Fastest White Man (Charlie's Space)

[waterbed]

The farther from fredericks is from township Khomassdahl
Windhoek in Namibie.When Namibie was part of south africa the 'gekleurd""(means coloured/mulatto) peoples where put in Khomasdahl during apartheid.His mother I don't know but at least fredericks is enough white to see it.So white is right is right.Funny that charlie also said Mandela has no white ancestors.I now a guy who is family of him and has the same white great grand farther. some black south africans have white admixture just like 30% of afro american males have the Y chromosome from a European ancestor

Matt shirvington has proved whites can run sub 10 because he runned 10.03(wind -0.1)and a pushing wind of 1.0 is enough for 9.96. and with ideal wind(2.0) he would have run a 9.90.Also Bryzgin proved it but was also not lucky with the wind.

 

[freedom1]

I'm highly suspicious of Frank Emmelman's (East Germany) 10:06 in terms of white guys being on drugs.

I would like to see Craig Pickering move to a warmer climate for his training. The cold weather leads to injuries.

 

[charlie180]

Keith - Blacks had more access to facilities and training in the the late 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, than in the 1930s.</span>

But that's not saying a lot though is it?

if whites have a genetic disadvantage compared to blacks in the human physiology of running fast. Where is the proof? There is none. However, there is very extensive proof of blacks genetic inferiority in intellectual functioning, which cannot be talked about in public.</span>

It's amusing that you claim that blacks cannot have a genetic advantage, then claim that whites have one in intelligence. Suffice to say every major 100m final since 1980 is my proof, where is yours? There are exceptions to your rule (that blacks are intellectual inferiors), after all there are black doctors and scientists, there are none for mine. There hasn't been any white sprinting champions for almost three decades. I think my claim holds more water.

Jimmy - I am on a hiding to nothing here aren't I? Whatever names I give you, you'll just claim that they aren't 'major' contenders or big names. There aren't many whites in the sprints, so clearly there aren't going to be as many caught out for doping. But I know a few - Falk Balzer (German 110m hurdler), Gary Cadogan (British Hurdler), Dougie Walker (British Sprinter), Dean Capobianco (Australian Sprinter), Christophe Cheval (French Sprinter), Sébastien Denis (French Hurdler), Gábor Dobos (hungarian 100m runner), Anastasios Gousis (Greek Sprinter), Hristoforos Hoidis (another Greek sprinter - PB of 10.14), Pietro Mennea (PB 10.01, 19.72), Géza Pauer (Hungarian Sprinter), Dimítrios Régas (yet another Greek Sprinter), and Andrey Rudnitskiy (Russian Sprinter)...and many more...

Like I said, white sprinters are thin on the ground, if you were to count long jumpers and triple jumpers it would easily double that list. Of course then there are high jumpers, pole vaulters, hammer throwers, discus, javelin...etc.

Apart Mennea, they all competed within the last 15 years or so. I just don't think that you hear about them in the US as they are not major contenders, but they are all top athletes for their nation.

 

[Observer]

... &lt;span style="font-style: italic;"&gt;The 100 yard conversion times are going to be slightly faster because sprinters are slowing down from about the 60 meter mark.&lt;/span&gt;The opposite is true. The converted times are slower. 60 metre times are also slower when converted. The 60m WR converted to 100yards would give a time of about 9.75s, over half a second off the record. At 100m it would be 10.65, almost a second off. The final 50m is the fastest part of the race, even so there would have to be an amazing speed increase over the last 10m for white 100y sprinters to have been capable of sub 10s.

Charlie, this needs editing and/or re-thinking. A conversion from 100y to 100m would be an extrapolation from the end of the race, not from the race as a whole. Converting 60m to 100m is not a matter of multiplying by 10/6. A 6.5s 60m extrapolates to about a 10.0s 100m.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Here is what I wrote in another forum:
And my personal belief is that yes both blacks and whites cheat, but steroids work on people of West African decent better. Now that the U.S has improved our testing methods we have seen Jamaica pass us because they have a much higher rate of cheating. Walter Dix was the only U.S 100 meter medalist this year and ran a 9.91, Silver was 9.89. I personally believe that whites will one day run a low 9.9x.



