blacks in boxing

[Kaptain]

Here's some data and quotes from researchers:

Bone density and fat percentage:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1392

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20041001/1293.html

Trunk to length ratio (this article quotes numerous researchers who have found differences)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947918-5,00 .html

Testosterone differences, see J. Phillippe Rushton's, Race Evolution and Behavior

Here's a section from an article called, Peering under the Hood of African Runners by Constance Holden from that was printed in Science Magazine:

The differences don't stop with body shape; there is also evidence
of a difference in the types of muscle fibers that predominate.
Scientists have divided skeletal muscles into two basic groups
depending on their contractile speed: type I, or slow-twitch
muscles, and type II, fast-twitch muscles. There are two kinds of
the latter: type IIa, intermediate between fast and slow; and type
IIb, which are superfast-twitch. Endurance runners tend to have
mostly type I fibers, which have denser capillary networks and are
packed with more mitochondria. Sprinters, on the other hand, have
mostly type II fibers, which hold lots of sugar as well as enzymes
that burn fuel in the absence of oxygen. In the 1980s, Claude
Bouchard's team at Quebec's Laval University took needle biopsies
from the thigh muscles of white French Canadian and black West
African students. They found that the Africans averaged
significantly more fast-twitch muscle fibers--67.5%--than the French
Canadians, who averaged 59%. Endurance runners have up to 90% or
more slow-twitch fibers, Saltin reports.

Bouchard, now at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, says his
team looked at two enzymes that are markers for oxidative metabolism
and found higher activity of both in the West Africans, meaning they
could generate more ATP, the energy currency of the cell, in the
absence of oxygen. The study suggests that in West Africa there may
be a larger pool of people "with elevated levels of what it takes to
perform anaerobically at very high power output," says Bouchard.

Although training can transform superfast-twitch type IIb fibers
into the hybrid type IIa, it is unlikely to cause slow- and
fast-twitch fibers to exchange identities. Myburgh says there is
evidence that, with extremely intensive long-distance training, fast
IIa fibers can change to slow type I fibers. So far, however, there
is no evidence that slow-twitch fibers can be turned into
fast-twitch ones. As an athlete puts on muscle mass through
training, new fibers are not created, but existing fibers become
bigger.

I checked your sources. This is Jon Entine's arguement which bascally amounts to a research of literature that treats every little rinky-dink research article that supports his view as credible evidence. What does a study on old women and bone density have to do with athleticism? How bout the ONLY evidence of black superior fast-twitch muscle coming from samples of a whole 12 people. Yes, 12 people! (that's the one you quote). How bout trunk to leg length ratios? Can't find anything on simple straight out arm span w/o involving the trunk? Neither can I. The time magazine source is so ridiculous that it even states on page one how black athletes are discriminated against in football because there not enough black centers, kickers, and QB.

There are racial differences, but we should be skeptical of any research that looks like it is trying to verify black athletic superiority. In most cases the evidence just isn't there.

Whites have been shown to have advantages in overall size; height, chest capacity, lung capacity, shoudler width, waist width, and trunk length. Maybe that's why we are dominating HWT boxing. No MSM sources are beating those drums though are they?

 

[freedom1]

Rinky dink? When I was in college I had to take anatomy and child development classes. The text books back then reported the differences in bone density across Asians whites and blacks. It wasn't even up for discussion. When I had my own bone density tested they told me I had normal density for a "Caucasion" male of my age. How many blacks are winning swimming events? Do you think the data on testosterone from J. Phillip Rushton is "rinky dink?" Show us some data that demonstrates whites and blacks have the same percentage of fast twitch fibers. Read the posts in the track and field section. Everyone over there has high hopes for the first white man to break 10 seconds for 100 meters, something black athletes have been doing every year since 1968.

YOU said, "there are racial differences." Could any of them possibly favor blacks in specific athletic events?

Beating drums?? In this politically correct world, you say one thing and you get fired. Nobody says anything that's not in code. Remember Jimmy the Greek?

