[sprawl&brawl]

[quote=deadinside;23053965]ANd a study once showed that mexicans had a higher test rate than whites and blacks, so why do they not dominate the NFL?

Power lifting championships between countries have EastEuropeans beating USA team all the time. Poor countries like Ukraine with a pop just slightly bigger than Cali dominate the USA teams. And i mean dominate them.
With drug testing and with Americans have better equipment we still lose. Our teams have whites, blacks and everyone and yet we always lose. Why?

you argue that one group can have a genetic advantage in something and yet cannot mentally process that it is not the same group all the time?


And all NFL competition will always have more blacks in it sense it is a sport of speed and power. WIth speed being more important(more likely to see a sprinter play than a powerlifter). In fact at the competition the number of blacks is more than whites, so using it as a standard is not rational.(in fact the only position that have a large percentages of whites in football is offensive lineman. The position that speed is less important)

Use the world powerlifting and olympic lifting as a scale for strength not the nfl.

Are you trying to tell me that whites are stronger than blacks on a daily basis? Trust me, if you took several groups of young black men and devoted them to OLY lifting they would do just fine, if not dominate. All of the countries you speak of are in some way: goverement sponsored (the children are usually selected that have certain body types and so on), they focus on that sport their whole life for just few competitions, steroid abuse is rampant. You took about powerlifting? I think of sport that uses more steroids and equipment for strength enhancement. I'll give you an example: The strongest bb's out there are black. Ronnie Coleman by and large out performs his white counterparts in the strength department. I don't many brothers who like to lift heavy heavy weight. In my home town there is one guy who does, and guess what? He's the strongest guy in the town of 200,000. I've never said caucasian athletes can't succed, i'm just saying that i believe blacks have natural advantages. Thats all i'm saying.

[sprawl&brawl]

Originally Posted by Untermensch202

How do you figure boxing is dominated by blacks ?? PBF does not mean blacks dominate boxing. Neither do past champions.

Are you kidding me? All of your heavier weight classes have been nothing but dominated by black athletes. Lets start: Joe louis, sugar ray robinson, leonard, hagler, barkley, hearns, whittaker, earnie shavers, larry holmes, lennox lewis, roy jones, hopkins, tyson, sonny liston,Ali, virgil campbell, nigel benn, these are just some of the names out there. Guys were champions in their weight classes or many weight classes. Sure you could name some white guys but how many world champions in the last 15-20 years and if you did, one of these guys might have beaten him already.

[Malko]

sprawl&brawl:

I'm unsure how far you wish to take this line of arguing. I suggest you don't overstretch. Down this road lie some ugly stereotypes. You argue, using contemporary realities (i.e. those only true of the last half century or so) that black athletes are superior, pointing to their predominance, numerically speaking, in a number of sports - for example, basketball, American football and boxing. I am averse to looking at the other side of this coin. On that side we have some compelling 'evidence' of the sort you are peddling. For example, using your logic, I may state the following:

'Black people are inherently incapable in a cognitive sense' - I need only point out the vast, vast superiority of Caucasian and Asian persons in scientific and technical fields to corroborate this statement. I can further point to the incredible pool of literature and cultural works created by persons of those backgrounds, and attempt to portray blacks as 'stupid'. Or, simply, not as intelligent as their white counterparts. You could bring up some black award winners in certain categories, and individuals who've created marvelous things and say 'Well, look, here are some examples of black intellectuals'. And then I can name ten or twenty white intellectuals for each name you throw my way, thereby 'disproving' your point.

Modern IQ tests are holistic. They are designed to measure both cognitive and spatial capacities, as well as certain linguistic and logical ones. If I put the same test before a group of African-American children and a group of Caucasian children, by extension of the above, it is not difficult to predict the outcome. So what does this tell us?

If we go by sprawl&brawl's reasoning, the resulting comprehension is unkind to the African-American, and blacks generally. But do they deserve this? Are blacks stupid and incompetent, and otherwise incapable? Is it that simple, that clean-cut? If you'll excuse the pun, is it really that black and white? My thesis is this: it is not. You are forgetting a number of factors that modify both the scope and the context of this debate. You conveniently confine the debate to a geographical locality (the United States), to a number of activities (sprinting, professional boxing, basketball and American football), and ignore social, cultural and economic factors underlying these realities.

