Bernard "The Racist" Hopkins at it again

Gumby wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:As a coach. Genetics can be everything. Yes hard work can help you greatly but really if you dont have the genes to be an athlete there is nothing you can do about it. I see it every single day. The kid that works three times harder and still cant beat the lazy turd that is just a better athlete.

But you get them in high school. I started playing when I was 3. Even if I stopped playing sports by middle school, I could've been walked into high school and been a good athlete because I started at such a young age and always had people pushing me.

I know a kid whose a real good hockey player. His dad used to make him carry rocks and run mountains and everyone thought it was insane. He'll likely be going to the NHL soon. He's a good athlete because he's always dedicated himself to it.

Especially because most sports have a lot more too them than how fast, or strong you are. Even track and powerlifting for example have a lot of technique and skill involved.

Thing is you cant teach athletics. You cant teach speed or height or even how high someone jumps. Can you teach skills? Yes if the kid has the aptitude for it. If the kid has enough athletic ability to learn it. Ask any coach their honest opinion about it and they will tell you its 90% genetics.

Soonermark890 wrote:Thing is you cant teach athletics. You cant teach speed or height or even how high someone jumps. Can you teach skills? Yes if the kid has the aptitude for it. If the kid has enough athletic ability to learn it. Ask any coach their honest opinion about it and they will tell you its 90% genetics.

You can teach speed. I've seen people get a lot faster through training over the course of a year. Same with strength and balance and explosiveness. Some guys have more natural talent or are freaks. And on the other end there are people who just will never be able to do it. So some of it's genetic, but if you have a kid run (or do anything) every day starting from when he's 2-5 they'll probably be pretty good at it as long as you can foster a passion for them to do it. By the time kids are in high school they're usually set for that time period unless they have a huge spurt.

Look at things like P90x. There are plenty of story of non-athletes who dedicate themselves to getting in better shape and end up being good athletes (they probably lack sport specific coordination and skills but they can run, jump, and have stamina).

Gumby wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:Thing is you cant teach athletics. You cant teach speed or height or even how high someone jumps. Can you teach skills? Yes if the kid has the aptitude for it. If the kid has enough athletic ability to learn it. Ask any coach their honest opinion about it and they will tell you its 90% genetics.

You can teach speed. I've seen people get a lot faster through training over the course of a year. Same with strength and balance and explosiveness. Some guys have more natural talent or are freaks. And on the other end there are people who just will never be able to do it. So some of it's genetic, but if you have a kid run (or do anything) every day starting from when he's 2-5 they'll probably be pretty good at it as long as you can foster a passion for them to do it. By the time kids are in high school they're usually set for that time period unless they have a huge spurt.

Look at things like P90x. There are plenty of story of non-athletes who dedicate themselves to getting in better shape and end up being good athletes (they probably lack sport specific coordination and skills but they can run, jump, and have stamina).

I hate P90X. I have done that all the way through once and I did another 48 days of it before getting hurt another time. Its nothing new its just circuit training.

Anyways Natural talent is genetics. I would need some examples of non-athletes becoming athletes because I have never seen it.

Gumby wrote:
[*]Psychological belief: This builds on the above. Black kids actually believe that they are tougher and better athletes and are constantly competing with each other to show that. Similarly, white kids are taught to be afraid of blacks to a degree or accept that they're not as athletic. Muscles look more defined on darker skinned people as well which can add to the intimidation factor.
[*]Environment: Lots of black athletes come from rough areas. Among other things it means they have less supervision. More time for sports, less for school. More competition because everyone's outside playing. More experience because everyone's competing. Also, they just grow up in a more overtly aggressive and viscous culture. Mike Vick's plea for his dog fighting was that he knew it was bad and he shouldn't have done it, but everyone was doing it and it didn't seem bad compared to the other things going on around him. To some people that's absurd and to others that's real. Either way it shows that blacks are often more encouraged and/or have more opportunities to let out their aggression (even if it's in a negative way). That hardened mindset usually helps in sports. Also, the climate can affect athletes. If you grow up in Texas or Florida in a big sports town your pushed into sports at a high level early on, and the climate literally is perfect for you to get the most out of your training.
[*]Genetics: Blacks are black because they come from a warm sunny climate and their bodies adapted. That climate is great for exercise. In the US slavery isolated, bred and trained the best blacks in brutal fashion. Years of hard labor made blacks very physically strong.

There are many exceptions to that list and often the best athletes come from more stable backgrounds that support and nourish their talents. I just think the above contributes to why black athletes are predominant right now in sports.

THe bolded is pretty interesting. My friend told me about a study (obviously I have no idea how legit it is), but basically there was a study done with Blacks and Asians, and they were subject to playing mini golf. Separate groups were told beforehand that mini golf was either mainly physical or mental, and that the Blacks performed better when they were told it was physical, and the Asians performed better when they were told it was mental. I guess stereotypes have psychological impacts on performance.

As for slavery, well that part does make some sense as well. There was slavery for a few hundred years in the US, that is time for some selective breeding to take place. It's fucked up, but a strong athletic fast slave was more valuable and could do more labor.