Previous post:
I think genetically, the "elite" white talent pool is predisposed for certain events, namely the middle distance events. I think the best shot for white world records are at 400 meter (Wariner still might do it) and 800 meter. There is also a shot at 1500 meters, but that seems to lean a little more toward being an Arab, Moroccan or Kenyan event. Whites could get the WR in the 400m hurdles because it combines middle distance with jumping and their could also one day be a white Liu Xiang in the 110 hurdles.

In 100 meters, if steroids were taken out of the equation as well as stereotyping and mental discouragement, IMO whites would still be slower than blacks over 100 meters, but would be competitive like in the days of old. I would say more like a .10-.15 second difference between the averages of the top 3 elites for both races compared to the current 0.3 second difference that seems prevalent today.

Other post:

Observer made some interesting posts about how PEDs may be aiding blacks better than whites in short sprints. I will add something to that.

Blacks have slightly longer legs on average and because of "slightly" different anatomy around the hip and on the underside of the quad where the meniscus and hamstring strand down the elite black sprinter tends to get slightly better leg lift on average. This helps the black sprinter to have a slightly longer more open stride. However, elite black athlete's quads don't seem to be as strong on average among the elites.

I have not read up on calf muscles much, but there doesn't seem to be a black advantage there other than with leg length, in fact as far as calf strength elite whites may have a small edge. Whites have done phenomenally in the "springy" jumping events like the high jump and triple jump.

Also as mentioned by Observer in a previous post, elite athletes of west African decent on average also seem to have less stamina which effects them in recovery. With steroids they can train with Herculean type regiments helping with fast twitch bulk and recover better and the steroids have a more significant effect for sprinting with their longer legs and slightly different anatomy around the hip.

Therefore the slight white advantage in quad strength is nullified. The ability to get leg lift in sprinting has a lot to do with the muscles on the underside of the quad and also the anatomy of where the femur attaches to the hip socket. Blacks tend to have a small advantage in the latter two and whites have an advantage with quad muscles for push off IMO which also helps with short area re-direction and burst, squatting exercises as well as breaking tackles in football. I am basing some of this on opinion from watching athletes of different ethnicities in sprinting, football etc. and some from research I read in a Wikipedia article over a year ago.

But white athletes have not gotten slower since 1980, we just haven't gotten any faster. Armin Hary's 10 flat in 1960 was hand-timed and therefore was probably only a 10.1x electronic. Pietro Mennea ran a 10.01 in 1979 and Woronin ran a 10 flat in 1984. Shirvo and Macrozonaris both ran a 10.03 in the 90s decade, but overall the averages of both of their top 10 times are better.

Again, whites aren't getting slower over 100 meters we just aren't improving. I am hopeful though that with Europe not stereotyping the way the pathetic U.S sports system is that we will see more than one white sprinter go sub 10 next decade. There are lots of talented Euro juniors that might one day run low 9.9s and final at the Olympics!

Also note:
There are whites who are predisposed for the ACTN fast twitch gene, just like West Africans (Jamaicans have that gene at the highest rate) but West Africans overall are more likely to have the gene.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Jimmy -  I am on a hiding to nothing here aren't I? Whatever names I give you, you'll just claim that they aren't 'major' contenders or big names.

no, absolutely not. i detest such straw man arguments. i am just genuinely curious.

track and field isn't an area i am very knowledgable in, though i've read some American history on it. i simply don't have enough knowledge to make claims that are broadly sweeping, so i ask questions and try to discern what seems to make sense.

i also tend to question things that "will never happen," seeing as how records are meant to be broken.

and when i see that white Americans were competitive in and winning many races up until the last few decades, it makes me suspect that there is more going on than just "whitey can't compete with blacky." even if there are more elite black sprinters than white ones, i tend to believe that sprinters like Kevin Little would be more common if whites participated in the kind of numbers blacks do.

and, of course, the possibility that blacks respond better to PEDs is certainly a theory worthy of consideration, as well.

i should also point out that black sprinting advantage only exists, insofar as it does, at the very elite level. it is quite easy to find white athletes in other sports who are as fast or faster than their black peers. again i submit to you soccer and American football players.

one more thing. even though i disagree with some of your assertions, i appreciate your genuine discourse on this subject. i would like to hear some of your thoughts on the other areas that Caste Football discusses.