Consider:

Why do you ignore the only measure of international boxing in your evaluation of the success of blacks in the sport? I am, of course, talking about the Olympics. Let us do a cursory examination of summer Olympic events, and the results thereof:

2004 Olympics:

SHW: 1st Alexander Povetkin (RUS), 2nd Mohamed Aly (Egypt), 3rd Michael Lopez Nunez/Roberto Cammarelle (CUB/ITA)

HW: 1st Odlanier Solis (CUB), 2nd Viktar Zuyev (BLR), 3rd Mohamed Elsayed/Naser al Shami (EGY/SYR)

LHW: 1st Andre Ward (USA), 2nd Magomed Aripgadjiev (BLR), 3rd Ahmed Ismail/Utkirbek Haydarov (EGY/UZB)

MW: 1st Gaydarbek Gayderbakov (RUS), 2nd Gennadiy Golovkin (KAZ), 3rd Suriya Prasathinphimai/Andre Direll

WW: 1st Bakhtiyar Artayev (KAZ), 2nd Lorenzo Aragon Armenteros (CUB), 3rd Kim Jung Joo/Oleg Saitov (KOR/RUS)

Medal Tallies:

Cuba: 8
Russia: 6
Kazakhstan: 3
Thailand: 3
US: 2
Belarus: 2

IF WE ASSUME that EVERY Cuban, American and French (large black minority) boxer is black, of the 44 available medals, 11 were won by black boxers.

If we look, at this very moment, to professional boxing and the belt holders, what will we see? Of the four heavyweight champions, are not three white? I understand your argument. You will now introduce us, once more, to the hallowed names of Mohammed Ali, Mike Tyson, Sugar Ray, etc. etc. Aside from being black, however, what else do these men have in common? Could it not be that they were all professional boxers in the only country in the world, for half a century, where professional boxers found commercial success and cultural acceptance/veneration? A country with vast wealth to expend on sports, sporting development and sports entertainment?

The rise of Russians, Cubans, Ukrainians and others in professional boxing over the last decade was not accidental. The fall of the Soviet Union allowed these fighters to remove themselves from the glories of amateur success, and enter professional boxing on their own terms. The Cubans remain the only boxing powerhouse still badly under-represented in the world of professional boxing.

Now you may mention that many Cuban fighters are black. This is something that Cuba has in common with the United States. But, pray tell, why do not countries like Ghana, Togo, Nigeria (Sam Peter excepted), Niger, Congo, Ivory Coast etc. produce boxing talent? Why is it dominated so completely by five countries, of which only two have significant black minorities? If you say that they concentrate, perhaps, on other sports, why do they still underperform so badly on the world stage in their now-traditional team sport; soccer/football? Whilst sub-Saharan Africa produces notable individual players, why are the African Champions an Egyptian national team that is decidedly non-black?

In basketball, the travesty that is the United States national team has failed to produce against teams made up entirely of European whites. We are told that these Europeans are simply not athletic enough, not fast enough. Yet, teams like Argentina, Spain, Greece and Serbia have excellent records. They have won the World Championships on many occasions. Team USA, on the other hand, has fallen apart, time and time again. We are told that the best American talent completely outperforms its European counterparts. Yet, key NBA players are emerging of a European background. Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, Manu Ginobili (Argentinian, granted). The Draft Express has predicted that the #1 draft pick for 2009 is Spain's 17 y/o phenom, Ricky Rubio - a very white Spaniard.

What has changed since the US dominance of almost half a century? Could it be that, since the 1970s, the sport has finally gained a measure of POPULARITY in Europe? That more children are picking it up, and favoring it over the largest and most developed sport in the world (football)? And that the gap has begun to close?

Consider: FMP Zeleznik, a Serbian team of 16 and 17 year olds, is rated by NBA scouts as, FAR AND AWAY, the best junior team in Europe and, realistically, the world. Scouts who've traveled the United States, watching the best high school teams, consider this very white, very European team to be on an entirely different level.

So far, you have done little but point to sports traditionally dominated by blacks (realistically, African Americans, in most cases - not black Africans). Let's walk away from that for a second. Let's talk about other sports. Why is it, then, that there are almost no black players in the NHL? Where are the blacks in swimming? Blake and the Williams sisters aside, what of the blacks in tennis? Where are the blacks in World's Strongest Man competitions? Since 2000, a Polish man has won that title four times. You point to steroids. I ask: why don't blacks use such methods, then, if they are available to whites?

You point to Ronnie Coleman. I point to the white winner (having defeated Coleman in 06) of the last two Mr. Olympia competitions (Jay Cutler) - this being the competition Mr. Coleman is famous for winning eight times.

How can we explain all these seeming contradictions?

I believe that many theses have been written on this issue, and they all point to one clear conclusion: there are many factors that determine sporting/athletics demographics. A huge number of them are institutional and economic. Many are cultural. Very, very few are biological or genetic.

