Are blacks better athletes than EVERY OTHER RACE

[Winehole23]

He didn't really study it to the depths required. Where are all of the results? Mostly hypothesizing, sounds like.

So you throw a hypothesis out there.

Just for fun, let's say the hereditary differences between races for certain measurable "cognitive" traits are perhaps reflected truely in questionnaires, the results of which may suggest that certain races are not as mentally robust as others.

Some people think it's a valid hypothesis.

There's not much more to say about it.

In fact, that's really about all you can say about it, unless you think Murray's preliminary evidence is clinching.

[Galileo]

7 x 4 = 28

Basically you're saying that if Tiger wins 28 more majors he's still just on par with Nicklaus. Point system = flawed.

Nicklaus only missed 5 cuts out of 40 majors during his 40's, age 40 to 49.

Nicklaus made 22 cuts in his 50's, out of 40 more majors. He made 22 cuts out of his first 34 majors in his 50's, then he got injured.

He made one more cut when he was 60.

Nicklaus in his 30's made 39 cuts, and had 35 out of 40 top 10's in majors.

In a stretch of 33 majors, between 1970 and 1979, his WORST finish in a major was 13th place.

Tiger, in his first 4 years in his 30's (presumably the best ones), he has already missed 4 cuts, and had only 11 top 10's in 16 majors.

In 1998, Tiger was the defending champ at the Master's. Jack Nicklaus BEAT Tiger in the 1998 Masters, even though Jack was 58 years old.

Jack made the cut at the US Open when he was 18 years old.

When he was a 20 year old amatuer, he got 2nd in the US Open.

He won the US Open when he was 22.

[Winehole23]

Besides calling it racist, I mean.

[Shastafarian]

Nicklaus only missed 5 cuts out of 40 majors during his 40's, age 40 to 49.

Tiger isn't 40 yet

Nicklaus made 22 cuts in his 50's, out of 40 more majors. He made 22 cuts out of his first 34 majors in his 50's, then he got injured.

Tiger isn't 50 yet.

He made one more cut when he was 60.

Tiger isn't 60 yet.

Nicklaus in his 30's made 39 cuts, and had 35 out of 40 top 10's in majors.

Tiger isn't done with his 30's yet.

In a stretch of 33 majors, between 1970 and 1979, his WORST finish in a major was 13th place.

Because the compe ion was just as good.

Tiger, in his first 4 years in his 30's (presumably the best ones), he has already missed 4 cuts, and had only 11 top 10's in 16 majors.

Presuming is like assuming. Only you're just making an ass out of yourself.

In 1998, Tiger was the defending champ at the Master's. Jack Nicklaus BEAT Tiger in the 1998 Masters, even though Jack was 58 years old.

He beat him by 2 shots.

Jack made the cut at the US Open when he was 18 years old.

An excellent achievement.

When he was a 20 year old amatuer, he got 2nd in the US Open.

I'm happy for him.

He won the US Open when he was 22.

"The following April, Woods won his first major with a score of 18 under par, The Masters, by a record margin of 12 strokes, becoming the youngest Masters winner...

He set a total of 20 Masters records and tied 6 others. He won another three PGA Tour events that year, and on June 15, 1997, in only his 42nd week as a professional, rose to number one in the Official World Golf Rankings, the fastest-ever ascent to world No. 1.[51] He was named PGA Player of the Year, the first golfer to win the award the year following his rookie season."

They're both great golfers. Tiger will pass Nicklaus in major wins. Sorry you're so butthurt about it.

[MiamiHeat]

Nicklaus >>>>> Woods

accept it

[MannyIsGod]

WH, was Jimmy The Greek right? Specifically about thighs I have no idea but the notion that selective breeding brings bout desired traits through reproduction in a very small number of generations has been proven time and time again.

So then we have to question if the specific traits that are desirable for hard labor are those that would benefit an athlete and if that selective breeding occurred. There are plenty of accounts of it occurring and I think the first point is obvious.

[Winehole23]

What is his putative subject? He's a "social scientist", pretty much everything is a subject for him. But why does it matter? In a scientific discussion it doesn't matter who makes a claim; it's solely the claim that ought to be discussed. I'm not aware that Murray has produced work on genetics though.