 

[Kaptain]

1) Yes, rinky-dink. A sample size of 12 people is rinky-dink. No credible fast-twitch muscle research exists.

2) I'm not in to heresay. If there is a significant difference in bone density and you had it in your college books then you should easily find a source to post that is not about old women. Denser bones was brought up by you or dannyk as an advantage in boxing. That doesn't make any sense as skulls are rarely fractured in boxing. How do those heavy bones relate to sprinting advantage? Many things are accepted as fact without discussion - that's a problem.

3) Yah, some racial differences favor blacks in certain events and are disadvantages in certain others. Longer arms, fast-twitch myth, bone density, and hip swiveltude aren't any of them.

 

[jcolec02]

In my opinion whites are stronger than blacks (on average) and blacks are faster than whites (on average) but all that crap about them taking a better punch....ummm...ever heard of Rocky Marciano, George Chuvalo, Jake LaMotta or Vitali Klitschko??? as far as I know they have the best chins in boxing history (espicially Chuvalo and Klitschko)...


P.S. I also KNOW that whites are smarter than blacks and I defy anyone to find evidence otherwise...

 

[freedom1]

Great, you offer no data, nothing, all you give is your opinion. Then you require others to show data, and when they do, and it goes against your opinion, you say it's "rinky dink." You criticize, but offer nothing to back yourself, oh, except your opinion.

Below is a direct quote from your last post.

"Yah, some racial differences favor blacks in certain events and are disadvantages in certain others. Longer arms, fast-twitch myth, bone density, and hip swiveltude aren't any of them."

I'll ask you again, what are the racial differences that favor blacks???? This is the second time you've said they exist. What are they, what are the differences? And I'm not even asking for data. I'll take common sense.

 

[Alpha Male]

Whites competed equally with blacks in sprinting events up until the 1960's. What changed after that? I believe that whatever averages do exist, are deeply exaggerated by beleif systems, i.e. whites believing they can't compete in running and jumping events.

The recent success of whites in the high jump backs up this point. Whites from Europe dominate this event, not whites from America who are more or less, brainwashed from even trying this event.

Michael Johnson has gone on to say that any sprinter running the 100 under 10 seconds is more or less on something. Whether or not this is true, I do not know. What I do know is this: Black sprinting times have improved since the 60's and white's have not. Why do you think that is?!Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[Ground Fighter]

In my opinion whites are stronger than blacks (on average) and blacks are faster than whites (on average) but all that crap about them taking a better punch....ummm...ever heard of Rocky Marciano, George Chuvalo, Jake LaMotta or Vitali Klitschko??? as far as I know they have the best chins in boxing history (espicially Chuvalo and Klitschko)

Absolutely. And a lot of black boxers have chins like crap. Look what happened to Byrd when he got bitch slapped by Klitschko. I still find myself laughing at the fact that Byrd's wife was crying when he got dropped like a bad habit.

Also, Jcolec02, awesome avatar by the way. I love Stewie. I'm looking for one that has Quagmire on it. Giggity giggity giggity. lol.Edited by: Ground Fighter

 

[Kaptain]

Great, you offer no data, nothing, all you give is your opinion. Then you require others to show data, and when they do, and it goes against your opinion, you say it's "rinky dink." You criticize, but offer nothing to back yourself, oh, except your opinion.

Below is a direct quote from your last post.

"Yah, some racial differences favor blacks in certain events and are disadvantages in certain others. Longer arms, fast-twitch myth, bone density, and hip swiveltude aren't any of them."

I'll ask you again, what are the racial differences that favor blacks???? This is the second time you've said they exist. What are they, what are the differences? And I'm not even asking for data. I'll take common sense.

