British / HG players

[peterhague]

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.

I thought I wrote that Chelsea, say, has a fundamental advantage because of its local black population, not that black people have a fundamental advantage because of their genetics? If not, apologies, because that's what I mean. They could of course be the same thing, although not necessarily.

But yes I do think it's very likely to be a genetic advantage.

 

[Woland]

Kids who are more likely to play out than get fat. Explained it up there a while ago.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I thought I wrote that Chelsea, say, has a fundamental advantage because of its local black population, not that black people have a fundamental advantage because of their genetics? If not, apologies, because that's what I mean. They could of course be the same thing, although not necessarily.

But yes I do think it's very likely to be a genetic advantage.

If “large Black catchment” were the fundamental cause of football output, then Southampton, Athletic Bilbao, Croatia and Iceland wouldn’t look like they do. These are clear counter-examples: small or homogenous populations, yet massive per-capita production of elite players. The consistent predictor across those is system quality, pathways, coaching, and minutes, not racial demography.

And if Black population density really explained academy output in England, London clubs would dominate while Manchester and Liverpool would lag. But the City A.M. stats show United, City, and Liverpool at the very top, despite much smaller Black populations. Again, the stronger correlation is with investment, facilities, and pathways, not population demographics.

So yes, outcomes are real: we can see the overrepresentation. But the evidence for why points to structures and systems, not genes.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Club (Academy Output Rank*)	Local Black Population (approx.)	Comment
Man Utd (#1)	~4% (Greater Manchester)	Elite output despite small Black population.
Man City (#2)	~4% (Greater Manchester)	Same as above - output driven by £200m+ CFA investment.
Liverpool (#3)	~3% (Merseyside)	Strong output with low Black population - pathway & culture key.
Chelsea (#4)	~13–14% (London, higher in some boroughs)	High output - but consistent with London’s academy density.
Arsenal (#5)	~13–14% (London)	High output too - but not ahead of Manchester clubs.
Southampton (Top 10 historically)	~2% (South Coast)	World-class conveyor belt - without large Black population.

 

[peterhague]

If “large Black catchment” were the fundamental cause of football output, then Southampton, Athletic Bilbao, Croatia and Iceland wouldn’t look like they do. These are clear counter-examples: small or homogenous populations, yet massive per-capita production of elite players. The consistent predictor across those is system quality, pathways, coaching, and minutes, not racial demography.

And if Black population density really explained academy output in England, London clubs would dominate while Manchester and Liverpool would lag. But the City A.M. stats show United, City, and Liverpool at the very top, despite much smaller Black populations. Again, the stronger correlation is with investment, facilities, and pathways, not population demographics.

So yes, outcomes are real: we can see the overrepresentation. But the evidence for why points to structures and systems, not genes.

Don't think I ever said the things you're claiming or implying I said here. Never said it was the only factor. Never said it was the main factor. Never said it couldn't be overcome. Actually said our outcomes were good and defended them.

Did say it was a fundamental disadvantage and was significant. Probably very significant.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Don't think I ever said the things you're claiming or implying I said here. Never said it was the only factor. Never said it was the main factor. Never said it couldn't be overcome. Actually said our outcomes were good and defended them.

Did say it was a fundamental disadvantage and was significant. Probably very significant.

Ok, let me try to put your position into my own words, then you can tell me if it's a fair summary:

1. Observation: Black players are overrepresented in English football relative to their population share.
2. Cross-sport comparison: Similar overrepresentation is seen in sprinting, basketball, American football, etc.
3. Hypothesis: That overrepresentation suggests Black populations in England (especially in London catchments) provide a fundamental advantage in producing elite footballers.
4. Qualification: You’re not saying it’s the only factor, or the main factor, or that it can’t be overcome. But you are saying it’s a significant factor that should be acknowledged alongside others like systems, pathways, and culture.

Is that a fair representation of your claim?

 

[peterhague]

Ok, let me try to put your position into my own words, then you can tell me if it's a fair summary:

1. Observation: Black players are overrepresented in English football relative to their population share.
2. Cross-sport comparison: Similar overrepresentation is seen in sprinting, basketball, American football, etc.
3. Hypothesis: That overrepresentation suggests Black populations in England (especially in London catchments) provide a fundamental advantage in producing elite footballers.
4. Qualification: You’re not saying it’s the only factor, or the main factor, or that it can’t be overcome. But you are saying it’s a significant factor that should be acknowledged alongside others like systems, pathways, and culture.

