There have been fast white sprinters.....

[Guest]

.......from America.


You could even have a "white" sprinters nationals with a little fantasy involved.


heat 1


lane


1.Fred Kuller USC


2.Marty Krulee SDS


3.Jason Leach Texas


4.Darel Newman Fres St


5.George Simpson OSU


6.Charley Tidwell Kans


7.Dave Sime Duke


8.Wayne Herman SJS





heat 2


lane


1.Tom Jones UCLA


2.Mel Patton USC


3.Thane Baker KSU


4.Doug Hawken ASU


5.Ben Vaughn GaTech


6.Dean Smith Texas


7.Dave Masters Cal


8.Tim Dwight Iowa





heat 3


1.Hal Davis Cal


2.Lindy Remigino Man


3.Gerry Ashworth Dartmouth


4.Frank Wykoff USC


5.Charley Paddock USC


6.Bill Woodhouse ACU


7.Jackson Schotz Mo


8.Dusty Stamer Neb





heat 4


1.Larry Questad Stan


2.Mark Lutz Kans


3.Bobby Morrow ACU


4.Rocky Woods Tex A&M


5.Payton Jordan USC


6.Mike Miller Ind


7.John Roderick SMU


8.Kevin Little Drake





I'd say the final would probably look like this


lane


1.Darel Newman


2.Dusty Stamer


3.Dave Sime


4.Bobby Morrow


5.Hal Davis


6.Mel Patton


7.Lindy Remigino


8.Kevin Little


Obviously that's pretty weak compared to the great black sprinters but...................











Edited by: Brutal

 

[SteveB]

It is interesting that white sprinters in the late 50's and early 60's (some you mentioned above) dominated the 100m and were running times in the 10.2 range on cinder tracks. Yet there are few white sprinters today that can run a 10.2 with all of the advances in training, nutrition, track surfaces. Maybe the whites of that time period were genetically superior to today's whites.

 

[Guest]

It is interesting that white sprinters in the late 50's and early 60's (some you mentioned above) dominated the 100m and were running times in the 10.2 range on cinder tracks. Yet there are few white sprinters today that can run a 10.2 with all of the advances in training, nutrition, track surfaces. Maybe the whites of that time period were genetically superior to today's whites.

Actually white sprinters from the pre 70's days were running more like 10.40 electric. Which is not all that fast at the world class level. If ya recall there were no black athlete's in the SEC or SWC back then. There were black sprinters just not the overwelming number we see today. Once the black athlete had his freedom to attend any school he wanted, that was it for white sprintdom, more or less. Yes with a few exceptions.Edited by: Brutal

 

[SteveB]

So when Hary set the world record at 10.0, he was really running a 10.4? I understand that there is about 0.16 sec error with hand timing, but not 0.2-0.4. Besides, these newer tracks can easily knock 0.2 sec off a time over a cinder track. You still didn't explain why whites could run faster during that time than whites today.

 

[Guest]

So when Hary set the world record at 10.0, he was really running a 10.4? I understand that there is about 0.16 sec error with hand timing, but not 0.2-0.4. Besides, these newer tracks can easily knock 0.2 sec off a time over a cinder track. You still didn't explain why whites could run faster during that time than whites today.

Bobby Morrow won Melboune with a 10.5. Remigino won Helsinki in 10.4. Hary won Rome in 10.2. Then in 64 here comes Bullet Bob and a 10.0 or 10.06.


The fastest white guys were running a 9.3 100 yard. Patton, Sime, Morrow. That is about a 10.1 hand times 100 meters. Which is about a 10.30 electric. That is not all that fast today. Stamer is running 10.24 and won't win anything. So it's not about white speed, it's about the emergence in force of the great black sprinters.

 

[SteveB]

So Hayes comes along and runs a 10.0 (tying Hary's WR) which is really around a 10.2 electric according to you. Since then blacks have been able to improve from a 10.2 to a 9.78, over 0.4 sec! Most of that improvement was from the late 1980's till now. Yet during this same period, whites can make no improvement, even with rubberized track surfaces, weight training, nutritional supplements, plyometrics, etc.