So?

Just to make it clear we're dealing with sociological discourse here, not human biology.

[Winehole23]

Or even genetics.

[Shastafarian]

Nicklaus >>>>> Woods

accept it

How can you compare careers of two players when one of them isn't even halfway through his?

[Winehole23]

Prejudice?

[MannyIsGod]

Just to make it clear we're dealing with sociological discourse here, not biology.

Or even genetics.

The idea of inheritable traits is not exactly groundbreaking genetics or biology. I think your mistake is acting as though there is anything up in the air on that front. If selective breeding occurred one would expect those traits to be present at a higher than natural rate in the subsequent population.

There is no biologic discussion to be had here, there is a sociological or anthropological debate if any.

[MiamiHeat]

How can you compare careers of two players when one of them isn't even halfway through his?

You said it yourself. Woods career has many years to go. He hasn't surpassed Jack yet.

So, until then, Nicklaus is still the best golfer to ever play.


When Woods is done, then you can bother us.

[Shastafarian]

You said it yourself. Woods career has many years to go. He hasn't surpassed Jack yet.

Correct. But all signs point to Woods surpassing Nicklaus.

So, until then, Nicklaus is still the best golfer to ever play.

He does have the most majors.

When Woods is done, then you can bother us.

I'm bothering you? Butthurtedness for golf? Really?

[Winehole23]

The idea of inheritable traits is not exactly groundbreaking genetics or biology. I think your mistake is acting as though there is anything up in the air on that front.

What may be clear to you may not to me. In college I placed out of all the biology I was capable of understanding, and took no more.

Can you amplify, please?

[MannyIsGod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity

[Winehole23]

There is no biologic discussion to be had here, there is a sociological or anthropological debate if any.

Liberal arts logomachy.

Same old family goat .

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity

We were talking about The Bell Curve. Did you agree with it?

[MannyIsGod]

I've never read it so I can't comment on it but perhaps I simply missed the transgression from the OP to the Bell Curve.

[doobs]

If I were selectively breeding slaves, I would try to breed for strength, endurance, and resistance to illness. I would also try to breed for emotional weakness, stupidity, and timid boot-licking.

So yeah, I think there are some serious problems with that theory.

[MiamiHeat]

Even if we ignore the selective breeding practices that happened in the South,

you have the lifestyle of hard physical labor. Slave diets were about 4,000 calories per day. They ate meat, about 1 ounce less than the free, and lots of peas and sweet potato.

Back breaking work, every day, tends to make you pretty damn strong. A few generations of this, and you can see how the american black super athlete was born.



It's sad, but it's a reminder of american history.

[mogrovejo]

Just to make it clear we're dealing with sociological discourse here, not human biology.

It doesn't matter. Murray needs as much authority to discourse on human biology as you or me: exactly none. There's no such thing as personal authority in the scientific discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

Even if we ignore the selective breeding practices that happened in the South,

you have the lifestyle of hard physical labor. Slave diets were about 4,000 calories per day. They ate meat, about 1 ounce less than the free, and lots of peas and sweet potato.

Back breaking work, every day, tends to make you pretty damn strong. A few generations of this, and you can see how the american black super athlete was born.



It's sad, but it's a reminder of american history.

You're wrong. Physical fitness is not an inheritable trait, it is a state your body is in.

[MiamiHeat]

If I were selectively breeding slaves, I would try to breed for strength, endurance, and resistance to illness. I would also try to breed for emotional weakness, stupidity, and timid boot-licking.

So yeah, I think there are some serious problems with that theory.

It's not a theory.

It's fact.

Read up on your american history. It happened.

[mogrovejo]

There's no consensus if the disparity between blacks and whites in psychometric intelligence can be partially explained by genetics. This debate remains unsolved (and The Bell Curve states precisely that, btw).

[Winehole23]

I've never read it so I can't comment on it but perhaps I simply missed the transgression from the OP to the Bell Curve.

Trangression? It was easy to miss. It was a 1994 kulturkampf highlight.

This thread is all over the place, too.