Futsal and beach football.
British / HG players
- Thread starter keniget
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Right, so you accept that the broad black population in the US and in countries whose black populations are similar have a significant advantage in athletic ability.
It would therefore follow that they're likely to have a significant advantage in any sport where athletic ability is important, holding other things equal. And, looking at black success across many such sports, that is indeed exactly what we see.
Which is all I was saying to start with.
I don't accept that. There is no meaning to "black population" genetically. Nor is there much meaning to "athletic ability."
Ok well like I said that's the end of the discussion then.
Yes, we can't talk if you don't make a specific claim with terms that have meaning. It sounds like you think that black people have common genetics that define a "race".
I'll try to make a claim that is very very simple. I think the next American to break the American 100m record has a higher than 50% chance of being "black", with "black" defined as agreed between us. I think the same for the next British person to break the British record.
I'm willing to bet £100 on each of those outcomes and won't even request odds.
And thats why London clubs recruit better. Got it.
My son recently asked his mate to play football at 5.
Kid said yup sure, I'll jump on at 5.
My son, umm no. Like play football, in the park not fifa
His friend, oh no Im not allowed out to play football.
Well you raised him right.
What do you think I gave you a Like for?
I’m going the next first time winners of the following events to be white.
World Darts Championship
Wimbledon
Augusta
Formula 1 world championship
Olympic 100m breaststroke
Grand National (jockey not the fucking horse)
Snooker World Championship
Skiing World Cup - Giant Slalom
World Darts Championship
Wimbledon
Augusta
Formula 1 world championship
Olympic 100m breaststroke
Grand National (jockey not the fucking horse)
Snooker World Championship
Skiing World Cup - Giant Slalom
You're the one who was acting all snooty about being pressed to answer a straightforward question. You won't answer it, you won't bet on it. Brave brave Sir Robin.
The best hubs of football always evolved around a working class tradition. Whether that was the streets of toxteth or the favelas of rio doesn't really matter. Poverty breeds great football. Football is so great because we all got to play it so we all know where we `are in the sphere of the whole thing. It's not like you didn't get a chance to win the F1 because your dad wasn't a billionaire, most able bodied people played football as a kid, the whole world over. In the context of the last hundred years.
Race has nothing to do with it. But social structures do. As evidenced by Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard. There's not much hope but there is a shit ton of talent and it got channelled in those cases. Liverpool is a poor city. Anfield is one of the poorest suburbs in Europe. I don't know enough to type a lot more but the lower leagues have always been filled with scousers, all sides, all places, because kids in Liverpool used to run around in the street playing football more than kids in other British towns, because other British towns were wealthier and other British parents wanted their kids to do their homework instead of playing in the street. Now it seems kids run round in the street more on other continents and all our kids are fat - and I would speculate on why but it would be a series of cliches.
Either way, I'd like a few locals in the team. It's kinda the point.
Race has nothing to do with it. But social structures do. As evidenced by Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard. There's not much hope but there is a shit ton of talent and it got channelled in those cases. Liverpool is a poor city. Anfield is one of the poorest suburbs in Europe. I don't know enough to type a lot more but the lower leagues have always been filled with scousers, all sides, all places, because kids in Liverpool used to run around in the street playing football more than kids in other British towns, because other British towns were wealthier and other British parents wanted their kids to do their homework instead of playing in the street. Now it seems kids run round in the street more on other continents and all our kids are fat - and I would speculate on why but it would be a series of cliches.
Either way, I'd like a few locals in the team. It's kinda the point.
Ah ok. Missed it
I got it
Woah check out scooge Mcduck over here.
Do you have afternoon tea with the king n all.
Fuck the Royals.
The best Royals have their heads on sticks.
The best Royals have their heads on sticks.
At the risk of wading into this discussion without statistics and without any intent of repeatedly responding to further posts, if there is a genetic component to any of this, the difference in racial achievement among various sports (e.g. athletics v football v hockey v darts v etc ) can be understood to an extent by different physical characteristics being valuable in each.
For example, fast twitch muscles leading to explosive athletic power are more valuable in some sports than others. That which might purportedly make a black athlete superior in football or sprinting has nothing to do with what might make a white athlete better in darts or swimming.
I have no clue whether people of black African descent (whatever that means) have genes that predispose them to succeed in certain sports but it's almost certainly true that there are genetic characteristics associated with that success.
Similarly, Michael Phelps wouldn't have been the swimming phenom he was if he hadn't had a freakishly long wingspan (paired with a pathological drive to push himself). Not sure that has anything to do with his "whiteness" but to think genetics weren't a factor is farcical.
Of course, the social and economic factors named are equally likely to be important as well.
For example, fast twitch muscles leading to explosive athletic power are more valuable in some sports than others. That which might purportedly make a black athlete superior in football or sprinting has nothing to do with what might make a white athlete better in darts or swimming.
I have no clue whether people of black African descent (whatever that means) have genes that predispose them to succeed in certain sports but it's almost certainly true that there are genetic characteristics associated with that success.
Similarly, Michael Phelps wouldn't have been the swimming phenom he was if he hadn't had a freakishly long wingspan (paired with a pathological drive to push himself). Not sure that has anything to do with his "whiteness" but to think genetics weren't a factor is farcical.
Of course, the social and economic factors named are equally likely to be important as well.
Happening everywhere.
No, they can't. They might perceive a difference, there might be a difference, but they wouldn't be able to draw a correlation based on nothing, especially when that correlation was already made for them.
