I have a question that's been on my mind for a while...
Original Poster: Li Shen Long
Forum: Kickboxing & Boxing Forum
Posted On: 02-07-2005, 17:02
Orginal Post: Li Shen Long: Me and a friend of mine were discussing boxing and we did so for a lengthy amount of time. One thing that was brought up was why african american men seem to always be dominate in physical sports. We wen't on and on and he mentioned something that I thought was very interesting but didn't know if it was true or not, he mentioned something about african american men's skulls being thicker than that of a caucasian men's skullsl, thus why he figures black men are able to take head hits better than white men. Is there any truth to this, are black people's skulls thicker than white people's? By the way, this isn't mean't to be racist by any means, i'm just curious.
Post: lil'sword:
as some of you know I lived in africa for about nine years. i noticed that on the average blacks were noticably stronger than a normal caucasian.They are a very strong people. I dont know about the skull theory though.>
Post: Blade:
well they could of visited the gym :\.
you have to make a study from birth on a number of individuals to reach anything solid.>
Post: Li Shen Long:
All i'm asking about is skull thickness, nothing more.>
Post: Michael M.:
I have heard that african american's have more muscles in their body. I do not know if that is true or not. Maybe that is why though.>
Post: 8LimbsScientist:
I wouldn't say african americans dominate boxing. Look how many hispanics box.
If we are just going to bring up the higher tier boxers I could bring up tons of names of boxers who aren't black:
Gatti, Ward, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Leija, Cotto, Klitschko (sp?), Ruiz (ugh), etc.>
Post: Michael M.:
African Americans also seem to dominate running, such of that in the Olympics. I have no idea why :|.>
Post: zefff:
respect 8limbs. I was thinking the same thing myself. I have always had nothing but admiration for hispanic and Mexican boxers. Some real hard ass mofos!
Watched Morales vs Hernandez on the weekend and have to say Morales is one amazing fighter. The fight was one of the best Ive seen in ages.>
Post: dscott:
First thing I want to say is that I in no means want this to come across as racist. If it does, I'm sorry.
I don't think that the reason why black people are good boxers is because they have more muscles or have a thicker skull. I think it's from their environment. Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not saying all black people grow up poor, but if you look at the background of all boxers in general, they come from a poor neighborhood where they were fighting from a young age. It doesn't require alot of money to train in boxing.
I think the reason why we're the way we are is because we're a product of our environment.>
Post: 8LimbsScientist:
dscott also has a point. Its not racist to point out that the lower socioeconomic strata in the cities are made up of a lot of minorities.
Way back when it was the Irish and Jews that were struggling to make it in America, and I bet given enough time we minorities will pull ourselves out of the ghettos as well.
So its entirely plausible that there socioeconomic status makes them more likely to box in the first place, hence the large amount of blacks in boxing?
I mean, you never see a boxing gym in a rich neighborhood.>
Post: dscott:
But then again, you can look at this scientifically. If you look at it the simple way of dogs. All dogs are a member of the canine group. Then there are different breeds that are better or worse at different things. Just like human beings. We are all a member of the human group but then there are different "breeds" of people that, through evolution, have become better at different things.
Maybe it's true that black people have thicker skulls or more muscles but I still think the main reason for certain types of people excelling in different sports is because of their upbringing.>
Post: zefff:
dont matter how thick your skull is. The way to win is to dish it out not to soak it up. The one who has the most desire backed up with quality and quantity in preparation will always win IMO.>
Post: bamboo:
Unless I am mistaken, eugenics has been proven time and time again to be nothing more than a false science. Racism is based on ignorance and fear.
If it were a question of nothing more than race, then the olympics would be dominated by certain regions of the earth were racial populations were most prevelant, instead it is the USA that dominates because they pump MONEY into training. Nothing more.
No one race has a monopoly on muscles, bone thickness or running ability. People looked different over time because of geography.
bamboo>
Post: dscott:
I definitely think that money for training makes a big difference but are you saying that you don't agree that it's because we're a product of our environment?>
Post: zefff:
Money is not the only thing some atheletes have had 'pumped in'! :lol:>
Post: bamboo:
I am saying that we are a product of our environment ,BUT, the effects of environment are much more immediate and do not change racial characteristics in short periods of time. Change takes hundreds of thousands of years.
In short, to argue that one race is better than the other because of "thicker skulls" or anithing else is nothing short of silly. People come in all shapes and sizes, regardless of race.
-bamboo>
Post: garyt:
I have a friend that coaches football at a high school in a middle class neighborhood . He told me that students from middle class neighborhoods are the hardest to coach because most of your students have part-time jobs after school and in the summer, so while the kids at the poor schools have after school programs like PAL ( police athletic league) to help keep the kids off the streets. The middle class kids get jobs. This makes the poor kids better athletes. that?s why most of the top athletes come from places that don?t have readily available jobs.>
Post: gloval:
African Americans, migrated to american primarily from slave trade. Werent most slaves selectively bred for working and to be stronger ? even a few generations of this, or the fact that those who made the voyage here in full health were a little more than norm? you have a pretty unique group of peoples. Seems Natural Selection would play a pretty good role in the development of African Americans.
my 2 cents.>
Post: NeverMan:
[quote=gloval African Americans, migrated to american primarily from slave trade. Werent most slaves selectively bred for working and to be stronger ? even a few generations of this, or the fact that those who made the voyage here in full health were a little more than norm? you have a pretty unique group of peoples. Seems Natural Selection would play a pretty good role in the development of African Americans.
my 2 cents.[/quote
I am glad to see that someone put some thought into answer this question without fear of retribution. I agree entirely.
However, there is nothing "Natural" about it. It was done on purpose, by humans.
A people who spend generation after generation working hard are generally going to adapt. Also, if you kill all the skinny people of a race in a region and only keep the physically dominant ones, and then they breed, doesn't it make sense that these genes wouldn't be as spread thin?
Call it racist if you want, it's not. It's just simple logic and truth. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I don't care.
Didn't anyone see the latest Chris Rock comedy special on HBO? He talks about it in the special.
EDIT: A couple of sites and snippits:
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=jesusisangry&static=246985
http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/index_20000811.asp
Most of this isn't talked about since the days of Political Correctness. But since the subject of this entire thread blatantly ignores PC, well then, so shall I. Not under the guise of racism, for I am not a racist, but for the better understanding of what might possibly be truth.>
Post: bamboo:
Quote: African Americans, migrated to american primarily from slave trade. Werent most slaves selectively bred for working and to be stronger ? even a few generations of this, or the fact that those who made the voyage here in full health were a little more than norm? you have a pretty unique group of peoples. Seems Natural Selection would play a pretty good role in the development of African Americans.
Quote: I am glad to see that someone put some thought into answer this question without fear of retribution. I agree entirely.
Perhaps initially well thought out but not researched. Although the idea men and women may have been selected for thier physical attributes, how they treated them while in captivity and after didn't help.
Slaves were not treated as human beings and were fed a lesser diet than barnyard animals. Malnutrition, physical and mental beatings and all the other cruelties suffered by the american slave broke human beings, it did not build them up. As well, "selective breeding" implies strict controls in procreation, instead , slaveholders would OFTEN sire children with thier own slaves, thus destoying any "pure" genes and contaminating the gene pool.
American society is still suffering from its 400 year tradition of human bondage. Taking the afore mentioned arguement further, there are more slaves in the world today than ever before, many governments simply turn a blind eye (look up Ghana, India , Thailand , Haiti...etc....), those people have in no way become physically or mentally superior, if this was the case, then we should have, by now, after thousands of years of selective slavery, seen a superiour "race".
I suggest reading the slave naratives readily available in any decent bookstore. Frederick Douglass is an excellent start.
bamboo>
Post: zefff:
I would imagine that a high percentage are kids. :x There is definetely a problem in UK where a segment of the west African immigrant population have continued this practise with kids continually trafficked to work in their houses, unpaid. Some have even been found dead. The most famous in UK is the torso of boy! Fecking sick wankers still havent been found to my knowledge!
http://www.met.police.uk/policegazette/archive/misc_html/childs_torso.htm
http://www.freetheslaves.net/slavery_today/index.html>
Post: NeverMan:
[quote=bamboo
Slaves were not treated as human beings and were fed a lesser diet than barnyard animals. Malnutrition, physical and mental beatings and all the other cruelties suffered by the american slave broke human beings, it did not build them up.
I think that you underestimate the importance of genetic makeup
As well, "selective breeding" implies strict controls in procreation, instead , slaveholders would OFTEN sire children with thier own slaves, thus destoying any "pure" genes and contaminating the gene pool.
Enough so to dilute the entire slave population's gene pool?? The US slave industry was the largest in western history, if not the largest in the world. Once again, I think you should talk to a biologist and really learn the importance of genetic makeup.
if this was the case, then we should have, by now, after thousands of years of selective slavery, seen a superiour "race".
I guess it depends on what you call "superior". If what you call "superior" is, um, let's say, DOMINATING one countries sports, all of their sports, then I would say that the African-American is just that. However, that is not how I define "superior", and I don't believe that their is a "superior" race, nor do we ever need one. Working together with each individual's (regardless of color) faults and strengths to achieve an overall team goal always comes up with the best results.
bamboo[/quote >
Post: bamboo:
Quote: Enough so to dilute the entire slave population's gene pool?? The US slave industry was the largest in western history, if not the largest in the world. Once again, I think you should talk to a biologist and really learn the importance of genetic makeup.
I work as a researcher in the largest scientific information dissemination facility in north america (CISTI). Scientists (including genetic scientists) use our services for thier work. I have done my homework.
As far as dominating in sports, its called money and training. The US and China put money in, and get results.
Quote: and I don't believe that their is a "superior" race, nor do we ever need one
Thats my point.
Quote: Working together with each individual's (regardless of color) faults and strengths to achieve an overall team goal always comes up with the best results
Now I'm confused. I thought what I said was that it was the individual, regardless of colour that made the difference? I agree completely.
-bamboo>
Post: NeverMan:
So, just to clarify all of this bamboo, You don't believe in "Selective Breeding"? That is to say that not only do you not believe it ever happened (in the US and of course, in Germany) but also that even if someone did attempt it, it wouldn't work. Is this correct?
I am happy that you work in a scientific environment. That doesn't mean you know jack crap about genetics. If you worked in a high-perfomance computing office putting together beowulf clusters for computational physics, would that make you a physicist?? NO. Of course not.>
Post: bamboo:
Neverman,
Quote: am happy that you work in a scientific environment. That doesn't mean you know jack crap about genetics
It means I have access and use the latest in information available.
Quote:
You don't believe in "Selective Breeding"?
Not what I wrote. Of course selective breeding can happen. What I wrote was that in the case of the american slave trade, selective breeding was not practiced in way that it would produce a physically superiour human being.
Quote: That is to say that not only do you not believe it ever happened (in the US and of course, in Germany) but also that even if someone did attempt it, it wouldn't work. Is this correct?
Again, not what I wrote. But, eugenics , as it was practiced both in the US and germany has been discredited .
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
They did not know what they were doing at the time, so I find it rather hard to believe that it worked for a group of backwards slave holders in the united states.
-bamboo>
Post: NeverMan:
Oh, so you directly do research in this matter. Cool. Can I have a link to some of your cited papers? That would be great.
If taking all the biggest, strongest people and making them breed together for 400 years (and excluding all the weak people of the group) is "not doing it right", then please enlighten us, or just me (if indeed I am the only ignorant person who thinks that is what selective breeding is). I must have misunderstand what Selective Breeding is. Sorry. Please explain to me.>
Post: zefff:
I think THE point we should remember is that the mind drives the body.
Black people are poor and it is IMO generally the case that these physical outlets are the only chance at making a success of themselves for a lot of black people, especially from deprived upbringings. This is a great motivator. Not just for black people but for all people in poverty and without a variety of possible aspirations.
As for black people in America....I would be very surprised to find the existence of even one person descended from slaves who did not carry white genes. To my knowledge no-one race is pure.
Anyway, the best physical specimen doesnt automatically win the fight.>
Post: bamboo:
I wrote:
Quote: It means I have access and use the latest in information available
Please read what I wrote. Nowhere does it state that I do work in the field, it does however state that I have access to the research.
Quote: If taking all the biggest, strongest people and making them breed together for 400 years (and excluding all the weak people of the group) is "not doing it right", then please enlighten us, or just me (if indeed I am the only ignorant person who thinks that is what selective breeding is). I must have misunderstand what Selective Breeding is. Sorry. Please explain to me.
You make the claim, you show me the proof that there was a program in place during the slave years that was in fact selective breeding as specified by the standards of today. There was not. There was however a group of american anthropologists at the time that tried "selective breeding" to control personality traites based solely on racist misconceptions of the "savageness" of the various peoples of colour. This included aboriginal americans as well as african americans. Thus, a mix once again. I also previously wrote of white slave holders having children with slaves, this was not an isolated occurence, this rape happened everyday. Again, read the slave narratives, they are available online, at almost all bookstores and in the united states library of congress.
Here is a link to what real selective breeding ishttp://www.biology-online.org/2/12_selective_breeding.htm, I find it hard to believe that slave owners in the US or anywhere else for that matter knew what they were doing. You say its so, its on you to prove it. I have already provided a link to eugenics at work as a "science", which of course was debunked.
Heres one from a phd.
http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html
I have told you where I work and what I do, are you a genetic scientist? Do you have papers you can cite?
Please actually take the time to read what I wrote, nowhere did I say that selective breeding is not real science, what I wrote was "
Quote: As well, "selective breeding" implies strict controls in procreation, instead , slaveholders would OFTEN sire children with thier own slaves, thus destoying any "pure" genes and contaminating the gene pool."
Yes, one contaminant does destroy an entire program. The fact is, it was many.
If the slave holders did not understand proper farming methods (such as crop rotation etc..) how would they possibly understand selective breeding?
Another link to the topic of selective breeding of american slaves and how it was based on flawed theory and pseudo science http://www.lrna.org/texts/movingon/movingon.2.html. Its a good read.
You have done nothing but attack while I have put forth arguements and evidence. Do you have any evidence of your claims? Can you write a response without sarcasm and back your own opinion?
Since I apparantly need to be a phd in genetic research on the selective breeding of slaves by slave holders for you to accept or atleast listen to my arguement, I assume that you are of course a holder of such credentials.
neverman wrote:
Quote: Call it racist if you want, it's not. It's just simple logic and truth. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I don't care
-bamboo>
Post: Gong||Jau:
My $.02: I agree that they probably weren't doing a very good job of it and that the rape would have ruined the process, but I would imagine that every once in a while they had to get it right. Most African-Americans in the United States are probably descended in some way from slavery. Not all of them are exceptional physically or more skilled at sports, and economic background and drive definitely play larger roles than physical ability. That being said, there are exceptions out there, Shaquille O'Neal being the most obvious, who are dominant largely because of their size and strength. This "selective breeding" does seem like a reasonable explanation (to me, at least) as to the origin of someone like Shaq's, Bob Sapp's, or Michael Strahan's genetic material. Those guys are all beyond huge, and they're also tremendously powerful, even for their size.>
Post: NeverMan:
[quote=bamboo I wrote:
Yes, one contaminant does destroy an entire program. The fact is, it was many.
[/quote
The rest of your post was pretty irrelevant, so I am just going to reply to this.
A simple tree diagram would fully explain why one contaminant does NOT destroy an entire program. If you can't figure this out, we should just end the discussion. If you have 10000 heads and each produces 1+ children, how many contimants do you need to spoil the bunch? Just one huh? Now if each child had 1+ children and that child had 1+ children. Can you see where this is going dude? A huge TREE, with several different parent nodes. Each parent node having one or more child nodes and each child node having one or more child nodes (make the former child now a parent and child) and etc, etc, etc, etc for 400 years.
The fact that you might have asked some biologist who happens to work in your building some question doesn't mean a thing. You said "I have ACCESS to and USE the LATEST avaliable information". Pardon me, if I misunderstood you. Words like "access", "use", and "latest" generally imply some direct work with the field. If I said that sentence refering to nuclear particle physics would you not think I was a physicist? My point is you can't say you have access to the latest info and then turn around and say you are not in the field.
I am not trying to "attack" you at all. I am sorry you feel so defensive. Maybe this as something to do with the way you feel about your stance or possibly your argument.
There is a big difference between lab "Selective Breeding" experiments and simple time/genetic/reproduction "Selective Breeding". One is far superior to the other, I agree. Lab SB will always yield much better results, due to it's control, however, this does not and cannot fully discredit the SB that slave owners did.
The program wasn't a scientific experiment. It was a real field experiment, done the old fashion way, fucking! It wasn't a program to yield the best product, but that is just a byproduct of the fact that slave owners only wanted the stronger and biggest slaves on his plantation. People being people and all, they fucked! And, boom, babies.
Think whatever way you want to think. I am sorry you cannot see the abstract here and that you believe SB can only happen in a lab or it's not real SB. Maybe you should quit research for awhile and start doing some real engineering.>
Post: bamboo:
Quote: My point is you can't say you have access to the latest info and then turn around and say you are not in the field.
People request scientific information, I consult newly published material (journals, lab reports) as well as archived material to provide specific sources and other types information. Thats how I can have access.
I understand your example quite well, I just don't think its that cut and dry. Maybe some did appear as Gong Jau suggested, I'm not that closed minded to not see this aspect. This is a hotly debated issue in more than just one community and we are obviously on different sides of the coin. I seriously doubt that either one of us is going to change the others' mind.
Quote: Maybe you should quit research for awhile and start doing some real engineering.
:roll:>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
Eugenics: If properly thought out and implemented, it would work. The Eugenics of the Nazi party et Al. was not properly thought out or implemented, therefore it did not work. But, in attempts to further discredit any reasons people may have to like Hitler, the academic community has presented research to debunk the entire science of Eugenics, which is impossible given the amount of research spent on selective breeding, genetic manipulation, etc. especially as it is relevant in race horses or show dogs. The same principles would apply to humans, and this is undisputed.
Slavery: There are no two ways about it, the slaves weren't systematically bred to be powerhouses. In fact, much of the seminal research into genetics happened concurrently or after slavery in America. The southern plantation owners and the slave drivers themselves would have no idea what you're talking about with selective breeding, and wouldn't have had any idea how to implement the ideas of it if they knew about the work of Mendel and the like. To suggest that they stumbled upon it on accident is also not likely because, as Bamboo continually stated, the white slave owners repeatedly put themselves into the gene pool. Unless the slave owners were friggin huge, we would not have any noticeable difference in physical size, strength or whatever else from an accidental 'selective' breeding campaign in american slavery because the supposedly huge Africans would have been crossed bred with diminutive white men, thus creating an average specimen.
Li: If my skull was thicker would it be because I'm Irish? Shit happens, even at the genetic level.>
Post: NeverMan:
Then why is the average African-American MUCH larger than the average African if the genes were not affected at all?
People keep bringing up the scientific method of selective breeding, as if to say since slave owners weren't in a lab and didn't know the science behind it, it didnt' work.
OK, let's say for a moment you are both right.
Can you argee with this: Slave owners only kept the biggest and strongest slaves.>
Post: zefff:
Quote: Then why is the average African-American MUCH larger than the average African if the genes were not affected at all?
whats an average African? Africa is a huge continent with a vast diversity in climate and natural environment. Although we would call most if not all Africans black people, they are not of one race. Most of the slaves were taken from west Africa so were not a representation of the populace of the continent as a whole.
Quote: Can you argee with this: Slave owners only kept the biggest and strongest slaves.
I dont agree. I believe the owners kept anything they could. Slaves didnt just toil the fields but performed many other functions that did not require strength alone.
Picking cotton needs nimble fingers if anything doesnt it?>
Post: bamboo:
Quote: Can you argee with this: Slave owners only kept the biggest and strongest slaves.
I would suggest that slave holders used different body types for different work. Children worked the kitchen, feeding animals assisting in the house and learning to serve smaller masters ie- children etc... Smaller men for less physical tasks (such as in the house) or as needed depending on the overseer. Larger men for harder physical tasks, such as hard field work. But then women also worked the field as all were seen as animals and not human beings.
Truly a sad period in north americas short colonized history.
-bamboo>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=NeverMan Then why is the average African-American MUCH larger than the average African if the genes were not affected at all?[/quote
Why is it that over the past century or so, the average height of men has increased a few inches? Genetics? No! :pause for dramatic effect: The real culprit is nutrition. :Gasp!: Eating better foods causes greater physical development, thus larger people with thicker bones and more muscles. Furthermore, many people have theorized that the addition of growth hormones to cattle so that they develop more meat for sale actually ends up adding growth hormones to people who consume quantities of meat, thus making our highly industrialized ranching business another factor in American largeness as opposed to third world largeness.
Quote: Can you argee with this: Slave owners only kept the biggest and strongest slaves.
No, not only were big and strong slaves not needed for many tasks that slaves were used for, big and strong slaves could successfully revolt, pummelling their masters with their brutish strength. Slave owners were consistently afraid of an occurrance like that and would try as best they could to divide their slaves by housing, jobs, language, etc. Slave owners would not want powerful - in any sense of the word - slaves because a powerful slave is a threat.>
Post: timing:
Have a think about this guys...
Boxing maybe dominated by African Americans in the USA and that is because it is a poor man's sport and unfortunatly African Americans are on average poorer than white America.
Globally I cannot see dominance by any one race. Almost every race is represented at the elite level in all weight divisions.
An example to illustrate my point is swimming. Only the rich countries do well at olympic swimming because swimming pools are very expensive. Poorer nations simply don't have the money to put one in every suburb.
I am trying to keep this post short but if you look closely I think you will find that most successful boxers come from poorer backgrounds regardless of race. Therefore, you could say that socioeconomic background is a much stronger determinant for a predisposition towards boxing than other things.
I reckon race has little to do with it and the thick skull thing I've never seen before.>
Post: Lange:
Blacks have longer limb to torso ratios which is why they are stronger and have better reach and I also believe that they have higher fast-twitch muscle fibre ratios, better motor skills and coordination, and lower body fat ratios.>
Post: zefff:
shut the fuck up!>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
The always eloquent Zefff has a point.
Resurrecting long dead threads is not taken too well 'round these parts.
Not to mention that timing essentially said all black people are poor and Lange perpetuated the myth that blacks are naturally athletically inclined.
Any generalization is prejudice, any prejudice is a sign of failed reason. Keep that in mind.>
Post: timing:
Tease T Tickle you have grossly misrepresented what I said. Why?
Further it is not a generalisation. It is easily backed up by statistical data and media reports that are freely and readily available.
To talk facts is not prejudice. This is something you need to keep in mind.>
Post: dingodog1:
[quote=dscott First thing I want to say is that I in no means want this to come across as racist. If it does, I'm sorry.
I don't think that the reason why black people are good boxers is because they have more muscles or have a thicker skull. I think it's from their environment. Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not saying all black people grow up poor, but if you look at the background of all boxers in general, they come from a poor neighborhood where they were fighting from a young age. It doesn't require alot of money to train in boxing.
I think the reason why we're the way we are is because we're a product of our environment.[/quote There's truth in your hypothesis; other groups of people thrived in boxing in earlier ages such as when they were first generation immigrants such as Irish, Jewish and Italians. There were more of em participating and excelling out of desperation to accomplish something substantive and the Law of Averages.>
Post: bamboo:
Quote: Further it is not a generalisation. It is easily backed up by statistical data and media reports that are freely and readily available.
To talk facts is not prejudice. This is something you need to keep in mind
Show me ONE peer reviewed study published in the last 25 years in a respectable journal (there are over 10,000 available) that backs up your claims.....just one.....thats right, you can't.
next...
Quote: Blacks have longer limb to torso ratios which is why they are stronger and have better reach and I also believe that they have higher fast-twitch muscle fibre ratios, better motor skills and coordination, and lower body fat ratios.
If you really believe this tripe...well I feel bad for you as you've sucked into one of the greatest myths ever created by ignorance and I ask...no beg that you get some education on the subject because to pass off this garbage to your children (assuming you are not one yourself :wink: ) it does nothing short of a huge disservice to people everywhere.
Please, question what your taught by your parents, teachers, and of course the internet.
-bamboo>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=timing Have a think about this guys...
Boxing maybe dominated by African Americans in the USA and that is because it is a poor man's sport and unfortunatly African Americans are on average poorer than white America...An example to illustrate my point is swimming. Only the rich countries do well at olympic swimming because swimming pools are very expensive. Poorer nations simply don't have the money to put one in every suburb.[/quote
Quote: Not to mention that timing essentially said all black people are poor...
Quote: Tease T Tickle you have grossly misrepresented what I said. Why?
Further it is not a generalisation. It is easily backed up by statistical data and media reports that are freely and readily available.
Okay, so what we have here is a pseudo-conversation between Timing and myself. He said that we see more black boxer than white boxers because on average the black man is poorer than the black man. I then said that Timing said all black people are poor, to which Timing claimed I was misrepresenting what he said and that what he was saying was fact.
:nod: Okay.
