate that arguing this with you is nigh on impossible as it's now clear you have an emotional involvement in it, so therefore have huge difficult in discussing in any rational and sensible manner. I've certainly tried - but all you've got now is insults and telling me I'm wrong without any credible evidence.

djlovesyou wrote:How does any of this explain the British all-time rankings?

I think your argument falls down again when those will 100% West African heritage (clearly those from West African nations) come from places with very little infrastructure for the sport - they still do remarkably well when compared to white athletes (a lot of whom come from nations with world class infrastructure).

The USA has a top class system for recruiting and developing talent - this system works equally for white and black athletes yet we see an obvious trend in their results.

I don't see how saying 'da streetz' is 'insulting in a John Terry manner'. Street talk isn't limited to black people you know, people from all ethnicities engage in such practices.

I never once said anything about a 'sprinting gene' anyway, my point was that certain populations have a great genetic propensity for sprinting - those are two completely different things.

I appreciate that arguing this with you is nigh on impossible as it's now clear you have an emotional involvement in it, so therefore have huge difficult in discussing in any rational and sensible manner. I've certainly tried - but all you've got now is insults and telling me I'm wrong without any credible evidence.

How many are from west Africa? As far as I know the only one who has done anything interesting is Harry AA.

Sprinting gene, fast twitch muscle to enable faster running. Same thing to me. Same meaning and inference.

My point is I dont support the theory than one population group has a greater propensity for sprinting. Unless black people from the Americas are a distinct ethnic group in itself. As was said, the possibility of selective breeding due to slavery may have something to do with it. That many have west African heritage (undiluted) is a consequence of slavery.

So you think if you took 1000 random Rift Valley Kalenjin and 1000 random Jamaicans and then trained them identically you would end up with a very equal set of results for both groups?

Surely there's no way anyone could possibly think that you would.

What if you trained both groups for distance running? Any difference?

djlovesyou wrote:So you think if you took 1000 random Rift Valley Kalenjin and 1000 random Jamaicans and then trained them identically you would end up with a very equal set of results for both groups?

Surely there's no way anyone could possibly think that you would.

What if you trained both groups for distance running? Any difference?

Now you're attributing things that I have never said or even insinuated, to me. Pointless and clueless.

"My point is I dont support the theory than one population group has a greater propensity for sprinting."

Your exact words.

I just gave you two population groups. What is the problem here? I've just given you a real world example for your sweeping statement - you can't just make such statements and then somehow decide that an example such as this doesn't apply.

Going by your statement (presuming you still stand by it) you should believe that neither group will have a greater propensity for sprinting.

Do you know what part of Africa Jamaicans originated from? I mean most slaves left from west African port and most Jamaicans went through Elmina Castle and Goree Island. But where were the slaves taken from?

djlovesyou wrote:"My point is I dont support the theory than one population group has a greater propensity for sprinting."

Your exact words.

I just gave you two population groups. What is the problem here? I've just given you a real world example for your sweeping statement - you can't just make such statements and then somehow decide that an example such as this doesn't apply.

Going by your statement (presuming you still stand by it) you should believe that neither group will have a greater propensity for sprinting.

Since when were Jamaicans an ethnic group? "Out of many, One People". Jamaica's motto.

Now you're just skirting round the issue.

So what you're saying is that if you took 1000 Rift Valley Kalenjin and 1000 100% Nigerian people, trained them both the same, etc, etc, that we would achieve the same results?

How about that example?

I never said Jamaican was an 'ethnic group', I used the word 'population group', and you don't accept that different 'population groups' having different propensities to sprinting.

I'm not skirting around anything. I want clarity in your question.

Why pick such a small Kenyan group and 120m Nigerians? Its obvious given your silly sample the Nigerians would have a better result. A much larger popn to choose from.

Care to narrow down your group from Nigeria as there are many population groups within Nigeria. You have Ibos, Yoruba, Hausa, Efik and 150 more.

Narrow it down.

There are 1.6 million Kenyan Kalenjin in the Rift Valley. That's a pretty big sample size for a 'population group'.

How big does a population group have to be, in your mind, before it's valid it discussing genetic differences between groups?

djlovesyou wrote:There are 1.6 million Kenyan Kalenjin in the Rift Valley. That's a pretty big sample size for a 'population group'.

How big does a population group have to be, in your mind, before it's valid it discussing genetic differences between groups?

30m Yorubas alone. 20m Hausas also. Be specific.

Why should it matter if I'm specific? You're just clouding purposefully clouding and complicating the issue because you know you've made a statement you can't back up but are not capable of retracting.

You've said there are no differences. I gave you two populations - you didn't answer. I gave you two more populations - you still didn't answer.

Being specific doesn't matter - from what you've said, 1000 people from one population and 1000 people from another population - no difference.

You expect a random sample of 1.6m against 120m. Get with it mate.

You made the statement - it's not my fault you're making all these extra rules in a frantic and quite pathetic effort to justify it.