 

[Alpha Male]

Keith - Blacks had more access to facilities and training in the the late 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, than in the 1930s.

"But that's not saying a lot though is it?"


Charlie, if blacks had less access to top training facilities throughout the 40's till the 60's, the opposite is true today. The best training facilities are in the major cities, and those cities have the black majority. I run track at a large training facility in New York, and most of the athletes training are black. Where are the training facilities of such caliber in rural or suburban areas where most of population is white? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><O></O>


I don't think you hate your own race, but what most here are baffled by and indignant of, are fellow whites that take great effort to disparage and discourage the sporting effort - or any positive achievement for that matter - of their own kind. What black man would create a website announcing the black strength and endurance disadvantage in strongman competitions? - or Olympic or power lifting? <O></O>


Your efforts, while purporting truth, only serve to propagandize black athletic superiority and discourage whites from participating with any semblance of hope to achieve elite track performances. The net result - as well as the entire collective agreement of black affirmative action in sport -is a white populace whoare less driven instinctually to compete in sport (this can have serious psychological consequences for the culture as a whole), and a black populacewhoareless driven intellectually to compete in academics orlearn a trade; for not all blacks can have athletic careers, but black collective culture think they can.





Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[charlie180]

Observer - I am not sure what you are saying, the only way that you could possibly extrapolate one smaller event to a longer one, is to have the runner run on a special track with slow motion cameras, a distance board or very high tech digital timing equipment. Then, using complex computing modelling and physics equations, predict how, based on countless previous runs, the runner would finish the race (i.e. speed up/slow down and by how much). An example of this was the Norwegian at the University of Oslo's institute of theoretical astrophysics who calculated how much time Bolt lost by celebrating too soon. I think that they got his time to be 9.55s without celebrating.

I am not sure that such decent footage exists of white sprinters running 100yards. But even if it did, those white sprinters who (like all top sprinters) have an average speed of 10m/s would have to run the last ten metres in half that time (i.e. half a second for ten metres), not very likely.

The only real, and simple way, of working it out would be to calculate the average speed run in the race, then work out what the time would be had the sprinter run at that speed over another distance. As 100m and 100y are pretty close, it would be pretty accurate. But just to give you an example, using the same principle with Usain Bolt's WR 200m time of 19.30s - would give a 100m time of 9.65s. That's pretty close. 60m doesn't work out becuase sprinters haven't or have barely reached their top speed by that point.

Also in Bolts 100m race he hit 100y at about 8.86s, so you can see whether at 100m or 100y, the gulf is still there.

 

[charlie180]

ToughJ.Riggins - I agree, it is clear that blacks have some kind of advantage, genetic or otherwise. The fact that they have also improved over the past 25 years by .3s while white sprinters have not improved at all, also makes me believe that perhaps they also respond better to PEDs.

Interesting points about the triple jump and others jumps, it would explain alot.

As for Pietro Mennea, his time shouldn't really be counted and in fact it would not be today. The IAAF don't accept times run at over 1000m, Mexico City is over 2000m above sea level. Macrozonari also ran his in Mexico City so should likewise be discounted. I also don't believe that the Woronin time is genuine, I put him on a par with Allan Wells and Wells also ran a 10.0 time (10.02) in Australia in 82. But he had a 5.9m/s wind! The fact that Woronin acheived a faster time with just 2m/s (the maximum allowed) makes me suspicious. I think that the wind gauge was faulty. It happens.

Johan Rossouw ran his 10.06s with a 2m/s wind and also at altitude, so the only one that really stands out is Matt Shirvington. If anyone was going to break 10s it would have been this guy, but he hasn't. Although he's only 29 he hasn't run under 10.2 for 5 years. And once again bringing me back to an earlier point, he ran his PB aged 20.

Jimmy - I think this is a much bigger issue in the US than in Europe. Most European nations still have pretty low percentages of blacks in their populations, with the exception of France and the UK. So they have to field white guys. In the US it seems that all sprinters are black, from 100-400m. I was genuinely surprised the first time I saw Wariner as I honestly don't remember another white US sprint contender. In the UK it is different, there are a few white 200m and most 400m runners are white.

Alpha Male - I can believe that it is now blacks that have the best facilities, after all a white sprinter is rare, even at 200m or 400m. But is that becuase they are the better athletes, or becuase whites are pushed into something else?