That's like a person having a math class with a bunch of Asians feeling genetically inferior based on performing worse. No, parents encourage kids to spend time on things they are accustomed to spending time on and have been taught to value. Their friends likewise. The world told them they were good at that and to value that. Their world got better at teaching it and did so more aggressively.
When I got to California and played at a school with a huge Chinese immigrant population, the Chinese kids fucked up everyone at badminton and table tennis, the Latina kids were dominant at football, the black kids at basketball.
My kid is shit at baseball because I never played at any level, but he likes the game. Is that because we share DNA? No, it's because I'm an immigrant and didn't grow up playing the game so didn't start playing it with him till he expressed an interest, and even when he did, I don't actually fundamentally know what I'm doing.
He also hasn't played basketball, but most of the black kids in his class have. If they haven't they will feel social pressure to do so, and if they are bad they will feel social pressure to improve, just as one of my kids little cunt friends made fun of how my kid flinched after getting beamed in his first game.
And for the last time, and please show me the evidence to contradict this, black people, as a group, understood socially, do not form a group understood genetically. In fact they have massive genetic diversity, more so than the white kids, more so than Asians. We can see different specific advantages in specific places in Africa just as we can in other places with homogenous populations, but they aren't the same advantages. Specific black people might enjoy specific advantages, but it wouldn't be because they are black as such, and that attribution is either problematic or just an error in logic, depending on whether you want to think about the history of it or not.
It's irrelevant. If the aggregate makeup of all "black" people predictably contains more fast people than equivalent groups of other people then that's all you need to know to be able to predict that the fastest person will be "black" and not "white".
This is about as trivial as saying that men are taller than women. And then some genius comes along and says "no I once knew a really tall woman".
Well speaking strictly from a biological standpoint, I'm sure it's been found that certain populations, particularly those of West African descent, African Americans and Caribbean, etc, tend to have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers, which are advantageous for explosive movements like sprinting, alongside some favourable biomechanics.
This isn’t really a matter of race, but rather one of ancestral lineage. Some populations happen to carry traits that make them more suited to specific athletic demands. The same applies elsewhere distance running success is more common among East African populations. Scandinavian countries have produced generations of elite cross-country skiers, likely due to both environment, but also genetics they have engrained that me or you will never have because our grandparents were not awkwardly taking off skiis and lycra before going into pound town.
I think the main point is that terms like black or white are too broad to describe what's really going on and there's more accurate, nuanced ways of going about it. If a black kid is made to feel like he is meant to be fast (and just isn't because he's not from one of these lineages) then that is damaging, so it does matter.
This isn’t really a matter of race, but rather one of ancestral lineage. Some populations happen to carry traits that make them more suited to specific athletic demands. The same applies elsewhere distance running success is more common among East African populations. Scandinavian countries have produced generations of elite cross-country skiers, likely due to both environment, but also genetics they have engrained that me or you will never have because our grandparents were not awkwardly taking off skiis and lycra before going into pound town.
I think the main point is that terms like black or white are too broad to describe what's really going on and there's more accurate, nuanced ways of going about it. If a black kid is made to feel like he is meant to be fast (and just isn't because he's not from one of these lineages) then that is damaging, so it does matter.
Men and women are biologically distinct. There's a scientific basis for their classification. Black people aren't genetically distinct and there's no scientific basis for their classification.
You can find all sorts of correlation in all sorts of fuzzy classes of things, and we have, for all known history. It doesn't mean it's a precise way of speaking or useful. It also hasn't gone well.
You have gone from "London draws from a better pool because they are black," to "it seems clear that the fastest sprinters are in the black population, elsewhere." What does that have to do with football? Why haven't you selected middle distance runners? Why not an endurance event? Why haven't you selected ballon d'or winners?
I would agree that it seems like West African genetics are good for sprinting. That excludes a shitload of black people, and is telling for a very narrow activity. It helps explain why Jamaica is good at sprinting, and us athletes are, with proper infrastructure. What is your objection to just being more specific and accurate? That way we don't make an unscientific, racial stereotype that tends to lend that cultural construct the appearance of an actual scientific grouping?
I've got no objection in principle (although presumably it would be very long winded and boring to replace "black" with whatever specific group or groups within that population - presuming we even know what they are - are actually the crucial factor) but I just don't know (or care) what the necessary terms would be.
I thought I made it clear what the relevance to football was? It's obvious: athleticism matters in football, and blacks are more athletic, therefore on average they're better at it (assuming no offsetting disadvantages).
You keep referring to things not having "gone well" in the past. Well, fine. That's obviously your only real objection: social desirability bias says that when the truth is ugly, people lie. You find this truth ugly, so you're lying. Well, perhaps not lying per se, but certainly dissembling.
I'm not lying at all. I'm speaking accurately, and you aren't bothering to.
You just did it again. We went from "there is some scientific support for west african genes helping sprinting" to "blacks are more athletic." There's a chasm there, and one of the things is true, and one of the things is false, both on the "more athletic" and the "blacks."
You think my objection is some weird pc pussy footing around due to your own bias. No. One of the things is illogical and unsupported by fact, and another one has some truth behind it. The one that happens to be illogical has a long long history of being illogical, and has lead to all sorts of fucked up things. You see it as a distinction without a difference, but its a fucking massive distinction. You think my changing of terms is PC, it's not, it's scientific and logical. It's your objection to making statements that are true, in favor of using terms that are cultural, muddy, and useless, that is odd.
Similar threads
