BrandoFan Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 Why are there so few white rappers? Is it the muscles in the jaw not forming rymes fast enough? Perhaps their brains are not wired properly for the stress of rapping If you don't look/behave "Black" and have a puny, "un-Black" voice, your rhyming or beat skillz don't matter much. Audience will reject you. Eminem is an exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 and I see a lot of baloney in this thread. You see only what you want to see and your humorous analogies have little to do with anything. This is no a clear-cut issue, hence all the different and often preposterous theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 lets not forget all those uber athletes like Strom Thurmond breeding themselves into the DNA to make Jimmy the Greek's racial theories even more valid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I noticed a lot of people in South America speak spanish, but not a lot of people in Sweden speak spanish. well...hmm... there are approximately 56,000 spanish speakers in Sweden. With a total population at roughly 8,865,051. That's just around .5 % me, personally, I would have picked swahili speakers in denmark. (like 4, I think) Just something to think about by the way...for our swahili speaking friends...texsox is a hafifu mwanamke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 You see only what you want to see and your humorous analogies have little to do with anything. This is no a clear-cut issue, hence all the different and often preposterous theories. You implied that there must be something different about blacks based on their participation in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. I pointed out that there are participation differences in a lot of areas. Some are easy to explain. For example Chess was an official curriculm item in the old Soviet Union elementary schools, not so in the rest of the world. Why did so many champions come from the Soviet Union? It could be explained because of the availability of training centers, great systems if instruction, deeper pool in which to draw talent, central planning, national pride, the lack of toilet paper, and I'm sure several other issues. Should we imply that Soviet Union citizens are smarter or have different brains than others? I do not think so. Why are my analogies any less valid than yours? You took a sport and tried to make broad statements. Mine are irrelevent because I didn't pick the same sports as you? Because I didn't link it to black and white? Look back, you asked for my opinion and then say it has little to do with anything. Then why in the hell ask? At best you are trying to find an overly simplistic reason. At worst you are trying to create an argument here, similar to the Israel - Palestinian thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Culpepper, Vick, McNair, McNabb are gonna win a ring or two before it's all said and done. Might actually have a league MVP each. Hell, even worthless Cordel Stewart made it to the AFC. Culpepper I doubt Culpepper does. He is my best example of that type. He's just a dumbass. I don't think he'll ever lead a team to a Superbowl. Vick I would venture to guess that Vick does, but it will be when he becomes a much better, more prolific passer, like the transformation Steve McNair has made over the past 3 years or so. McNair Of those black QB's mentioned on here, I believe McNair has the best chance to lead a team to the Superbowl and win.....hell, he came up a yard short of doing it 5 years ago. He most resembles the typical NFL QB....pass first, pass second, panic, then scamper for a few yards before being completely destroyed by a linebacker. I believe McNair will someday win a Superbowl with him being the main reason why....I can't really say that about either Vick nor McNabb, and especially about Culpepper. McNabb McNabb falls somewhere between Vick and McNair. He's not quite Vick in running it seemingly every other play, but he will tuck the ball and run more often then the average QB, not looking to pass. He also may or may not....I can't be sure. As far as Kordell Stewart is concerned....that was quite lucky. I can't explain that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 You implied that there must be something different about blacks based on their participation in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. Correction: NFL, NBA and maybe even track portion of track-n-field. You implied that there must be something different about blacks based on their participation in the NFL, NBA. I asked a question. If there is no difference, then pick a third option. But statistics say those are Black Dominated sports. Both sports used to be "White" which makes them different from hockey and tennis because they were never "Black" per se, nor do Blacks seem to be interested to excel in hockey or tennis in a way Whites dream about being shooting guards/running backs........ Norway never spoke Spanish. Nobel laureates - never bestowed upon 5th grade rejects. Gymnastics and ballet -- always rooted out fatties mercelessly first during childhood rounds, then in post-pubertal ones. Etc, etc, etc.....And your analogies had very little to do with "race", which this thread is ALL about. I pointed out that there are participation differences in a lot of areas. Some are easy to explain. For example Chess was an official curriculm item in the old Soviet Union elementary schools, not so in the rest of the world. Incorrect. Chess clubs were available, sure- as they are here. Schools for especially chess gifted? Yes. But normal schools never (at least not recently) had a "chess" class as part of carriculum, certainly not for elementary-age kids. Why did so many champions come from the Soviet Union? Beats me. Wanna start a new thread? It could be explained because of the availability of training centers, great systems if instruction, deeper pool in which to draw talent, central planning, national pride, the lack of toilet paper, and I'm sure several other issues. Very true. Toilet paper, not so much. Should we imply that Soviet Union citizens are smarter or have different brains than others? Well, for such a poor country.....an average "soviet" IS more educated/read than an average American. Calculus was studied in a 8-9th grades. Collections of poetry having to be memorized for a 7th grade lit test.....100s of 15-16yo competing for a single spot in regional universities....That kind of stuff..... I do not think so. I don't think so either. But this topic is not about Blacks' superiority in chess, is it? Non-whites may learn to play chess quicker, but the sport is still dominated by Whites, although not nearly as much. Why are my analogies any less valid than yours? Because analogies are not born equal. Verbally/logically, you can make a parallel with anything and call it a day. But it doesn't mean that you can point to "red-heads and gymnastics or Norwegians and Spanish language and use it to prove or discredit a hypothesis made about, say, race and sports. And vice versa. You took a sport and tried to make broad statements. My wildlife comment was admittedly out-there. Other than that, I asked more questions than made statements. Why? Because I myself do NOT know the answer. Mine are irrelevent because I didn't pick the same sports as you? Irrelvant is an ugly word. I prefer "slightly less relevant"....especially when you use them as spring board to dismiss everyone's opinion here as crap. Because I didn't link it to black and white? Um....yes! To be fair, my quesiton was more about Blacks than Whites cuz with the former it could be either a natural advantage OR centuries-long lack of opportunity compounded by the mentality-altering oppression. The slave-breeding theory is something I heard many times....ditto for fast-twitch fibers and plasma testosterone one. However, basketball being dirt cheap to play, unlike tennis or golf, and its identity-defining, cultural popularity aspect-- they too could provide the answer. As could better work ethic. Look back, you asked for my opinion and then say it has little to do with anything. Then why in the hell ask? I thought your post was facetious. I stand corrected. And yes, I did ask for your opinion because as someone who is brighter and more experienced than myself, you could provide a different angle for looking at the issue at hand. At best you are trying to find an overly simplistic reason. Many people gave their honest, NOT-so-simplistic theories here. I am just looking for an aswer if there is one. If it's simple, than so be it. If it's NOT-- accordingly. At worst you are trying to create an argument here, similar to the Israel - Palestinian thread. I thought it was a good thread. That it started out as bait for Israel4ever and Apu....should not diminish its on-topic merit; you yourself commended it having "seome of the best on-line writing" you've ever seen, no? It was one of the few "interesting" threads I've ever read on SoxTalk off topic board. I have NO regrets......And as long as this thread doesn't desintegrate into n*gger/cr*cker insult-fest, I see nothing wrong with it. Let's get back to the Blacks in NBA/NFL/track Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 look all black people are good at basketball even anthony anderson, who is completely out of shape, is good enough to start for a championship high school team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 I doubt Culpepper does. He is my best example of that type Whoa. Do you realize that in the 3 of his first 4 full seasons in the NFL, playing without Green/Staley/James-type back to take some heat off of him, Culpepper still averaged a 64% passing rate, 7.50+ per completion and a 93 QB Rating ......beating Manning, Brady and Farve among others? Plus he ran for a bunch of yards. At only 26, he is just ENTERING into his QB prime. And that he, Vick and McNabb (McNair already got one) will some day be MVPs there is little doubt. And McNabb made it to NFC 3 times already. McNair was a yard away and might win it next year. Vick will have 15 years to do it. Culpepper will win with Vikings in the next 5 years. IMO, Black QB's are just gettin' started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 ive done some research on this because i find it very interesting ( i hope no one finds that offensive )there are some questions you guys are not taking into account.. for example in basketball....why is that so many white players from the former yugoslavia and croatia (take into account how small their population is to ours) dont not play the game like most white guys from the states???