Racial discrepancy in sports: A rebuttal to the Skeptic Society.

[ansutherland]

For those who read or have heard of Skeptic magazine or the Skeptic society, I just recently came across an interesting article.The Sports Dominance Mystery: Why do certain groups come to dominate some sports but not others? by Stephen Sniderman seems to place all the discrepancy in sport on cultural bias and social preference. This stance seems to ignore a plethora of evidence to the contrary. First off, he tries to dispel the notion that certain races may dominate due to physiological reasons yet his thesis relies heavily on nation-to-nation comparisons, not race-to-race. Any given nation may be comprised of numerous races and where the borders are drawn is arbitrary. It cannot be ignored that sports such as the 100m sprint have such a high degree of black dominance that it is hard to imagine there being only cultural reasons to explain why. In all of history, a little over 70 men have broken the 10 second threshold and only 4 have been non-black. The fastest time for a non-black was just run by Christopher Lemaitre (9.97s), not even close to a record beater. The problem with Stephen's argument is that it is counter to what we can see right in front of us as a clear physical advantage of one race over another. Would Stephen suggest that if motivated enough, Japanese men could compete just as well as black men for the spot on a basketball team if they were so inclined, despite the sports heavy reliance on height? Surely he must see the obvious physical differences between races? Surely he must acknowledge the advantage that certain physical traits would garner someone in certain sports? How is it then that he places almost all the discrepancy on cultural and societal bias?

A better analysis would be to choose sports that are common amongst a wide variety of nations/cultures/races and not waste time looking at sports like ping pong and speed walking. Next, categorize them based upon criteria for metrics such as "use for explosive speed", "endurance", "power", "explosive strength", "necessity for an eclectic synergy of attributes", "jumping vertically, horizontally, and laterally", etc. Once the sports have been organized in this fashion, see if any trends emerge. Maybe blacks tend to dominate sports with certain attributes, but not others. If so, make a prediction about why, and test it. Could it be due to disproportionately sized lungs, or a higher ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibre? Lastly, I would define racial dominance differently. If, for example race A is 10% of the population, yet makes up 23% of a given sport, though this may not be domination in the absolute sense, it does infer some degree of difference in ability. Now, whether that ability is the result of nature or nurture is anyone's guess, but when race A is over represented by 130% in one sport, this is worth consideration.

I believe a nature/nurture argument is best in this case, yet the article seemed as though it were written by a sociologist. Perhaps political correctness was the primary motive and not scientific inquisition?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Goober]

For those who read or have heard of Skeptic magazine or the Skeptic society, I just recently came across an interesting article.The Sports Dominance Mystery: Why do certain groups come to dominate some sports but not others? by Stephen Sniderman seems to place all the discrepancy in sport on cultural bias and social preference. This stance seems to ignore a plethora of evidence to the contrary. First off, he tries to dispel the notion that certain races may dominate due to physiological reasons yet his thesis relies heavily on nation-to-nation comparisons, not race-to-race. Any given nation may be comprised of numerous races and where the borders are drawn is arbitrary. It cannot be ignored that sports such as the 100m sprint have such a high degree of black dominance that it is hard to imagine there being only cultural reasons to explain why. In all of history, a little over 70 men have broken the 10 second threshold and only 4 have been non-black. The fastest time for a non-black was just run by Christopher Lemaitre (9.97s), not even close to a record beater. The problem with Stephen's argument is that it is counter to what we can see right in front of us as a clear physical advantage of one race over another. Would Stephen suggest that if motivated enough, Japanese men could compete just as well as black men for the spot on a basketball team if they were so inclined, despite the sports heavy reliance on height? Surely he must see the obvious physical differences between races? Surely he must acknowledge the advantage that certain physical traits would garner someone in certain sports? How is it then that he places almost all the discrepancy on cultural and societal bias?

A better analysis would be to choose sports that are common amongst a wide variety of nations/cultures/races and not waste time looking at sports like ping pong and speed walking. Next, categorize them based upon criteria for metrics such as "use for explosive speed", "endurance", "power", "explosive strength", "necessity for an eclectic synergy of attributes", "jumping vertically, horizontally, and laterally", etc. Once the sports have been organized in this fashion, see if any trends emerge. Maybe blacks tend to dominate sports with certain attributes, but not others. If so, make a prediction about why, and test it. Could it be due to disproportionately sized lungs, or a higher ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibre? Lastly, I would define racial dominance differently. If, for example race A is 10% of the population, yet makes up 23% of a given sport, though this may not be domination in the absolute sense, it does infer some degree of difference in ability. Now, whether that ability is the result of nature or nurture is anyone's guess, but when race A is over represented by 130% in one sport, this is worth consideration.

I believe a nature/nurture argument is best in this case, yet the article seemed as though it were written by a sociologist. Perhaps political correctness was the primary motive and not scientific inquisition?

What are your thoughts?

Looking for the missing Link?

 

[ansutherland]

Sorry, I can't provide a link as the article is not available to view unless you subscribe to Skeptic.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Undoubtedly blacks dominate many sports in the US and even worldwide. However, they are noticeably missing in certain sports such as swimming and form a definite minority in ice hockey, skiing (all types), and have yet to dominate others such as soccer. In addition to physical aptitude there is a strong cultural aspect and even financial aspect to sports. That may explain why there are few black competitors in hockey (an expensive sport) and golf (another expensive sport). It costs very little to play basketball or baseball and football is widely played in US high schools and colleges with the schools bearing much of the expense. A good guide to competitiveness is to look at all Olympic sports (both summer and winter) and take a look at what ethnic groups seem to dominate or do exceptionally well in certain sports.