 

[Guest]

So Hayes comes along and runs a 10.0 (tying Hary's WR) which is really around a 10.2 electric according to you. Since then blacks have been able to improve from a 10.2 to a 9.78, over 0.4 sec! Most of that improvement was from the late 1980's till now. Yet during this same period, whites can make no improvement, even with rubberized track surfaces, weight training, nutritional supplements, plyometrics, etc.

Actually Hayes was given a 10.06. Check it out.


The decline of the white "American" sprinter started in the 60's. Since 1964 there hasn't been one white American on any Olympic 4x1 team. Gerry Ashworth wouldn't have been there in 64 if not for injuries to Mel Pender and Trenton Jackson. Yes there have been a handful of white sprinters since 60. Non have medalled in Olympic competition except Wariner.


Why is it so hard to simply accept reality? Yes there are obvious physical differences seperating blacks from whites. What Asians aren't built differently? Hell yes they are! It's those physical differences. Bingo! Slamdunk! Why fight it?

 

[SteveB]

"Why is it so hard to simply accept reality? Yes there are obvious physical differences seperating blacks from whites. What Asians aren't built differently? Hell yes they are! It's those physical differences. Bingo! Slamdunk! Why fight it?"

That is where your view is wrong. There physical differences within each race. The stereotype is Asians are short, yet there is Yao Ming and millions of other tall Asians. The stereotype is blacks are fast, yet there are millions of slow, fat blacks. Kids are slotted into these categories at an early age. White kids believe they can't play basketball because it is a black sport, so they take up lacrosse or soccer. Your type of attitude along with millions of other people including coaches and media types are the reason there are no more white athletes in so called "black sports".

 

[Guest]

"Why is it so hard to simply accept reality? Yes there are obvious physical differences seperating blacks from whites. What Asians aren't built differently? Hell yes they are! It's those physical differences. Bingo! Slamdunk! Why fight it?"

That is where your view is wrong. There physical differences within each race. The stereotype is Asians are short, yet there is Yao Ming and millions of other tall Asians. The stereotype is blacks are fast, yet there are millions of slow, fat blacks. Kids are slotted into these categories at an early age. White kids believe they can't play basketball because it is a black sport, so they take up lacrosse or soccer. Your type of attitude along with millions of other people including coaches and media types are the reason there are no more white athletes in so called "black sports".

You trully aren't getting it. I've been to China and Japan and yes at 6-2 I was a giant. I never ran into anyone over there taller than myself. Yes they are short. No not "all" of them, just "most" of them.


Why is it that even at the elementary school level little blacks rule the sprint scene? Tell me why has Nigeria had a few sub10.00 sprinters while "white" Europe has not? Why has tiny Trinidad had more great sprinters than huge China?


SteveB do you honestly believe there isn't something going on here that goes far beyond.."you're white!" Come on man open your eyes. I did a long long time ago.


Ok point blank......


So you honestly have never noticed how black athletes are far more agile and elusive along with quicker than white athletes? If you answer no then it 's because you don't want to deal in reality. Hell guy it's so damn obvious it's painful.Edited by: Brutal

 

[SteveB]

I am dealing with reality. As I said in a different post, I played Div1 football and went up against black receivers everyday in practice. I was just as fast, if not faster, and could jump just as high. I am 5'9" and until I was 30, I could dunk a basketball with two hands. I am not some freak of nature, because I had friends that had the same ability. Maybe you have been hanging out with the unathletic white guys.

If I accept your thinking, then I have accept that blacks have lower IQs or Asians have higher IQs, because that is what the evidence suggests. I don't believe that way and each person shouldn't be judged by their skin color. If my son wants to play football or basketball, I am going to encourage him to play the position that he wants to play.

