Who wins? John L Sullivan or Wladimir Klitschko?!!!

It is not conclusive in any way. Even if taken accurately under controlled circumstances (in relation to others) raw vertical leap numbers don't tell you much. By the way, according to this link -- [url]http://sports.jrank.org/pages/3532/O-Neal-Shaquille-Can-t-Stop-Growing.html[/url] -- Shaq had a 42-inch vertical in high school.

For the record, I don't buy that for a second and don't give a **** either way. It's almost completely meaningless.

According to this Wiki link -- Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler] -- Wilt thinks he could outjump Spud Webb (reportedly a 46-inch vertical).

And both Michael Jordan and Vince Carter jumped a couple inches worse than 44 Wilt, according to your number. See how silly that is?

Vertical leap is candy. It does not measure functional leaping ability in actual competition. On top of that, numbers vary wildly for many players and cannot be trusted. At some point, you have to rely on your own eyes.

Which brings me to your next assertion. I say Shaq is a better jumper based on film, the same claim you make in favor of Wilt. The arguments are equally valid. Wilt's track and field exploits underscore what a talented, versatile athlete he was during his time, but they have nothing to do with a comparison to Shaq.

This threatens to devolve back into the Better Player argument, and we don't need to discuss that on a boxing board. My point about comp is that Wilt was made to look more athletic by some suspect competition at various stages of his career. But again, even today, he'd be considered a good NBA athlete. And with his size, skills and strength, I believe he'd still be an excellent overall player.

Just not the athlete (or player) Shaq was.

 

Only if you assume that black players today and black players from the 70's are equivalently superior to white players...though the assumption that black players are better than white players wouldn't seem to have any scientific backing, unless you're talking cultural propensity to practice.

 

My assumption about black players of yore is not nearly as much of a reach as yours regarding white participation.

Given the composition of NBA (and major college) rosters, I think we have our proof that black players are superior. Unless 1) teams intentionally are fielding teams that are not their best (preposterous), or 2) they have made numerous, numerous scouting errors in favor of black players (extremely unlikely).

The percentage of black folks in the general pop versus the percentage of black players in the NBA tells you what you need to know.

You can go too far with demands for scientific backing. We may not have any scientific basis for asserting that Lennox Lewis is at this stage in life more content than Johnny Tapia, but we could produce some compelling evidence that this likely is the case.

 

On the contrary, decreased participation is a far more logical than an entire race being naturally inferior at basketball.

Scientific backing would be necessary to prove that black athletes are naturally superior to whites at basketball, yes. Bear in mind that a similar argument could have been made in boxing for (at various times) Jewish, Irish, and Italian ethnic groups. I doubt that these are all "naturally" superior in boxing, especially since their prevalence varied depending upon the time period and social circumstances.

Any assertion that one race or ethnic group is superior to others would require a large amount of backing to be considered valid. It's far more likely and logical (since similar instances have often happened in the past) that the discrepancy is the result of more black athletes entering basketball than white athletes.

 

How so? There are numerous differences that run along racial lines, skin pigment being a major one. Right? Why should athleticism necessarily be any different?

You have no evidence pointing to decreased participation among whites -- and certainly not to the tune of a 75% black population in the NBA, given the black % of the general population.

I find it amusing how many people struggle to accept the superiority of the American black athlete.

To prove it scientifically, sure. But how are we going to do that? Look at my Lewis/Tapia example to see what I mean. I'm arguing reality, not scientific process. Again, I can't prove Lewis/Tapia, but I sure as **** can argue its likelihood. And the superiority of black athletes is easier, because we have rosters and performance played out before us.

But boxing's participation rates never have been as uniform as American basketball participation rates are now. It's nearly a universal sport that is exposed to nearly every kid, yet a certain racial segment dominates. Why, if not for greater aptitude?

There's no real way to actually prove this, so the absence of scientific evidence doesn't apply. There are documented differences between skeletal and muscle properties among blacks and whites -- accentuated due to selected breeding during slavery -- but I agree that would not in and of itself constitute proof. But again, you can't attack an unprovable argument by citing its lack of proof. Makes no sense.

False. And I would love to hear your examples.

Further, allow me to paint with a broader brush. In *any* sport that relies primarily on explosive athleticism, black athletes will hold the natural advantage. Football bears this out as well. Baseball does not to the same extent, and I'd argue that it's much more reliant on hand/eye coordination, which appears to be roughly equal among races. (Having said that, MLB becomes less white all the time because of latinos and other imports.)

Access is key. Tennis is not dominated by black athletes because few ever play. Soccer is the same in America, because by and large it is a suburban sport. Internationally, black athletes have become much more prominent.