I disagree, I think that it is society's reluctance to acknowledge the differences that cause these problems. It is like the Emperor's new clothes, anyone with half a brain can see the differences, it is just that it is not talked about. Racially there are differences, which makes the possibility of a white 100m contender all the more interesting, if improbable.

As for the site, I did that as I was unable to find any information on the fastest white sprinters, because, as I have just mentioned, it is a taboo subject. Do you think that if Pickering ran 9.99s he'd be allowed to say "Wow, I am the fastest ever white man!" and what do you think would happen to him if he did? Blindly claiming that these differences do not exist is what causes the problems. Surely Shirvington's and Pickering's feats are all the more remarkable because they are disadvantaged?

 

[Alpha Male]

Alpha Male - I can believe that it is now blacks that have the best facilities, after all a white sprinter is rare, even at 200m or 400m. But is that becuase they are the better athletes, or becuase whites are pushed into something else?

Neither. I postulated that the best training facilitates are in major urban cities. Those cities have large black majority populations. By that juxtaposition, blacks have access to those facilities. A better question - not necessarily for this thread - is why the white flight from major cities? Come run track with me in East New York and find out for yourself brother!
<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>

Shirvington's and Pickering are not disadvantaged genetically, for if that were the case, wouldn't99.5 percent of all other black athletes who are slower than them be at that same disadvantage? Shirvington and Pickering are, however, perceived to be disadvantaged by self-loathing whites, and this spawns the collective attitude that whites cannot compete in sprints. Moreover, that attitude may push- as you said - whites into other sports that may have otherwise been fantastic sprinters. That is why many Castefootballers acknowledge the problem of slotting youths racially: white kid becomes middle distance runner and black becomes sprinter; or a white becomes a middle linebacker and a black becomes a running back (these may occur even if the white kid demonstrates superiority at the "black" positions). That is the whole point of this website - to educate and create awareness of the discrimination the white athlete faces. And what aspect of society refuses to acknowledge racial differences? The media routinely acknowledges mythic, black, athletic superiority, - just turn on ESPN; so why create a website that adds fuel to the fire? <O></O>
<O></O>

You assertion that "White Men Can't Run" is akin to "White Men Can't Jump" and "White Men Can't Fight." Both stereotypes have been shattered. Please view Stefan Holm's plyo workouts under Positive Messages in Happy Hour and witness white domination in boxing - the Vitali/Peter fight may help inspire. <O></O>
<O></O>

Also, I encourage you, in the name of fairness, to write articles championing white accomplishments in boxing and MMA, and the need for a Great Black Hope for the heavyweight division. Perhaps an article entitled "Black Men Can't Lift"could highlight the noticebable lack of black athletesatthe elite levelsin strongman, Olympic, and powerlifting<O></O>Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[Keith Lincoln]

"It's amusing that you claim that blacks cannot have a genetic advantage,
then claim that whites have one in intelligence. Suffice to say every
major 100m final since 1980 is my proof, where is yours? There are
exceptions to your rule (that blacks are intellectual inferiors), after
all there are black doctors and scientists, there are none for mine.
There hasn't been any white sprinting champions for almost three
decades. I think my claim holds more water."

My point is the negative stereotype of white being much slower runners than blacks due to a inherent advantage that blacks possess has never been proven in any acceptable scientific way. I never said blacks "cannot have a genetic advantage". The reason I am making this point is this unproven assumption about speed has been used to deny whites equal opportunity in such sports as football (American). I don't have time to teach you about the basics of scientific research. IQ cannot be altered because it is almost entirely inherited . The mean differences between races have been arrived at by 100 years of random testing very large percentages of populations of different races. Just because blacks have won every major 100 meter event since 1980 is NOT proof of any genetic advantage. A much higher percentage of the Canadian male population are professional ice hockey players compared with American males. Is that proof the Canadians are born with a hockey "gene"?

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

charlie,

if it is simply genetics that accounts for the lack of elite white sprinters, then how can you account for white times getting slower over the last 30 years while black times have gotten faster?

there is a very interesting thread about that very thing here at Caste Football. it seems that lack of white participation, at least in America, has certainly declined drastically over the years.

and you can't break any records if you're not even trying out for the track team.