In reality, this debate is nonsensical. sprawl&brawl, you, through your black nationalism (however reasonable you yourself may be, generally) and chauvinism have opened a veritable Pandora's Box. You can bet your bottom dollar that no person of white extraction here appreciates being told that some people are 'created more equal' than others - with the clear implication that blacks are athletically superior to whites. By that same token, I would hope you do not appreciate being told blacks are lazy and stupid, based on their current socio-economic situation. Of the world's poorest countries, how many would be majority black? Of the world's richest, how many majority white? Does this tell us anything? SHOULD this tell us anything?

Sweeping generalizations, left unexplained, leave a sour taste in my mouth.

This argument is the argument of children and racists. For the sake of intellectual honesty, understand that simplistic notions of black and white do not explain anything, and only serve to aggravate existing tensions within our communities.

Regards,
Malko

[CPH]

That's quite the first post Malko.

[mschatz]

Originally Posted by CPH

That's quite the first post Malko.

Agreed

[KO Cav]

I thought it was pretty much garbage.

[Malko]

Thanks, gentlemen! I think this is an issue that deserves serious introspection and understanding, rather than painting its picture with broad, idealized strokes.

KO Cav:

If you don't mind, in the future, don't bother responding to my posts if the substantive element of the retort amounts to 'I thought it was pretty much all garbage'. I can deal with specific counter arguments. I can even offer up explanations, clarifications and rebuttals to your responses. But what you just said doesn't really give me much room to work with. If you wish to participate in an honest debate, you are absolutely welcomed to do so.

What you did, though, is, I believe, politely called 'trolling' on forums like this. In other words, a blatant hit and run on a post that took some time to construct. I even had to research that sucker, believe it or not. It took you ten seconds to denigrate it. I'm not trying to insult you, but I don't appreciate that. If you don't care, that's your prerogative. Try to care so little as to not respond, period, if that's the case.

Please note that I've had the respect to engage you courteously, here. Have the same respect, and make the world a slightly better place - even if the 'world' in this case amounts to Sherdog forums.

Regards,
Malko

[sprawl&brawl]

Originally Posted by Malko

sprawl&brawl:

I'm unsure how far you wish to take this line of arguing. I suggest you don't overstretch. Down this road lie some ugly stereotypes. You argue, using contemporary realities (i.e. those only true of the last half century or so) that black athletes are superior, pointing to their predominance, numerically speaking, in a number of sports - for example, basketball, American football and boxing. I am averse to looking at the other side of this coin. On that side we have some compelling 'evidence' of the sort you are peddling. For example, using your logic, I may state the following:

'Black people are inherently incapable in a cognitive sense' - I need only point out the vast, vast superiority of Caucasian and Asian persons in scientific and technical fields to corroborate this statement. I can further point to the incredible pool of literature and cultural works created by persons of those backgrounds, and attempt to portray blacks as 'stupid'. Or, simply, not as intelligent as their white counterparts. You could bring up some black award winners in certain categories, and individuals who've created marvelous things and say 'Well, look, here are some examples of black intellectuals'. And then I can name ten or twenty white intellectuals for each name you throw my way, thereby 'disproving' your point.

Modern IQ tests are holistic. They are designed to measure both cognitive and spatial capacities, as well as certain linguistic and logical ones. If I put the same test before a group of African-American children and a group of Caucasian children, by extension of the above, it is not difficult to predict the outcome. So what does this tell us?

If we go by sprawl&brawl's reasoning, the resulting comprehension is unkind to the African-American, and blacks generally. But do they deserve this? Are blacks stupid and incompetent, and otherwise incapable? Is it that simple, that clean-cut? If you'll excuse the pun, is it really that black and white? My thesis is this: it is not. You are forgetting a number of factors that modify both the scope and the context of this debate. You conveniently confine the debate to a geographical locality (the United States), to a number of activities (sprinting, professional boxing, basketball and American football), and ignore social, cultural and economic factors underlying these realities.

