British / HG players

[peterhague]

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.

You gonna take the bets then dude?

Anyway, yeah you're right: that's exactly what I think. You're just being a snowflake (as low status as that term now undoubtedly is) and trying to demand politer language while basically accepting the main point. Well sorry but no.

 

[localny]

Not a fan of these kinds of genetic generalizations.

 

[Farkmaster]

Why is it important for you to use the term "blacks" as though it defines a group of people genetically? Why can't you just use a relevant categorization that could actually have a causal mechanism? Why is my desire that you make claims that are logical or evidence-based, when you are the one advancing the claim, seen to you as emotional, while your insistence on using imprecise unsupported language isn't?

Keep saying stupid shit then. You'll have lots of company.

 

[peterhague]

Why is it important for you to use the term "blacks" as though it defines a group of people genetically? Why can't you just use a relevant categorization that could actually have a causal mechanism? Why is my desire that you make claims that are logical or evidence-based, when you are the one advancing the claim, seen to you as emotional, while your insistence on using imprecise unsupported language isn't?

Keep saying stupid shit then. You'll have lots of company.

Because it's a term people understand and is adequate for this purpose. Simple as that.

 

[tombrown]

1. Most Scottish people are white
2. Scotland are one of the most successful nations in the sport of curling

1+2 -> white people are better at curling than black people

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

It's a good thing peterhague is never wrong, as something tells me he'd have hard time admitting it. We'll probably never know though.

 

[peterhague]

It's a good thing peterhague is never wrong, as something tells me he'd have hard time admitting it. We'll probably never know though.

All you have to do is reply to something I've said that you disagree with and make your case.

 

[StevieM]

1. Most Scottish people are white
2. Scotland are one of the most successful nations in the sport of curling

1+2 -> white people are better at curling than black people

Ye dinnae see many black peoples tossing cabers (I’ll let someone else take that joke to it’s genetic conclusion) - they’re no genetically disposed to it, guess.

God help the wee black girls trying to take on Irish dancing when they find they’re genetically predisposed to using their arms while dancing!!!!

Lawn bowls… you need to be proper white to master that sport.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Ye dinnae see many black peoples tossing cabers (I’ll let someone else take that joke to it’s genetic conclusion) - they’re no genetically disposed to it, guess.

God help the wee black girls trying to take on Irish dancing when they find they’re genetically predisposed to using their arms while dancing!!!!

Lawn bowls… you need to be proper white to master that sport.

This reminds me of one of the most popular adverts in South Africa in the early '90s.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAscUsQxD0U

 

[Hyena]

I'm pretty sure I've read that DNA can be altered over the course of 3 generations even without natural selection. If you, for example, devote yourself to holding your breath underwater as a form of training, your grandchildren or their spawn are more likely to be born with this trait.

That being said, there's evidence of distinct physical traits manifesting themselves in groups. E.g. Dutch people are taller, Jamaicans are faster, Indians have skinny legsal and pot bellies etc. Some of these traps are a result of environment but by natural selection or DNA they are passed on for at least 1 to 2 generations.

 

[Hyena]

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.

I mean yes, we are weaklings in the gym because growing up no (South) East Asian parent has ever told their kid that being big and strong was desirable. That is true.

The other part of this equatiom though is that generations of us have been raised like this. So for eons girls look for the skinniest, nerdiest, prettiest guy they can and marry him after secretly administering an IQ test. Hence, genes.

 

[StevieM]

I'm pretty sure I've read that DNA can be altered over the course of 3 generations even without natural selection. If you, for example, devote yourself to holding your breath underwater as a form of training, your grandchildren or their spawn are more likely to be born with this trait.

That being said, there's evidence of distinct physical traits manifesting themselves in groups. E.g. Dutch people are taller, Jamaicans are faster, Indians have skinny legsal and pot bellies etc. Some of these traps are a result of environment but by natural selection or DNA they are passed on for at least 1 to 2 generations.

So every time my mother tried to hold my head under water for long periods of time she was actually helping train her grandson to be a better free diver!!!!

The sacrifices parents used to make!!!!