 

[Guest]

I am dealing with reality. As I said in a different post, I played Div1 football and went up against black receivers everyday in practice. I was just as fast, if not faster, and could jump just as high. I am 5'9" and until I was 30, I could dunk a basketball with two hands. I am not some freak of nature, because I had friends that had the same ability. Maybe you have been hanging out with the unathletic white guys.

If I accept your thinking, then I have accept that blacks have lower IQs or Asians have higher IQs, because that is what the evidence suggests. I don't believe that way and each person shouldn't be judged by their skin color. If my son wants to play football or basketball, I am going to encourage him to play the position that he wants to play.

Who is talking "skin color"? I'm surely not, I'm talking "physical characteristics" only found in people of western African heritage. The word "black" could be negro, African American, whatever. They could be green, purple or blue. Skin color is not the issue here,physical differences is. I thought you understood that. Yes the "black?" athlete has a physique tailor made for sprinting and some positions in football as well as basketball, if you haven't noticed this you must be blind as a bat. Hell it's so damn obvious it's comical.


Fresno is the big city in these parts, the defending city champ in track and field is Edison. Edison High is mostly black. Wow how weird uh?Edited by: Brutal

 

[white lightning]

There are too many exceptions to the rule.Look at a guy
like Michael Johnson.The world record holder in the 200
and the 400 meters.He is built like a white guy.There
are many examples of elite sprinters with long torso's
and short legs.Also,many whites have short torso's and
long limbs.Look around,wake up and smell the coffee.It is
alot more than just want meets the eyes.There is mental
brain washing that has been going on for a very long
time,espcially in this country.

 

[speedster]

For the last time Brutal,Charles Tidwell was black.You got that incorrect on the track and field news site and you got it wrong here.I wanted to ask you if you knew if Bill Mathis out of Illinois was black or white,you know the NCAA champ from the late 40's and early 50's,but if you didn't know about Tidwell,then I don't know.Anyways,lets all welcome the famous Brutal,like I said,from the message board at www.trackandfieldnews.com It truly humbles me that you would spend your valued time on our humble little site.

 

[Joe Don Looney]

Why is it that even at the elementary school level little
blacks rule the sprint scene? Tell me why has Nigeria had a few
sub10.00 sprinters while "white" Europe has not? Why has tiny Trinidad
had more great sprinters than huge China?

China is a huge country but they do not have a history of modern
Western sports indoctrination. Former British colonies like Trinidad,
Jamaica and Kenya have that British/Western cultural influence which
has helped to select and nurture black running talent.



I agree, as Jon Entine has often crudely demonstrated, that west
African negro types have greater elite sprinting talent and east
Africans more distant talent. It's not absolute and exclusive but it is
disproportionate.



But as China develops it's sports programs, watch out.



Chi Cheng of little Taiwan was a world class female sprinter in the
late 1960s. She held the world record in the 100m and 200m in 1970.

And 22 year old Xiang Liu of China just equalled Colin Jackson's
110meter hurdles time of 12.91s in winning the men's event at the 2004
Olympics.

"Dayuuum!, dat Chinaman is FAST!"

 

[Joe Don Looney]

For the last time Brutal,Charles Tidwell was black.You
got that incorrect on the track and field news site and you got it
wrong here.

Charlie Tidwell of Kansas -

 

[surfsider]

"a physique tailor made for sprinting" Just what would that physique entail? You could compare for us less observant types, say Frankie Fredericks with Justin Gatlin or Carl Lewis with Leroy Buurell. From your other posts one can infer that you believe white sprinters probably can't get below 10.2, so what would the explanation be for Borzov, Woronin and even the disappointing Shirvingtion?

Certainly there are more opportunities for black athletes collegiately but that has only added to the depth of black sprinting. Colleges that would take black athletes were able to cherry pick the best black talent and there was always the black college option for the most talented. The runner-up to Jesse Owens(Ohio State) in '36 was Mack Robinson(Jackie's bro) who ran at UCLA. From '36 on sprinting was racially wide open and whites and blacks enjoyed relatively equal success as measured by Olympic sprint results until after the '64 Olympics(where incidentally the 400 meter champ was a white American and the 4x400 was two whites and two blacks). Bob Hayes's emergence coincided with greater TV coverage for the Olympics. The advent of televison "sports journalism" and the racially charged zeitgeist the 60's have certainly contributed mightily to perceptions regarding athletic ability and why whites have yielded the field in many areas of sport.