Consider:

Why do you ignore the only measure of international boxing in your evaluation of the success of blacks in the sport? I am, of course, talking about the Olympics. Let us do a cursory examination of summer Olympic events, and the results thereof:

2004 Olympics:

SHW: 1st Alexander Povetkin (RUS), 2nd Mohamed Aly (Egypt), 3rd Michael Lopez Nunez/Roberto Cammarelle (CUB/ITA)

HW: 1st Odlanier Solis (CUB), 2nd Viktar Zuyev (BLR), 3rd Mohamed Elsayed/Naser al Shami (EGY/SYR)

LHW: 1st Andre Ward (USA), 2nd Magomed Aripgadjiev (BLR), 3rd Ahmed Ismail/Utkirbek Haydarov (EGY/UZB)

MW: 1st Gaydarbek Gayderbakov (RUS), 2nd Gennadiy Golovkin (KAZ), 3rd Suriya Prasathinphimai/Andre Direll

WW: 1st Bakhtiyar Artayev (KAZ), 2nd Lorenzo Aragon Armenteros (CUB), 3rd Kim Jung Joo/Oleg Saitov (KOR/RUS)

Medal Tallies:

Cuba: 8
Russia: 6
Kazakhstan: 3
Thailand: 3
US: 2
Belarus: 2

IF WE ASSUME that EVERY Cuban, American and French (large black minority) boxer is black, of the 44 available medals, 11 were won by black boxers.

If we look, at this very moment, to professional boxing and the belt holders, what will we see? Of the four heavyweight champions, are not three white? I understand your argument. You will now introduce us, once more, to the hallowed names of Mohammed Ali, Mike Tyson, Sugar Ray, etc. etc. Aside from being black, however, what else do these men have in common? Could it not be that they were all professional boxers in the only country in the world, for half a century, where professional boxers found commercial success and cultural acceptance/veneration? A country with vast wealth to expend on sports, sporting development and sports entertainment?

The rise of Russians, Cubans, Ukrainians and others in professional boxing over the last decade was not accidental. The fall of the Soviet Union allowed these fighters to remove themselves from the glories of amateur success, and enter professional boxing on their own terms. The Cubans remain the only boxing powerhouse still badly under-represented in the world of professional boxing.

Now you may mention that many Cuban fighters are black. This is something that Cuba has in common with the United States. But, pray tell, why do not countries like Ghana, Togo, Nigeria (Sam Peter excepted), Niger, Congo, Ivory Coast etc. produce boxing talent? Why is it dominated so completely by five countries, of which only two have significant black minorities? If you say that they concentrate, perhaps, on other sports, why do they still underperform so badly on the world stage in their now-traditional team sport; soccer/football? Whilst sub-Saharan Africa produces notable individual players, why are the African Champions an Egyptian national team that is decidedly non-black?

In basketball, the travesty that is the United States national team has failed to produce against teams made up entirely of European whites. We are told that these Europeans are simply not athletic enough, not fast enough. Yet, teams like Argentina, Spain, Greece and Serbia have excellent records. They have won the World Championships on many occasions. Team USA, on the other hand, has fallen apart, time and time again. We are told that the best American talent completely outperforms its European counterparts. Yet, key NBA players are emerging of a European background. Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, Manu Ginobili (Argentinian, granted). The Draft Express has predicted that the #1 draft pick for 2009 is Spain's 17 y/o phenom, Ricky Rubio - a very white Spaniard.

What has changed since the US dominance of almost half a century? Could it be that, since the 1970s, the sport has finally gained a measure of POPULARITY in Europe? That more children are picking it up, and favoring it over the largest and most developed sport in the world (football)? And that the gap has begun to close?

Consider: FMP Zeleznik, a Serbian team of 16 and 17 year olds, is rated by NBA scouts as, FAR AND AWAY, the best junior team in Europe and, realistically, the world. Scouts who've traveled the United States, watching the best high school teams, consider this very white, very European team to be on an entirely different level.

So far, you have done little but point to sports traditionally dominated by blacks (realistically, African Americans, in most cases - not black Africans). Let's walk away from that for a second. Let's talk about other sports. Why is it, then, that there are almost no black players in the NHL? Where are the blacks in swimming? Blake and the Williams sisters aside, what of the blacks in tennis? Where are the blacks in World's Strongest Man competitions? Since 2000, a Polish man has won that title four times. You point to steroids. I ask: why don't blacks use such methods, then, if they are available to whites?

You point to Ronnie Coleman. I point to the white winner (having defeated Coleman in 06) of the last two Mr. Olympia competitions (Jay Cutler) - this being the competition Mr. Coleman is famous for winning eight times.

How can we explain all these seeming contradictions?

I believe that many theses have been written on this issue, and they all point to one clear conclusion: there are many factors that determine sporting/athletics demographics. A huge number of them are institutional and economic. Many are cultural. Very, very few are biological or genetic.

In reality, this debate is nonsensical. sprawl&brawl, you, through your black nationalism (however reasonable you yourself may be, generally) and chauvinism have opened a veritable Pandora's Box. You can bet your bottom dollar that no person of white extraction here appreciates being told that some people are 'created more equal' than others - with the clear implication that blacks are athletically superior to whites. By that same token, I would hope you do not appreciate being told blacks are lazy and stupid, based on their current socio-economic situation. Of the world's poorest countries, how many would be majority black? Of the world's richest, how many majority white? Does this tell us anything? SHOULD this tell us anything?