 

[Hyena]

So every time my mother tried to hold my head under water for long periods of time she was actually helping train her grandson to be a better free diver!!!!

The sacrifices parents used to make!!!!

Your daughter in law will thank you(r mom).

 

[Mamma Mia]

I'm pretty sure I've read that DNA can be altered over the course of 3 generations even without natural selection. If you, for example, devote yourself to holding your breath underwater as a form of training, your grandchildren or their spawn are more likely to be born with this trait.

That being said, there's evidence of distinct physical traits manifesting themselves in groups. E.g. Dutch people are taller, Jamaicans are faster, Indians have skinny legsal and pot bellies etc. Some of these traps are a result of environment but by natural selection or DNA they are passed on for at least 1 to 2 generations.

DNA doesn’t change from training or skill practice. Training to hold your breath underwater won’t reprogram your DNA sequence so your grandkids are born with larger lungs.

What can change is how genes are expressed. I think you may be mixing up DNA with epigenetics.

 

[Mamma Mia]

All you have to do is reply to something I've said that you disagree with and make your case.

I disagree with :

1. Using broad racial labels (“black”, “white”, “Asian”) as if they are genetically coherent groups. Africa has the highest genetic diversity; “race” is a blunt social category, not a precise biological one. This is the simple fact that @Farkmaster is trying to explain, and you are responding with anecdotal generalisations that are fundamentally flawed.
Farky makes the good point that flawed anecdotal generalisations about "race" have never worked out well.

2. Extrapolating sprint/distance patterns directly to football, which rewards mixed attributes (tactical cognition, skill acquisition under pressure, aerobic power, repeat sprint ability, injury robustness, etc.). Athleticism helps; it isn’t destiny.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Pointing to group-level over-representation (e.g., West-African-ancestry sprinters) and then inferring that individual “black people are more athletic” is a textbook ecological fallacy.

Group averages tell you nothing determinant about any given person and don’t justify claims about a whole race.

Read that last sentence again. Think about it outside of this context for a second. Do you see the problem?

 

[Mamma Mia]

David Epstein's The Sports Gene is a good read for anyone interested in the subject.

PM me if you'd like a coy of the eBook.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Minutes by academy graduates (2024–25 season):
Premier League most academy minutes:
1. Liverpool – 10,574 minutes (Trent, Elliott, Jones, Kelleher, Quansah, Bradley, Doak…)
2. Manchester United – 9,320 minutes
3. Chelsea – 7,167 minutes
4. Arsenal – 5,124 minutes

---

Global Academy minutes (2023/24):
1. Man Utd – 34,076
2. Chelsea – 27,075
3. Man City – 20,684
4. Liverpool – 17,329
5. Arsenal – 11,869

Sauce

Liverpool’s academy graduates generated >£80–100M in sales last summer; in one campaign, they accounted for 18% of first-team minutes

 

[Mamma Mia]

@peterhague, three questions:

1. Are you making a claim about football performance or about 100m sprinting? Because evidence for the latter doesn’t transfer to the former.

2. Are you talking about race labels or ancestry/phenotype? If ancestry, name the populations and mechanisms; if race, explain why that category is biologically coherent.

3. Which specific physiological traits, with measured effect sizes, make ‘black people’ better footballers on average? Cite a study that uses football outcomes, not sprint finals.

 

[peterhague]

I disagree with :

1. Using broad racial labels (“black”, “white”, “Asian”) as if they are genetically coherent groups. Africa has the highest genetic diversity; “race” is a blunt social category, not a precise biological one. This is the simple fact that @Farkmaster is trying to explain, and you are responding with anecdotal generalisations that are fundamentally flawed.
Farky makes the good point that flawed anecdotal generalisations about "race" have never worked out well.

2. Extrapolating sprint/distance patterns directly to football, which rewards mixed attributes (tactical cognition, skill acquisition under pressure, aerobic power, repeat sprint ability, injury robustness, etc.). Athleticism helps; it isn’t destiny.

1. I'm not really doing that thought am I? I'm just saying one broad population is more likely to produce a certain outcome than others, which is true. And certain people are bothered that I'm not explicitly explaining the complex dynamics at play underlining that at the same time, even though I'm not denying that they exist.