I haven't found a truly satisfying link backing me up yet, but this is a start:

[url]http://archives.cnn.com/2000/books/beginnings/01/31/taboo/index.html[/url]

 

It needn't. But you're looking at it in a superficial way--like someone claiming whites are naturally smarter because more of them succeed in higher education. Social factors have more to do with it than race.

The percentages of Irish, Jewish, and Italian boxers were similar, if not greater. Moreover, the Irish also dominated the major track and field events.

Or the Irish athlete. Or the Jewish athlete. Or the Italian athlete. Or the Norwegian weightlifting athlete. Or the Eastern European athlete. (Wow, look at how many Eastern Europeans are winning the Olympics and in combat sports! They must be racially superior too...)

Muscle fiber percentages would be a decent start, but only a start. Also, define "black". Most "black" athletes have a reasonably high percentage of "white" blood in them...enough that in Africa many consider them white.

Greater willingness to make basketball a career is an obvious one.

If there's no way to prove it, then it is not valid to make generalizations about it.

I doubt that it's unprovable, though. The sports science field is getting ever more experienced in learning exactly why the human body is able to perform at a high level.

Slavery-as-selective-breeding is tenuous, and the "test period" is not long-term enough to make a great difference anyway. 100-150 years? Most "racial" differences took a lot longer than that to form...and that's assuming that every slave owner was a brilliant eugenicist--which they weren't--and that they were all doing it in the first place.

"Latinos and other imports" as you put it are not black. They are a relatively poorer minority with a cultural affinity for the sports they do well in. Like the Irish, the Jewish, the Italians of yesteryear. Like African American athletes for much of their existence. Like the Eastern Europeans in comparison to most of the Western world. Middle Easterners in European sports are yet another example. In another fifty years I'm sure people will be saying that Indian and Indonesian athletes are racially superior. atsch

And only a start. Legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals, preferably in sports science, would be vastly preferable. Books like the one you mentioned, "The Mismeasure of Man", and "The Bell Curve" all show the limits when we try to use one or two "genetic" factors to explain away complex trends in human performance...which is why they are so controversial.

 

That's bunk. Intelligence is a far trickier construct to pin down than inherent quickness. The two issues are not even kissing cousins. You keep repeating that black dominance is due to social factors, yet you don't offer any rebuttal to basketball's tremendous popularity and inclusive nature. The rich kids play it, the poor kids play it, and so do all the blacks and whites. It's there for everyone, yet a particular subset dominates.

I'm looking at it superficially because it cuts across very clear, superficial lines. If there's a deeper reason for that, I haven't seen it. Lots of science folks (and I certainly appreciate science) argue that race is not a satisfactory explanation, then toss out the generic "social factors" -- just as you have -- as a (non) basis for the discrepancy.

And this isn't just about basketball. Take the speed positions in football: running back, wide receiver, and cornerback. Guess who fills the overwhelming majority of these spots in the NFL.

I won't argue with you here about the prowess of those athletes during those timeframes, but I feel this parallel is dubious. You need to show that the participation rates are universal as they are for basketball. Additionally, we now have two sports dominated by blacks -- not to mention the sprinting track and field events -- included in the mix.

Remember, I'm asserting that *all* sports and positions within sports that rely primarily on explosive athleticism are subject to American black domination, given the interest and access.

Don't forget curling for whoever wins curling. Not at all related to my argument for reasons I'm sure you can understand, once again based largely on participation rates.

I would say that's better than a "decent" start, once they get that narrowed down, given the relationship between muscles and explosive athletic performance. (Common sense, right?)

American black = all parents and grandparents are/were black? So let's just toss out Jason Kidd, Tiger Woods, various others. It won't make much difference on the whole.

Ha! That is rich. In order to explain away the vast percentage differences, you have to find a whole, whole lot of potential white NBA players and wide receivers who simply opted out of the sport, despite their prodigious talent. You don't actually believe this, do you?

Of course it's valid to generalize. We all generalize, all the time, about any number of things. I can't prove that my girlfriend responds favorably to a night of drinking and dancing because drinking and dancing per se, but you can god damn bet I've benefited from that generalization. In the context of casual, non-scientific (as I've made clear) conversation -- as our argument is -- it's entirely valid.

Tenuous, sure, but not out of the question. This obviously has nothing to do with evolution, and deals with blue eyes + blue eyes = blue eyes. I have misgivings about this as well, though, but I mentioned it because it pops up in these discussions from time to time by people who have researched that area heavily.

Come on, Crosstrainer. Don't be obtuse. I didn't refer to Latinos that way to be derogatory, and yes I realize they are not black. I was merely completing a thought on baseball that is not directly related to our argument, which is why I offset it in parentheses.

Again, if basketball participation does not skew toward black folks at a much greater rate than it does for whites, your paragraph above -- and in particular, the bit about "cultural affinity for the sports they do well" -- is shot to ****.

