Chris Marcus - player race issue

There's a difference between saying something that is racist and believing it. When someone employs a racial sterotype to be funny, it is open to debate whether the sterotype is genuinely believed (since the point is to be funny, not to say something that is true). But, when someone says, 'blacks are, on average, more athletic than whites,' the reader gets the sense that this is a genuinely held belief. (And one which seems to be adhered to without sufficient evidence. Has there been some study comparing athleticism across races?) That's what gets people's backs up: not racist statements but evidence of a genuine racist belief system.

From the Marcus interview, does it concern anyone that he wasn't really interested in playing basketball until he was told he could get a basketball scholarship out of it?

 

Maybe I started this whole fuss by stating that 7 foot balck guys are good hoop players and 7 foot white guys are not. I didnt intend to cause a race riot. What I meant was that for every 7 foot white guy you can name who was a good NBA player, I could name 5 or 6 7 foot black guys.

 

Right now in my opinion the two most athletic 7 footers in the league are also the two best forwards in the league. Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki. They have different games from eachother but they both can play anywhere in the frontcourt and well. Would you make your decision to get one of these guys over the other because of race or is their game just alltogether more important. It is true that basketball more than any sport is heavily populated with black players but I would say that racial genetics aren't the main reason. I wouldn't say its completely inconsequential but I simply think its not the main reason. Anyway lets be done with this stereotyping deal it's not interesting.

 

It doesn't concern me.
As with all of us, I think there needs to be some level of motivation to get us to act on something.

What motivated Hakeem to turn in his soccer ball for a basketball?
What motivated Olowakandi to contact small Pacific University about a basketball scholarship while he was living in Eurpoe?
What motivated Ervin Johnson to stop bagging groceries in a Louisiana market and contact New Orleans University about a basketball scholarship?

Marcus wasn't motivated to play basketball until he learned that it could help him get an education. Education appears to have been the motivating factor.

What's motivating Marcus to continue to work on his game? I would guess the promise of millions associated with being a lottery pick.

And once in the NBA, what will motiviate him to continue his development? Possibly the hope of a Championship.

I actually find that statement refreshing, and maybe his contributions will go beyond the boundaries of a basketball court.

 

It's there enough space in your brain?I haven't been around long, but I find it ironic the SENIOR MEMBERS would bring up and fuel a debate that has racial implications. As far as I remember, your not supposed to on this board.Color has nothing to do with drafting Marcus, and I'm sorry I bit into your ignorant conversation in the first place.Why don't you people who believe in ignorant stereotypes get a life and not buy into them, and maybe they'll go away.Oh I just figured out why I couldn't find the space bar NJRocket, because I'm not a stereoTYPIST.The day we stop generalizing one another, will be the day we stop seperating ourselves from one another.PLEASE SOMEONE WITH SOME REAL SENIORITY GET RID OF THIS THREAD BEFORE IT TURNS EVEN MORE PATHETIC.
IS


THIS









GOOD













ENOUGH











FOR















YOU










?

 

Tell me why then?

 

This argument needs to come to close, but a couple of things need to be said:

Out of curiousity, NJ Rocket, remember Yinka Dare? Chris Washburn? Yogi Stewart? There have been plenty of black seven footers who have been busts, but they simply aren't noticed as much as the white big men, who stand out since they're the minority.

Only if it is true...but that doesn't mean they are inherinetly dumber or more violent. All it means is that they don't have opportunities that richer americians do.

Well, on the flip side of that coin, Caucasian players who you term "richer" may not have as much time or determination to build strength, muscle, and improve their athleticism. If they have more money, they probably have a lot of diversity and aren't raised around basketball. It doesn't mean they're inherently less athletic, unless there have been studies done that I haven't seen.

 

Richer people have less determination? It would be wrong of me to infer from your statement that Blacks are more likely to want to play basketball more? That sounds borderline racist. Basketball is a sport that can be played all around the world. IF I wanted to, I could play right now. The availability is there for both the rich and poor.

This is an article from a fitness site. I'll provide a link if necessary.