(stand still jumpshooters or rebounders /defenders)...they can play creative basketball that requires running and jumping...there would be alot more tony kukoc / drazen petrovic type players from there if they didnt have a that nasty civil war... also , before 1950 and that scandal at CCNY about point shaving and throwing the college NIT tourney (which at the time was bigger than the NCAA tourney)..basketball was dominated by jews...i remember someone on a different site posting an article from back in the 40's asking the same question being asked about black players today and his theories about why jews dominated basketball...but it seemed like after that CCNY scandal jews participation in basketball almost immediately ceased to exist... any genetic or socio-economic theories about blacks being better athletes atleast in b-ball should include theories adressing these issues.. in football....the questions are not so much why are there so many black athletes but why do they dominate the "skill" positions...except the QB spot...i find it interesting that whites dont run the ball much anymore , or play cornerback ,but they still dominate the most skilled on the field (QB) and the most skilled on defense (mlb) is probably split pretty even...most offensive lineman are white..why is that??...you would think if the theories that lead to blacks being bigger , stronger and faster then for sure you shouldnt see a white guy on the offensive line...where size and strength matter most... what about soccer...this is a great case study on black and white athletes because the sport is played all over the world by countries with all white , all hispanic , all black and all kinds of mixes in between...do the all black countries dominate soccer???...well , brasil(mostly black - hispanic)..germany (white blonde and blue) and italy (right between germany and brasil) are all soccer powers ..and about as different in physical appearances as 3 countries could be...i dont think this is ever discussed in countries where soccer is the main sport...though i could be wrong on that i dont think right now there is not enough info to convince me 100% to any theory but the one im leaning towards and will until there is more info is discovered is alot of this is learned behavior... you can take basketball...white kids in the burbs learn basketball by joining leagues..they get coaches who dont let them put the ball on the court but teach them passing...3 passes before a shot..come off a screen to hit a jumper...black kid playing playground ball isnt being toaught how to pass the ball to a guy coming off a pick..he spends his time putting the ball on the ground taking it to the hoop...the mentailty thats developed from early is epotimized imo by that sinbad commercial from a few years ago..."charging..there's no charging in streetball...you try and take a charge youre gonna get a size 12 in your chest"...i think that mentality really serves a basketball player better because when he gets to college he has been developing his body to drive to the hoop and use his hopes...any coach can teach the passing game..but i think its a lot harder to take a stand still jump shooter and make him a dribble drive type player... football i know is because of predjudice of coaches(atleast alot of it)...thats why for years blacks couldnt QB...that stereotype is finally being broken but new have taken its place..mainly whites can play corner or running back...in the high scool all american game this year.. a white tb from new jersey rushed for 1300 yards or so this year..22 td's , 9 ypc ..he is 240 lbs and runs a 4.6 ,40...i saw one carry where he met a LB in the hole and just leveled him..the LB went limp he got hit so hard..the kid about 7 yards...then the annoucers says whatever college he was going to (i forget) already said he is moving to MLB...this kid is built like jerome bettis...if he was black he would not be being moved to LB.....gotta wonder about urlacher...260 and runs a 4.5 40 , why wasnt he a RB???...youre telling me he couldnt have been a great RB in the WAC or wherever new mexico is now??..he is probably the closest athlete to jerome bettis in the NFL skill wise... for the economic side to be accurate..that blacks , because of being disadvantaged financially have more desire to make then it should hold true for white athletes..that most white athletes that make it come from poorer backgrounds ( or as we suburbanites like to call them , trailer park trash) ..i havent studied that part of the equation enough to say for sure but i tend to think white kids that make come from more privledge backgrounds..so we have the opposite dynamic in play there.. i tend to think its more socio -economic than genetic myself sorry bout the length Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 look all black people are good at basketball :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 I thought it was a good thread. That it started out as bait for Israel4ever and Apu....should not diminish its on-topic merit; And who are you trying to bait with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Whoa. Do you realize that in the 3 of his first 4 full seasons in the NFL, playing without Green/Staley/James-type back to take some heat off of him, Culpepper still averaged a 64% passing rate, 7.50+ per completion and a 93 QB Rating ......beating Manning, Brady and Farve among others? Plus he ran for a bunch of yards. At only 26, he is just ENTERING into his QB prime. And that he, Vick and McNabb (McNair already got one) will some day be MVPs there is little doubt. And McNabb made it to NFC 3 times already. McNair was a yard away and might win it next year. Vick will have 15 years to do it. Culpepper will win with Vikings in the next 5 years. IMO, Black QB's are just gettin' started. I get what I have said from watching Culpepper on the field, not from looking at numbers. You can show me all the stats you want, but from what I can tell you from just seeing him play he just does not look like a winner on the field(call it cheesy if you want to, that's just the kind of feeling I get watching him). If the Vikings