Where do the players come from?

Donate To GopherHole
Khaliq said:
It's not a fact though. It's entirely an assumption on your part. Were we to take the statistics you presented as evidence of that it would mean that yardage gained would be strictly a function of player speed regardless of the players around him, the system he plays in, his agility, strength of opponent, his ability to break tackles, etc.

So again that is ignoring a number of confounding variables. Yardage is not a good indirect indicator of speed.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how 100 m dash times are not a good indicator of speed.

I'm dying to hear the answer.
 

Khaliq said:
It's not a fact though. It's entirely an assumption on your part. Were we to take the statistics you presented as evidence of that it would mean that yardage gained would be strictly a function of player speed regardless of the players around him, the system he plays in, his agility, strength of opponent, his ability to break tackles, etc.

So again that is ignoring a number of confounding variables. Yardage is not a good indirect indicator of speed.
Click to expand...

Still waiting to see the stats you provide to support your opinion.
 

Khaliq said:
It's not a fact though. It's entirely an assumption on your part. Were we to take the statistics you presented as evidence of that it would mean that yardage gained would be strictly a function of player speed regardless of the players around him, the system he plays in, his agility, strength of opponent, his ability to break tackles, etc.

So again that is ignoring a number of confounding variables. Yardage is not a good indirect indicator of speed.
Click to expand...

Okay, that made me chuckle.:clap:

The author of the original article did try to explain some of the "other factors" mentioned in this thread.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...ctid=96&articleid=20100129_222_0_WhenOk719881
 


I mean hell if yardage were directly correlated with speed Michael Bennett would be posing for his Canton Bust right now.
 


Khaliq said:
It's not a fact though. It's entirely an assumption on your part. Were we to take the statistics you presented as evidence of that it would mean that yardage gained would be strictly a function of player speed regardless of the players around him, the system he plays in, his agility, strength of opponent, his ability to break tackles, etc.

So again that is ignoring a number of confounding variables. Yardage is not a good indirect indicator of speed.
Click to expand...

OK I can see your point as for which statistics are most relevant, but I think it is hard to argue with the 40 times at the NFL combine. Take a look at which race dominates the fastest times.

I understand that you don't want to give up the argument, but come on. I am farily surprised that someone actually thinks that among high level FBS football players, the fastest players are not generally African-Americans.
 

MaroonandGold said:
OK I can see your point as for which statistics are most relevant, but I think it is hard to argue with the 40 times at the NFL combine. Take a look at which race dominates the fastest times.

I understand that you don't want to give up the argument, but come on. I am farily surprised that someone actually thinks that among high level FBS football players, the fastest players are not generally African-Americans.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I don't dispute that there are a disproportionate number of high performance black athletes in college and pro sports, what I dispute is the implication that it's due to genetic factors. When people say they need to go find black guys because they're fast there's an ugly implication there. That's all.
 

Khaliq said:
When people say they need to go find black guys because they're fast there's an ugly implication there. That's all.
Click to expand...

+1
Thank you, and that should be the end of the discussion. However, I am sure it will not be. It will be the last time I waste my time on this post however.
 

Khaliq said:
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I don't dispute that there are a disproportionate number of high performance black athletes in college and pro sports, what I dispute is the implication that it's due to genetic factors. When people say they need to go find black guys because they're fast there's an ugly implication there. That's all.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear...You said I was racist for pointing out that the majority of top players are black guys from the deep South/SoCal/Rust belt. That's simple demographics my friend. The rest is all presumptions on your part.

What exactly is the "ugly implication" in saying black guys are fast though? I still don't understand that part.
 




The reason there are no Filipinos in the NHL is that they're genetically engineered to skate poorly.
 

Khaliq said:
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I don't dispute that there are a disproportionate number of high performance black athletes in college and pro sports, what I dispute is the implication that it's due to genetic factors. When people say they need to go find black guys because they're fast there's an ugly implication there. That's all.
Click to expand...

Okay...

Coaches looking for speed end-up recruiting more black kids because most of the High School kids they hear about that have speed are black. Logan Payne was suppose to be the fastest guy on the team when he played a few years ago, but the majority of the "fastest guy on the team" at Minnesota have probably been black.