WARNING: If you're a white bigot, don't read the following article. It might cause your red neck to get even redder. The premise of this article is, quite simply, that blacks are better athletes than whites. Authors Antonio and Street back it up mostly with cold, hard, seemingly irrefutable facts. Why has it been published in Testosterone? Well, it's about sports, it's about muscle, and it's something other publishers are loathe to touch. It's too…controversial. I guess that's what attracted us to the article in the first place. But why is it controversial? Anyone who watches sports must have noticed that there are a disproportionate number of black professional athletes out there. It must be that Billy Bob doesn't want to hear that blacks are faster than whites. In fact, Billy Bob doesn't want to hear that blacks are superior to whites in any way, shape, manner, or form.

Read the article. Tell us what you think. If it pisses you off, we're not located at 10 North Meade in Colorado Springs; we're in the building next door; or maybe the one across the street; anywhere but 10 North Meade.


"Well, I always say that the best athletes in the world play in the NBA. I say this because the hand-eye coordination is there, the speed, the jumping ability. They are the best conditioned athletes in the world, in my opinion.... It is a fact, you look at it and it goes from somebody as small as Mugsy Bogues that plays in that league to someone as big as Shaquille O'Neil. Hakeem Olajuwon is probably 7 foot with the agility of someone that is about 6 foot. Its just a fact that blacks are better. I don't know why, it's maybe some genetic makeup or something, but it's there."

—Excerpt from an interview with Andre Ware
NFL Quarterback and Heisman Trophy Winner


The Myth of Black and White Athletic Equality

It is apparent to most of us that there are profound differences between individuals when it comes to academic, professional, or athletic performance. In fact, it's so obvious that we expect someone to be the tallest, shortest, smartest, fastest, or dumbest within any group of people. Your experience in grade school through college made it apparent that not all of us could make the dean's list much less play on a Division I football team. Some people just don't have the tools.

Why then do people assume that all groups of people (i.e. races, ethnicities, etc.) have the same talents and capacities? Certainly, this country was founded on the belief that all men (and presumably women) were created equally? Was it not? The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." President Jefferson was a brilliant man, but with regard to all men created equal, certainly in a biological sense, nothing could be further from the truth.

There is a huge difference between male black and white athletes when it comes to speed, i.e. sprint performance, particularly the 100-meter (100m) dash. The top twenty fastest times in the men's 100m dash in 1994 were all held by blacks (from different countries such as US, Canada, Nigeria, and Great Britain). An examination of the Olympic 100m dash in the past 20-30 years shows an utter dominance by black athletes. Within the US, it is obvious that black Americans dominate the 100m dash at the high school and college level. The "speed" positions in professional American football (i.e. tailback, wide receiver, cornerback) are almost exclusively held by blacks. In fact, there was just a single white athlete starting at any of those three positions in professional football in 1997.

Such a huge discrepancy, yet the most common (public) explanation for this phenomenon is that blacks are socialized to excel at these events. Really? You mean to say that out of a country of approximately 260 million, where blacks make up only 12% of the population, in which there are 5-6 times more whites than blacks, that there are no white guys who excel at these activities? Furthermore, you never see an Asian (American or otherwise) competing in the higher echelon of these sports. Nor do you see any Hispanics or Latinos in these events. Granted, socialization may explain, in part, the apparent dominance of blacks in football or basketball, but this explanation is sorely inadequate when it comes to running.

Everyone can run, and it doesn't matter whether you are in China, Russia, or the US You don't need any special equipment and it doesn't require any specialized skills. Because of the ubiquity of running, one would expect somewhat proportional representation among all races or groups of people in world class competition (e.g., Olympics). That, of course, is based on the premise that all races have equal capacities for running fast. Yet, the reality is that one group, blacks, win nearly every sprint race. Whites will on occasion win (Valeri Borzov of the former Soviet Union won the 100m and 200m dash at the 1972 Olympics). However, Asians will, in our humble opinion, never be competitive with black Americans in world class sprinting. The idea that blacks are socialized to excel in sprints is disputable in that many of these black athletes come from countries other than the United States. Are blacks from the United Kingdom, the Caribbean, and West Africa also "socialized" to run fast?

Besides, in a country with over 20% of the world's population, why can't China field a 100m sprinter to compete with black Americans who represent a paltry 0.6% of the world's population. Is there a white or Asian equivalent of Carl Lewis or Michael Johnson out there?

It certainly stands to reason that if races differ in facial shape, height, weight, skin color, or hair texture, why should a characteristic such as running fast be identical between different groups? It would seem extremely naive to believe that we all have the same capacities and abilities.


Motor Geniuses

Scientific evidence suggests that black infants are more advanced than white children in motor development during the first two years of life. Several studies which have compared black and white American infants suggest a strong race difference in motor development. Fourth, fifth, and sixth grade black boys and girls run the 35 yard dash faster than their white peers. Also, black boys in high school have a greater vertical jump than white boys. In a review by Robert Malina in The Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences (1988), the author compiled several studies of motor performance between black and white males between 1938 and 1976. Even over this extended period of time, the results are remarkably consistent. That is, blacks did better in tests of motor ability at all time points. Blacks performed better in the dash (sprint). How much of a difference in motor performance can be attributed to environmental vs. genetic causes? The fact that black children demonstrate better motor abilities than whites does not support the idea that blacks are pushed into sports which require speed. Certainly, these children have not had ample time nor the instruction or coaching to train for speed.


Real World Speed

In an intriguing study done in 1988 at Ohio State University by David W. Hunter (now at Hampton University), he compared laboratory and "real-world" measurements of anaerobic power or performance. He examined 74 black and 62 white males (avg age = 16.5 yr). There were no differences in age, height, weight, lean body weight, and body mass index (body weight in kilograms divided by the square of body height in meters). However, black subjects had significantly less percentage of body fat. There were no differences in anaerobic power measured using the Wingate test and the Margaria power test (two common laboratory tests used to measure anaerobic performance). However, black subjects performed significantly better at the vertical jump and 40-yard dash (4.8 vs. 5.0 seconds) than the white subjects. A difference of 4.8 and 5.0 seconds in the 40-yard dash may seem insignificant. But on the playing field, this numerically small difference could translate into a huge performance difference. All things being equal, the faster athlete is usually the better athlete.

Interestingly, Dr. Hunter performed a statistical manipulation called Analysis of Covariance, or ANCOVA for short. ANCOVA for the 40-yard dash with the percent fat as the covariate, according to Dr. Hunter, "washed out" the statistical difference in the 40-yard dash between the groups. What this means in English is that when you equate blacks and whites for percent fat, then there is no difference in sprint performance. Furthermore, when height, weight, percent fat, lean body mass, and body mass index were used as covariates, there was no longer any differences between blacks and whites. But what's so intriguing about the Hunter data is that even while equalizing percent fat for the black and white subjects, the black subjects still had a faster dash time! (4.851 sec vs. 4.947 sec). The fact of the matter is, blacks have on average, much less body fat than whites. And if this variable provides black males with an advantage in sprinting, then so be it. Massaging the data with various statistical tests only clouds the obvious facts. Blacks and whites are not the same. Blacks (of all ages) do run faster than whites on average. Yes, there are fast white guys, but not many.


Fast Versus Slow Muscle

Muscle is the key to athletics, period! There is nothing more obvious in comparing the physiques of different athletes than the way their muscles are shaped for a specific task or purpose. Keep in mind that sprint (and endurance) athletes at the world-class level tend to exhibit extreme differences in fiber-type percentages. Sprint athletes may have 75% or more fast-twitch fibers while distance runners may have 75% or more of slow-twitch fibers. For the most part, fiber type composition is a product of heredity; however, training may alter it slightly, but not enough to result in the high percentage of fast-twitch fibers needed in elite sprinters.

Canadian scientists, Drs. J. Simoneau and C. Bouchard, have estimated that 40% of the phenotypic variance of fiber type is due to environmental influences (i.e. exercise) while 45% is associated with genetic factors. (The remaining 15% is due to sampling error). So in actuality, all athletes are born with a given potential. Training will maximize that potential. But if you're not born with the potential, you will never become a world-class sprinter or distance runner.

Does the predominance of blacks in sprints suggest that blacks, as a group, tend to be better endowed with fast-twitch muscle fibers? There is only one scientific report which measured skeletal muscle characteristics in a black and white population. Ama, et al. examined 23 black male African students from Cameroon, Senegal, Zaire, Ivory Coast, and Burundi and 23 male Caucasian students from Laval University in Canada. These were untrained sedentary individuals. They were matched for age, body weight, and body mass index (weight measured in kilos divided by the square of height in meters). Muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle of the thigh revealed that the white subjects had 8% more Type I muscle fibers and 7% less Type IIa fibers than black subjects. Enzymes involved in the phosphagenic and glycolytic metabolic pathways were 30-40% higher in black subjects. These metabolic pathways are the ones used during quick burst activities (i.e. sprint). These results are compatible with the idea that blacks, as a group, seem to be better endowed to perform well in sprint events. We are aware, however, that other factors besides muscle fiber type can contribute to excellence in the sprint. In a similar study, scientists compared the performance of 15 black men from Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Tchad, and Zaire and 17 white Canadians of French descent. They were matched for weight, height, body mass index, fat-free mass, and thigh volume. They did maximal isometric contractions of the knee extensors for 10, 30, and 90 seconds and found no statistically significant difference in maximal force or total work performed. However, there was a trend for blacks to exceed whites in peak power output (9% higher) although it was not statistically significant.

Keep in mind, however, that very small differences in physical performance may translate into a very meaningful difference in the "real" world of athletic competition. Just check out any major track meet and examine the differences in time between first and last place. The difference in time between first and second place is often much less than 1 percent. The difference between first and last place is a mere 2-3 percent. When the difference between the gold and silver medal is determined by 100ths of seconds, it is obvious that just because a statistical difference is not demonstrable, it does not necessarily mean that real performance differences do not exist! So in reference to the aforementioned Canadian study, it is true that statistically significant differences were not found between blacks and whites in peak power output (albeit blacks had a 9% higher average value); nevertheless, it is obvious that differences much smaller than that result in very profound effects on who the winners and losers are in a race.


More Muscle, Less Fat

Anthropometry (the science of measuring the human body) and body fat distribution was ascertained in over 100 Anglo-, black-, and Mexican-American men and women. Black-American men had significantly less total fat than either Anglo- or Mexican-American men. Black men also had less arm fat than both groups and less truncal fat than Mexican-Americans. Black-American women tended to carry less body fat than Mexican-American women; however, they did not significantly differ from Anglo-American women.

There is ample data to show that blacks of all ages do possess less absolute and relative body fat than whites. In addition, blacks possess greater appendicular muscle mass than whites or Asians. This racial difference certainly confers an advantage in which extreme leanness is a prerequisite.


Longer Legs, But a Shorter Trunk

"We are built a little differently, built for speed—skinny calves, long legs, high asses are all characteristics of blacks. That's why blacks wear long socks. We have skinny calves, and short socks won't stay up. I'll argue with any doctor that physically we're geared to speed, and most sports have something to do with speed."

—OJ Simpson
Time Magazine, 1977


Now we're not so sure about the socks, but as far as the rest of the statement, we actually agree with the Greatest Running Back (and double murderer) ever to grace the football field. The length of the upper and lower extremities between blacks, whites, and Asians is obviously different to anyone with 20/20 vision. Asians (East Asians: Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese) tend to be smaller with relatively short extremities and long torsos. Blacks tend to have relatively long extremities with short torsos and whites are somewhere in between.

As early as 1939, it has been reported that as a group, blacks tend to have longer arms and legs (as a percentage of height), narrower hips, and more slender calves than whites. According to noted scientist Robert Malina, "black youth have absolutely and relatively longer lower extremities than Mexican-American and white youth."


No Bones About It

The greater body density of blacks is likely due to a higher bone density. In a study by Bell et al., they compared bone density in 59 normal white men and 40 normal black men (ages 20-50). They found that the bone mineral density was higher in blacks than in whites measured at the lumbar spine, trochanter, and femoral neck. In a similar study which matched black and white men in mean weight, height, and body mass index, black men again had higher bone mineral densities at every site measured (5% for the radius, 10% for the lumbar spine, and 20% for the femoral neck).

Scientists believe that blacks have heavier bones at all stages of life, including infancy. Skeletons of blacks exceed white skeletons and male skeletons exceed female skeletons in mean weight and density.

That notion that bone density among American (and many African) blacks exceeds that of white and Asians is beyond dispute. Blacks maintain such a difference despite lower calcium intake than whites and a higher prevalence of lactose intolerance which prevents them from consuming dairy products.


Testosterone

It is known that testosterone is anabolic with regard to skeletal muscle and catabolic with regard to fat. Could this explain the increased muscularity and decreased fat mass of blacks vs. whites and other races or ethnicities? In the few studies that are available, blacks have a modest but significantly higher level of plasma testosterone (3-19%). Could this affect athletic performance? We strongly believe so. It would make it easier to accrue skeletal muscle mass. Further, it may aid one's training by increasing training intensity and recovery ability, translating of course, into better performance.


Summary

Based on the available evidence, it is plausible that there are physical differences between the races which cannot be accounted for by environmental influences. Some differences may or may not predispose blacks to excellence in speed events. Mere observation of both male and female sprinters reveals that the overwhelming majority of them have short torsos and relatively long upper and lower extremities. Furthermore, extreme leanness is a hallmark characteristic of elite sprinters. And it is a well known fact, that blacks on average do carry less body fat than whites. Thus, it would make sense that at least with regard to this characteristic, blacks have an advantage.

The difference in fiber type between blacks and whites needs to be repeated and confirmed. However, empirical evidence (i.e. the domination of sprints by blacks) would suggest that blacks may have a predominance of fast-twitch muscle fibers. We would speculate that a certain percentage of fast-twitch fibers is needed (>70% ?) to sprint at the elite level. This could easily be confirmed.

The higher bone density of blacks has intriguing implications. Bone density is directly related to muscle mass. Blacks do on average carry greater appendicular skeletal muscle mass. Certainly by having more skeletal muscle mass, this would confer an athletic advantage in a general sense, in that your force output should be greater (than someone with less skeletal muscle).

Hormonal factors play a role. Higher levels of testosterone and growth hormone would, in our speculation, lead to a higher fat-free mass (especially skeletal muscle and bone) and a lower fat mass.

So is it nature vs. nurture? Well, it really is both. In essence, all athletes are born and made. Modern athletic performance is a function of better training, coaching, nutrition, ergogenic aids (licit or illicit), and heredity.

It's just too bad that the public stance of many is governed more by political correctness and a fear of being labeled a bigot or racist. The notion that all groups of people are created "equally" is naive and unsupported empirically and scientifically; and only when we can admit that, can we have a truly honest discussion concerning race and athletic performance.

NOTE: The preceding article was excerpted from the book, "Speed Demons" which is currently a work-in-progress.


About the Authors

Dr. Jose Antonio earned his Ph.D. at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He currently teaches skeletal muscle physiology at the University of Texas, Arlington, serves as a consultant for fitness/nutrition companies, and writes both scientific and popular press articles on exercise, fitness, and nutrition. He can be reached by clicking the hotlink Dr. Antonio.

Chris Street has a Master's degree in exercise physiology and is certified by the National Strength and Conditioning Association. A former competitive powerlifter, Chris combines his knowledge of exercise science with real world experience. He currently writes on various topics including nutrition, exercise training, and drug use in sports.

T


References

Ama, Pierre F.M. et al. Skeletal muscle characteristics in sedentary black and Caucasian males. Journal of Applied Physiology. 61(5):1758-1761, 1986.

Ama, Pierre F.M. et al. Anaerobic performances in black and white subjects. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 22(4):508-511, 1990.

Allemeier, C.A. et al. Effects of sprint cycle training on human skeletal muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology. 77(5):2385-2390, 1994.

Capute, A.J. et al. Normal gross motor development: The influences of race, sex, and socioeconomic status. Dev Med Child Neurol. 24:103-121, 1953.

Cauley, J.A. et al. black-white differences in serum sex hormones and bone mineral density. Am. J. Epidemiology. 139(10): 1035-1046, 1994.

Cintas, Holly M. Cross-cultural variation in infant motor development. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics. 8(4):1-20, 1988.

Costill, Dave L. et al. Skeletal muscle enzymes and fiber composition in male and female track athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology. 40(2):149-154, 1976.

Ellis, Lee and Helmuth Nyborg. Racial/ethnic variations in male testosterone levels: a probable contributor to group differences in health. Steroids. 57:72-75, 1992.

Garn, Stanley, M. Human biology and research in body composition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 110:429-446, 1963.

Greaves, Kathryn A. et al. Ethnic differences in anthropometric characteristics of young children and their parents. Human Biology. 61(3):459-477, 1989.

Heaney, Robert P. Editorial: Bone mass, the mechanostat, and ethnic differences. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 80(8):2289-2290, 1995.

Hunter, David William. A comparison of anaerobic power between black and white adolescent males. Doctoral Dissertation. Ohio State University, 1988.

James, William H. Causes of racial differences in testosterone levels of men. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 85(6):506, 1993.

Kilbride, J.E. et al. The comparative motor development of Baganda, American white and American black infants. An Anthropologist. 72:1422-1428, 1970.

Malina, Robert M. Growth and physical performance of American Negro and white children. Clinical Pediatrics. 8(8): 476-483, 1969.

Malina, Robert M. Quantification of fat, muscle, and bone in man. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 65:9-38, 1969.

Malina, Robert M. et al. Relative lower extremity length in Mexican American and in American black and white youth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 72(1): 89-94, 1987.

Malina, Robert M. Racial/ethnic variation in the motor development and performance of American children. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences. 13(2):136-143, 1988.

Metheny, E. Some differences in body proportions between American negro and white male college students as related to athletic performance. Research Quarterly. 10:41-53, 1939.

Nelson, D.A., G. Jacobsen, D.A. Barondess, and A.M. Parfitt. Ethnic differences in regional bone density, hip axis length, and lifestyle variables among healthy black and white men. Journal of Bone & Mineral Research. 10(5): 782-7, 1995.

Nelson, Jack K. and Karyn R. Nelson. Skinfold profiles of black and white boys and girls ages 11-13. Human Biology. 58(3): 379-390, 1986.

Simoneau, Jean-Aime and Claude Bouchard. Genetic determinism of fiber type proportion in human skeletal muscle. FASEB J. 9:1091-1095, 1995.

Time Magazine. The black Dominance. pp 57-60, May 9, 1977.

Williams, J.R. and R.B. Scott. Growth and development of Negro infants: Motor development and its relationship to child rearing practices in two groups of Negro infants. Child Development. 24:103-121, 1953.

Xia, L., D. Gallagher, J. Wang, Z. Wang, J.C. Thornton, and R.N. Pierson. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) is lower in Asian males (AM) than in white males. FASEB. 10(3):A733, 1996.

 

I'm going by Woodlands Boy's original statement. If wealth can be a determining factor in academic events, such as SAT scores, it certainly can be viewed as a determinant in extracurricular activities. Doing well in school to a large extent is about determination. If wealth affects determination in the classroom, it can definitely affect it on the basketball court. And as a whole, I do believe that wealth can influence behavior and determination. I am not saying this applies to all people, but around the majority of people that I have observed this is the case. Because of wealth, richer people have more diversity. Because of the parents, more doors are open. If you fail at basketball, it's not the end of the world. There's other areas for richer people to explore. However, to someone lacking in prosperity, those doors aren't all open. Sports can often be the only way that those children can afford a college education, so I think in many cases there is extra incentive for poorer people.

 

And here I thought this was a thread about the Rockets scouting a player that might help them get to the Championship again. Silly me. Please get back on the original topic.

 

Jon Entine also writes on the subject with some validity. He authored Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It

Here is an interesting article of his concerning genetic differences and marathon running. give it a go if you got the time.



Why Kenyans Win the Boston Marathon (And Why We’re Afraid To Talk About It)
By Jon Entine

It's the passion of the adoring crowds at the National Stadium in Nairobi. Coaches comb the countryside for a rising generation of stars, who are showered with special training and government perks. It's no exaggeration to call Kenya's national sport a national religion.

After 10 straight Kenyan victories in the men’s division of the Boston Marathon, and four consecutive wins by East African women, even casual fans are familiar with this success story. According to conventional wisdom, East Africans dominate because they ran to school as children, train torturously at high altitude, and are desperate to escape poverty. It’s in their culture.

There's only one problem: The national sport, hero worship, and social channeling speak to Kenya's enduring obsession with not running but soccer. Unfortunately, Kenyans (and other East Africans) are regularly trounced in the Africa Games by West African countries. It’s just not in their genes.

Science does not support the speculation that Kenyans dominate because of social factors, myths widely peddled by the media. "I lived right next door to school," laughs Wilson Kipketer, world 800-meter record holder, dismissing such cookie-cutter explanations. "I walked, nice and slow." Some kids ran to school, some didn’t, he says, but it’s not why we succeed.

And for every Kenyan monster-miler there are others, like Kipketer, who get along on less than thirty. "Training regimens are as varied in Kenya as anywhere in the world," notes Colm O’Connell, coach at St. Patrick’s Iten, the famous private school and running factory in the Rift Valley that turned out Kipketer and other Kenyan greats. O’Connell eschews the mega-training so common among runners in Europe and North America who have failed so miserably in bottling the Kenyan running miracle.