 

[Alpha Male]

"It's amusing that you claim that blacks cannot have a genetic advantage, then claim that whites have one in intelligence. Suffice to say every major 100m final since 1980 is my proof, where is yours? There are exceptions to your rule (that blacks are intellectual inferiors), after all there are black doctors and scientists, there are none for mine. There hasn't been any white sprinting champions for almost three decades. I think my claim holds more water


First of all, you're equating sprinting with athleticism. That, in and of itself, can be argued, since athleticism incorporates a multitude of skills. Secondly, existence of blackdoctors and scientistsare notscientific measureables to argue for their intellectual equality, or maybe superiority in your case. What one could site, however, is IQ testing and the bell curve - both indicating white superiority. Aside from statistical analysis, the whole of western civilization compared with just about any other race's culture should indicate their advanced consciousness. Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[Maple Leaf]

Charlie Francis, are you at it again?

You are not seriously going to compare black average intelligence to white are you? Please, do not embarrass yourself. Whites created the world we see today while blacks still hunt and gather. The difference between white intellectual achievement and black intellectual achievement is like a skyscraper to a mud hut.

To insist that whites will never break the 10 second barrier because they are white is childish in its conception. You are starting to think like those blacks you hang around with, which means you are starting to lose your ability to think. Can you seriously dismiss lack of participation as a reason for such a poor showing from white sprinters? In Canada, for example, a country of 32 million people, we have only 2 notable white sprinters: Maz. and Leblanc. So where are they all? Whites simply are not sprinting. How can anyone draw a conclusion on so few numbers? Every other white country in the world has extremely low sprinting participation from whites. Sprinting simply does not exist in 99.9% of white athletes desires and goals. But you, Charlie Francis, want to try and pretend you have all of the answers, you know why.

Lack of participation has everything to do with it. Are we to conclude that Indians are genetically pathetic at almost any sporting endeavor because Indians have never won almost anything internationally in sports. The answer is obviously NO. Indians do not participate, and have poor programs, so they have a terrible record. The last I checked Indians have two arms, two legs, and two eyes like the rest of us. If India ran sports programs of the same quality as Russia does they would produce champions as Russia does.

For all of the myth and hype about black sprinting how many actually have broken the 10 second barrier? Considering that track teams AROUND THE WORLD are stocked with black sprinters that is not so much of an accomplishment as it is an expectation. When all of the sprinters in the best programs are black who else is going to win? Conversely, the same can be said about white swimmers: who else is going to win most of the races and establish new records when most of the elite teams around the world are stocked with whites?

But Charlie, you are a bright boy, you trained that mentally challenged Johnson to run under 10 so you should be able to understand enough. Maybe.

 

[white lightning]

The best post I have read in a long time. Great job Maple Leaf. You nailed it. The same argument that I belive in along with the brainwashing from all levels also contributing to the problem. In my opinion, whites are the worlds greatest all around athletes and they can excel in the sprints again. Hopefully someday it will become more popular like it was in the past.

 

[Observer]

Observer - I am not sure what you are saying, the only way that you could possibly extrapolate one smaller event to a longer one, is to have the runner run on a special track with slow motion cameras, a distance board or very high tech digital timing equipment. Then, using complex computing modelling and physics equations, predict how, based on countless previous runs, the runner would finish the race (i.e. speed up/slow down and by how much). An example of this was the Norwegian at the University of Oslo's institute of theoretical astrophysics who calculated how much time Bolt lost by celebrating too soon. I think that they got his time to be 9.55s without celebrating. I am not sure that such decent footage exists of white sprinters running 100yards. But even if it did, those white sprinters who (like all top sprinters) have an average speed of 10m/s would have to run the last ten metres in half that time (i.e. half a second for ten metres), not very likely.The only real, and simple way, of working it out would be to calculate the average speed run in the race, then work out what the time would be had the sprinter run at that speed over another distance. As 100m and 100y are pretty close, it would be pretty accurate. But just to give you an example, using the same principle with Usain Bolt's WR 200m time of 19.30s - would give a 100m time of 9.65s. That's pretty close. 60m doesn't work out becuase sprinters haven't or have barely reached their top speed by that point. Also in Bolts 100m race he hit 100y at about 8.86s, so you can see whether at 100m or 100y, the gulf is still there. 