2. Nothing I've said contradicts that.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I wanted to keep posting, but this line clearly tells us peter's actual position: "I just don't know (or care) what the necessary terms would be"

If you don’t care about using the right terms, then you’re not arguing evidence, you’re just arguing vibes.

Precision is the difference between ‘West African ancestry is over-represented in elite sprinting’ (true) and ‘black people are more athletic’ (false).

If you don’t care which one you’re saying, you’re not really interested in the truth.

 

[Mamma Mia]

1. I'm not really doing that thought am I? I'm just saying one broad population is more likely to produce a certain outcome than others, which is true. And certain people are bothered that I'm not explicitly explaining the complex dynamics at play underlining that at the same time, even though I'm not denying that they exist.

2. Nothing I've said contradicts that.

1. You're still using the “broad population” framing without naming mechanisms or boundaries.
That’s the whole issue.

Which population? Defined how? By what markers? By what environment?

Without that, it’s circular: “this group produces more sprinters because it produces more sprinters.”

2. Actually it does. Claiming “one broad population is more likely to produce X outcome” does contradict the point that broad racial categories are not genetically coherent. If you accept they aren’t coherent, you can’t then say they produce predictable genetic outcomes.

---

 

[peterhague]

@peterhague, three questions:

1. Are you making a claim about football performance or about 100m sprinting? Because evidence for the latter doesn’t transfer to the former.

2. Are you talking about race labels or ancestry/phenotype? If ancestry, name the populations and mechanisms; if race, explain why that category is biologically coherent.

3. Which specific physiological traits, with measured effect sizes, make ‘black people’ better footballers on average? Cite a study that uses football outcomes, not sprint finals.

1. I'm saying black populations (almost certainly) have an advantage in producing people with the right athletic qualities to excel in football. This is based on their large overrepresentation, and by comparing to other sports like track and field, american football, and basketball, where a similar overrepresentation also exists, and where the most fundamental of the assumed advantages (speed) would also seem to be beneficial. It's all just observation, common sense etc.

2. No, and no. 1 explains why: I'm not making scientific claims. If you can debunk 1. with scientific evidence then fine.

3. Mainly speed, but possibly other things too. And I don't think I ever made the claim that black people are better footballers on average. If I did it was by mistake. The claim is in the first sentence of one and doesn't go beyond that.

 

[Mamma Mia]

1. I'm saying black populations (almost certainly) have an advantage in producing people with the right athletic qualities to excel in football. This is based on their large overrepresentation, and by comparing to other sports like track and field, american football, and basketball, where a similar overrepresentation also exists, and where the most fundamental of the assumed advantages (speed) would also seem to be beneficial. It's all just observation, common sense etc.

2. No, and no. 1 explains why: I'm not making scientific claims. If you can debunk 1. with scientific evidence then fine.

3. Mainly speed, but possibly other things too. And I don't think I ever made the claim that black people are better footballers on average. If I did it was by mistake. The claim is in the first sentence of one and doesn't go beyond that.

You’re shifting the goalposts here. Your original claim was that Chelsea/Arsenal have a fundamental advantage because a “large black population” makes them “way better at football per capita.” That isn’t just “an observation”, that’s a biological claim, whether you admit it or not.

If you’re now saying you’re not making scientific claims, then you’re conceding the point. Because without science, all you’ve got is vibes and stereotypes. “Common sense” has been wrong plenty of times in history.

And even on your narrower point:

• “Black populations” aren’t a coherent biological category. Africa has the highest genetic diversity in the world. West African sprint success and East African endurance success come from different lineages and environments, not some shared “black athletic gene.”
• Football is not sprinting or basketball. It’s a mixed-demand game where skill, decision-making, aerobic endurance, and repeat sprint ability matter as much or more than raw speed. That’s why Messi, Iniesta, Modric, Xavi, etc. were among the best without fitting your “athletic qualities” model.