win a Superbowl within the next 5 years, I would venture to say that it will be because of something other then Culpepper's QBing. McNair I'm not sure about next year, but I do see him winning one eventually. He is, IMO, the best black QB in the game, and I almost have to consider him top 3 in the league, but I'll settle for top 5. Not many are better then he is. Vick will. As I said, I think he will eventually grow into the McNair type mold and will become a pass first, pass second, see nothing and panic, then run before getting decapitated by a linebacker, though I think he could get a few more yards now and then. You get him a good defense and a weapon or two offensively and they are easily one of the toughest teams in the league. Look at their team from two years ago, Vick's first(or was it second? I'm a little shady on it) full year as starter, and with a solid but not great defense and very little offensive help other then himself, he took his team to the divisional round of the playoffs. Any more help, and they are Superbowl bound and probably winning the Superbowl. McNair and Vick are about the only two I see being the main parts of their team and then winning the whole thing. McNabb is different in that I think the Eagles will win because of a good defensive scheme and not because McNabb is an incredibly good QB. While he is good, I just don't see him as a guy that will be the heart of soul of his team like I think Vick and McNair will. Another you forgot to mention was Aaron Brooks in NO, and really he another QB like Culpepper....all kinds of talent, but occassionally will make a dumbass move or two, and that will cost his team the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 And who are you trying to bait with this? Yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 I get what I have said from watching Culpepper on the field, not from looking at numbers. You can show me all the stats you want, but from what I can tell you from just seeing him play he just does not look like a winner on the field(call it cheesy if you want to, that's just the kind of feeling I get watching him). If the Vikings win a Superbowl within the next 5 years, I would venture to say that it will be because of something other then Culpepper's QBing. McNair I'm not sure about next year, but I do see him winning one eventually. He is, IMO, the best black QB in the game, and I almost have to consider him top 3 in the league, but I'll settle for top 5. Not many are better then he is. Vick will. As I said, I think he will eventually grow into the McNair type mold and will become a pass first, pass second, see nothing and panic, then run before getting decapitated by a linebacker, though I think he could get a few more yards now and then. You get him a good defense and a weapon or two offensively and they are easily one of the toughest teams in the league. Look at their team from two years ago, Vick's first(or was it second? I'm a little shady on it) full year as starter, and with a solid but not great defense and very little offensive help other then himself, he took his team to the divisional round of the playoffs. Any more help, and they are Superbowl bound and probably winning the Superbowl. McNair and Vick are about the only two I see being the main parts of their team and then winning the whole thing. McNabb is different in that I think the Eagles will win because of a good defensive scheme and not because McNabb is an incredibly good QB. While he is good, I just don't see him as a guy that will be the heart of soul of his team like I think Vick and McNair will. Another you forgot to mention was Aaron Brooks in NO, and really he another QB like Culpepper....all kinds of talent, but occassionally will make a dumbass move or two, and that will cost his team the game. Yeah forgot about Brooks. 24 TD/8 INT? I'll take it. I think the fact that we are even talking about McNair, Culpepper, McNabb, Brooks and Vick in the context of SuperBowl/MVP says something. Even if they "only" end up being Top 10 QBs in the NFL says that they are "good"......dispelling decades of doubts and stereotypes that culminated in Greek's colorful rhetoric. Rush Limba, eat your black little heart out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 ive done some research on this because i find it very interesting ( i hope no one finds that offensive )there are some questions you guys are not taking into account.. for example in basketball....why is that so many white players from the former yugoslavia and croatia (take into account how small their population is to ours) dont not play the game like most white guys from the states???(stand still jumpshooters or rebounders /defenders)...they can play creative basketball that requires running and jumping...there would be alot more tony kukoc / drazen petrovic type players from there if they didnt have a that nasty civil war... also , before 1950 and that scandal at CCNY about point shaving and throwing the college NIT tourney (which at the time was bigger than the NCAA tourney)..basketball was dominated by jews...i remember someone on a different site posting an article from back in the 40's asking the same question being asked about black players today and his theories about why jews dominated basketball...but it seemed like after that CCNY scandal jews participation in basketball almost immediately ceased to exist... any genetic or socio-economic theories about blacks being better athletes atleast in b-ball should include theories adressing these issues.. in football....the questions are not so much why are there so