Charlie, I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from in your thought process. You're no dummy, but you seem to get frustrated easily when the solution is not immediately obvious. I don't mean that in a bad way; it is usually a sign of a detail-oriented person --- the side-effect of which is missing the forest for the trees. My first reason for saying this is because of your reasoning (a) because a white man has not run 100m in 10s, therefore he never will. My second reason is (b) that you grossly overcomplicate this extrapolation of 100y to 100m. It is a math problem solvable by an average 10 year old, or a smart 8 year old. Do a Google search for "100m splits 10m". The data is easily available to make a good comparison, accurate to about .03. It doesn't matter whether it is an old race with no video footage. As long as the runner did not suddenly become exhausted or stricken with at heart attack at 100y, a good extrapolation can be made.Edited by: Observer

 

[Observer]

Your efforts, while purporting truth, only serve to propagandize black athletic superiority and discourage whites from participating with any semblance of hope to achieve elite track performances.  The net result - as well as the entire collective agreement of black affirmative action in sport - is a white populace who are less driven instinctually to compete in sport (this can have serious psychological consequences for the culture as a whole), and a black populace who are less driven intellectually to compete in academics or learn a trade; for not all blacks can have athletic careers, but black collective culture think they can.

Alpha, man you've had some good posts lately. I'm a bit too old to care much about the particular technical aspects of sport, but this last paragraph really caught my eye. There are lots of targets to shoot at, but you've crushed the biggest and most important bullseye here, I think.

I kind of look at this as we're all on a big ship together whether white or black, and if each people and race do not do their proper task, the ship will go badly astray and there will be disorder. If white men in particular do not step forward to take the helm, not only will the ship go astray, but it will capsize --- to the disaster of all the races.Edited by: Observer

 

[charlie180]

Keith - A much higher percentage of the Canadian male population are</span><br style="font-style: italic;">professional ice hockey players compared with American males. Is that</span><br style="font-style: italic;">proof the Canadians are born with a hockey "gene"?</span>

I
think that you are confusing participation with ability, not to mention
the fact that Canadians and Americans live in different countries, ergo
have different facilities, cultures, emphasis on different sports and
climates. Blacks and whites live in the same country. Hockey is also a
learned sport, running ability is natural. You are either a fast runner
or you are not, i.e. inherited or genetic.

Alpha Male - I was equating the 100m with sprinting. IQ = White superiority? See below.

Maple
Leaf - If it were that simple we'd all be geneticists. Vietnamese
people have the highest average IQ of any race on earth, they live or
lived until recently in huts. Your argument is so full of holes it
would be impolite of me to pick over it. The first civilisations
emerged in Africa and then the Middle East, whites are just the most
recent. The Egyptians were building pyramids when white Europeans were
living in caves, literally.


To insist that whites will never break the 10 second barrier because they are white is childish in its conception</span>

Not
really, it is like saying a woman will never break 10s, it is a
physical impossibility. They just are not built for it, the same as
white sprinters. If you have evidence to the contrary then please
supply it. 200 years ago white people claimed that Negroes were dumb
inferiors, genetically not up to intelligent acts, couldn't be taught
to read and write, couldn't reason, and were a sub species. These
theories were only proven inaccurate by Negroes proving them to be
through their actions. I say again, in 40 years whites have not proven
that they have the same ability as blacks over the short sprint.

Can you seriously dismiss lack of participation as a reason for such a</span><br style="font-style: italic;">poor showing from white sprinters? In Canada, for example, a country of</span><br style="font-style: italic;">32 million people, we have only 2 notable white sprinters: Maz. and</span><br style="font-style: italic;">Leblanc. So where are they all?</span>

So
now your argument is that white are discouraged by urban myths? Well
you may have a point, in the US or even Canada. But what about Europe?
Ireland, Finland, Norway, Germany, Russia, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia,
Hungary, Austria, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland and Denmark are
just some of the nations that can pretty much ONLY</span> field white sprint
teams, they have full access to all the facilities, the full backing of
their respective nations, yet still cannot compete. Out of 750 million
Europeans, 97% are white, are you suggesting that out of that number,
the great white sprint hope has still yet to be found? That somehow,
racism, discrimination and urban myths are preventing Mr White from
taking up sprinting? Even in nations that have no black sprinters?