Freedom, I'm not into wasting my time trying to prove black athletic superiority. You posted specific attributes like "fast-twitch muscle" and I simply asked you to back that myth up. You couldn't. If you want to get offended by me for asking you for some credible evidence then that's your problem. If you want me to take a guess on racial differences based on observation and common sense here it goes:

The main differences are due to slight differences in body shape. Blacks in generally have narrower hips (I think)and smaller trunks. That favors straight line running as it is more aerodynamic and lighter. Slightly wider hips on average has a possible advantage for whites in the area of all around power and possibly balance - that's my guess. Slightly larger trunks is a definite upper body power advantage. That's the main differences and that's about it. Nothing about mythic black advantages such as fast-twitch muscle and hip swiveltude. They are just arguements to support the caste-type mindset - which is that blacks should dominant in every single sporting event in existence.

1) Again absolutely no evidence exists for the fast-twitch muscle myth so why keep repeating it? It certainly doesn't fall in the category of something that is easily observable, measureable, or makes common sense.

2) The bone-density arguement that was made earlier as a reason blacks can supposedly take a better punch doesn't make sense at all. The brain is what is damaged when the head is punched by gloves not the skull. You may have done better by trying to find something about skull shape. But then again why? IMO whites take a punch just as good as blacks.

3)I still haven't seen anything on arm span differences. When I think of long-armed black people it is usually the narrow shouldered ethopian type - hardly a boxing advantage. I differ than probably most on this board as I really don't see west african blacks as having greater arm span than whites. Many blacks that have greater arm length also have narrower shoulders which means overall arm span isn't really affected. Besides, Mexicans have dominated many of the lower divisions of boxing and they are hardly considered a "long-armed" race.

Is a little evidence too much to ask for???

 

[white is right]

Great, you offer no data, nothing, all you give is your opinion. Then you require others to show data, and when they do, and it goes against your opinion, you say it's "rinky dink." You criticize, but offer nothing to back yourself, oh, except your opinion.

Below is a direct quote from your last post.

"Yah, some racial differences favor blacks in certain events and are disadvantages in certain others. Longer arms, fast-twitch myth, bone density, and hip swiveltude aren't any of them."

I'll ask you again, what are the racial differences that favor blacks???? This is the second time you've said they exist. What are they, what are the differences? And I'm not even asking for data. I'll take common sense.

Freedom, I'm not into wasting my time trying to prove black athletic superiority. You posted specific attributes like "fast-twitch muscle" and I simply asked you to back that myth up. You couldn't. If you want to get offended by me for asking you for some credible evidence then that's your problem. If you want me to take a guess on racial differences based on observation and common sense here it goes:

The main differences are due to slight differences in body shape. Blacks in generally have narrower hips (I think)and smaller trunks. That favors straight line running as it is more aerodynamic and lighter. Slightly wider hips on average has a possible advantage for whites in the area of all around power and possibly balance - that's my guess. Slightly larger trunks is a definite upper body power advantage. That's the main differences and that's about it. Nothing about mythic black advantages such as fast-twitch muscle and hip swiveltude. They are just arguements to support the caste-type mindset - which is that blacks should dominant in every single sporting event in existence.

1) Again absolutely no evidence exists for the fast-twitch muscle myth so why keep repeating it? It certainly doesn't fall in the category of something that is easily observable, measureable, or makes common sense.

2) The bone-density arguement that was made earlier as a reason blacks can supposedly take a better punch doesn't make sense at all. The brain is what is damaged when the head is punched by gloves not the skull. You may have done better by trying to find something about skull shape. But then again why? IMO whites take a punch just as good as blacks.

3)I still haven't seen anything on arm span differences. When I think of long-armed black people it is usually the narrow shouldered ethopian type - hardly a boxing advantage. I differ than probably most on this board as I really don't see west african blacks as having greater arm span than whites. Many blacks that have greater arm length also have narrower shoulders which means overall arm span isn't really affected. Besides, Mexicans have dominated many of the lower divisions of boxing and they are hardly considered a "long-armed" race.

Is a little evidence too much to ask for???