A different form of selection would be Grant's point about running long distances. If being able to run fast or long was a big part of life in whatever African community we're hypothetically talking about, it would be a desired trait. If you had good endurance you would probably have more offspring than someone who gasses out after a mile. The better runners have a better chance of passing on their genes and traits, while the worse runners don't.

The big question is is what does "athletic" really mean. Think about how diverse cultures and people are on this earth. How many sports and athletic events are there, and by whose and what standard are we judging by?

btw what the fuck is this, I'd never thought I'd be having an anthropological discussion on a boxing forum.. but I digress. I stayed away from those on the ESPN forums because it was just a bunch of idiots throwing slurs at each other.

Soonermark890 wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:As a coach. Genetics can be everything. Yes hard work can help you greatly but really if you dont have the genes to be an athlete there is nothing you can do about it. I see it every single day. The kid that works three times harder and still cant beat the lazy turd that is just a better athlete.

But you get them in high school. I started playing when I was 3. Even if I stopped playing sports by middle school, I could've been walked into high school and been a good athlete because I started at such a young age and always had people pushing me.

I know a kid whose a real good hockey player. His dad used to make him carry rocks and run mountains and everyone thought it was insane. He'll likely be going to the NHL soon. He's a good athlete because he's always dedicated himself to it.

Especially because most sports have a lot more too them than how fast, or strong you are. Even track and powerlifting for example have a lot of technique and skill involved.

Thing is you cant teach athletics. You cant teach speed or height or even how high someone jumps. Can you teach skills? Yes if the kid has the aptitude for it. If the kid has enough athletic ability to learn it. Ask any coach their honest opinion about it and they will tell you its 90% genetics.

what this guy said!!! yes people are pushed into certain directions because of their environment, i'm not disagreeing with that statement at all. but, what we're talking about here is natural athleticism. if you can naturally run fast, then that's a natural athletic gift you are born with. if you have to work hard every single day just to knock that 0.01s of your p.b time then that is a result of environment and hard work. Do you think that Usain Bolt just trained really hard more than everyone else to become the fastest man in the world? Well i'm not disputing he probably did either, but probably no more than any other athlete. I mean look at him in Beijing, he basically walked across the finish line. That is all natural athletic ability, that is what we're talking about. Difference between basketball and soccer is that soccer is an endurance sport where skill rules above all alse. skill is something that can be taught. Basketball is a game where it is a ferocious paced sprint, end to end stuff where guys are constantly sprinting across the court, jumping high, having to stretch their limbs all over the place as quick as they can etc etc but like all other US sports it is very stop/start/stop/start so the athletically blessed competitors are the more superior in the game. soccer is played at a more constant but slower pace because it doesn't matter how fast you can run, if you can't control a football with your feet then you're never going to succeed.

I think you define an athlete by their measurables: how big and tall a guy is, timing how fast he is in sprints and over distance, change of direction speed, acceleration, strength or power (basically how much force they can generate), explosiveness/burst (how quickly they generate that force), flexibility, coordination, balance, etc. Part of that is their fluidity in using all of those abilities together.

Size, speed, explosiveness and power are the most eye popping that's how we usually define an "athlete". I think things like coordination, balance, etc. are similarly important especially when someone can use their individual abilities better together.

However, to define a great player you need to look at technique and the "intangibles": their ability to recognize the situation and use their measurable skills to make the right decision. Mental traits the athlete might have that will lead them to success (recognition speed, focus, calmness, leadership abilities, desire, intimidation, toughness, etc.)

One or a bunch of eye popping measurable stats will make a great athlete, especially at an amateur level ("guy's really fast", "he's crazy strong"). However, a great player usually needs a combination of those abilities and sport specific intelligence. Most people focus on the measurable things, but at pretty much every sport at the professional level the ones that are harder to measure are just as important.

In sports, athletes jump out a lot more because people know they can't do those things. You see a guy like Nate Robinson dunk and say, "No way I could do that, he's an athlete." It's much harder to see Tom Brady's quick decision making process and recognition of the situation, and much easier for people to think, "I could do that if I could throw" or not even understand what happened because it's mental. You can go on Madden and be a good QB and think it would translate if you just had the body, but it usually doesn't.

That's also why it's so frustrating to see someone with "raw" athleticism not reach their potential. Because they have all of the physical parts in place, but can't figure out an effective way to use them. And it's easier for outsiders to see how they could get better because they see guys with less raw athleticism do things more effectively.

Soonermark890 wrote:Thing is you cant teach athletics. You cant teach speed or height or even how high someone jumps. Can you teach skills? Yes if the kid has the aptitude for it. If the kid has enough athletic ability to learn it. Ask any coach their honest opinion about it and they will tell you its 90% genetics.

I think that's what separates the great coaches. They'll find a way to maximize a guy's ability and win. If he wants a rebounder he won't only look for the guy who jumps the highest or is the strongest. He'll look for the guy who has an innate understanding of where the ball will land and gets to that spot before anyone else. If he gets the guy whose the best jumper or the strongest, he'll try to teach him how to recognize where the ball will land. If he gets the guy who recognizes where the ball is, he'll get him to work on jumping and strength. In running, weightlifting or any sport that's dependent where it's really dependent on one specific physical ability, that's hard. In most sports that's not the case though. Joe McKnight might be a better athlete than Danny Woodhead, but Woodhead's definitely a better player right now.