many black athletes but why do they dominate the "skill" positions...except the QB spot...i find it interesting that whites dont run the ball much anymore , or play cornerback ,but they still dominate the most skilled on the field (QB) and the most skilled on defense (mlb) is probably split pretty even...most offensive lineman are white..why is that??...you would think if the theories that lead to blacks being bigger , stronger and faster then for sure you shouldnt see a white guy on the offensive line...where size and strength matter most... what about soccer...this is a great case study on black and white athletes because the sport is played all over the world by countries with all white , all hispanic , all black and all kinds of mixes in between...do the all black countries dominate soccer???...well , brasil(mostly black - hispanic)..germany (white blonde and blue) and italy (right between germany and brasil) are all soccer powers ..and about as different in physical appearances as 3 countries could be...i dont think this is ever discussed in countries where soccer is the main sport...though i could be wrong on that i dont think right now there is not enough info to convince me 100% to any theory but the one im leaning towards and will until there is more info is discovered is alot of this is learned behavior... you can take basketball...white kids in the burbs learn basketball by joining leagues..they get coaches who dont let them put the ball on the court but teach them passing...3 passes before a shot..come off a screen to hit a jumper...black kid playing playground ball isnt being toaught how to pass the ball to a guy coming off a pick..he spends his time putting the ball on the ground taking it to the hoop...the mentailty thats developed from early is epotimized imo by that sinbad commercial from a few years ago..."charging..there's no charging in streetball...you try and take a charge youre gonna get a size 12 in your chest"...i think that mentality really serves a basketball player better because when he gets to college he has been developing his body to drive to the hoop and use his hopes...any coach can teach the passing game..but i think its a lot harder to take a stand still jump shooter and make him a dribble drive type player... football i know is because of predjudice of coaches(atleast alot of it)...thats why for years blacks couldnt QB...that stereotype is finally being broken but new have taken its place..mainly whites can play corner or running back...in the high scool all american game this year.. a white tb from new jersey rushed for 1300 yards or so this year..22 td's , 9 ypc ..he is 240 lbs and runs a 4.6 ,40...i saw one carry where he met a LB in the hole and just leveled him..the LB went limp he got hit so hard..the kid about 7 yards...then the annoucers says whatever college he was going to (i forget) already said he is moving to MLB...this kid is built like jerome bettis...if he was black he would not be being moved to LB.....gotta wonder about urlacher...260 and runs a 4.5 40 , why wasnt he a RB???...youre telling me he couldnt have been a great RB in the WAC or wherever new mexico is now??..he is probably the closest athlete to jerome bettis in the NFL skill wise... for the economic side to be accurate..that blacks , because of being disadvantaged financially have more desire to make then it should hold true for white athletes..that most white athletes that make it come from poorer backgrounds ( or as we suburbanites like to call them , trailer park trash) ..i havent studied that part of the equation enough to say for sure but i tend to think white kids that make come from more privledge backgrounds..so we have the opposite dynamic in play there.. i tend to think its more socio -economic than genetic myself sorry bout the length Quality post, baggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Yeah forgot about Brooks. 24 TD/8 INT? I'll take it. I think the fact that we are even talking about McNair, Culpepper, McNabb, Brooks and Vick in the context of SuperBowl/MVP says something. Even if they "only" end up being Top 10 QBs in the NFL says that they are "good"......dispelling decades of doubts and stereotypes that culminated in Greek's colorful rhetoric. Rush Limba, eat your black little heart out. I think we should agree on this point and end it, because I do agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 2, 2004 Author Share Posted February 2, 2004 what about soccer...this is a great case study on black and white athletes because the sport is played all over the world by countries with all white , all hispanic , all black and all kinds of mixes in between...do the all black countries dominate soccer???...well , brasil(mostly black - hispanic)..germany (white blonde and blue) and italy (right between germany and brasil) are all soccer powers ..and about as different in physical appearances as 3 countries could be...i dont think this is ever discussed in countries where soccer is the main sport...though i could be wrong on that Top powers in omdern Football have been: Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Italy, England, France, Holland and Honda-R-us. Well, not Honduras per se. Noticeably absent are Afrikan, specifically, from the West part of the continient. Cameroon had a very competitive team in 1990 and Nigeria was great to watch in 1994 and in 2002 2 othernations made serious slash......But for the most part, historically Afrikan countries haven't been at the forefront of Footballdome. (Which is not to say the continient hasn't produced awesome talent because it has