India is not Europe, Europe has the facilities and the infrastructure.
Like China perhaps India can compete better than it does now, but like
China and Europe, I doubt that they'll have a sub 10s sprinter.

<br style="font-style: italic;">
When all of the sprinters in the best programs are black who else is going to win? </span>



Again you are confusing the US, UK and Canada with the world. Other
than Africa, the Caribbean and the UK, US and Canada, most other
nations have non black sprint teams. You probably don't realise as they
are unable to compete at the top levels.



As for swimmers, it is clear that whites have the genetic advantage there. African Swim teams don't tend to do well.



white lightning - Brainwashing? What about Ireland? They only ever have
white sprinters, brainwashing or discrimination doesn't really hold
water in virtually all white nations. I am sure that they wish they had
a few black sprinters to choose from.

 

[charlie180]

Observer - But I still haven't seen any evidence of a white 100 yard
sprinter being able to run 100m in less than 10s, as originally
claimed. One site has Usain Bolt's best 10m split at 0.82s between
50-90m, incredibly fast. But as I mentioned before a white sprinter
would have to run that last 10m in 0.5s to break 10s in 100m, going by
the times that I have seen.

 

[white lightning]

Shirvo ran his 10.03 into anegative wind. If he had any type of descent tail wind, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In Canada alone, they have had 3 very talented white sprinters have a chance to break through onto the olympic teams. Nic Macrozonaris who has won the title of fastest man in Canada 4 or 5 times in the last 8 years even with injuries. Then you have the two youngsters in Jared Connaugton and Micheal LeBlanc. JayConn won the 200 title this year and made the olympic team. He also has improved his 100 p.b. to 10.15! Not too bad and he can still improve as he is only 22 years of age. Michael LeBlanc made the finals of the NCAA National Championships in the 100 meters as a freshman. He ran times from in the 10.16 - 10.24 range in 2006. He had a major back injury doing squats in the weight room and missed all of last season. It's a shame because he has world class potential. Let's hope he returns to full health as he dominated the big east conf. as a kid.


How can 3 white sprinters in Canada rise to the top when alof of blacks excel up there? They have had elite black sprinters like Bruny Surin, Donavan Bailey, etc.


My hypothesis is due to the fact that the stereotyping isn't nearly as bad in Canada. It is flat out disgusting down here. We have such a huge population of whites in the US. I guarantee that we have alot of Macro,Connaughton,LeBlanc types. The biggest problem here is one the stereotyping and racial slotting. The second is just the fact that whites are into more sports than anyone on the planet. We also are vastly into school similar to the Asian Culture. If track ever was important to whites as it is to blacks, we would see many white sprinters go sub 10. We already have had 3 white sprinters go sub 20 in the 200. To me, that is an even more difficult acheivement. I for one don't think you give whites nearly enough credit for our accomplishments both on and off the track. If all goes well next season, it is possible that not 1 but maybe even 2 or 3 could break through.


One last thing. In the IAAF Junior World Champs, whites took the silver in the 100 and lost by 1/100th of a second. Then in the 200, we took 1st and 2nd place. For the limited amount of sprinters worldwide when compared with black sprinters, we are not doing too bad. Give me numbers and you will see even better results. If only America would catch the love of track beyond just the African American Community.

 

[charlie180]

My hypothesis is due to the fact that the stereotyping isn't nearly as
bad in Canada....If only America would catch the love of track beyond
just the African American Community.

But you see we are back to the same argument again. This seems to be an
American problem, elsewhere there are lots of white sprinters, there is
no bar on white sprinters anywhere else, real or imagined. So you can't blame the lack of a white sub 10 sprinters on the fact that white US sprinters are thin on the ground, there are plenty elsewhere.



Even those Canadians you name, whilst decent, prove my point. They
wouldn't make it to an Olympic final. As for Nicolas Macrozonaris. his
PB should be 10.19s as that is his best time not set in Mexico City.
His 10.03s time was set at altitude, oddly though the IAAF have that as
his PB too, despite their rules on not accepting times above 1000m.