Chavez cut through his black oppnents like a hot knife through butter. But he did have problems early with the reach advantage. It's just one advantage it's not absolute or no shorter boxer would ever beat a taller one. Marciano had the shortest reach in heavyweight history(for a champion), the reach problem didn't stop him....

Edited by: white is right

 

[freedom1]

In your opinion the data was no good. I'm not offended, you're entitled to your opinion. And despite it only taking 10 minutes to find those articles, I thought it was more than "a little evidence."

In my opinion the data is good and has been proven by real life performance, specifically the 100 meter dash in track and field and the all the swimming events. You may heard of the slang term, "African Rock Fish."

If you're not into "wasting your time" finding data, then don't ask others to do it.

"Still haven't seen anything on arm span." Just start looking at the reach stats they show at the beginning of fights when they show height and weight. The pattern will become obvious.

At least you admitted this time that there are some physical differences. I'm going to get you out of the Flat Earth Society yet.

 

[Colonel Callan]

Rushton is not a good choice when it comes to stats. He tries to do a good job, but he relies on small studies, relies heavily on the very biased John Entine (who leaves out info that isn't favorable to his 'conclusions') and finally, Rushton jumps to conclusions that don't hold up.

Blacks do have an advantage in reach, and it is an advantage - to a point - in boxing. Anyone who's done some boxing knows this. However, that can be counteracted by learning how to cut off the ring and get inside. (Yeah, I boxed Golden Gloves for a couple of years as a kid - wasn't all that great, but you learn a lot) Blacks actually have thicker skulls on average, which does help. However, the difference between black and white chins is that whites in fact have wider jaws where the joint connects with the skull. Blacks (and latinos) have a narrower jaw at the back, on average. This helps in taking punches right on the button. Whites have this wider connection because their brains are larger. Also, blacks don't necessarily have denser bones than whites through the whole body. Several studies have shown that whites have denser bone structure in the rib cage, while blacks are denser in the skull and sometimes parts of the vertebrae. Whites have faster reaction times than blacks. The reflex response in different muscles throughout the body are different between the races, whites on average actually have faster reflexes in the upper arms than blacks - but the overall differences are very, very small.

Whites are beginning to dominate boxing because a fair number of them are being allowed to compete. Whites have tremendous advantages in upper body strength and endurance which is why we see what we now see. The controlled media in the US tries to say blacks are going into football, basketball, etc. but the fact is that there are more boxers in the US now than ever. Their 'problem' is they now have to compete with a bunch of hungry Europeans, many of them older guys who couldn't get a shot because of the way the tribe had a hold on things. Look at how Roy Jones jr. ducked his European counterparts for years. The only explanation is cowardice or the media trying to preserve the image of that all-show, no-go fraud. Also, the cocky American blacks and latrinos aren't used to firing off on a white and receiving only punches to their big mouths in return. Their confidence is taking a beating, as it has been so artificially inflated by the US media, academics, and the timid behavior of too many brainwashed whites. The overwhelming majority of fighters shown in the US are still blacks and latinos - one gets the feeling it almost pains HBO, Showtime, PPV etc. to have to show white champs beating on the 'master athletes' as decreed by the folks who have run things for too long.

Blacks were dominant for many years because of opportunity, and because the gate-keepers would not allow any talented white to move upward and onward. No joke. I can remember Mike Rossman (former light heavyweight champ - real name Mike DiPiano - his mother was jewish, so he used her maiden name as a marketing ploy) back in the late 70's saying the last thing the powers that be in boxing wanted was a white champ. He said everything was done to stop white champions from emerging. Look at Sugar Ray Leonard's pro fight against Randy Shields. Shields beat the living sh*t out of him. When the decision in Leonard's favor was announced, the crowd began throwing chairs, rioting - in Leonard's home town. Of course, Leonard moved on, and it was forgotten about. BTW - Shields beat Leonard in the amateurs also - he also lost a 'close', very controversial decision to him in the amateur ranks. Styles can make fights, and Leonard's style was no help against Shields. For all the complaining that blacks make about being held down "back in the day" the fact is that whites have it far worse since the bolshevists grabbed complete control and have locked them out. Locked them during our supposed era of 'equal rights'. I would bet some of it is due to our 'masters' not only trying to destroy white confidence, but also realizing that blacks were never going to equal whites at many, if any at all, endeavors, and just decided that one way to 'help them out' would be to make sure they at least have 'sports stars' to look up to, to make them feel superior in some way. But if true, that's just a small part of it, as destroying white confidence and self-image are the most important goals of the caste-system. Can't get blacks to dominate, to play? Then let's grab someone else! Which they have done in baseball, flooding it with latin Americans.