So no, you can’t just point to sprinting finals and NBA rosters and declare that “black people are way better at football.” That’s a sloppy leap across categories. If you really want to stand by your first statement, then back it with actual football data, otherwise it’s just a generalisation dressed up as truth.

 

[peterhague]

1. You're still using the “broad population” framing without naming mechanisms or boundaries.
That’s the whole issue.

Which population? Defined how? By what markers? By what environment?

Without that, it’s circular: “this group produces more sprinters because it produces more sprinters.”

2. Actually it does. Claiming “one broad population is more likely to produce X outcome” does contradict the point that broad racial categories are not genetically coherent. If you accept they aren’t coherent, you can’t then say they produce predictable genetic outcomes.

---

1. Why is it an issue? I'm just pointing out what I think is a true phenomenon: black populations in England produce footballers at a higher rate than non-black populations. Liverpool's catchment area doesn't contain a large black population compared to, say, Chelsea's, therefore I think a big part of the reason they produce so many good players is that difference. You're looking for an argument that I never started.

2. Eh? I could easily say the UK produces more sprinters than, say, Malaysia, because it has a significant black population and Malaysia doesn't (I assume it doesn't - if it does then substitute a large country without black people or sprinters), even though neither the UK or Malaysia is genetically coherent. And when did I say they produce predictable genetic outcomes? I said they produce predictable SPORTING outcomes.

 

[peterhague]

You’re shifting the goalposts here. Your original claim was that Chelsea/Arsenal have a fundamental advantage because a “large black population” makes them “way better at football per capita.” That isn’t just “an observation”, that’s a biological claim, whether you admit it or not.

If you’re now saying you’re not making scientific claims, then you’re conceding the point. Because without science, all you’ve got is vibes and stereotypes. “Common sense” has been wrong plenty of times in history.

And even on your narrower point:

• “Black populations” aren’t a coherent biological category. Africa has the highest genetic diversity in the world. West African sprint success and East African endurance success come from different lineages and environments, not some shared “black athletic gene.”
• Football is not sprinting or basketball. It’s a mixed-demand game where skill, decision-making, aerobic endurance, and repeat sprint ability matter as much or more than raw speed. That’s why Messi, Iniesta, Modric, Xavi, etc. were among the best without fitting your “athletic qualities” model.

So no, you can’t just point to sprinting finals and NBA rosters and declare that “black people are way better at football.” That’s a sloppy leap across categories. If you really want to stand by your first statement, then back it with actual football data, otherwise it’s just a generalisation dressed up as truth.

Well then you've either misinterpreted what I said or I didn't state it clearly enough. To clarify: the claim is that the black populations in, say, Chelsea's catchment area produce footballers at a higher rate than the population in Liverpool's catchment area. It's not a circular claim because I assume that's due to inherent characteristics (not because, eg, black kids don't like doing their homework or never play tennis etc). That's it, nothing beyond that. Although if it were a purely sociological phenomenon, then my point would still stand as long as it's ingrained.

Well, I suppose I'm making a scientific claim indirectly, but I'm not interested in that, and I have no knowledge of it. I don't need to understand a phenomenon to observe it and make predictions based on it. This is literally at the level of me saying an American prisoner is more likely to be black and you responding that that's not valid because I don't understand why that's the case. Well, that wouldn't be true: the bare assertion would still be accurate.

 

[Mamma Mia]

1. Why is it an issue? I'm just pointing out what I think is a true phenomenon: black populations in England produce footballers at a higher rate than non-black populations. Liverpool's catchment area doesn't contain a large black population compared to, say, Chelsea's, therefore I think a big part of the reason they produce so many good players is that difference. You're looking for an argument that I never started.

2. Eh? I could easily say the UK produces more sprinters than, say, Malaysia, because it has a significant black population and Malaysia doesn't (I assume it doesn't - if it does then substitute a large country without black people or sprinters), even though neither the UK or Malaysia is genetically coherent. And when did I say they produce predictable genetic outcomes? I said they produce predictable SPORTING outcomes.

But that’s exactly the issue. You keep describing outcomes (“more footballers per capita”) without explaining why. That in itself wouldn’t be a problem, but you went further than a casual observation.