If everyone plays but one minority is way, way better at that sport and other sports -- and positions within sports -- that prioritize the same attributes (explosive athleticism) than the majority, you need a much better explanation than the one based on cultural dynamic.

Fair enough here. I'm going to bed now and am not sure how much time I'll be able to post for the rest of the week, but I've enjoyed this thread a great deal. Thanks for participating. I certainly do respect your opinion.

 

This might be one of the stupidest threads I have ever seen.

If a guy the size of Wlad, with the athleticism and skills and speed and power existed back in the days of 'ole John L Sully........he would have been undefeated in 400 fights with 400 KOs.

Good GOD people.atsch

 

wlad klitschko KO 2nd Round.

This content is protected

 

What is Wlad doing for the first round then?

 

toy around with sullivan. :good

 

They point to social factors because (like all good scientists) they realize that the "social sciences" lack the ability to put sufficient controls on the data. They also recognize the striking success of many minority groups in sports--it's unlikely that they're all racially superior.

The Irish are a perfect example.

Participation rates in England, the United States, and Ireland were very high during the period in question--most universities included them in their curriculum, so the "amateurs" in every country had a chance. Add to that the much greater number of total Anglo-Saxon students, and their passion for amateur sports during the late 19th and early 20th century as proof of the superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon race".

Moreover, Ireland's dominance in boxing and track-and-field cut across national lines. American Irish were just as likely to succeed as Irish born in Ireland. With a population a fraction the size of England and the United States' total "Anglo-Saxons", world records were held in the long jump, high jump, hammer throw, shot put, and three boxing world championships in a row were held by the Irish. They also had a disproportionate number of world title challengers and champions during the period of English supremacy in the bareknuckle days. They were so dominant in track and field (the only measurable sport with widespread popularity) that the English--like you are doing for black athletes--attributed it to racial characteristics. Longer legs, or something like that.

As the Irish became absorbed into the mainstream, there was less need for them to express themselves athletically as opposed to academically. Just as importantly, their culture shifted in its emphasis on athletic performance in T&F and boxing events.




Now, let's say for a moment that the Irish WERE genetically superior. If this is the case, it still throws a wrench in the idea that "white" athletes are inferior to "black"--it highlights that there are huge variations between individuals in the white and black community. Drawing general rules for "white" athletes is silly, since the term encompasses very different groups of people. With "black", you're getting everything from 7'0" Watusi (who would probably have an advantage in basketball) to pygmy tribes...and those are just two examples of diverse genetic heritage in Africa.

You're comparing curling to the Olympic games AND combat sports as a whole? Come on--that's asinine.

Except that sports performance, like intelligence (which, incidentally, it includes), IS more complex than you're making it out to be.

You'd have to go back further than two generations. There was significant racial genetic cross-over during the slavery era.

I would have thought it's obvious. White workers occupy the higher levels of businesses, academia, and many other fields disproportionately compared to black workers precisely because they don't take up careers elsewhere. The reasons are varied--and often sheer racism is cited as one--but the fact is that they're not going to pursue a career in athletics when they have much more likely prospects in business.

Just saying it's a non-scientific argument doesn't make it so. Again, you need to provide scientific backing for what is (assertions to the contrary aside) a claim that requires scientific validation. Your girlfriend is one person--you're talking about the genetic inheritance of two billion people on the basis of football/basketball performance.

Since we both agree that it is tenuous, let's leave it aside for the time being. I doubt that the "gentlemen (ha!) of the South" had enough consistency or aptitude to produce this sort of breeding program.

But ironically, your Latino example DOES prove my point. Are we to conclude they have a racial affinity for baseball and (due to World Cup results) soccer/futbol? How about boxing, where they consistently dominate the lower weights, and increasingly the higher ones as the average diet improves? Both of these are widely played--with soccer being the #1 sport in the world.

Arguing that on the basis of a single sport (or even two sports) is absurd in such a wide-ranging discussion as this one. I could equally refer to weightlifting/powerlifting/strongman--weight training is far more widespread than basketball throughout the world, and the top performers have generally been white. Are we to conclude that weightlifting--which requires much of the same fiber balance as speed positions--is a racial talent for "white" people? Heck, the decathlon (considered the best test of overall athleticism at the moment) is disproportionately controlled by Eastern European white athletes.

In fact, I can make a similar argument about "white" athletes being stronger--every single strength sport (from wrestling to every type of weightlifting) is disproportionately weighted toward white athletes. Given the extensive participation in weight training and weight lifting around the world, they MUST have a natural aptitude. (they don't)

Exposure does not equal willingness to compete, or an equal work ethic, which is the moral here.

Thank you, and my apologies for getting a bit irritated. This is a subject that I had hoped was buried in the 1930's and 40's.

 

He used another source. My point is that it's similar in approach to the other two.