People who hate Stage Parents tend to hate Sean Henderson even though the vast majority of Stage Parents have been and are white. People are upset because of what he's done or are upset that he's being criticized for what he's done or are upset because he's getting criticized because he's black.

People are being called racist for acknowledging the first, because of the "why". People are being called racist for acknowledging the second because of the "who".

It's been a hell of a lot of fun around here lately hasn't it. :banghead:
 

(Sorry in advance, this might get long winded)

Ok, I’ve seen enough, time to interrupt this madness. ….I was a Biology Major in college, and I also played sports, maybe I can help shed some light on this subject.

Blacks are naturally faster then Whites, period. How this guy can think otherwise is beyond me. The more important debate however, is WHY. This was a topic that was discussed in my Anatomy & physiology lectures several times, and this is what I took away from it….

Every person that you have ever met, black or white, has the exact same number of muscles. In fact, when the skin of a human is removed, other the genetic testing, there is absolutely no way of determining a persons ethnicity. The only muscular difference between West African Americans (ill get into that in a sec) and whites is muscular composition ratios. All muscles in the body are made up both “Fast Twitch” and “Slow Twitch” fibers. The Fast twitch fibers are made for fast, explosive movements. While the slow ones are made for slow, supporting, endurance type movements. Example: when you throw a rock as hard as you can, those are fast twitch fibers at work. Hold a big rock above your head, those are the slow twitch doing the work. And every has a certain ratio of these fibers. Percy Harvin is probably about 80% fast, 20% slow. Lance Armstrong is probably 80% slow, 20% fast. Neither one of them, no matter how much training, could ever do the other ones job

Now, when it comes to athletic performance in spiriting, jumping type events, the people that excel will all have a higher ratio of Fast Twitch vs. Slow Twitch muscles. Conversely, when you see a 1600 meter race, those with a higher ratio of slow twitch fibers will be the ones to excel. A person needs to watch one international track and field meet to confirm the ethnicity of the participants in those events.

And when it comes to the population of blacks in the US, the vast majority of them come from West African ancestry. (years of genetic studies have proven this) Take a peak at a globe, and you will see why this made logistical sense for the slave traders.

Now look at the athletes from west Africa vs. east African countries. The men from Liberia, Nigeria ETC are great at sprints and the guys from Kenya are great marathon runners. (Again, genetic studies have proven these fiber ratios)

Its not a coincidence that the premiere sprinters in the world come from west African ancestry. Blacks from the U.S, Jamaica, Canada ETC are born from the best genetic pool (for fast twitch muscles) in the world.

No amount of training, motivation, coaching ETC will ever make a Larry Bird jump higher then a Michael Jordan. ITS ALL GENETICS
 




I have no idea who on this board is racist. We probably all are to varying degrees. One thing I do know is that physiological differences between white and black people as it relates to competitive sport is a subject much researched and discussed in legitimate academic circles. Khaliq, I think you should take your objections to a number of institutions. Columbia and many more have funded high visibility studies. If you simply use Google you will find them, some of which are available for viewing on the Internet. Be careful, because scattered amongst the serious work is a bunch of baloney, as you might imagine. Most reputable studies agree there is a definite physiological difference in spinal / rib cage and limb structure between blacks and whites that allows black people greater levels of quick, powerful movement. There are also some body fat differences noted between fit individuals of various races. In modern American society those differences most often manifest themselves in the athletic arena, whether that be the schoolyard playground or competitive sports. We're talking physiological data gleaned from objective, scientific study using controlled subjects, including post-mortem autopsy. Scientific fact is not racist. That dubious distinction, if applicable, belongs to the person pursuing debate.
 

GophersInIowa said:
The low New York and Arizona numbers are surprising to me. Interesting to look at, thanks for sharing GG.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on the Arizona numbers, however I would bet that if the population shift continues that in 10-15 years you will see the numbers increase significantly in places like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Texas. Unfortunately, the Big Ten rust belt states of Michigan and Ohio will probably see a huge drop as their economies are dying and many people are being forced to move away from economic reasons. It will be interesting to see what impact this has on the Big Ten in the long run with so much of the conferences athletes coming from these rust belt states.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom