# White men cant jump



## red skies at night (Jul 7, 2005)

Is it me or did the Blazers just become the whitest team in the NBA?
Pryzz
Raef
Blake
Dickau
Freeland
Sergio

Skita would have made 7...Hmmm, is this just an accident?


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Blahhh don't go there.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

red skies at night said:


> Is it me or did the Blazers just become the whitest team in the NBA?
> Pryzz
> Raef
> Blake
> ...


Yes.

Morrison's been talked about as the best player in the draft by many -- if the Blazers had an agenda like that, they could've picked him and still most people wouldn't have thought anything about it. Joel's a very good player for the money. Raef, while over paid, was almost certainly someone they needed to take on to get Roy. Same with Dickau, who'll probably be cut, despite the "local boy PR" he might provide.

Really, I think you've gotta look at deeper layers.


EDIT: Remember also that Blake was Nate's call -- Nash wanted to bring in McCarthy with that last slot but Nate wanted another, more experienced PG, and liked Blake, who was, arguably, the best PG on the roster the majority of last season.


----------



## red skies at night (Jul 7, 2005)

Why not go there? Henry Abbott did...
Read all about it...

www.truehoop.com/portland-trail-blazers-9783-portland-and-race-take-ii.html

It has some interesting and provacative points...Plus when he was writing it, there were only two white guys on the team...Now almost half the team is...When I first read his article it was out of left field for me but now it seems timely.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

red skies at night said:


> Is it me or did the Blazers just become the whitest team in the NBA?
> Pryzz
> Raef
> Blake
> ...


Of course not. Portland is trying to clean up its image, and none of the guys you listed is likely to get arrested for dog fighting, smuggling pot through an airport, or going into a bar with a loaded gun.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Of course not. Portland is trying to clean up its image, and none of the guys you listed is likely to get arrested for dog fighting, smuggling pot through an airport, or going into a bar with a loaded gun.


How do you know?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Of course not. Portland is trying to clean up its image, and none of the guys you listed is likely to get arrested for dog fighting, smuggling pot through an airport, or going into a bar with a loaded gun.


Neither is almost every black man in the NBA. Check your racist attitudes at the door.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

meru said:


> How do you know?


I'll let you figure it out.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

thylo said:


> Neither is almost every black man in the NBA. Check your racist attitudes at the door.


Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

red skies at night said:


> Is it me or did the Blazers just become the whitest team in the NBA?
> Pryzz
> Raef
> Blake
> ...


Off course it is you *edited*


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.


ooo wow.


Well let's go farther and just say black guys are all thugs and white guys never ever do anything wrong....


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.



Let me just be the first to congratulate you on posting the most un-educated ignorant post ever.

People like you should just shut-up.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

blue32 said:


> Let me just be the first to congratulate you on posting the most un-educated ignorant post ever.
> 
> People like you should just shut-up.


Sorry if I disturbed your rosy view of the world. You can go back to sleep now.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.


I'm not racist whatsoever, and I agree with you 100%.

If a black guy said that most white people arrogant stuck up a-holes, do you think another black guy would get offended by it and call him racist?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

OntheRocks said:


> ooo wow.
> 
> 
> Well let's go farther and just say black guys are all thugs and white guys never ever do anything wrong....


No, that would be incorrect. But what I said is true, and you know it.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm not racist whatsoever, and I agree with you 100%.
> 
> If a black guy said that most white people arrogant stuck up a-holes, do you think another black guy would get offended by it and call him racist?


Yes some would...my ethnic friends certainly would including those who are black. 

It also must be noted that the NBA is comprised of over 80% Black players so you could expect one white player to get in trouble for every 4 black players if you follow that ratio.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Sorry if I disturbed your rosy view of the world. You can go back to sleep now.



Maybe we should just deport all the non-white people out of America so you can be in your Aryan Nation.

Hey Talk-hardy -- I don't think I'm the one with the sleep in my eyes...


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

It's interesting if you turn the dynamics around and examine a sport such as hockey which is dominated by whites...looking at NHL players you see the same problems of drugs, domestic violence, assault, DUI etc.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

blue32 said:


> Maybe we should just deport all the non-white people out of America so you can be in your Aryan Nation.


Why do you insist on distorting what I've said? I guess it's easier than dealing with the truth, eh?


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Whether I agree with Talkhard or not, it is true that not every opinion that has a racial angle is necessarily rascist. If, for instance, he had statistics proving that white players get in trouble less than black players, it would be a fact and not rascist, even though to the uneducated it would appear rascist.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

OntheRocks said:


> ooo wow.
> 
> 
> Well let's go farther and just say black guys are all thugs and white guys never ever do anything wrong or cool



That's what Dave Chapelle and Richard Pryor said.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.


The Birdman's gonna fly...

Isn't it amazing how few white NBA players get pulled over for driving expensive cars while white. That's clean living for you!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.


If it's "a indisputable fact" then why don't you show us the evidence that makes it "indisputable."

More like indisputable in your oppinion.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

meru said:


> Isn't it amazing how few white NBA players get pulled over for driving expensive cars while white.


That's because the black players are too dumb and lazy to not be white...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I'll let you figure it out.


You're a crack dealer to the stars and you keep racial profiles of your customers? Just guessing here, but you're obviously an insider to the seamy side of things. Hey, maybe you're Rush Limbaugh's "doctor"?


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.


An indisputable fact? Really? Pray tell, where does one someone like myself find such a fact so I can see it for myself. I'd love to see that study or report or whatever you're referring to.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

ColoradoBlazerFan said:


> An indisputable fact? Really? Pray tell, where does one someone like myself find such a fact so I can see it for myself. I'd love to see that study or report or whatever you're referring to.


You just don't understand.. TH's oppinion is always considered "undisputable fact." 

Don't hold your breath waiting for evidence....


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

black dudes just get caught more


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

pmac34 said:


> black dudes just get caught more


Sadly there is some truth to this...the question is why? Makes you wonder about "racial profiling" doesn't it?


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> You just don't understand.. TH's oppinion is always considered "undisputable fact."
> 
> Don't hold your breath waiting for evidence....



Oh so true.....


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

This thread is heading in the wrong direction.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Wow! The reflexive reactions in this thread are a sight to behold! Especially in a thread titled: "White Men Can't Jump."

An assertion has been made. It is either true or it is false. Jumping up and down and screaming "racism" is not an argument.

I imagine that a thorough arrest or conviction or "incident" comparison of players by colour would settle the issue either way. It should show whether or not getting white players is more likely to improve the team's image away from "Jailblazers".

Is there agreement on this point? If so, can everyone cool it until someone does the analysis?

iWatas


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

pmac34 said:


> black dudes just get caught more


Oh really, you got proof?


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Yes some would...my ethnic friends certainly would including those who are black.
> 
> It also must be noted that the NBA is comprised of over 80% Black players so you could expect one white player to get in trouble for every 4 black players if you follow that ratio.



Not to be a stickler, but wouldn't that be 1 out of every 5 players?

By the way, this thread became completely retarded thanks to a certain somebody.........


Prunetang


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Air Fly said:


> Oh really, you got proof?



make talkhard a police officer


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Wow! The reflexive reactions in this thread are a sight to behold! Especially in a thread titled: "White Men Can't Jump."
> 
> An assertion has been made. It is either true or it is false. Jumping up and down and screaming "racism" is not an argument.
> 
> ...


I don't see anyone jumping up and down or freaking out here... besides, it's a touchy subject and people are allowed to be passionate about it. Personally, it bothers me not that people talk about race but that they show a brash insensitivity around the subject. People can run whatever analysis they want - that would certainly be preferable to vague assertions of racial superiority.

Please forgive us for questioning the motives and factual basis of TalkHard's arguments.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Wow! The reflexive reactions in this thread are a sight to behold! Especially in a thread titled: "White Men Can't Jump."
> 
> An assertion has been made. It is either true or it is false. Jumping up and down and screaming "racism" is not an argument.
> 
> ...


Anyone who follows the NBA closely knows that black players get in trouble with the law far more than white players do. You'd have to be blind and stupid not to notice this. But of course there are the usual posters who will pretend otherwise, and scream, "Show me the statistics," as if they don't already know the statistics. 

If I said "The sky is blue," they would probably also scream for some kind of evidence.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Prunetang said:


> Not to be a stickler, but wouldn't that be 1 out of every 5 players?
> 
> By the way, this thread became completely retarded thanks to a certain somebody.........
> 
> ...


hehe yeh my mistake...will have to edit that so it appears I at least know a little math. :angel:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Anyone who follows the NBA closely knows that black players get in trouble with the law far more than white players do. You'd have to be blind and stupid not to notice this. But of course there are the usual posters who will pretend otherwise, and scream, "Show me the statistics," as if they don't already know the statistics.
> 
> If I said "The sky is blue," they would probably also scream for some kind of evidence.


 

Your usual MO...

Make blanket ascertation without evidence...
Swear it's undisputable fact...
Insult the inteligence/sense etc. of anyone who questions it. 

80% of NBA players are black...wouldn't you thus expect to hear about more black players getting in trouble then whites?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Anyone who follows the NBA closely knows that black players get in trouble with the law far more than white players do. You'd have to be blind and stupid not to notice this.


And anyone who has heard of the NBA knows that it's 80% black - less than 20% white... you'd have to be blind and stupid not to notice this.

Is it an indisputable fact that black players get in trouble with the law over 400% more often than white players? I don't think so... if you want to throw crap out there like that, back up your "indisputable" claims with some data. 

Do it for JJ Redick's sake...


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> 80% of NBA players are black...wouldn't you thus expect to hear about more black players getting in trouble then whites?




I was just about to post that figure...
:clap:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Anyone who follows the NBA closely knows that black players get in trouble with the law far more than white players do. You'd have to be blind and stupid not to notice this. But of course there are the usual posters who will pretend otherwise, and scream, "Show me the statistics," as if they don't already know the statistics.
> 
> If I said "The sky is blue," they would probably also scream for some kind of evidence.


 

Double..


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Do it for JJ Redick's sake...


 :laugh: That deserves a rep!


----------



## bodyman5001 (Jul 1, 2006)

Honestly I would have thought that the dog fighting would be more of a black guy thing....but....one of my girlfriends employees (a white female) called in sick to work a few months back. Her reason for missing work was that she had to take her father to the hospital because one of his fighting pit bulls attacked him. I couldn't believe she actually used that as her excuse but my girl played the voice mail for me. BTW, I live in Las Vegas so don't think it couldn't be true. 

Any NBA player that gets arrested for some of these things is a complete waste. I wouldn't have time for that stuff...I would be too busy driving one of my Lambos or maybe my 69 ZL1 Camaro. Or fighting off young beautiful women. Or chilling in my mansion. 

Oh yeah, is it racist to want to hurt people who put hydraulics and 13 inch wire wheels on 64 Impalas? Just asking because most of (not all) the people I see driving these cars are either Mexican or African American.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

The Blazers can't catch a break. They're either the "Jailblazers" or they're a racist organization.

It's purely coincidence that the Blazers have more white dudes today than they did before the draft (i could have swore the Blazers first two picks were Black guys...you know, the two players everyone is going ga-ga over....one of which the Blazers had to trade a WHITE guy for....GASP!!!)

Give me a friggin break. I HATE the race card when it's not a legitimate time to play it.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

As a black man I’m not at all offended by the assumption that a greater percentage of Black players get into trouble then white. From what I have seen I would guess that that is true as well and I think that it has had some influence on the Blazers roster. We will see this more by the black players leaving then the white players coming in. The new white players coming in are pure coincidence with the exception of the Euro growth.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Back onto the topic of the Blazers.

I have to agree whole hardedly with this thread. Portland is an extremely white city, and as I pointed out in another thread Portland has been on the wrond end of several players and their behaviors. It so happens those players are all black and some are thug like. Portland is doing what it thinks is the best thing to bring back season ticket sales and also ad revenue, and being that it's Portland most of those people will be white middle aged men. 

They wanted Morrison but didn't think they could get two of the players they coveted if they took him with their first pick, so let it go. 

So yes, the Blazers went in for a makeover and came out with a little less color.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Back onto the topic of the Blazers.
> 
> I have to agree whole hardedly with this thread. Portland is an extremely white city, and as I pointed out in another thread Portland has been on the wrond end of several players and their behaviors. It so happens those players are all black and some are thug like. Portland is doing what it thinks is the best thing to bring back season ticket sales and also ad revenue, and being that it's Portland most of those people will be white middle aged men.
> 
> ...


You got it wrong..they never wanted Morrison...he was #4 on their draft depth chart. Aldridge, Roy, Gay, Morrison...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> You got it wrong..they never wanted Morrison...he was #4 on their draft depth chart. Aldridge, Roy, Gay, Morrison...



You are dead wrong. Morrison was 2nd on their board behind Aldridge. The Blazers didn't think they could get Morrison AND Aldridge, so they took their number 1 guy and had to let go of Adam.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> You are dead wrong. Morrison was 2nd on their board behind Aldridge. The Blazers didn't think they could get Morrison AND Aldridge, so they took their number 1 guy and had to let go of Adam.


Actually I am quite right...guaranteed..it isn't a mistake that we ended up with who we wanted. Sorry but the Blazers draft board looked exactly like I posted above.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Actually I am quite right...guaranteed..it isn't a mistake that we ended up with who we wanted. Sorry but the Blazers draft board looked exactly like I posted above.



Sorry, but it didn't. I agree with you that it was no mistake who we ended up with, but MOrrison was rated higher than Gay and Roy


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> As a black man I’m not at all offended by the assumption that a greater percentage of Black players get into trouble then white. From what I have seen I would guess that that is true as well and I think that it has had some influence on the Blazers roster.


My God, man, that's heresy around here!! How dare you speak the truth? If you were white, the politically correct crowd would be savaging you already.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Sorry, but it didn't. I agree with you that it was no mistake who we ended up with, but MOrrison was rated higher than Gay and Roy


We can argue all you want..someone in the organization happened to send me the Blazers draft board sometime after the draft because I was curious and asked for it. He is very credible IMO after confirming many other Blazers facts for me so I am going to take his word as fact.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> We can argue all you want..someone in the organization happened to send me the Blazers draft board sometime after the draft because I was curious and asked for it. He is very credible IMO after confirming many other Blazers facts for me so I am going to take his word as fact.




I too have someone I trust that offered up who the Blazers were targeting. He has been right on many things, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one because there is no way with how this was told to me that he is incorrect.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

If you want to make a rational argument about race, you could say that the Blazers are very determined to clean up their image as much as possible. Consequently, they are trying to acquire players from outside of inner cities, because players from inner cities tend to have far more associations with violence, drugs and other societal ills (the same issues that are bad for Blazer PR). These inner city kids we aren't acquiring tend to be black for sheer demographic reasons. 

Hence, guys like Przybilla, the Spaniard and the limey are added/re-signed, while the kid from Brooklyn (who got caught packing heat on a plane) gets traded. 

If Talkhard could construct a rational argument, he'd probably try to say something like that. As he's both clumsy and arrogant, he comes across as a bigot. 

It could also be that I'm giving him too much credit, and he's just a bigot.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> We can argue all you want..someone in the organization happened to send me the Blazers draft board sometime after the draft because I was curious and asked for it. He is very credible IMO after confirming many other Blazers facts for me so I am going to take his word as fact.


But . . . uh . . . where's your proof?! I want to see a photocopy of that Blazer draft board! I want signed affadavits, sworn testimony, indisputable confirmation!!!! You, of all people, should know you can't just throw around these reckless statements. We demand that EVERYTHING be backed up around here, don't you know . . . And "someone in the organization" just isn't going to cut it.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

theWanker said:


> If you want to make a rational argument about race, you could say that the Blazers are very determined to clean up their image as much as possible. Consequently, they are trying to acquire players from outside of inner cities, because players from inner cities tend to have far more associations with violence, drugs and other societal ills (the same issues that are bad for Blazer PR). These inner city kids we aren't acquiring tend to be black for sheer demographic reasons.
> 
> Hence, guys like Przybilla, the Spaniard and the limey are added/re-signed, while the kid from Brooklyn (who got caught packing heat on a plane) gets traded.
> 
> ...


And you're just a coward who wants to hide behind words like "inner city" when in fact we all know what they mean. Who do you think you're kidding? Your entire argument is a confirmation of what I stated. You just chose to dodge the race question because you're afraid of offending someone.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> But . . . uh . . . where's your proof?! I want to see a photocopy of that Blazer draft board! I want signed affadavits, sworn testimony, indisputable confirmation!!!! You, of all people, should know you can't just throw around these reckless statements. We demand that EVERYTHING be backed up around here, don't you know . . . And "someone in the organization" just isn't going to cut it.


Need I make you look foolish by citing the countless thread/post where you have made some type of blanket ascertation and then proceeded to claim it as 100% true with no proof? I am quite confident in my history of providing solid evidence to back up my statements, we can certainly compare the two if you would like. 

As for this instance vs. your "black players get in more trouble"...completely different statements and ascertations. One could be easily proven with a bit of internet research..the other cannot.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

What if we had done this trades in the draft, yet drafted Morrison and Reddick instead of Alridge and Roy. :clap: 

Actually, it's pretty pathetic though, with a league that is over 80% black, that people bring up the point that a team is getting more than 3 white players. If 75% of the players in the NBA were white, it would be an equal representation of ethnic groups in our country.

Not to mention the fact, that most of the quality forgien players are white. 

****, why even bring this up? Whoever is sucessful should be in the NBA.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Also, you ignorant people that are offended at the suggestion that Blacks commit more crime. Look at the prison populations. Blacks make up 43% of our prison population, even though they only comprise 13% of our overall population. 

Most of the black NBA players come from the same crime ridden cultures that feed our prison system.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration

Name a few bad-*** white players who have gotten into trouble with the law.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> Also, you ignorant people that are offended at the suggestion that Blacks commit more crime. Look at the prison populations. Blacks make up 43% of our prison population, even though they only comprise 13% of our overall population.
> 
> Most of the black NBA players come from the same crime ridden cultures that feed our prison system.
> 
> ...


Good points and certainly true..but then I ask why is it that white hockey players get into alot of the same trouble as NBA players...sexual assault, rape, drugs, DUI, assualt, etc.


----------



## sportsnut1975 (Jul 6, 2006)

So much for the token white guy.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> But . . . uh . . . where's your proof?! I want to see a photocopy of that Blazer draft board! I want signed affadavits, sworn testimony, indisputable confirmation!!!! You, of all people, should know you can't just throw around these reckless statements. We demand that EVERYTHING be backed up around here, don't you know . . . And "someone in the organization" just isn't going to cut it.


Stop whining about it and just back up your argument. That's all...


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> And you're just a coward who wants to hide behind words like "inner city" when in fact we all know what they mean. Who do you think you're kidding? Your entire argument is a confirmation of what I stated. You just chose to dodge the race question because you're afraid of offending someone.


no, my argument is just a rational way of saying something while also being sensitive to hundreds of years of racism. I didn't dodge anything. 

you seem to think "inner city" = "black." 

i don't, and i'm right. go buy an Emminem album and see for yourself. he grew up in as "inner city" a place as you can imagine, and yet he's white. if he could play basketball in the NBA, I have no doubt that the Blazers would avoid him like the plague.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Some inspirational lyrics for those of you in the Black White argument.

Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, why dont we?
We all know that people are the same where ever we go
There is good and bad in evryone,
We learn to live, we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive together alive.

Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord why dont we?

Ebony, ivory living in perfect harmony
Ebony, ivory, ooh

We all know that people are the same where ever we go
There is good and bad in evryone,
We learn to live, we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive together alive.

Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord why dont we?

Ebony, ivory living in perfect harmony (repeat and fade)


I wonder when this board became a debating forum for Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan. Being part Asian, I wonder if I should cry racism at Ha's lack of minutes... :angel:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Anyone who follows the NBA closely knows that black players get in trouble with the law far more than white players do.


What an insightful comment. Of course, there are also far more black players than white players. Black players win championships far more than white players, black players do charity work far more than white players, too.

What does that prove? Exactly nothing other than that the black NBA population is larger than the white NBA population.

Good detective work.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Do posters get how wrong it is to make generalizations about someone due to the color of their skin. I don't care what the "stats" say, judge people for who they are and how they act, don't pigeon hole people into a catergory because they are black or white.

Racism is about making generalizations about a class of people because of their skin color. Try looking past their skin color and drawing conclusions about them based on who they are and what their actions are.

I love people who still look at black people and think they automatically can play basketball. Look at hispanics and assume they sell drugs. Look at white people and assume they are upstanding citizens.

Someday all people will look at others and draw conclusions about them based on something other than skin color. 

It won't be this generation of people and unfortuanetly it won't be the next generation . .. but the more educated society becomes and the more interracial society becomes, the better hope we have that generations from now the color of someones skin is a nonfactor in how they are viewed.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

it is racist if a team only has one or two white guys? 

asian - ha
black - zbo miles outlaw roy aldridge dxion jack webster skinner nate lucas harvey lenard and one or two more black coachs

yeah sure the blazers are racist please move along.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Hopefully in the end we just start having so much sex with each other that we're all the same light brownish tint. And then this discussion won't exist. :clap: :cheers: :clap:

:ghug: :ghug: :groucho:


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

I think everyone has to look at this as how its being portrayed. The dude that started this thread had to use the title "white men can't jump" which is a total stereotype, obviously thats going to put some people on the edge (I seem to remember Brent Barry did win the dunk contest). Everything Talkhard is saying deals with stereotypes as well. It is a given stereotype that black people get in trouble moreso than white, is it wrong to think this? Yes of course, but does the majority of white american probably think its true? Sadly yes. 

The world will never get over stereotypes. 

I'm white and I can't tell you how man times I've been stereotyped before, you just learn to live with it and not let it bother you

It's VERY Ignorant to go out and assume the blazers are trying to establish many white players on the roster


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

OntheRocks said:


> Hopefully in the end we just start having so much sex with each other that we're all the same light brownish tint. And then this discussion won't exist. :clap: :cheers: :clap:



Oh I miss Hawaii . . . next Blazer Bash? :biggrin:


----------



## red skies at night (Jul 7, 2005)

wow!!!
I went to church tonight for communion and came back three hours later to the largest amount of posts to any thread I have ever had. I knew that the thread was provacative but man!!! You guys in here are intense when it comes to race.

By the way, I am 39 and have been married for 15 years to a Japanese woman and I am white... I also have many African American friends. I was just making a point and I was hoping that the conspiracy theorists would philosophize on the new melatonin in the Blazer camp. 

Chill on the incarceration statistics...who cares how many blacks are in jail compared to whites. We are all colored people and they call us the human race...I personally would like to see the Blazers lined up this season black-white, black-white, black-white...during warmups...with ebony and ivory playing over the loudspeakers. Maybe we can get Paul and Michael to come do a halftime performance.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> What an insightful comment. Of course, there are also far more black players than white players. Black players win championships far more than white players, black players do charity work far more than white players, too.
> 
> What does that prove? Exactly nothing other than that the black NBA population is larger than the white NBA population.
> 
> Good detective work.


This is spot on, I think. And yes, TH, the Blazers are _clearly_ interested in a character make-over. I don't think that translates as a skin color make-over. The guys they're bringing in are guys who seem like good risks. Aldridge and Roy are a huge piece of that, it seems to me -- much larger than a guy like Dickau who's likely to not make the team or Blake who may well be moved in a trade (and who _Nate_ brought in). Making this argument about race seems _almost_ as absurd as making it about shoe size -- that is, virtually everyone coming in (outside of Roy, Dickau, and, Rodriguez) is probably wearing something above a size 15.

I'd love to hear more from you, 2k, or any other black posters.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> What an insightful comment. Of course, there are also far more black players than white players. Black players win championships far more than white players, black players do charity work far more than white players, too.
> 
> What does that prove? Exactly nothing other than that the black NBA population is larger than the white NBA population.
> 
> Good detective work.


I once thought you "overrated" but i take that back in a heartbeat.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

While I think that the reason why it apears that more black players get in trouble than white players is because they are both victims of racial profiling and they just happen to make up the majority of the league therefor they always seem to be the ones getting busted, I also feel that the culture of the white guys and black guys in the league is very different.

Let's face it, black men are genetically more athletic in regards to the sport of basketball. Therefor, the black players have a natural athletecism, and tend to rely on that more than fundamentals and solid skill because they don't need to be this pure jump shooter or stupidly good fundamentalist. White guys, on rare occassion, have the same natural athletic ability. They have to be the nerds of basketball to have a shot. Being John Stockton like is the only way they get in. So while those black players can just play hard and be able to leap and run like a mofo, the white guy's spent his life working on the basics just to have a shot at playing with the black guys. Probably results in a very different social life growing up.

While there are people out there like J Kidd, J Williams, etc that have their fair share of issues, most of the white players in the league probably lead rather boring lives compared to the black players, there for less chance to even be profiled racially or be in any kind of a spotlight.

Can you imagine a guy like Joel street racing with guns in his car? No, he's probably at home with his reading glasses on reading some book or something boring like that.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> Let's face it, black men are genetically more athletic in regards to the sport of basketball. Therefor, the black players have a natural athletecism, and tend to rely on that more than fundamentals and solid skill because they don't need to be this pure jump shooter or stupidly good fundamentalist. White guys, on rare occassion, have the same natural athletic ability. They have to be the nerds of basketball to have a shot. Being John Stockton like is the only way they get in. So while those black players can just play hard and be able to leap and run like a mofo, the white guy's spent his life working on the basics just to have a shot at playing with the black guys. Probably results in a very different social life growing up.


Are you nuts? You can't say that stuff around here, even if it's true. Jimmy The Greek ruined his career over the very same statement you just made. The "genetic" argument is racist, don't you know? My God, the things that people say on this board.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Are you nuts? You can't say that stuff around here, even if it's true. Jimmy The Greek ruined his career over the very same statement you just made.


Jimmy the Greek said that blacks were better athletes due to selective breeding during slavery. Not only is that nonsensical, scientifically, his phrasing was also offensive, as he made it sound like blacks were breeding beasts:

_"During the slave period, the slave owner would breed his big black with his big woman so that he would have a big black kid—that's where it all started."_

Do you really, really want to throw in with Jimmy the Greek?



> The "genetic" argument is racist, don't you know?


The "genetic" argument, as it is popularly conceived, does have racist overtones. The classic implication is that blacks are better athletes, genetically born to run and jump, while whites are smarter, genetically born to think and build.

The real genetics argument is far more nuanced, but rarely understood. There _are_ some differences between races, often due to the environment they developed in, but nothing nearly so broad as some races being "better athletes" and some races being smarter. Intelligence is essentially evenly distributed throughout any statistically significant population. So is athleticism, but different races can have different elements of athleticism. For example, African natives have a greater preponderance of "quick-twitch" muscles, which aid sudden, powerful movements (like jumping or sudden acceleration) while European natives have a greater prepoderance of "slow-twitch" muscles that lead to greater stamina and steady power feats like weight-lifting and swimming.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

The Kenyan long distance runners kinda blow your slow twitch theory all to hell. No shortage of endurance there.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> The Kenyan long distance runners kinda blow your slow twitch theory all to hell. No shortage of endurance there.


It's not "my theory" and by stamina, I wasn't referring to cardiovascular endurance. I was referring to the slow, steady application of muscle, rather than the quick power application of muscle.

Also, I wasn't being entirely precise, as Africa is not uniform. Kenyans probably do have more slow-twitch muscles, in general. But, as far as I know, most of Africa has a greater preponderance of quick-twitch muscles than many other places.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

I have never bought into the belief that genetics has anything to do with why you see so many blacks in the NFL or NBA. I could see certain ethic groups having physical proficiencies and weakness that affect their showing in Track and Field events that are based on pure athleticism. Even on that level you see more white high jumpers then you do African. 

As a matter of fact last I looked Germany and Russia out medal all of Africa.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

2k said:


> I have never bought into the belief that genetics has anything to do with why you see so many blacks in the NFL or NBA. I could see certain ethic groups having physical proficiencies and weakness that affect their showing in Track and Field events that are based on pure athleticism. Even on that level you see more white high jumpers then you do African.
> 
> As a matter of fact last I looked Germany and Russia out medal all of Africa.


I'll buy all of that. The core of the debate in _this_, though, seems (at least to me) to be about whether the Blazers' recent moves suggest racial prejudice (if only for reasons of marketing) or whether it's based purely on seeking both better character and better talent, with any racial element being competely off their radar.

Personally, the first seems like a huge stretch to me. What I see is:

1. Khryapa going out helped bring in Aldridge (when it appeared they could've just waited but didn't want to risk it);

2. Dickau (who's almost certain to be cut) and LeFrentz coming in in order to bring in Roy;

3. Blake being on the roster because Nate wanted him;

4. Pryzbilla staying because he's a great fit at a good price and again, Nate's pushed hard to keep him, and;

5. this team being still one of the relatively few with a black head coach.


I _absolutely_ accept that there's still racism (and sexism, classism, and all sorts of other isms) sadly active in our communities and, maybe I'm missing something but, "playing the race card" here seems pretty absurd and potentially even counter-productive to ending actual racism.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

No. I've been a Magic fan for a while now and I believe that the Magic have more white guys. Many of their draft picks have been white boys.

Our summer roster has 3 or 4 black players. Check out the Magic Forum under the Draft Thread. You'll see


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

were turning into the jazz...


alot of yall like "character"...well i like wins.


the jailblazers back in the day were a fun team to watch, exciting and unpredicatable. i loved them.

i dont like the whole "nate" culture these days. im not saying im upset with the direction, because hey, we WERE out of control for a awhile. but i do have to say i hate watching the new team play. the halfcourt offense...the lack of animosity...were boring now. were the jazz. 

which is something i have never wanted to be.


*edit:* my comments may look a bit OT, but hey, this style of play seems to come with white guys. no hate to white people...im white, and i love playing ball...so dont get it twisted.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> i do have to say i hate watching the new team play.


You certainly have something and not to be nitpicky but that was _last_ year's team. I'm hopeful that, particularly with the addition of Roy and the growth of Webster, I've got hope we'll see more this year. That said, I suppose my glasses are as rose-colored as they come. :biggrin:


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

ryanjend22 said:


> were turning into the jazz...
> 
> 
> alot of yall like "character"...well i like wins.
> ...


One thing I'll throw out is that the team was at its best before we had any problems with Sheed or Bonzi...during those long playoff runs. 

The best thing about that time was we were playing (kind of) like the Suns do now...very up-tempo and led the league (by FAR) in alley-oops. 

I think we have a nice, young and athletic core that should have good chemistry as they grow up together. Overall, I'm definately looking forward to this season and will watch more games than I did last year, which was almost none.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Are you nuts? You can't say that stuff around here, even if it's true. Jimmy The Greek ruined his career over the very same statement you just made. The "genetic" argument is racist, don't you know? My God, the things that people say on this board.


I bet you failed debate class in school.....


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I have found the data!

A comprehensive list of NBA athletes and arrests can be found at 

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/07/nba-players-that-get-in-trouble-with_20.html

The author was not about race at all, but looking for a connection between years-in-college and arrest records. He found a negative correlation, by the way.

I have not broken down by race, but a quick read-through suggests that Talkhard is right: corrected for percentage of NBA players (the number 80% was suggested in this thread), black NBA players are more likely to be arrested than white NBA players. The list includes numbers of arrests, which I think is right. A player who is arrested 5 times is worse than a player who is arrested once. So Ruben Patterson is 3x worse than, say, Z-Bo.

I am not suggesting that all arrests are justified, or there is no racial preference either way in arrests in the first place. From a team's perspective none of that matters: the mere fact of an arrested player hurts the team's reputation

But I defer to whomever wants to run down the list and count the players up to get a quantitative result instead of my qualitiative one. If confirmed, it means that teams would be less likely to have bad press from players who are white.

iWatas


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe you should check your naivete at the door. It's an indisputable fact that the white players in the NBA don't get into trouble the way the black guys do. This is not racism, it's reality.


Since the NBA players are approximately 80 % Black, it stands to reason that the majority of trouble in the NBA would involve Black players. Just as the majority of crime in the US as a whole is committed by white people. 
JJ Redick, last time I checked, is pretty white. 
OTOH, you could fill a long list with people like Brian Grant, DAvid Robinson, Tim Duncan, Dwyane Wade, Martell Webster ..... 

But Talkhard won't read my posts. He does not like opposing views or nude men.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> Let's face it, black men are genetically more athletic in regards to the sport of basketball. Therefor, the black players have a natural athletecism, and tend to rely on that more than fundamentals and solid skill because they don't need to be this pure jump shooter or stupidly good fundamentalist. White guys, on rare occassion, have the same natural athletic ability. They have to be the nerds of basketball to have a shot. Being John Stockton like is the only way they get in. So while those black players can just play hard and be able to leap and run like a mofo, the white guy's spent his life working on the basics just to have a shot at playing with the black guys. Probably results in a very different social life growing up.


Absolutely no more evidence for that than for Talkhard's assertion that Blacks are natural criminals.
No matter how kindly meant, that statement is derogatory. Think about it. Blacks, at least Black men, don't have to work hard. They are just "natural" athletes. Then I hear about a player like Dwyane Wade saying he takes 500 shots a day and has done so for 10 years. Is he lying? But white guys, well, they have to be smart and hard working. 

Now, as to the subject at hand. A study by sportswriter Jim Ballinger on the composition of NBA teams revealed that in "whiter" cities the team does tend to be "whiter". Ballinger noted that most teams play around 9 guys regularly. Since coaches want to win, they don't care if their 1-9 guy is black, white, purple or anydamnthing else. But the bench warmers, the ones who don't make a big difference in wins or losses, in "white" cities are more likely to be white players. 

The cities Ballinger referred to were San Antonio, Portland and Salt Lake City. 

As to how "white" the team will be next year, we don't know who is going to be on the roster. Freeland will probably stay in Europe and Blake may be traded. Dickau may be gone. And the team did trade Khryapa and earlier, Monia. 

When I lived in Portland, I rarely noticed how "white" it was because it was what I was used to. But when I traveled to New York, the Bay Area, Detroit, Washington DC, it hit me like a ton of bricks. The population in these areas is much more diverse; and that is reflected in everything from the complexion of the city council to advertising on buses. I do think that racial bias, whether conscious or not, does play a role in evaluating players. I make no excuses for some of the guys who have been on this team, but I wonder if a loud mothed white boy would be condemned as quickly as Rasheed Wallace was? Isn't there, couldn't there be, some attitude of "that ungrateful ******, we give him millions and look what he says"? 

As for Woods, is he really well thought of in New York? Or is it just the Knicks who are so dysfunctional they make the Blazers at their worst look like a Bar Mitzvah class?


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I'll buy all of that. The core of the debate in _this_, though, seems (at least to me) to be about whether the Blazers' recent moves suggest racial prejudice (if only for reasons of marketing) or whether it's based purely on seeking both better character and better talent, with any racial element being competely off their radar.
> 
> Personally, the first seems like a huge stretch to me. What I see is:
> 
> ...


Great post! 

gatorpops


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

crandc said:


> Absolutely no more evidence for that than for Talkhard's assertion that Blacks are natural criminals.
> No matter how kindly meant, that statement is derogatory. Think about it. Blacks, at least Black men, don't have to work hard. They are just "natural" athletes. Then I hear about a player like Dwyane Wade saying he takes 500 shots a day and has done so for 10 years. Is he lying? But white guys, well, they have to be smart and hard working.
> 
> Now, as to the subject at hand. A study by sportswriter Jim Ballinger on the composition of NBA teams revealed that in "whiter" cities the team does tend to be "whiter". Ballinger noted that most teams play around 9 guys regularly. Since coaches want to win, they don't care if their 1-9 guy is black, white, purple or anydamnthing else. But the bench warmers, the ones who don't make a big difference in wins or losses, in "white" cities are more likely to be white players.
> ...


Great post! 

gatorpops


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Anyone remember this little gem?

On Feb. 28, Jason Williams, a point guard for the Sacramento Kings, shouted racial and anti-gay slurs to [Michael] Ching, a Warriors’ season ticket holder, and to several other Asian Americans seated beside Ching during a Warriors game at the Oakland Arena. As recounted by a letter Ching sent to NBA commissioner David Stern, Williams retaliated against harmless heckling made by Ching and his party midway through the first half.
According to Ching, he told Williams, “Get used to sitting on the bench.”
Williams responded, “Are you gay? Are you a ***?”
An angered Williams then pelted Ching with expletives, at one point defaming him as a “slant-eyed motherf****r.”
Williams then pretended with his hands to shoot a machine gun toward Ching and the others, yelling, “I will shoot all you Asian motherf****rs,” while imitating machine gun sounds.
And it didn’t stop there.
Yelling expletives with almost uncontrollable rage, Williams again directed his mock-machine gun at the crowd and cried out, “Do you remember the Vietnam War, I’ll kill y’all just like that. Just like Pearl Harbor, do you remember that?”
Surprisingly, immediately after Williams’ verbal attack, a security guard approached Ching and actually threatened to remove him and his party from the game, claiming complaints had been made against Ching for his own disturbance.
Link


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

How do you know Jimmy the Greek wasn't right? Compare African Americans to a real African. They are very different. 

If blacks were truely superior athletes, then you'd see many olympic champions come out of Africa, but you do not, instead it is the African-Americans that dominate sports such as boxing and sprinting.

They most likely were breed for physical attributes.

However, I would spin the point of this original post, and say that the league as a whole is ignoring the white prospects out there. Why do European teams keep kicking our butts in international competitions? Not because they're more athletic, but because they don't bring the ghetto ball hog no-neuron ball play that most of the ghetto boys do.

Teams are much more likely to draft a guy who has no skill, but is very athletic, than a player who is a sub-par athlete, but has a lot of skill. The latter tend to have more sucess in the NBA.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Crandic,

Think about what a double standard it is for you to suggest that it's ok for Advertisers to put black people in their ads just to appeal to a black population, but it's not ok for an NBA team to select white players to appeal to their white population.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> How do you know Jimmy the Greek wasn't right? Compare African Americans to a real African. They are very different.
> 
> If blacks were truely superior athletes, then you'd see many olympic champions come out of Africa, but you do not, instead it is the African-Americans that dominate sports such as boxing and sprinting.
> 
> ...


A real African? Are you saying every African from the Sahara to the Cape of Good Hope is identical? And all African-Americans? Funny, Barack Obama doesn't really look much like Shaq. Is every European from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean also identical? 

Um, it's "were bred", not "were breed". An example of superior European intelligence?

So, were African Americans lousy pro basketball players before the NBA desegregated? Were they lousy college players before Texas Christian kicked Kentucky's butts? Were they lousy baseball players for a century? Lousy college football players before the advent of athletic scholarships meant college football was no longer just for rich boys? 

Please, do learn some history. Anthropology. Sociology. Economics. Biology.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Crandic,
> 
> Think about what a double standard it is for you to suggest that it's ok for Advertisers to put black people in their ads just to appeal to a black population, but it's not ok for an NBA team to select white players to appeal to their white population.


Actually, I did not say that. I did say that in cities where the population is more diverse the ads are. A statement of fact only. And not just "black population". You see more Latinos in ads in LA than in Indianapolis. More Chinese in San Francisco than in Omaha. Just facts.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

red skies at night said:


> Is it me or did the Blazers just become the whitest team in the NBA?
> Pryzz
> Raef
> Blake
> ...


I go away for a week, during which time the Blazers have a great draft and succeed in re-signing Joel Przybilla (despite his being chased by two of the top teams in the league), I come back and this thread is at the top of the list? Sheesh. There isn't one guy on that list other than Przybilla who is a major part of the Blazers' longterm plans. The Blazers have always drafted and traded for talent, not skin color. Trade-filler/trade-bait is trade-filler and trade-bait no matter what the ethnic origin of the player.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

graybeard said:


> The Kenyan long distance runners kinda blow your slow twitch theory all to hell. No shortage of endurance there.


Extensive studies have shown the slow twitch muscle fibers are common to East African populations while quick twitch muscle fibers are common to West African populations, where most African-Americans can trace their lineage.

For more info: 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1891620398/104-0566784-6734358?v=glance&n=283155


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

e_blazer, I think Spanish Chocolate may be a keeper. We'll see.

Blazer Maven, you posted no "proof", just a link to a book sold on Amazon. I mean, Ann Coulter wrote a book, does that mean what she says is fact? Note the skeptical review from Scientific American.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> How do you know Jimmy the Greek wasn't right?


Because that's not how genetics works. The idea Jimmy the Greek was espousing is called eugenics, a theory Hitler and his scientists believed could be used to create a master race: breed the best and brightest Aryans and create super-offspring.

Doesn't work that way. Offspring tend to regress to the mean. Extremely brilliant parents will likely give birth to children less brilliant than themselves, not moreso. Extremely athletic parents will likely give birth to children less athletically gifted than themselves. (It works the other way, too, as parents less intelligent than the average will likely give birth to a child more intelligent than themselves.) Of course, even "less gifted" may be excellent, but it's still going the "wrong direction." After a few generations of breeding the best of each generation, you're pretty much left with average children from that lineage. The new "best and brightest" are the ones who randomly were born with gifts. Breed them and again you'll end up with more average children.

Eugenics is pretty much discredited as a serious scientific theory. 



> If blacks were truely superior athletes


They're not, though they may have their strengths relative to other races.



> instead it is the African-Americans that dominate sports such as boxing and sprinting.


Yes, you see them come largely out of an economic class that sees sports and music as their main exits from poverty and therefore have a far greater percentage dedicate themselves to athletics than, say, whites or Asians, who pursue many other avenues. And then, once you have the elite athletes emerge from that economic class, you have the power of US wealth work to train them. Big surprise that US blacks are a big part of the Summer Olympics.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Blazer Maven said:


> Extensive studies have shown the slow twitch muscle fibers are common to East African populations while quick twitch muscle fibers are common to West African populations, where most African-Americans can trace their lineage.
> 
> For more info:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1891620398/104-0566784-6734358?v=glance&n=283155


ummm am I supposed to go buy this book or something...?

Is this a shameless advertising plug for this author?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> How do you know Jimmy the Greek wasn't right? Compare African Americans to a real African. They are very different.
> 
> If blacks were truely superior athletes, then you'd see many olympic champions come out of Africa, but you do not, instead it is the African-Americans that dominate sports such as boxing and sprinting.
> 
> ...


Maybe if Africa had 1/100th of the money US has to invest into sports, you would see more olympic champions come out of Africa.

I haven't studied the drafts year to year, but this year's draft alone we saw Morrison get drafted well above Gay . . . so I'm not so sure that last statement is true


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Because that's not how genetics works. The idea Jimmy the Greek was espousing is called eugenics, a theory Hitler and his scientists believed could be used to create a master race: breed the best and brightest Aryans and create super-offspring.
> 
> Doesn't work that way. Offspring tend to regress to the mean. Extremely brilliant parents will likely give birth to children less brilliant than themselves, not moreso. Extremely athletic parents will likely give birth to children less athletically gifted than themselves. Of course, even "less gifted" may be excellent, but it's still going the "wrong direction." After a few generations of breeding the best of each generation, you're pretty much left with average children from that lineage. The new "best and brightest" are the ones who randomly were born with gifts. Breed them and again you'll end up with more average children.
> 
> ...



Excellent points...but there is something to be said about the difference in the make up of muscle fiber between Whites and Blacks. While the difference does not make either a better "athlete" it may contribute to making better suited to play basketball (in it's current form). Fast twitch fibers help with, quick movement, jumping, sprinting, lateral quickness etc. 



> "It's a strong genetic component (that determines) what type of muscle fiber you have, either slow or fast," says Bengt Saltin, director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, an expert in this field. "And West Africans [almost all African-Americans trace their primary ancestry to West Africa] have already 70 or 75 percent of the fast type when they are born."


I am no biologist so I don't claim to understand much regarding the differences in muscle makeup of various maybe Crandc and fill us more on this.

Great article on the subject..http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/chi_trib.htm


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

crandc said:


> Absolutely no more evidence for that than for Talkhard's assertion that Blacks are natural criminals.


I never said any such thing, and you know it. Are you really so eager to attack me that you have to make up crap? That's just sad.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Excellent points...but there is something to be said about the difference in the make up of muscle fiber between Whites and Blacks. While the difference does not make either a better "athlete" it may contribute to making better suited to play basketball (in it's current form). Fast twitch fibers help with, quick movement, jumping, sprinting, lateral quickness etc.


I made that point in an earlier post. While statistically significant populations aren't superior "athletes" (since that's too broad a term), they can have strengths over other populations, quick-twitch and slow-twitch muscles being the best example. Neither one is "better," but each confers different advantages.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> I never said any such thing, and you know it. Are you really so eager to attack me that you have to make up crap? That's just sad.


We're capable of reading between the lines on your posts, guy.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I made that point in an earlier post. While statistically significant populations aren't superior "athletes" (since that's too broad a term), they can have strengths over other populations, quick-twitch and slow-twitch muscles being the best example. Neither one is "better," but each confers different advantages.


Oh missed that...I agree 100%. Check out the article I just added to my earlier post, It quite good on delving into this whole issue.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Oh missed that...I agree 100%. Check out the article I just added to my earlier post, It quite good on delving into this whole issue.


Thanks. I usually study the cognitive side of humans, but I think everything about how we work is fascinating.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

> The real genetics argument is far more nuanced, but rarely understood. There _are_ some differences between races, often due to the environment they developed in, but nothing nearly so broad as some races being "better athletes" and some races being smarter. Intelligence is essentially evenly distributed throughout any statistically significant population. So is athleticism, but different races can have different elements of athleticism. *For example, African natives have a greater preponderance of "quick-twitch" muscles, which aid sudden, powerful movements (like jumping or sudden acceleration) while European natives have a greater prepoderance of "slow-twitch" muscles that lead to greater stamina and steady power feats like weight-lifting and swimming.*




Minstrel

I'm glad you deleted your original statement that "endurance has nothing to do with slow twitch muscle fiber," in which you stated that "endurance is all about cardiovascular conditioning". It was pure hogwash. You should do the same with your above emboldened statement, it's also pure hogwash. Slow twitch fibers and endurance go hand in hand. The Kenyan runners prove it. Slow Twitch Fiber


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> Minstrel
> 
> I'm glad you deleted your original statement that "endurance has nothing to do with slow twitch muscle fiber," in which you stated that "endurance is all about cardiovascular conditioning". It was pure hogwash.


That isn't what my deleted comment said. My deleted comment said only the first thing (cardiovascular endurance has nothing to do with slow twitch muscle fiber), not the second thing (endurance is all about cardiovascular conditioning).

I deleted it after looking into it more.



> You should do the same with your above emboldened statement, it's also pure hogwash. Slow twitch fibers and endurance go hand in hand.


My bolded statement above doesn't contradict that. The only thing wrong with that statement was lumping all Africans together. They should be separated into West and East Africans.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> Excellent points...but there is something to be said about the difference in the make up of muscle fiber between Whites and Blacks.


But is there?

The fact is that the fantasy posted earlier has to an extent come true. We are all pretty mixed. Maybe you have heard about the project where people can get their DNA tested and see where their ancestors hailed from? People are astonished - what, I have African, Asian, European ancestors? I never knew that!

There are superior athletes in all ethnicities (and lousy klutzy people too). Given athletic ability and decent nutrition, what sport a person learns will depend on a lot of factors. Physical size, of course. But also such things as family preferences, cultural variables, economics and opportunity. There is a reason that few African Americans or Latinos are found in such sports as gymnastics, figure skating, equestrian events - they involve either pricy equipment or long years of full time training often away from home. Economically, those sports are dominated by the well to do or flat out wealthy, and in a race/class biased society those people are usually white. Also, people tend to play what their peers do. For a long time baseball was very popular among Black youth; now basketball has surpassed it and the composition of both pro leagues reflect that fact. 

For many years boxing was the only sport where Blacks participated equally. So boxing's complexion darkened. In the days before athletic scholarships, college football and basketball were played by those who could afford to pay for college, mostly white. When scholarships at least partially leveled the economics, the complexion of those sports changed. 

I am leery of so-called "genetic" arguments for 2 reasons. 1, there are no "pure" races. 2, whenever opportunity is equalized the "genetic" arguments are disproven. For decades it was said women lacked the logical ability to be lawyers, the science skills to be doctors, the math skills to be engineers. Well, as of now the majority of students in law, medical and engineering schools in the US are women. But if you look at a country like Saudi Arabia, you don't see many women in those fields. The difference is opportunity, not genetics.

Is there a genetic reason why Jews play the piano and not the organ? 

BTW, regression to the mean is an interesting point. The son of Michael Jordan is not the player his father was. The son of John Lennon is not the musician his father was. Because true, exceptional, one in a million greatness is rare in any field.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Found this bit on emulation interesting...from the same article I quoted earlier...



> Even small biological factors can be the difference between a gold medal and finishing out of the money. Such trends feed on themselves, creating cultural stereotypes that amplify small, but meaningful, differences in performance linked to heredity. Many whites avoid pursuing sprinting and basketball because there are so few elite white athletes to emulate; for years, blacks avoided tennis and golf for the same reason. This dynamic creates a biosocial feedback loop, with nature and nurture fueling each other.


http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/chi_trib.htm


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> We're capable of reading between the lines on your posts, guy.


Your interpretation skills are lousy, because that's not what I said or what I believe. I know you'd like to demonize me, but it's not intellectually honest and it's beneath you.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Your interpretation skills are lousy, because that's not what I said or what I believe. I know you'd like to demonize me, but it's not intellectually honest and it's beneath you.


Really? Then what WAS your intended point about white players being less likely to get arrested for "dog fighting, smuggling pot through an airport, or going into a bar with a loaded gun?"

Please explain. It sure seemed like your belief was that whites are inherently less troublesome, so more white players means less chances for such arrests.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

crandc said:


> But is there?
> 
> The fact is that the fantasy posted earlier has to an extent come true. We are all pretty mixed. Maybe you have heard about the project where people can get their DNA tested and see where their ancestors hailed from? People are astonished - what, I have African, Asian, European ancestors? I never knew that!
> 
> ...


All true but you only took one piece of what I said...the "genetic" arguement is flawed IMO because it makes to broad of generalizations about one being better then the other. IMO the theory that certain races are genetically predisposed to be better at certain activities holds alot of water considering the diversity of the world as we know it today.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Your interpretation skills are lousy, because that's not what I said or what I believe. *I know you'd like to demonize me, but it's not intellectually honest and it's beneath you*.


No worries you did that to yourself at least 4-5 months ago.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Then what WAS your intended point about white players being less likely to get arrested for "dog fighting, smuggling pot through an airport, or going into a bar with a loaded gun?"
> 
> Please explain. It sure seemed like your belief was that whites are inherently less troublesome, so more white players means less chances for such arrests.


Yes, more white players DOES mean less chances for arrests. That's certainly true. But I never said that blacks were "naturally" criminals, or that they were "inherently" predisposed to committing crime. In fact, I never addressed the "causes" of anything. I merely stated that white players are less likely to get in trouble with the law, or to misbehave in other ways. Whether this is due to cultural factors, upbringing, or other environmental causes, I do not know. But for the record I don't believe that blacks have some sort of genetic predisposition to illegal behavior. There have been many quality black guys in the NBA, from Grant Hill to Buck Williams to our own Martell Webster. 

I'm surprised that you can't understand such a simple proposition. Perhaps instead of judging me, you ought to read what I actually write.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> I'm surprised that you can't understand such a simple proposition. Perhaps instead of judging me, you ought to read what I actually write.


I can understand it, I simply don't believe it, coming from you. You have a rather storied history.

Agree to disagree.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> The real genetics argument is far more nuanced, but rarely understood. There _are_ some differences between races, often due to the environment they developed in, but nothing nearly so broad as some races being "better athletes" and some races being smarter. Intelligence is essentially evenly distributed throughout any statistically significant population. So is athleticism, but different races can have different elements of athleticism. *For example, African natives have a greater preponderance of "quick-twitch" muscles, which aid sudden, powerful movements (like jumping or sudden acceleration) while European natives have a greater prepoderance of "slow-twitch" muscles that lead to greater stamina and steady power feats like weight-lifting and swimming.*




Minstrel
Please also note that weight-lifting has to do with developing fast twitch fiber (explosive power). Swimming = Slow twitch developement (endurance.) Weight lifting = Fast twitch developement.
This further destroys your theory. And yes, if you buy into a theory, it becomes your theory.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

graybeard said:


> [/B]
> 
> Minstrel
> Please also note that weight-lifting has to do with developing fast twitch fiber (explosive power). Swimming = Slow twitch developement (endurance.) Weight lifting = Fast twitch developement.
> This further destroys your theory. And yes, if you buy into a theory, it becomes your theory.


Not necessarily true...you can lift weights to develop slow twitch muscle, you just have to lift lower weight and do alot of reps. 

You can also swim to develop fast twitch muscle, you simply have to swim short, fast sprints. 

While neither is the most efficient way to build those muscle types it certainly does work.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> Minstrel
> Please also note that weight-lifting has to do with developing fast twitch fiber (explosive power). Swimming = Slow twitch developement (endurance.) Weight lifting = Fast twitch developement.
> This further destroys your theory. And yes, if you buy into a theory, it becomes your theory.


In what way does it "destroy the theory?" It only means that, off the top of my head, I got wrong which muscle fiber category weight-lifting falls under.

The theory is that certain races aren't better athletes, overall, but various races have specific genetic differences, like a greater preponderance of quick-twitch muscles versus slow-twitch muscles, which can confer specific advantages.

Whether weight-lifting is quick-twitch or not has nothing to do with that.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> The real genetics argument is far more nuanced, but rarely understood. There _are_ some differences between races, often due to the environment they developed in, but nothing nearly so broad as some races being "better athletes" and some races being smarter. Intelligence is essentially evenly distributed throughout any statistically significant population. So is athleticism, but different races can have different elements of athleticism. *For example, African natives have a greater preponderance of "quick-twitch" muscles, which aid sudden, powerful movements (like jumping or sudden acceleration) while European natives have a greater prepoderance of "slow-twitch" muscles that lead to greater stamina and steady power feats like weight-lifting and swimming.*




Minstrel
The emboldened theory above is yours, and it's simply wrong.


SA1177, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> Minstrel
> The emboldened theory above is yours, and it's simply wrong.


Yes, about weight-lifting being quick-twitch. And not dividing East Africans and West Africans into distinct groups. You've offered nothing to suggest the theory is incorrect though.

Here, I'll make that statement simply right:

"For example, West African natives have a greater preponderance of 'quick-twitch' muscles, which aid sudden, powerful movements (like jumping or sudden acceleration) while European and East African natives have a greater prepoderance of 'slow-twitch' muscles that lead to stamina and steady power feats like endurance running and swimming."

There. Doesn't impact what I was saying at all, but gets the details right. Thanks for the corrections.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Minstrel
I'm not saying that I think the overall theme of your theory is wrong, nor am I saying it's right. I respect your intelligence and read just about all your posts.
Conclusions can be made from many theory's and assumptions on this topic. The adage "garbage in, garbage out" is extremely important here.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

graybeard said:


> [/B]
> 
> Minstrel
> The emboldened theory above is yours, and it's simply wrong.
> ...


Actually it's a pig with lipstick...but seriously what is your point?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> Minstrel
> I'm not saying that I think the overall theme of your theory is wrong, nor am I saying it's right. I respect your intelligence and read just about all your posts.
> Conclusions can be made from many theory's and assumptions on this topic. The adage "garbage in, garbage out" is extremely important here.


Certainly. This theory seems to be based on good research, though, so I'm inclined to believe it. It's possible that it will be shown wrong but, for now, it seems to be the best model. Also, crandc's point about racial mixing may well make it moot anyway...I'm not sure how long that will take though.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

SA1177

The point is that you can do aerobic excercises with weights, but that doesn't make it true weight lifting. It's no different than doing calisthenics.

Weight lifting in the true sense is using heavier weights and lower repetitions to develop strength.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yawn


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

graybeard said:


> SA1177
> 
> The point is that you can do aerobic excercises with weights, but that doesn't make it true weight lifting. It's no different than doing calisthenics.
> 
> Weight lifting in the true sense is using heavier weights and lower repetitions to develop strength.


In the "sport" of weighlifting that may be true...but weight lifting in general it certainly isn't. That's what I was pointing out is all. People lift weights for all kinds of reasons; to build strength, endurance as well as physical therapy and muscle rehab etc. You do realize there are also weightlifting endurance competitions where lifters try to do the maximum reps possible of a set amount of weight in a set amount of time.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> yawn


 I agree, I'm outa this topic.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

It's funny (but in a way sad) that "Africans" are taken as a whole, as being "all alike", explicitly by one poster.
Africa has more human genetic diversity than any other area on earth. If sub-Saharan Africa were wiped out, most human genetic variation would be lost. If any other region were wiped out (mind, I am not advocating this!) there would be little change in the human species and its variations.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

crandc said:


> Since the NBA players are approximately 80 % Black, it stands to reason that the majority of trouble in the NBA would involve Black players. Just as the majority of crime in the US as a whole is committed by white people.
> JJ Redick, last time I checked, is pretty white.
> OTOH, you could fill a long list with people like Brian Grant, DAvid Robinson, Tim Duncan, Dwyane Wade, Martell Webster .....
> 
> But Talkhard won't read my posts. He does not like opposing views or nude men.


truth...

but i gotta roll with talkhards opposition to nude men.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

ryanjend22 said:


> truth...
> 
> but i gotta roll with talkhards opposition to nude men.


Why? You get jealous?


----------



## red skies at night (Jul 7, 2005)

Do I get the final word since I started this thread?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

red skies at night said:


> Do I get the final word since I started this thread?



If you know this board . . . only Kiss_My_Darius gets the final word (since hap is gone). :biggrin:


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> How do you know Jimmy the Greek wasn't right? Compare African Americans to a real African. They are very different.
> 
> If blacks were truely superior athletes, then you'd see many olympic champions come out of Africa, but you do not, instead it is the African-Americans that dominate sports such as boxing and sprinting.
> 
> ...


Greeks theory has been torn apart.
If there is a non-cultural side to it I would say it has more to do with the breeding with other races then it does slave breeding. Slave breeding was very rare and it only lasted for a few generations. The vast majority of slave owners were not going as far as to tell their slave who to mate with. I have heard a few scientist address the Greek’s theory and none gave any credit to it and they gave many specific reasons why it does not work historically or genetically.

Its more likely that African Americans benefit from non-African blood. We still count people that have a tiny amount of African blood as black. Tiger Woods has less then a quarter of African decent and we call him black. Jason Kidd is 50/50 and we call him black too. Another advantage to being mixed is it splices the gene pool causing grater variations which increases the chance of producing the freakishly wimpy and the freakishly athletic.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

red skies at night said:


> Do I get the final word since I started this thread?


If there's a final word to this thread, it's that race is still a very sensitive topic and that there's as much or more misinformation as fact that goes into a lot of opinions that people form about issues surrounding it. 

That, and the fact that the title to the thread is blatantly racist (unless you limit the sample to old fat white guys like me and mediocre man).


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Yawn.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> If there's a final word to this thread, it's that race is still a very sensitive topic and that there's as much or more misinformation as fact that goes into a lot of opinions that people form about issues surrounding it.


 Uh . . . hello . . . is you're name Kiss_My_Darius.


----------



## marcola-native (May 15, 2006)

Air Fly said:


> This thread is heading in the wrong direction.



This thread should never have been posted, I couldn't care less what color our players are 
as long as they play hard and don't embarrass the franchise thats all I care about, theres good and bad in every race of people so why are we even discussing this!!


----------



## marcola-native (May 15, 2006)

The Professional Fan said:


> The Blazers can't catch a break. They're either the "Jailblazers" or they're a racist organization.
> 
> It's purely coincidence that the Blazers have more white dudes today than they did before the draft (i could have swore the Blazers first two picks were Black guys...you know, the two players everyone is going ga-ga over....one of which the Blazers had to trade a WHITE guy for....GASP!!!)
> 
> Give me a friggin break. I HATE the race card when it's not a legitimate time to play it.



AGREED, Couldn't have said it better myself THANKYOU!!!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> If you know this board . . . only Ed O gets the final word (since hap is gone). :biggrin:


10 pages. Almost 350 threads.

I have the final post in 6 of them, not including the two threads that I have posted in in the last 5 minutes.

That people think I have to have the final word is ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> 10 pages. Almost 350 threads.
> 
> I have the final post in 6 of them, not including the two threads that I have posted in in the last 5 minutes.
> 
> ...


And THAT...is the last word.

Just kidding, Ed. I _think_ Kiss_My_Darius' comment was meant affectionately. Hope so, anyway. We don't need more subtle taunts on this forum.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> 10 pages. Almost 350 threads.
> 
> I have the final post in 6 of them, not including the two threads that I have posted in in the last 5 minutes.
> 
> ...


 Man have I gotten on your bad side. I will go back and edit.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

crandc said:


> A real African? Are you saying every African from the Sahara to the Cape of Good Hope is identical? And all African-Americans? Funny, Barack Obama doesn't really look much like Shaq. Is every European from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean also identical?
> 
> Um, it's "were bred", not "were breed". An example of superior European intelligence?
> 
> ...


Where did I say they were lousy basketball players? I did not, and by real African, I meant just that, a person from Africa. People from Africa are easily distinguishable from the "african american" who has been inter-bred with whites. African Americans are a hybrid-race, and they were also bred for superior physical attributes. If you took any race and bred them for awhile, you'd get superior athletics. It's just science. You seem to be the who needs a few lessons in all those sciences you mentioned.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> If you took any race and bred them for awhile, you'd get superior athletics. It's just science.


Discredited "science." Whatever happened to Hitler's master race, that he was breeding?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Discredited "science." Whatever happened to Hitler's master race, that he was breeding?


Huh? Ever hear of husbandry? Breeding horses or breeding dogs? Some physical attributes of blacks may have been strengthened by their extreme diversity, however, whose to say they weren't bred by their owners?

Even the black guy on Gone with the Wind said he was bred for strength. See direct from a real slaves mouth! :clap:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Huh? Ever hear of husbandry? Breeding horses or breeding dogs?


All attributes are not heritable in that fashion, in a reinforcing manner. Intelligence and "athletic ability" in humans have not proven heritable in a reinforcing manner. As I said in a previous post, those attributes tend to regress to the mean. Intelligent parents tend to have children less intelligent than themselves (closer to the average). Below average intelligence parents tend to have children more intelligent than themselves (again, moving towards the mean). The same is true for athletic ability.

Obviously, there can be exceptions, but the greatest likelihood is regression to the mean for one's children. You can't just keep mating smart people and create a race of geniuses, or keep mating the best athletes and create a race of supermen/women.

Size in dogs, certain traits on horses...those are examples of heritable attributes that can reinforce themselves through the generations.

Intelligence and athletic aptitude is heritable, in all species (I assume), but with some regression, not progression.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> And THAT...is the last word.
> 
> Just kidding, Ed. I _think_ Kiss_My_Darius' comment was meant affectionately. Hope so, anyway. We don't need more subtle taunts on this forum.


 . . . because we all know taunts are often followed by big smiles.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Discredited "science." Whatever happened to Hitler's master race, that he was breeding?


So humanity is the only mammalian species on the planet that isn't influenced by selective breeding? That's either extremely egotistical or exceptionally closed minded. The effects of Eugenics are even evident over a single generation; case in point Yao Ming the product of a child born of the tallest male and female basketball players in China. 

Based on studies done on smaller mammals even 2 generations of selective breeding will show physical variance from the norm. I'm looking for a link to the paper now; I'll edit it in when I find it. 

It's sad when science becomes so inhibited by politics… how much faster would humanities progress towards understanding our solar system have been if not for the blasphemy of a heliocentric universe.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Verro said:


> So humanity is the only mammalian species on the planet that isn't influenced by selective breeding? That's either extremely egotistical or exceptionally closed minded.


No, it's the results of studies on the subject. And even in other species, all attributes are not susceptible to selective breeding. Constantly breeding the most powerful domestic cats won't result in a tiger, as far as I know. Certain attributes are heritable in that way, but I don't think most are.



> The effects of Eugenics are even evident over a single generation; case in point Yao Ming the product of a child born of the tallest male and female basketball players in China.


Anecdotes are not science. 



> Based on studies done on smaller mammals even 2 generations of selective breeding will show physical variance from the norm. I'm looking for a link to the paper now; I'll edit it in when I find it.


In _any_ physical attribute? If it says that, I'll be interested to read it.

Also, I just noticed you said "variance from the norm." Two gifted people giving birth to a child less gifted than themselves, but still gifted, will be "variance from the norm." You can be less gifted than your parents, but still above average. Michael Jordan's children will almost surely be more athletically gifted than average children, but almost surely less so than Jordan.

Such benefits don't disappear after one, or even two, generations. But over time, they do, due to regression to the mean.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Also, I just noticed you said "variance from the norm." Two gifted people giving birth to a child less gifted than themselves, but still gifted, will be "variance from the norm." You can be less gifted than your parents, but still above average. Michael Jordan's children will almost surely be more athletically gifted than average children, but almost surely less so than Jordan.


Well here you seem to be arguing my point so I don't think our viewpoints on the subject are all that far apart. I think you may have misinterpreted probability as regression however.

Here's a fairly simple example, using the genetic attribute of height:

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to take a dice representing a male and a female each with 100 sides, and you were to roll them 100 times, and in two of those instances you rolled 100, and in two others you rolled 0. The 100's and 0's would be bookends on the height spectrum, representing a very short woman and man (the 0's) and a very tall woman and man (the 100's). If the 0's were to have a child it would be as if they were rolling 2 dice numbered -10 to 90, while if the 100's had a child it would be as if they were rolling dice numbered 10 to 110. While in all probability the 100's will not roll a value of 100 or above it will still be higher on average than the 0's, understandably this could be misconstrued as regression, as 90% of their children would be closer to the norm. However, the only possibility outside of a pituitary tumor for a 110 to be rolled is a product of the 100's mating.

Edit: If it's not obvious, you have to divide the "mating rolls" by 2. :biggrin:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Verro said:


> Well here you seem to be arguing my point so I don't think our viewpoints on the subject are all that far apart. I think you may have misinterpreted probability as regression however.
> 
> Here's a fairly simple example, using the genetic attribute of height:
> 
> Hypothetically speaking, if you were to take 2 dice representing a male and a female each with 100 sides, and you were to roll them 100 times, and in two of those instances you rolled 100, and in two others you rolled 0. The 100's and 0's would be bookends on the height spectrum, representing a very short woman and man (the 0's) and a very tall woman and man (the 100's). If the 0's were to have a child it would be as if they were rolling 2 dice numbered -10 to 90, while if the 100's had a child it would be as if they were rolling dice numbered 10 to 110. While in all probability the 100's will not roll a value of 100 or above it will still be higher on average than the 0's, understandably this could be misconstrued as regression, as 90% of their children would be closer to the norm. However, the only possibility outside of a pituitary tumor for a 110 to be rolled is a product of the 100's mating.


I don't disagree at all with what you're saying. That's exactly how I see it as well. However, I don't think saying that regression to the mean is the reality is misconstruing.

I never said that their children wouldn't on average be higher than the "0s" or the parents with a lower amount of the attribute. I was arguing the idea that exceptional parents will have _even_ more exceptional children who, if mated with other exceptional people of their generation will make even _more_ exceptional children, ad infinitum.

The pure fact is that children will tend towards the mean, but tending towards the mean from where their parents were. So parents with more of the attribute will have a superior range for their children, but the likelihood is still regression to the mean, based on the probabilities. In an earlier post in this thread, I explicitly stated that this isn't a guarantee...there can of course be exceptions where children don't regress to the mean. I was speaking only of overwhelming likelihoods.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

crandc said:


> Absolutely no more evidence for that than for Talkhard's assertion that Blacks are natural criminals.
> No matter how kindly meant, that statement is derogatory. Think about it. Blacks, at least Black men, don't have to work hard. They are just "natural" athletes. Then I hear about a player like Dwyane Wade saying he takes 500 shots a day and has done so for 10 years. Is he lying? But white guys, well, they have to be smart and hard working.
> 
> Now, as to the subject at hand. A study by sportswriter Jim Ballinger on the composition of NBA teams revealed that in "whiter" cities the team does tend to be "whiter". Ballinger noted that most teams play around 9 guys regularly. Since coaches want to win, they don't care if their 1-9 guy is black, white, purple or anydamnthing else. But the bench warmers, the ones who don't make a big difference in wins or losses, in "white" cities are more likely to be white players.
> ...


My argument is not that Black players don't work hard, obviously anyone in the NBA level has to. However, being a white guy, who until I tore up my knee some time ago, who played a lot of basketball with a lot of black players, and having done a lot of my own research on the genetics involved in different muscle types and cardiovascular systems we are genetically born with, I know for a fact that black people do have in most cases, a distinct advantage over white people when it comes to the sport of basketball (and some other physical activites). They essentially, because of genetics, because of the climate and places their ancestors lived in and had to adapt to, are able to expend great amounts of energy into shorter bursts, i.e. jump higher, sprint quicker, move around objects/people in small spaces quicker. This makes them NATURALLY more adept at the physical aspect of basketball. A average white guy, can yes, achieve those same results, but through much more physcial training. Plyometrics, building up certain muscle groups, HARD WORK to achieve teh same body type that an average black person would have been born with thanks to genetics.

I'm not saying that black people are better or white people are, but simple fact is, on average, a black person is born with the genetics that make their bodies suited to excell better in the physcial parts of the game of basketball better than a white person. IT's science, and it's been proven before I was born. If a white man wants to compete with a black man who has a naturally good physical leap, or is quicker, he has the option of spending most of his time training and doing special exercises and having a specific nuitritional diet to achieve those same physcal results. Yes, it can be done. I used to spend a lot of time doing plyometrics so I could leap with the best of them and move as quickly as the black guys I played ball with. But then you're left spending so much time with the physical training, you aren't working on the SKILL. Most white players, as can be seen with a lot of european players in the nba now, choose to instead take the other course, working within their natural physical abilities, and instead focusing on the boring, tedious mechanics of the game. Things routed more in an understanding of body mechanics and actual physics, than being able to out run or out leap an apponent.

So you have to ask yourself, growing up as a person with that natural ability, yes probably enhanced by the training routine you'd need to be a pro athleet, but still naturally there to a certain extent, would you spend more time thinking about the game, focusing on the boring stuff, or would you instead spend more time using your natural abilities during games and just having fun with the rest of your life and just letting the mechanics of the game come to you? That can be seen by the amount of players who get into the league who are extremely good athletes with natural tallent, but with little understanding of the game, despite playing it throughout their time in school, highschool and college.

The white guys best shot of reaching that pro level is being an excellent passer, shooter, or udnerstanding the strategy of the game so that they make the smart plays and fit into a good defense/offense. So yes, for the average white guy adn the average black guy who are into the game of bball, the white guy must put in more boring work and focus more on the academic and fundamental part of the game to have success. Does this seperate or help reduce the potential for wrong doing? I can't say for sure. Take guys like J Kidd for instance. Good runner but couldn't leap for crap, he obviously worked on his ball handling and shooting skills, and has a mind for the game. Still beat his wife, a far worse crime I'm sure most would agree, than smoking a joint. 

I don't believe for a moment black people or white people either one has a less likely hood of being a bad person or commiting a crime just because of their race, or that either is born more intelligent than the other because of their race. However, different cultures that they are raised in, and the different gifts they tend to have due to genetic makeup tend to help guide their lives growing up. If I had the natural ability of so many of my black friends I'd have spent a lot more time having a good time and maybe getting into trouble as a kid, than I did spending hours outside working on my jump shot, and ball handling, come rain or snow. 

People who argue that there is no difference between the genetic makeup of black people and white people when it comes to body types and sports and other athletic activies seriously need to do their research. As someone else mentioned, "fast twitch" and "slow twitch" are different muscle fiber types, which depending upon where your ancestors came from or what environemnt they lived in, could be affected by your genetic code. While these muscle fibers can be broken down and regrown through certain training and diet programs to achieve a desired result, each and every person has been genetically gifted with a certain type by default. People with an african heritage tend to have fast twitch muscle, which is excellent for basketball as it allows you to sprint faster, jump higher, and in general be quicker, IE dunking, fast breaking, moving around apponents and keeping up on defense. White people tend to have slow twitch so they tend to have greater ability for keeping up a pace for longer, make great efforts over a longer period of time. Has nothing to do with intelligence, ahs everything to do with the situation MOST of these kids are genetically predisposed to as they grow up, which clearly shapes their development on the court, and in my opinion, possibly off the court, if they are involved in sports.


----------



## EFT (Mar 27, 2006)

Sergio is Latino.


----------



## red skies at night (Jul 7, 2005)

word


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Whew!

I can't believe I read the whole thing.

A few observations:

crandc is correct that more black players have championship rings, while Talkhard is correct that more black players *get caught* doing stupid things than white players.

On the other hand, it's also a fact that nearly all convicted serial killers are white. That's ALL the Jailblazers need.

crandc, a city can be 100% white and still be the most diverse population on earth. Skin color is only one of several factors taken into account to determine diversity. A city could be represented by scores of different people from different countries, ethnicities, and religions...and still be all white.

Or all black. White is a generalization, as is asian, black...

Minstrel, Talkhard is right about your penchant for "reading between the lines". You do it whenever you disagree with someone and by my own experience, you're not very adept at it.

As far as your quick-twitch theory, Samantha Stevens blows it right out of the water. :biggrin: 

As far as the original thread theme, I'm pretty sure they went for who they thought were the best players for whatever the heck they think they're doing.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Huh?Even the black guy on Gone with the Wind said he was bred for strength. See direct from a real slaves mouth! :clap:


Aha! A proslavery novel! Must be scientific fact!


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> having done a lot of my own research on the genetics involved in different muscle types and cardiovascular systems we are genetically born with, I know for a fact that black people do have in most cases, a distinct advantage over white people when it comes to the sport of basketball (and some other physical activites). They essentially, because of genetics, because of the climate and places their ancestors lived in and had to adapt to, are able to expend great amounts of energy into shorter bursts, i.e. jump higher, sprint quicker, move around objects/people in small spaces quicker


Can you tell me where this genetic research you conducted is published?



> I'm not saying that black people are better or white people are, but simple fact is, on average, a black person is born with the genetics that make their bodies suited to excell better in the physcial parts of the game of basketball better than a white person. IT's science, and it's been proven before I was born.


Proven? Again, show me the links to the research. 



> If a white man wants to compete with a black man who has a naturally good physical leap, or is quicker, he has the option of spending most of his time training and doing special exercises and having a specific nuitritional diet to achieve those same physcal results.


So those white Olympic pole vaulters....



> So you have to ask yourself, growing up as a person with that natural ability, yes probably enhanced by the training routine you'd need to be a pro athleet, but still naturally there to a certain extent, would you spend more time thinking about the game, focusing on the boring stuff, or would you instead spend more time using your natural abilities during games and just having fun with the rest of your life and just letting the mechanics of the game come to you? That can be seen by the amount of players who get into the league who are extremely good athletes with natural tallent, but with little understanding of the game, despite playing it throughout their time in school, highschool and college.


Please. Anyone with natural talent, whether in sports, music, dance, mathematics or whatever, still has to train it. And it is true that all the training in the world won't make me a singer since I can't carry a tune. But to say that white guys have to work and black guys can have fun is belied by all the gym rats of all colors. And by lazy players of all colors. As to the good athletes in the NBA without game skills or understanding: it used to be the norm for NBA players to have 4 years of college ball, generally at Division 1 schools. Early entry meant leaving after 3 years. Now you have more and more leaving after 1 or 2 years or passing up college altogether. The level of competition in high school does not approach that of a Division 1 college. That is why some skills have declined in the past decade or so. Not color, since it affects players of all colors equally. Note that in the WNBA all players must complete their college eligibility. Does that mean that racial differences only apply to men? That white women like Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird are the athletic peers of Lisa Leslie and Seimone Augustus? Or are the white girls like white boys just harder workers while the black ones get a free ride due to kindly slavemasters breeding them for strength and leaping ability?

...


> Take guys like J Kidd for instance. Good runner but couldn't leap for crap, he obviously worked on his ball handling and shooting skills, and has a mind for the game. Still beat his wife, a far worse crime I'm sure most would agree, than smoking a joint.


Kidd is biracial. So which part of him is the good leaper, which part is the smart guy and which part is the criminal?

...


> However, *different cultures* that they are raised in, and the different gifts they tend to have due to genetic makeup tend to help guide their lives growing up.


Yes. Basketball is part of urban street culture. Skiing is not. Baseball is inseparable from being a boy in Latin America. Hockey is not. Hockey is played by everyone in Canada. American football is not. Cultural differences.



> If I had the natural ability of so many of my black friends I'd have spent a lot more time having a good time and maybe getting into trouble as a kid, than I did spending hours outside working on my jump shot, and ball handling, come rain or snow.


If I had the natural ability of the dancers in San Francisco ballet, who are of all colors, I would be in the studio stretching instead of typing this. But your remark is pretty insulting. Every NBA player has spent hours working on his (her) shot. Again, when someone like Dwayne Wade talks about taking 500 jumpers a day every day is he lying? But Chris Mullin is telling the truth when he said it? 



> People who argue that there is no difference between the genetic makeup of black people and white people when it comes to body types and sports and other athletic activies seriously need to do their research.


People who think there is a generic "black person" and a generic "white person" need to do their research. I mean for god's sake. Look at any random group of people. Hell, look at the NBA. How many body types are there?

As someone else mentioned, "fast twitch" and "slow twitch" are different muscle fiber types, which depending upon where your ancestors came from or what environemnt they lived in, could be affected by your genetic code. While these muscle fibers can be broken down and regrown through certain training and diet programs to achieve a desired result, each and every person has been genetically gifted with a certain type by default. People with an african heritage tend to have fast twitch muscle, which is excellent for basketball as it allows you to sprint faster, jump higher, and in general be quicker, IE dunking, fast breaking, moving around apponents and keeping up on defense. White people tend to have slow twitch so they tend to have greater ability for keeping up a pace for longer, make great efforts over a longer period of time. Has nothing to do with intelligence, ahs everything to do with the situation MOST of these kids are genetically predisposed to as they grow up, which clearly shapes their development on the court, and in my opinion, possibly off the court, if they are involved in sports.[/QUOTE]

I know this was stated. A lot of things were stated. Does not make them fact and I am still waiting to see the research.

BTW, who were the top scorers in men's college basketball last year? JJ Redick and Adam Morrison? Hmm....
But the top scorer in women's basketball was Seimone Augustus. So maybe it is black women who are naturally gifted? Not men?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> The level of competition in high school does not approach that of a Division 1 college. That is why some skills have declined in the past decade or so. Not color, since it affects players of all colors equally.


Actually, I think skills have declined because of this stupid emphasis on dunks and streetball and selfishness on the court instead of street play. This is, in large part, cultural -- both players and fans seem to really enjoy "in your face" slams and swaggering -- and the game has changed for the worse as a result. The "street" has entered the game, and the results are plain to see. It is pathetic.

OT: Want to watch a really beautiful game? Watch the World Cup along with 2 billion other people this Sunday. The Germany-Italy game was sensational. The Final on Sunday will probably also be amazing. And this is a sport where every player has to be somewhat thoughtful and selfless because no star, no matter how great, can do it by themselves. I wish basketball was -- gasp -- more like soccer.

iWatas


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> I wish basketball was -- gasp -- more like soccer.
> iWatas


College basketball was.

Before they instituted the shot clock.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

crandc said:


> I know this was stated. A lot of things were stated. Does not make them fact and I am still waiting to see the research.


Ignorance to the research and facts of the science involved is hardly a basis for your arguments. I suggest picking up a book on the subject and doing your own research and learning about what it is that you are trying to discuss instead of making statements based off your lack of knowledge in the matter.

I'm sure your statements could be applied to an argument that the earth is flat if you'd never learned for yourself that the world is round, saying that you've never seen the facts or research surrounding the matter is hardly an argument to prove your point. The material is out there, and has been for long since I was born. Go educate yourself on the matter, I'm sure it'll be enlightening.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> The material is out there, and has been for long since I was born. Go educate yourself on the matter, I'm sure it'll be enlightening.


crandc simply asked (several times) for some sort of evidence to support the claims.

You claim to know for a fact that it exists, therefore you should be able to *at the very least * provide some sort of link to it.

Put up or shut up.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Actually, Maris, I have read some of the books on racial "types". I am totaly unimpressed as the authors seem to lack basic knowledge of human geneology. 
But someone claimed to have done genetic research. It is hardly out of line to ask the person to post a link to where the research was published. If he/she can't that tells me that the "research" exists only in his/her mind.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Since this has already descended into an academic p-ing contest, I cannot resist...



crandc said:


> Actually, Maris, I have read some of the books on racial "types". I am totaly unimpressed as the authors seem to lack basic knowledge of human geneology.


I would be surprised if they had. Since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand:

ge·ne·al·o·gy Audio pronunciation of "genealogy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-l-j, -l-, jn-)
n. pl. ge·ne·al·o·gies

1. A record or table of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree.
2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree.
3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories.


Do you mean genetics?

And FWIW the assertion that everything trends toward the mean is demonstrably false. Great racehorses do not come out of nowhere; they are bred for their characteristics. Breeding is not everything, but it is quite important.

iWatas


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> And FWIW the assertion that everything trends toward the mean is demonstrably false.


Strawman. I never said "everything" regresses to the mean.



> Great racehorses do not come out of nowhere; they are bred for their characteristics.


By breeding racehorses, you don't create racehorses that are continually greater than the previous generation, such that racehorses today are 20x faster than the ones of a hundred years ago.

You stud the best racehorses because _even with regression to the mean_ their progeny are superior to the average racehorse.

Boiling racing talent down to numbers for illustration, if I started with a 100 and the child of a 100 is an 85, that's still a superior racehorse to the average 50. Yet the child is clearly closer to the mean than the parent...that's regression to the mean. It still makes breeding important, but it doesn't create a superior version of the species. It makes isolated superior instances within the species.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

No, I meant geneology. But add in genetics. They are ignorant of that as well, for example, patterns of inheritance and genetic/environmental interactions. (For example, that height, which unlike athletic ability is easily and objectively measurable, carries both a genetic and an environmental component.)
What I meant was that these so called experts seem unaware of human descent, that the majority of human genetic variation is in Africa. That Africans are more different from one another than the rest of the world's population together. So to talk about "The African" is absurd.
I would add that I see no statistical detail in this type of literature, just assertions.


----------