Ah, I tend to ramble. Sorry. Anyway, as much as blacks have supposed advantages, I think that the advantages whites have add up to more going for them in the ring. As long as the best whites are competing and allowed to fight the best blacks. Which until recently hadn't been the case for 60 - 70 years. That's how long our enemies have had control of things. There's still a long way to go, and one wonders if behind the scenes bribes and threats will emerge to try and derail the white freight train as it gathers speed.

NHB is a different beast. Endurance, mental toughness and physical strength - brute force, and the ability to adjust 'in real time' are what's needed. That's why whites dominate. Even whites who have lost to blacks in NHB seem more able to adjust their 'style' and come back and beat their previous conqueror than the other way around. The only way blacks and hispanics will ever dominate NHB is if the sport becomes fixed, controlled, as boxing has been (and continues to be in many cases).

Never underestimate mental conditioning. The 100 meter dash is an example. Blacks have been heavily involved in sprints since the 1920's - yet it wasn't until the massive, anti-white campaigning in the media really broke through in the 60's that whites began to stay away from the event. Blacks have a higher percentage of people suited for sprints, but no study shows they should dominate as they do. They didn't either, until the mental conditioning took hold. As in football, kids are slotted in track. No matter how talented a white kid is in sprints, he's moved away from the 100, 200, 400 etc. Andrew Rock is an almost a do-it-yourself success story. Jeremy Wariner is more stunning in the way he has been allowed to compete in his event, rather than being moved off to the 800 meters like most talented white 'long' sprinters. The fact that it's been shown US officials covered for doped up American (black) sprinters for decades - guys like Carl Lewis - while working to wreck white confidence doesn't help the Caste builders. Anytime whites 'catch up' - there is always a sudden (drug fueled) surge in black performance, as was predicted in the 200 when it was announced Wariner would give it a crack. Can't let him ruin another neighborhood, eh? No study shows that whites are incapable of running fast in the 100 meters, just as none has ever stated all blacks lack buoyancy. However, drug enforcement was selectively applied for decades, and the 'conditioning' has been rather complete. No one tries 'outreach' programs for whites, but there are droves of programs trying to create black swimmers, hockey players, every sport, you name it. Whites are not coddled as are blacks. To this day, I wonder what would have happened to Casey Combest if he had been babied as are black sprinters.

Whites in the US have indeed been shut out of boxing (in significant numbers) for decades. Not much different in the sprints (the glamour events in TV's 'mind'), the way the NBA has 'evolved' (look at our NBA studs on the world level the last few years - hah!), the NFL and so on. Sports is one of the fronts in the battle against whites. But cracks are appearing in the enemy's armor. Hopefully whites will tear it right open.
Edited by: Colonel Callan

 

[Alpha Male]

Amazing post Colonel Callan!