At first you called it a “fundamental advantage” based on black population, which is a biological claim. Now you’re retreating to “sporting outcomes.” Those aren’t the same thing.

If it’s genetics, then spell out the mechanisms: which ancestry groups, which traits, with what effect sizes. If it’s not genetics, then you’re really just talking about environment, infrastructure, and opportunity, which is exactly the argument others have been making from the start.

And UK vs Malaysia proves nothing about genetics. One has the Premier League, scouting networks, and massive investment in football culture; the other doesn’t. Reducing that to “black population” is a distraction.

I’m not looking for an argument here. You made a statement that Farky rightly challenged. Instead of clarifying, you reached for straw men about political correctness and “snowflakes,” as if your initial claim was self-evident truth and any disagreement was political. Now that people have responded with facts, you’re in this strange half-backtracking mode. Either stand by the original biological claim and defend it with evidence, or accept that the real explanation is far more nuanced.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Well then you've either misinterpreted what I said or I didn't state it clearly enough. To clarify: the claim is that the black populations in, say, Chelsea's catchment area produce footballers at a higher rate than the population in Liverpool's catchment area. It's not a circular claim because I assume that's due to inherent characteristics (not because, eg, black kids don't like doing their homework or never play tennis etc). That's it, nothing beyond that. Although if it were a purely sociological phenomenon, then my point would still stand as long as it's ingrained.

Well, I suppose I'm making a scientific claim indirectly, but I'm not interested in that, and I have no knowledge of it. I don't need to understand a phenomenon to observe it and make predictions based on it. This is literally at the level of me saying an American prisoner is more likely to be black and you responding that that's not valid because I don't understand why that's the case. Well, that wouldn't be true: the bare assertion would still be accurate.

The prisoner analogy is proving the point: outcomes can be real without being genetic.

And for the record, you brought genes into this. Calling it a “fundamental advantage” and later insisting “black people have a genetic advantage in athletics.” That’s why people pushed back.

 

[rubans]

I'm pretty sure I've read that DNA can be altered over the course of 3 generations even without natural selection. If you, for example, devote yourself to holding your breath underwater as a form of training, your grandchildren or their spawn are more likely to be born with this trait.

That being said, there's evidence of distinct physical traits manifesting themselves in groups. E.g. Dutch people are taller, Jamaicans are faster, Indians have skinny legsal and pot bellies etc. Some of these traps are a result of environment but by natural selection or DNA they are passed on for at least 1 to 2 generations.

What a load of rubbish.
Did you see the latest Indian Cricket Team that toured England this summer? Pure athletes. I’m around UK RPC setup and the new Asian lot coming through are as fast, powerful and strong as anything coming through.

 

[peterhague]

But that’s exactly the issue. You keep describing outcomes (“more footballers per capita”) without explaining why. That in itself wouldn’t be a problem, but you went further than a casual observation.

At first you called it a “fundamental advantage” based on black population, which is a biological claim. Now you’re retreating to “sporting outcomes.” Those aren’t the same thing.

If it’s genetics, then spell out the mechanisms: which ancestry groups, which traits, with what effect sizes. If it’s not genetics, then you’re really just talking about environment, infrastructure, and opportunity, which is exactly the argument others have been making from the start.

And UK vs Malaysia proves nothing about genetics. One has the Premier League, scouting networks, and massive investment in football culture; the other doesn’t. Reducing that to “black population” is a distraction.

I’m not looking for an argument here. You made a statement that Farky rightly challenged. Instead of clarifying, you reached for straw men about political correctness and “snowflakes,” as if your initial claim was self-evident truth and any disagreement was political. Now that people have responded with facts, you’re in this strange half-backtracking mode. Either stand by the original biological claim and defend it with evidence, or accept that the real explanation is far more nuanced.

I don't know how many times I have to say it: black populations in England produce footballers at a higher rate than white populations in England. Reliably so. I think that's for genetic reasons, but that doesn't even have to be the reason, so long as the explanation is ingrained.

That's it: that's the claim. Nothing else. If that's not true, and it's all basically just a coincidence, then fine: explain it to me.