The African American, and I don't have any stats for other countries, is a sever minority making up a little over ten percent of the population. While no one has ever done an ethnic population study of boxers, the top tier American boxers are virtually all black. So, if your hypothesis is correct that poorer person are more likely to go into boxing, it would mean that such a greater proportion of African Americans than whites are poor that ten percent of the population can account for close to one-hundred percent of the professional boxers. While typical studies executed by the Census Bureau reveal that, yes, the average African American is poorer than the average white man, it does nothing to account for the fact that the population bracket "Poor White Folk" will still out number "Poor Black Folk" nearly three to one, making the overwhelming dominance of "Poor Black Folk" in any and all professional sports a direct contradiction of your hypothesis that poorer persons get into boxing.
Oh, and I left in your bit about swimming pools to make another point. You can swim in a lot more than pools and no matter how poor a country is, they still have lakes, rivers and oceans they can use to practice in. The wealth of a nation has little to nothing to do with exposure to swimming as a sport and lot more to do with culture, as very few cultures waste time with sports that do not directly tie into important things like warfare.>
Post: bamboo:
Quote: While typical studies executed by the Census Bureau reveal that, yes, the average African American is poorer than the average white man, it does nothing to account for the fact that the population bracket "Poor White Folk" will still out number "Poor Black Folk" nearly three to one, making the overwhelming dominance of "Poor Black Folk" in any and all professional sports a direct contradiction of your hypothesis that poorer persons get into boxing.
I don't want this to get lost on those not able to read tiny type. :wink: or understand well written and coherent arguements.>
Post: cross:
Someone should make a position paper about this. I talked to my dad the other day about comparing the status of boxers to the status of U.S. society.... today most boxers are over whelmingly black or latin. Does, that say something about the U.S.? I don't know, it is a good discusion?>
Post: bamboo:
Cross- Someone could be you. :wink:>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=cross Someone should make a position paper about this. I talked to my dad the other day about comparing the status of boxers to the status of U.S. society.... today most boxers are over whelmingly black or latin. Does, that say something about the U.S.? I don't know, it is a good discusion?[/quote
If you watch the top level fights on HBO and other vendors (I hate PPV, so I don't know if there's something I miss by not watching it. I doubt it) you should also notice that there are overwhelming numbers of top level boxers that aren't American.
Combat sports, it seems, is the only type of sport that we don't have a disgustingly huge presence in. That and soccer.>
Post: Gong||Jau:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (this is a generalization, so there will be exceptions), but I believe that it is a very common practice for many Latin families to have their sons take boxing lessons for a few years because of the machismo involved in many Latin cultures, among other reasons. It stands to reason that if 75% of your race tries something, you'll find a lot of them who are good at it. Just a thought...>
Post: cross:
That just might be a generalization. I don't know. But, I just might do a paper about this. On the international level in both MMA and Boxing this type of thing does not happen too much. But, maybe given the brutal nature of combative sports, maybe many people of color who are impoverished may see those sports as a way out. I don't know. On a personal level my pops saw it that way.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=Gong||Jau Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (this is a generalization, so there will be exceptions), but I believe that it is a very common practice for many Latin families to have their sons take boxing lessons for a few years because of the machismo involved in many Latin cultures, among other reasons. It stands to reason that if 75% of your race tries something, you'll find a lot of them who are good at it. Just a thought...[/quote
The generalization as you stated it is very weak. However, there is a strong push in all of the Hispanic families I've known for athleticism in general. Boxing and soccer seem to be the most common, but I've known a few to be pushed pretty hard into wrestling, baseball and basketball
I've never seen a Latino get into in Curling, though. I think that's odd.>
Post: timing:
Bamboo,
http://www.blackcommentator.com/140/140_wise_3.html
http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0217.shtml
www.economics.pomona.edu/cconrad/Race1.ppt
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11772770
http://econ.ucsd.edu/~kantonov/aaest10.pdf
http://www.jointcenter.org/publications1/focus/FocusDetail.php?recordID=82
http://www.faireconomy.org/econ/RWG/SCF_Race_2003.html
http://www.osjspm.org/101_income.htm#3
http://www.americanpoliticaldevelopment.org/townsquare/print_res/in_progress/katz_af_am_inequality.pdf
[url http://www.kingdomofyah.com/The%20Numbers%20Beyond%20the%20Bling.htm[/url
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
Not all off them are peer review academic journals but you will get the idea.>
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|