 

[ironsides]

Why is it that Blacks dominate as well as they do in most sports?

 

[Tonington]

It's a little bit of everything, culture, race, society. Why is the NHL comprised of mainly Canadians, a little over 50%? Our racial make-up isn't that different from many other nations, yet we dominate the NHL rosters. Though the number has been steadily decreasing as other countries like America begin to develop stronger programs for juniors.

 

[Goober]

Undoubtedly blacks dominate many sports in the US and even worldwide. However, they are noticeably missing in certain sports such as swimming and form a definite minority in ice hockey, skiing (all types), and have yet to dominate others such as soccer. In addition to physical aptitude there is a strong cultural aspect and even financial aspect to sports. That may explain why there are few black competitors in hockey (an expensive sport) and golf (another expensive sport). It costs very little to play basketball or baseball and football is widely played in US high schools and colleges with the schools bearing much of the expense. A good guide to competitiveness is to look at all Olympic sports (both summer and winter) and take a look at what ethnic groups seem to dominate or do exceptionally well in certain sports.

You are correct on that one - They did a study of backgrounds of players in Basketball /Football/ Baseball - substantial number form bone poor families - Thier only good chance to get ahead. Sad relection on society as a whole- Economics were the main deciding factor.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Why is it that Blacks dominate as well as they do in most sports?

That's easy to explain. Blacks are the master race. Unless they are in a swimming pool.

It's a little bit of everything, culture, race, society. Why is the NHL comprised of mainly Canadians, a little over 50%? Our racial make-up isn't that different from many other nations, yet we dominate the NHL rosters. Though the number has been steadily decreasing as other countries like America begin to develop stronger programs for juniors.

For the same reason that Australia (another country with a relatively small population) has so many good swimmers. Neighbourhood rinks are found throughout Canadian cities and in many small towns. Aussies have swimming pools the way Canadians have ice rinks. This sort of infrastructure encourages widespread participation in hockey in Canada and swimming in Australia. There is also the fact that Canada probably has its best athletes in hockey; and of course there is the financial incentive to do well in hockey. At the professional level the rewards can be great indeed. In short, Canada is willing to put a great deal of resources into developing top level hockey players and the results are obvious.

 

[ironsides]

That's easy to explain. Blacks are the master race. Unless they are in a swimming pool.



For the same reason that Australia (another country with a relatively small population) has so many good swimmers. Neighbourhood rinks are found throughout Canadian cities and in many small towns. Aussies have swimming pools the way Canadians have ice rinks. This sort of infrastructure encourages widespread participation in hockey in Canada and swimming in Australia. There is also the fact that Canada probably has its best athletes in hockey; and of course there is the financial incentive to do well in hockey. At the professional level the rewards can be great indeed. In short, Canada is willing to put a great deal of resources into developing top level hockey players and the results are obvious.

Why are there so many Samoans playing football? It is not because they are poor and it is not necessarily the best choice they have. (although it is). It comes from how they were bred, same could be said of Blacks, after all we bred them into the best physical specimens humans could be.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Why are there so many Samoans playing football? It is not because they are poor and it is not necessarily the best choice they have. (although it is). It comes from how they were bred, same could be said of Blacks, after all we bred them into the best physical specimens humans could be.

Samoans? I had no idea they dominated rugby. Has any Samoan nation ever won the world rugby championship? But it does happen that Samoa has a much lower living standard than than most developed nations. I don't know if that makes them poor, but they are poor compared to Canada.

What was your point anyway? I am afraid I missed it.

 

[karrie]

Some is physical (I can't jump as high as someone 6 feet tall no matter how hard I try, my tall friends pat me on the head and give me sympathy), but some is cultural (I've heard more than one black person comment about how blacks and ice/snow don't mix, and swimming seems an unlikely skill to develop in many parts of Africa). To try to boil it down to merely one aspect seems odd to me.

 

[ironsides]

Samoans? I had no idea they dominated rugby. Has any Samoan nation ever won the world rugby championship? But it does happen that Samoa has a much lower living standard than than most developed nations. I don't know if that makes them poor, but they are poor compared to Canada.

What was your point anyway? I am afraid I missed it.

During the period of slavery, only the best and healthiest slaves were allowed to breed, just like race horses are bred today. They seem to perform well is any sport they set their mind on. Show them a reason why they should play hockey and they will dominate the sport. Anybody ever look lately at the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame or the Boston Celtics. (not many Irishmen playing anymore)

Pretty much all races are being represented in all professional sports today, I see no racial problem here. Money has no color.

 

[wulfie68]

I think that, as most others here have surmized its a compilation of factors.

The cultural aspect is important: Bar Sinister hit on the infrastructural facet (with Aussie swimmers and Canadian hockey players and the price of sports like golf), Ironsides hit on it with the Samoans playing football (they are 30 times more likely to play pro football than other groups per a 60 Minutes story a few months back), and the whole "way out" aspect as mentioned by Goober (which was a big contributor with Samoans playing football).

Like it or not, I think there are racial-physiologcal aspects as well. Look at Olympic sprinters for an example: look at the dominant sprinters, the world record breakers over the last couple decades and you see a sport dominated by African-origined athletes. I wonder if the "survival of the fittest" comes into play more because of the way African slaves were introduced to the Americas and even the fact that African nations are for the most part very poor, which means those less physically able cannot compete for survival resources as well.