Is that a fair representation of your claim?

I think so. I'm not necessarily saying it should be acknowledged though. That's up to each of us to decide I suppose.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I think so. I'm not necessarily saying it should be acknowledged though. That's up to each of us to decide I suppose.

Fair enough. If your point is basically “there’s an observable pattern, make of it what you will,” then I can agree to disagree on the explanation and leave it at that.

The reason it turned into a debate wasn’t the observation itself. We can all see the overrepresentation. It was the way you phrased it as a “fundamental advantage” and then shot down pushback as if people were being “PC” or “snowflakes.” That wording makes it sound like a genetic claim, which is why it was challenged, and why the thread spiralled.

So for me it’s simple: the what is real, but the why is where we part ways. You see a biological edge, I see structures, systems and culture.

Either way, we’d have saved a lot of typing if you’d just said “it looks that way to me” instead of accusing half the thread of being too PC to handle “the truth.”

 

[tombrown]

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.

My great grand kids will be known for their strong right wrists

 

[Fabio]

My great grand kids will be known for their strong right wrists

Plot twist; they're all left handed

 

[peterhague]

Fair enough. If your point is basically “there’s an observable pattern, make of it what you will,” then I can agree to disagree on the explanation and leave it at that.

The reason it turned into a debate wasn’t the observation itself. We can all see the overrepresentation. It was the way you phrased it as a “fundamental advantage” and then shot down pushback as if people were being “PC” or “snowflakes.” That wording makes it sound like a genetic claim, which is why it was challenged, and why the thread spiralled.

So for me it’s simple: the what is real, but the why is where we part ways. You see a biological edge, I see structures, systems and culture.

Either way, we’d have saved a lot of typing if you’d just said “it looks that way to me” instead of accusing half the thread of being too PC to handle “the truth.”

I think it spiralled because I'm making what I think is the common sense claim that it's basically a genetic advantage especially given the similar overrepresentations across countries and across sports (as the sainted Bill Burr refers to in the video above) and lots of you find that too ugly a likelihood to accept.

I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case for that midwit meme. Stupid person and clever person both say "black people are better at football". Angry guy in the middle is all "let me explain to you how this works..."

 

[Athens]

Plot twist; they're all left handed

Are you suggesting that Tom Brown's kids are actually the products of affairs with right-handed wankers??

 

[Fabio]

Are you suggesting that Tom Brown's kids are actually the products of affairs with right-handed wankers??

I could never! More implying that fate will leave his genetic right wrist gene to atrophy.

 

[Athens]

I could never! More implying that fate will leave his genetic right wrist gene to atrophy.

My son is left-handed and right-footed. My brother is right-handed and left-footed. My ancesters must have been some freaks.

 

[Mamma Mia]

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.

I can't imagine why you would think this...

 

[MomoWASright]

Some people need to watch Trading Places.

You’re a product of your environment.

 

[tombrown]

Funnily enough, my son is a leftie

 

[MomoWASright]

Funnily enough, my son is a leftie

My youngest is left handed and right footed. Weird kid.

 

[tombrown]

My youngest is left handed and right footed. Weird kid.

View: https://sendvid.com/c0bbsznh?secret=f99036a9-4340-47bd-bbce-2527c87ac878

 

[peterhague]

Some people need to watch Trading Places.

You’re a product of your environment.

I think I speak for all of you that it shows incredibly bad taste for me to have come in here and embarrassed you all like this by broaching this unpleasant subject.

 

[MomoWASright]

Bad taste and this place go hand in hand.

 

[dee]

I’m 100% left footed (in the anatomical meaning) but ambidextrous. Although my suspicion is that stems from my schools (including nursery) all forced right handed writing, drawing and even playing. I tend to do things 100% one handed rather than swap eg write right handed, eat left handed

 

[dee]

Bad taste and this place go hand in hand.

I often wonder how come we have so few newbies, even the bots hate us

 

[MomoWASright]

I often wonder how come we have so few newbies, even the bots hate us

Only the strong survive.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Only the strong survive.

The evidence shows that we have significant over representation of posters of Indian origin. As anyone who has ever visited a gym knows, this proves your statement is incorrect.

 

[Frogfish]

It's probably a mix of both

The rich white kids try different sports
The poor white kids aren't on the parks playing footy, due to council cuts and increase prevalence of gang culture.

And as well, a lot of the good Scouse white kids probably go to Everton, as we've overhauled our youth and started to try and poach the best talent around the country. Meaning we actively block pathways for local kids.

Or, colour means fuck all and everything I've posited first is bollocks

Don't know if the same now but I went to a grammar school on the Wirral - do they even exist any more?

All the grammar school children played a mixture of rugby, cricket and hockey. All the secondary schools played football.

Not sure what the mix is like in London but I got the feeling that rugby was really popular in the North West (both codes).

 

[Frogfish]

I don't believe that there are black people in any meaningful way as regards genetics, or white people. Those terms are social constructs with no scientific basis.

Your random claims are at odds with each other. Why isn't east Africa producing world class sprinters?

I think you're wrong here Farky. Conditions and necessity can and do affect genetics. In fact genetically we mutate every generation so it followed certain areas will produce people with genetic traits adapted to that region.

A brilliant example of this are the Sherpas in Nepal (that is an actual race, not just the name for Everest porters). They have a specific gene that enables them to survive better at high altitudes (less affected by high altitude sicknesses). So much so that I met a team of British doctors studying this gene during one of my trips there.

Intriguingly this gene is missing from people living at high altitude in the Andes who are susceptible to high altitude sicknesses in the same way lowlanders are.

It follows then that other races will have genetic mutations that in turn enable them to perform better in certain other areas, by necessity.

 

[Farkmaster]

I think you're wrong here Farky. Conditions and necessity can and do affect genetics. In fact genetically we mutate every generation so it followed certain areas will produce people with genetic traits adapted to that region.

A brilliant example of this are the Sherpas in Nepal (that is an actual race, not just the name for Everest porters). They have a specific gene that enables them to survive better at high altitudes (less affected by high altitude sicknesses). So much so that I met a team of British doctors studying this gene during one of my trips there.

Intriguingly this gene is missing from people living at high altitude in the Andes who are susceptible to high altitude sicknesses in the same way lowlanders are.

It follows then that other races will have genetic mutations that in turn enable them to perform better in certain other areas, by necessity.

It doesn't follow though. Sherpas are a race. Black people are not a race in the same sense. The mechanism you are giving an example of is exactly why it's stupid to talk about black people as a race. Or genetics using terms like Asian, black or white, that have no genetic meaning.

People keep bringing up these fascinating specific cases as though they are the same as saying black people are more athletic, and I'm honestly agog at it. If I looked at that piece of genetic adaptation and said "Asians are the best climbers" as though if I picked some random Japanese person to develop into a climber, I'd have a great advantage, you would think I was fucking stupid. They aren't even the same people you'd say, if even remotely aware.

You've got Sherpas in Nepal inheriting a gene that had Darwinian selection over many generations from Tibetan ancestors. In that scenario you have a studied population with shared characteristics, a specific, relatively homogenous population, in a specific place. And then, you have evidence! There's a sensible causal connection there. Science!

Interestingly it does seem some people in the Andes do have genetic adaptions to high altitudes, from what I've just read, just not the same ones. Again, if you were to use lazy categories of race most people in the West don't even disambiguate the indigenous populations in these areas from the populations post colonization. Similarly, the question of who is black, and even more so, who is white, has had many shifting answers depending on time and place.

There are all sorts of advantages specific populations can have at doing very specific things that are studied. None of those populations are defined by cultural descriptors of race that have never had any scientific basis, or even any consistency of application.

 

[MomoWASright]

There are all sorts of advantages specific populations can have at doing very specific things that are studied. None of those populations are defined by cultural descriptors of race that have never had any scientific basis, or even any consistency of application.

It has disadvantages too. Like people from Burnley finding their sisters attractive.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Black people are not a race in the same sense. The mechanism you are giving an example of is exactly why it's stupid to talk about black people as a race. Or genetics using terms like Asian, black or white, that have no genetic meaning.

I'm starting to get the impression that this news hasn't reached as many people as I would have thought.