Though individual success is about fire in the belly and opportunity, genes set possibilities. East Africans win in large measure because elite runners have a near perfect biomechanical package for endurance: lean, ectomorphic physiques, large lung capacity, and a preponderance of slow twitch muscle fibers. That’s a poor anatomical profile for sprinting (the best Kenyan 100 meter time is a pokey 10.28), soccer, weightlifting, and field events, sports in which Kenyans are laggards.

"Kenyans are born with a high number of slow twitch fibers," states Bengt Saltin, director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, one of the top experts in this field. "They have 70 to 75 percent of their muscle fibers being slow. Very many in sports physiology would like to believe that it is training, the environment, what you eat that plays the most important role. But based on the data, it is in your genes whether or not you are talented or whether you will become talented."

Not surprisingly, East Africans win more than 50 percent of top endurance races. Almost all trace their ancestry to the 6,000-8,000 foot highlands that snake along the western edge of the Great Rift Valley. The loosely-named Kalenjins, roughly 1.5 million Kenyans, win 40 percent of international distance events. The Nandi district, 500,000 people–one-twelve-thousandth of Earth's population–sweeps an unfathomable 20 percent, marking it as the greatest concentration of raw athletic talent in the history of sports. "If you can believe that individuals of recent African ancestry are not genetically advantaged over those of European and Asian ancestry in certain athletic endeavors," notes retired molecular biologist Vincent Sarich, "then you probably could be led to believe just about anything. But such dominance will never convince those whose minds are made up that genetics plays not role in shaping the racial patterns we see in sports. When we discuss issues such as race, it pushes buttons and the cerebral cortex just shuts down."

Why do we so readily accept that evolution has turned out blacks with a genetic proclivity to contract sickle cell and colo-rectal cancer, Jews of European heritage who are one hundred times more likely than other groups to fall victim to the degenerative mental disease Tay-Sachs, and whites who are most vulnerable to cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis, yet find it racist to acknowledge that the success of East African distance runners, Eurasian white power lifters, and sprinters of West African ancestry can be explained, in part, by genetics?

Acknowledging any innate differences runs head-long against the American myth that everyone has an "equal possibility" at success, when the Constitution, and science, commits only to "equal opportunity." Advances in population genetics makes it quite clear that in some important ways humans are different, certainly in the proclivity to many diseases and in athletic skills. This is not "scientific racism," as some assert. Scientists who have documented anatomical differences between populations reject notions that physical ability and mental acuity are inversely linked. There is simply no denying that genes can matter.

"Differences among athletes of elite caliber are so small," notes Robert Malina, Michigan State anthropologist and editor of the Journal of Human Biology, "that if you have a physique... it might be very, very significant. The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place."

To underscore the magnitude of such an advantage, Professor Sarich calculated, based on population statistics alone, the probability that all of the last ten Boston Marathon winners would hail from the same region in Kenya: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000002. That’s functionally equivalent to the last ten winners all coming from Idaho.

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the popular myth persists that there are no meaningful genetic differences. In his State of the Union address in 2000, President Clinton declared that "We are all, regardless of race, 99.9 percent the same," apparently trying to allay fears about the potential misuse of data generated by advances in genetic science. Well, there is no detectable genetic difference between a wolf, a Labrador, and a poodle–zero–but no one would dare suggest that their body type and behavioral differences are cultural, rather than innate. Differences are grounded in gene sequences and proteins and are activated by obscure environmental triggers.

All the training in the world is not likely to turn an Inuit Eskimo, programmed to be short and stout, into an NBA center or a Nigerian (or for that matter an African American who traces his ancestry from West Africa) into an elite marathoner. The world's most elaborate sports factory combined with state-supervised illegal drug supplements still could not turn even one East German sprinter into the world's fastest human. Highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure, musculature and metabolic efficiency are not evenly distributed across population groups.

Yet, hypocrisy abounds, even among many scientists. Just last week at a conference on race and sports, Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, renowned for his political correctness as much as for his scientific acumen, apparently attempted to score some media points with his declaration that there is no "running gene." Of course, no scientist claims there is a "running gene." Geneticists and anthropologists assert only that genetics plays a role in some patterned differences between populations, including in shaping body type and physiology.