Also to reiterate an earlier point, his 10.03s was set when he was 23, his 10.19s when he was only 20.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Charlie, you should check out the "What Constitutes athleticism" thread in this forum about half way down the first page. I should also have mentioned that most of the decathlon winners in the last 20 years have been white. This year half black/ half Japanese Brian Clay won, but due to the one drop rule subconsciously used by the U.S populous, most people would think he is 100% black or attribute his skill to being black.

However, I do agree with you that the top black elites would still have a .10-.15 advantage over the top white elites in 100 meters even without steroids. That seemed to be the "usual" trend before steroids hit full force after Ben Johnson in 1988. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[waterbed]

Charlie 750 million people ?????? in Europe and 97% white hAHAHAHA LOLOLOLOL.The Netherlands 30% non white big city's over 50% non white.The big city's have the best sprint accomodations still our fast sprinters are white.Germany the most populated country in Europe and the big populated france,Great Brittain, are around 30% non white.If you take the new generation they are around 50% non white.whites are working and non whites getting babies.Only some very poor east european countrys are 97% white.

whites have faster start blacks have on average 0.5 M/s higher top speed and top end speed.In the top end speed most sprinters slow not much done.mostly only like 0.2 m/s in the last 20 meter or so of the 100 meters.mostly the difference in top end speed have to do with the differnce between top speed.you nearly never see someone losing who has the same start as other sprinter then a higher top speed bu losing so much speed thast they lost to the sprinter with slower top speed but with less deceleration.

world class black sprinters run on average first 10 meters in 1.70(without reaction time) for example Usain bolt oympics Mo Greene in '99 http://speedendurance.com/2008/08/22/usain-bolt-100m-10-mete r-splits-and-speed-endurance/.But their are whites who can run first 10 meter in 1.55.I know that from programm video analysing from soccer with registated nearly everything.Also here is Matt shirvington running if you take off reaction time in the 1.5 range
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nji28zULMEQ


Elite black sprinters run 1.69 first 10 meters and reach 12 m/s

An Ideal white sprinter would run I think 1.55 first 10 meters and reach 11.5 m's sec end runs a 9.7-9.8

 

[charlie180]

Charlie 750 million people ?????? in Europe and
97% white hAHAHAHA LOLOLOLOL.....Germany the most populated country in
Europe and the big populated france,Great Brittain, are around 30% non
white

Please don't guess, by what you have seen on
TV etc. The European population is 730 million (my mistake). at least
according to the US government, CIA Factbook. The UK is 90% white by
recent estimates, 92.1% by the most recent census. Just 2% of the UK
population is classed as black. Leicester is the most ethnically
diverse city, with just 62% white, and 30% Asian (about 5% black).
London is 70% white, just 5% black. Whites are still the clear majority
in every major city in the UK, even over all non whites.

France is Europe's most ethnically diverse nation but still has 85% white, and Germany 92% white.

The 97% white is again from the CIA world factbook.

An Ideal white sprinter would run I think 1.55 first 10 meters and reach 11.5 m's sec end runs a 9.7-9.8

So why have there been plenty of ideal black sprinters, but in 40 years
not one white one? Are we waiting for just the one? With 97% of
Europeans being white and having had 40 years of waiting, you'd think
we'd have found at least one?

 

[waterbed]

plenty of ideal black sprinters?I don't think so maybe Usain Bolt because he is much faster can celebrate after 80 meters he is coming close.But maybe he is juided to the gills.To be ideal sprinter you also need a fast track for example if Armin Hary was now in his 20's and not in the 60's he would have run 9.8-9.9.
From the statistics you gived I think the people from CIA world factbook most be fired.The whole team.
Still the reason that blacks run faster then whites could be juicing and that all the black track and field do running because that is the nearly the only event they can win agianst whites.But when Usain Bolt did run a 9.69 100 meter I was

But when I white when I wins something I do

because I am white and all the white bashing makes me mad.Because we win so much but never get respected.Also the media always act like slavery was a whitey thing.But in fact the most slavery was within africa and the most were sold to arabs from 600/1600 after crist and 2 whites only 2 centuries and also whites were the only ones who not castrated the slaves when they did not need them anymore.so their are blacks with slaves in their ancestors.but they are slo with the most slave masters in it white or black . accomplishments of whites is onbelievable.But they are never mentioned

my birthday was a month ago but when I make make a list of the white accomplishments I am not finished before my next birthday.