 

[Guest]

"a physique tailor made for sprinting" Just what would that physique entail? You could compare for us less observant types, say Frankie Fredericks with Justin Gatlin or Carl Lewis with Leroy Buurell. From your other posts one can infer that you believe white sprinters probably can't get below 10.2, so what would the explanation be for Borzov, Woronin and even the disappointing Shirvingtion?

Certainly there are more opportunities for black athletes collegiately but that has only added to the depth of black sprinting. Colleges that would take black athletes were able to cherry pick the best black talent and there was always the black college option for the most talented. The runner-up to Jesse Owens(Ohio State) in '36 was Mack Robinson(Jackie's bro) who ran at UCLA. From '36 on sprinting was racially wide open and whites and blacks enjoyed relatively equal success as measured by Olympic sprint results until after the '64 Olympics(where incidentally the 400 meter champ was a white American and the 4x400 was two whites and two blacks). Bob Hayes's emergence coincided with greater TV coverage for the Olympics. The advent of televison "sports journalism" and the racially charged zeitgeist the 60's have certainly contributed mightily to perceptions regarding athletic ability and why whites have yielded the field in many areas of sport.

Actually Mack Robinson ran at Oregon it was Jackie who went to UCLA. Look at the 30's with Tolan, Owens, Eulace Pea******* and Metcalfe, right there things began to change.

 

[surfsider]

Sorry about the Robinson goof but that underscores my point all the more. You are right about the emergence of black sprinters in the 30's but black sprinting dominance does not begin until the '60's. Why is it that blacks only pull away from white sprinters on a time basis beginning in the 60's? If blacks were so much more physically superior in the short sprints why wouldn't the assumed superiority have manifested itself sooner? It would seem that if there indeed was an unbridgeable speed divide 'twixt black and white then the 1960 100 sweep by whites could never have happened.Especially in light of Owens and Robinson in '36 and the black sweep in '48 which was the first games after the Berlin games. I do concede Brutal that those of West African descent may have an inherent sprinting advantage on average but I can't believe that whites have become unable to compete in the last 40 years owing solely to a physical disadvantage that wasn't apparent before. If Sime and Morrow's converted times are what you say they are then the blacks they were consistently beating were obviously going even slower.

 

[Guest]

Sorry about the Robinson goof but that underscores my point all the more. You are right about the emergence of black sprinters in the 30's but black sprinting dominance does not begin until the '60's. Why is it that blacks only pull away from white sprinters on a time basis beginning in the 60's? If blacks were so much more physically superior in the short sprints why wouldn't the assumed superiority have manifested itself sooner? It would seem that if there indeed was an unbridgeable speed divide 'twixt black and white then the 1960 100 sweep by whites could never have happened.Especially in light of Owens and Robinson in '36 and the black sweep in '48 which was the first games after the Berlin games. I do concede Brutal that those of West African descent may have an inherent sprinting advantage on average but I can't believe that whites have become unable to compete in the last 40 years owing solely to a physical disadvantage that wasn't apparent before. If Sime and Morrow's converted times are what you say they are then the blacks they were consistently beating were obviously going even slower.

Actually if Jim Golliday a black sprinter out of Northwestern hadn't been injured in both 52 and 56 Remigino and Morrow might never have won their Oly gold. Golliday was a WR holder (9.3) and one of the worlds greatest sprinters.


In 1912 Howard Drew was injured in a heat of the Oly 100. If not for that he could have been the first black to win the Oly 100. He was that good. In the 20's there was Dehart Hubbard out of Michigan who was a 9.6 man. He prefered the long jump. We talked about the 30's. The 40's had Barney Ewell and Harrison Dillard. The 50's we saw Willie Williams, Leamon King, Ray Norton, Ira Murchison and Frank Budd. So it's not like the black sprinter just exploded in the mid 60's.