Sweeping generalizations, left unexplained, leave a sour taste in my mouth.

This argument is the argument of children and racists. For the sake of intellectual honesty, understand that simplistic notions of black and white do not explain anything, and only serve to aggravate existing tensions within our communities.

Regards,
Malko

Terrific post. I have to admit. You definitely propose a better organized thought process and you relayed it in the post nicely. However, to be clear, i am caucasian and have no axe to grind. I will always contend and i think the numbers will support; that blacks are superior in the ballastic sports (weightlifting--the jury is still out as far as i'm concerned).. Your right; talking about this material and debating the topic upsets people. It definitely leaves a bad taste in peoples mouth. We need to be on the same page: I'm not a child, nor a racist. I see raw talent, skills, and attributes when they are visiable. This has been, for the most part, my arguement the whole time. The ronnie coleman statement was more based on his strength exploits, not his physique or last two MR. O apperances. Well see, if some of these european bb players will a make stronger impact in the NBA in the years to come. That remains to be determined. I'm not trying to stir up a racial sterotype debate shit storm. I'm just challenging a few people and topics.

[ChickenLegs]

I love how Sprawl & Brawl is owning the fuck out of most of these arguments, only to be rebutted by shitty semantics that has little to nothing with the arguments. And still conveniently enough, the majority of these counter arguments continue to ignore the Asian equation.

Sprawl % brawl, my advice is to just give up. These guys who live in a magical world will never believe anything you say, they'll contest every single evidence, statistic and fact with politically correct, we-are-all-one bullshit and maintain this silly belief that all man is created equal.

Then they go back to subconsciously cheering for their favourite athletes who just ALL COINCIDENTALLY happen to be black. Yeah, it's all one giant coincident.

And what Sprawl&brawl arguing has nothing to do with this ridiculous "black nationalism" crap that you are trying to push -- that is some weak ass shit argument. I'm Asian and I'M telling you what he says is truth, and what 99% of Asians will tell you. So you can go ahead and can it with that "omg he's only saying that cuz he's a member of Black Panther" bullshit.

As for the complete tool who said shorter limbs = more power. You are the dumbest person in this thread, hands down. Read a fking book on biomechanics, you reject. If shorter limbs = more power, the 100M sprint would be dominated by 4'11-5'2 midgets and every WR in the NFL would be 5 feet tall. You are truly dumb.

[Malko]

sprawl&brawl:

My mistake - I made a hasty assumption about your background, and retract the statements that may have caused offense.

To be honest, I struggle to find an argument in this context that is not explainable institutionally, socio-economically, or culturally. What I will admit is this; there is some evidence to suggest that certain gene-pools, left undiluted, may allow for individuals to achieve higher concentrations of the type of muscle tissue that conducts explosive movements. Ergo, the blacks holding the 100m sprint record, and the difficulty for white athletes to break the 10s mark. But I wholeheartedly disagree that the end-result is a black superiority in a physical sense.

The gene-pool, as it stands, is far too malleable a thing. Are we discussing West Africans? African-Americans? African-Americans with some white heritage? Or without? Do Aboriginals count as blacks? What of the blacks in India? How do we define the parameters by which someone is 'black' of the sort that produces a star athlete in a given sport?

The Japanese, perennially considered short statured, have over the last fifty years made incredible average gains in height, as a result of more dairy products in their everyday diets. The Dutch, as a nation, are now the tallest human beings on average (6'1" average). This is all very cause and effect. Do these examples carry over to blacks? How many generations of 'mingling' before the advantage is diluted?

It's a difficult argument, either way.

ChickenLegs:

You'd motivate me to respond more effectively by not resorting to being a child. You'll notice the arguments I made were largely logic-based (chains of logic, that is) and were, to a fair extent, backed up by hard numbers. sprawl&brawl's seemingly hard-line stance on the issue (what I read appeared very chauvinistic, and very arguable, in any case) triggered my accusation, if you will, of nationalism. Believe it or not, generally speaking, claiming the superiority of any given group of people IS considered nationalism.

We ARE all part of the same species. That species is 99.9999999% uniform, if not more. Consider that between us and your common chimpanzee there is >95% genetic commonality. Our differences are minute enough that our genetic diversity is limited to appearance and resistance to particular diseases. Try to look at a slightly larger picture, and look past the 'numbers' at the reasoning behind the numbers.

Regards,
Malko