Gould’s circumlocution seem designed to play to the popular myth of equal possibility. Reuters fell for the ruse, headlining its story: "Athletic Achievement Isn't in the Genes." Yet, even Gould didn’t go that far. Buried in the article was Gould’s admission that sports success is a complex combination of social, environmental, and biological factors, none of which can easily be teased out and isolated. That’s of course exactly what geneticists and anthropologists have shown repeatedly. In other words, humans are different, a product of the intertwined and inseparable relationship of genes and environment. Such nuance is apparently too controversial to trust with the media.

But hard scientists who actually experiment with genetic variation, such as Arizona State University evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves, Jr., reject such equivocation as obfuscation. "The fact that monolithic racial categories do not show up consistently in the genotype does not mean there are no group differences between pockets of populations. It varies by characteristic. It doesn't necessarily correlate with skin color, but rather by geography," notes Dr. Graves, an African American and author of The Emperor’s New Clothes, a book about race science. "Populations with roots in equatorial Africa are more likely to have lower natural fat levels. That is likely a key factor in running. It's an adaptive mutation based on climate. But that's a long way from reconstructing century old racial science."

Caution over the potential misuse of genetic research is certainly warranted. After all, pseudo-science and claims that certain "races" are genetically superior and destined to dominate has historically been evoked to justify colonialism, slavery, apartheid and the Holocaust. It’s not clear, however, that disingenuity, deception, and even censorship are the tools to guarantee against such potential misuse.

Popular thinking, still reactive to the historical misuse of "race science," lags the new bio-cultural model of human nature. The question is no longer whether genetic research will continue but to what end. "If decent people don't discuss human biodiversity," warns Walter E. Williams of George Mason University; "we concede the turf to black and white racists." Sports offer a non-polemical way to convey this message and de-politicize what has sometimes been a vitriolic debate.

Jon Entine (http://www.jonentine.com) is author of Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It [PublicAffairs, 200], which was just released in paperback.

 

I've seen that article before. It's true.

 

Evidence that the majority of top spinters are of West African decent, and the majority of top distance runners are of East African decent, should not be any more suprising than evidence that one nationality or ethnicity is on average taller, or heavier, than another. Nonetheless, I believe that on a biological scale, humans of different races are so close in genetic makeup, that the differences cannot be described as anything more than subtle. The fact that one race or region of people on average could run the 100 yard dash .5 seconds faster than another is not an earthshaking distinction.

 

Let's bear in mind that Jon Entine is a writer not a scientist. From an interview, these are Entine's owns words (bold type is mine):

Q: I know some blacks will denigrate your work and say you are diminishing the hard work of many people.

A: I think just the opposite when you really look at the facts. If that were the case, then I'd be denigrating whites because they dominate in weight lifting and wrestling and all the field events -- that's because of the natural upper body strength of whites. Or consider how Asians dominate in diving. But the reality is, the success of any individual athlete is the fire in the belly of that athlete.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19640

 

Come on guys. What does it have to do with race? An African-American's body is better equipped for basketball. It's like if you told I'm racist if I think Chinese people have small eyes. They're like that, it's true.

There may not be research. but go ahead and do it. Top 50 players in the league, how many black and how many white?


I'm Iranian. Im short, have small feet, and short legs. I can shoot a ball at 121MPH. LUCKY ME, THAT'S HOW I AM, it's not saying anything bad about other countries.


Quit looking for places to say "you're racist". Grin or grimace, then move on.

 

Ummm...yea, ahhh what were we talking about again? Yea, Chris Marcus, yea, isn't he like part black and part white? ..... Some of you went off the deep end on this subject. Nice to know some of you have waaayyy to much info on this subject. Won' ask why, though. No telling how long that would make this thread.

 

Didn't say that at all. I said, on average, blacks tend to be better athletes than Asians and Anglo-Americans. If I said that Asians tended to have straight, coarse dark hair, does this mean I am racist.

I haven't said a single thing about whites being better for mental pursuits.

In the grand scheme of things, sports are meaningless. It doesn't win wars or cure cancer.

I produced an article (if you read it) with pretty objective analysis, not necessarily racist analysis, which is what the conclusion you seem to be jumping at.

 

Not smaller. They're just a different shape.

 

You guys have ruined a perfectly good thread about Marcus.

My school finally gets some notice around here and the topic gets trashed. Damn you...damn you all.



os