 

[surfsider]

What you say is all true but these black sprinters you cite were being beaten at least sometimes by white sprinters. I never said the black sprinter came from nowhere, my question is why the white sprinter went to nowhere.

 

[Guest]

What you say is all true but these black sprinters you cite were being beaten at least sometimes by white sprinters. I never said the black sprinter came from nowhere, my question is why the white sprinter went to nowhere.

Mel Patton, Frank Wykoff,Charley Paddock and Payton Jordan all ran at USC. Enter Lennox Miller, Don Quarrie, James Sanford and Clancy Edwards.


Hal Davis went to Cal. Enter Leamon King and Eddie Hart.


Bobby Morrow went to Abilene Christian. Enter Mark Witherspoon and Micky Grimes.


Once black athletes from the carib islands began running at US Universities in bunchs. That hurt any chance a so so white sprinter had.

 

[JD074]

Tell me why has Nigeria had a few sub10.00 sprinters while
"white" Europe has not?

"White" Europe, yeah, that's funny. European countries like
Britain and France are even more liberal than America... if
that's possible.

 

[Guest]

Tell me why has Nigeria had a few sub10.00 sprinters while
"white" Europe has not?

"White" Europe, yeah, that's funny. European countries like
Britain and France are even more liberal than America... if
that's possible.

The fastest Canadians have been black.


The fastest Brits have been black.


The faatest Frenchman have been black.


The fastest Americans have been black.


If blacks ran for Russia, China, Poland or Germany they would be the fastest in the land. Why struggle with this? It's so plain it's almost painful. Blacks can outrun whites.....period!Edited by: Brutal

 

[bigman]

for the record.. Morrow's Melbourne 10.5 was run on the slowest 100m surface of any olympics in 56 and into a wind... Morrow was a WR holder. No one but Brutal wouldfavor Golliday (great though he was) over Morrow that year. Morrow was the dominant sprinter in the world that year and he had no equal. A better representation of his dominance was his WR 200 time later in the games in better weather conditions at Melbourne. Again no one was close that year, It would not be until Carl Lewis that an American would win the holy grail of an OLYsprint double.


As for the 10.4 reference of brutal, the electronic timing at Rome was 10.3 on dirt for Hary as well as the past his prime (by the standards of the era) but stillfastclosingSime. Comparing their times with an all time great Hayes is unremarkable.. should we view Eddie Tolan as an unathletic troll from an inferior race because he did not measure up to Hayes?.. not.





They were all great sprinters by any standards.... if Brutal's extreme notion of racial differentiation is accepted then it would logically produce a view among coaches and media alike to self enforce this belief system. The belief like a religous belief rather than reflecting reality, begins to shape and domintate it. Soon the belief IS the ONLY reality.


Just another anecdote. Texas HS 110mHH final first and second place both under 14.00, bothgreat athletes and mutieventers... both will be recruited to Univ. of Texas...one as an RB the other as a Punter.....Edited by: bigman

 

[white lightning]

There is nothing that can change Brutal's mind.He is set
in his ways like most people in the U.S. So it won't
matter when Wariner breaks MJ's World Record!Coach Clyde
Hart who has coached for around 40 years has said over
and over that there is no advantage.Hart used to be a
sprinter and is now the best coach in the business for
the 400 meters.He coached MJ and now coaches Wariner.He
has said that skin color has nothing to do with it.So
I guess he is wrong Brutal.Maybe you should tell him
that yourself.He has said on many occasions that white
kids are discouraged.With more Wariner's and Rocks,you
will see a changing of the guard.No one is taking away
from the black sprinters but only we know there is more
to the truth.Do you honestly belive that thousands of
kids couldn't be studs out of a country that is 70%
white?We need more kids running track to get a better
picture here.The same goes for football and basketball.