a ton.) Brazil is Black, but also Latino. Argentina is Latinos but also white. England, Germany, France, Holland are all White and Italy is White with a meditarrenean ethnic streak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 I wonder what FSJ, Tex, ss2k4, Cw, Spiff, jas, wite, yasny and a few others would say. I musta missed this the first time around, but the obvious answers to me are socioeconomic status, and cultural preferences. Why would there be a lot of black hockey stars, when the areas of the world that black people live in mostly play things like soccer, and in the US basketball and football? You become good at what you practice. I will never be good at cricket, because I have never played it. Also programming plays a part of it. I think it is a big reason that star RB's are black and star QB's are white is that is what they have done traditionally, and so that is what younger kids strive to be. People's heroes tend to look like themselves, so it turns into selffulfilling prophecy. Going to socioeconomics, poorer areas tend to play cheaper to play games. That is why most of the world plays soccer. All you need is a ball, and two boxes for a couple of goals. How much stuff do you need to play hockey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Top powers in omdern Football have been: Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Italy, England, France, Holland and Honda-R-us. Well, not Honduras per se. Noticeably absent are Afrikan, specifically, from the West part of the continient. Cameroon had a very competitive team in 1990 and Nigeria was great to watch in 1994 and in 2002 2 othernations made serious slash......But for the most part, historically Afrikan countries haven't been at the forefront of Footballdome. (Which is not to say the continient hasn't produced awesome talent because it has a ton.) Brazil is Black, but also Latino. Argentina is Latinos but also white. England, Germany, France, Holland are all White and Italy is White with a meditarrenean ethnic streak. I think that you also have to take into account that, no matter how much of a genetic advantage someone has, you still need to learn how to play a sport correctly, and practice at it in the right way. With a large part of Africa being third world countries, it's not accurate to say that there aren't better athletes there just because they don't compete in the world cup. Other countries have better resources and sport knowledge available to them, that no amount of genetic advantage can supercede. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 2, 2004 Author Share Posted February 2, 2004 With a large part of Africa being third world countries, it's not accurate to say that there aren't better athletes there just because they don't compete in the world cup. Other countries have better resources and sport knowledge available to them, that no amount of genetic advantage can supercede. Football is immensely popular in that foresaken part of the world, though. And it's fairly cheap to play-- which is not to say they don't have good facilities or world-class coaches because they have both. They have produced and continue to produce excellent talent- Milla, Amocashi, Veah, etc,etc, etc. Genetic advantage sounds like hogwash to me, but maybe you're unto something, Tolly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Football is immensely popular in that foresaken part of the world, though. And it's fairly cheap to play-- which is not to say they don't have good facilities or world-class coaches because they have both. They have produced and continue to produce excellent talent- Milla, Amocashi, Veah, etc,etc, etc. Genetic advantage sounds like hogwash to me, but maybe you're unto something, Tolly. They certainly have produced world-class talent, but do they really have the same class of coaches, practice facilities, training equipment, etc. as do teh Italians, Brazillians or even the Americans? And although they play it, are the really playing the same game that leads to spots on World Cup champiionship teams? I can't say I know that much about African soccer teams, so these are just questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 2, 2004 Author Share Posted February 2, 2004 They certainly have produced world-class talent, but do they really have the same class of coaches, practice facilities, training equipment, etc. as do teh Italians, Brazillians or even the Americans? And although they play it, are the really playing the same game that leads to spots on World Cup champiionship teams? I can't say I know that much about African soccer teams, so these are just questions. They have world-class facilities and coaches for sure, but there are 10X as many of those in Italy, US or Germany. It's a quantity thing. Afrikan Continental Championship is one of the most exciting (lots of speed and flair) soccer you can ever watch. But on the World arena, their teams are only above-average and far from dominant. Again, 1990 Cameroon and 1994 Nigeria, with some luck, could have won the WHOLE thing. Great to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Until I see a quote by Al Campanis or Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, I can't view this topic as valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 2, 2004 Author Share Posted February 2, 2004 Until I see a quote by Al Campanis or Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, I can't view this topic as valid. Didn't Harry Carey make some hilarious remarks about Messicans during the broadcast as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.