 

[Colonel Callan]

Thanks Alpha. Sorry I went 'so long' - but I tend to get rolling and then just ramble. People like to point to studies, but studies are not absolutes, nor do most honest studies claim to be. I enjoy poking at Rushton, especially when it comes to areas of IQ, and areas of sports. For instance, in his book on Evolution and Behavior (and in several articles), he makes the claim that blacks won every running event at the 1992 Olympic Games. Especially the distance races, all won by black Africans. Really? The 1500 was won by a Spaniard. The 5,000 by a German. The 10,000 by a Moroccan. The marathon by a Korean. Just one of a bunch of mistakes. He also hedges IQ info in order to try and not look 'racist' in favor of whites, but that's for 'lounge' in terms of discussion. As far as Entine goes, he's the "Tim Wise" of sports. A jewish guy with an anti-white agenda, clouding it in 'facts' and assumptions that aren't really facts, along with deliberately false assumptions.

Edited by: Colonel Callan

 

[White Shogun]

Rushton can make such a claim about the 1992 Olympics because most people never verify an author's claims or check his sources.

I noticed this when I studied nutrition. Diet and exercise book authors would footnote texts and list extensive bibliographies that were supposed to 'support' their position, but when you take the time to actually READ the study for yourself, you find that the authors have data-mined from a particular study only that information that supports their pet theory. In some cases the studies would actually refute the author's position but you won't know unless you read it for yourself.

Another problem with understanding scientific studies and research is sifting through who has an interest in the outcome of the study, who supported the research financially, and if there is an already an agenda in place they are attempting to prove. Tobacco companies touted 'independent' studies that concluded smoking was not harmful to your health, for example.

Read everything carefully, and try to seek out other studies and opinions when studying a controversial subject. There is likely more to the story.

 

[Kaptain]

In your opinion the data was no good. I'm not offended, you're entitled to your opinion. And despite it only taking 10 minutes to find those articles, I thought it was more than "a little evidence."

In my opinion the data is good and has been proven by real life performance, specifically the 100 meter dash in track and field and the all the swimming events. You may heard of the slang term, "African Rock Fish."

If you're not into "wasting your time" finding data, then don't ask others to do it.

"Still haven't seen anything on arm span." Just start looking at the reach stats they show at the beginning of fights when they show height and weight. The pattern will become obvious.

At least you admitted this time that there are some physical differences. I'm going to get you out of the Flat Earth Society yet.

You refuse to understand anything I have said and just keep repeating the same old lines. YOU made some very specific assumptions about black athletic superiority ie superior reflex time, fast-twitch muscle etc. Even antedotal evidence doesn't support those assumptions. I have said all along that maybe the reason you can't site a credible source is because their is none. Since you made the statements the job is yours. I've actually looked much longer than ten minutes and I have found no credible sources to support what you have said. The lack of sources is my evidence.

BTW, my position hasn't change from my original post. Heck, I've posted on this years ago on this site and have said the same thing. Other castefootballers can probably tell you that or you can check the archives. I have always said that there is racial differences, but most of the garbage that we are told is pure myth to support white inferiority in all sports. Superior reflexes - I don't think so. Fast twitch muscle - more bull. Believe me if there was research out there that showed how inferior whites are the MSM would be more than happy to have that information at everyone's fingertips - it's not.

Please add something new to this conversation if you would like to continue it. Edited by: Kaptain Poop

 

[freedom1]

No, I don't refuse to understand. I said in one of my earlier posts that the caste system does exist. I agree that all the political and sociological factors Colonel Callan brought up are legit.

But that wasn't the question.

The original question on this thread was "are there physiological racial differences that could give blacks an advantage in boxing." Instead of answering the question, you spouted out with the all the political and sociological reasons that have already been posted in many places and many times on this site. You're the one repeating yourself. I was attempting to answer the actual question.

You admit there are differences, but haven't seen data that convinces you they involve reach, fast twitch fibers or bone density. I believe there are differences in reach, fast twitch fiber percentage and bone density. I guess time will tell on the truth of these issues. It's extremely politically incorrect to test for racial differences these days. You know this.

Also, finding a few minor mistakes in Rushton's work doesn't negate his whole premise. The 15 point gap in IQ has been demonstrated by researcher after researcher over the past 80 years. I think testing is legitimate. I work in a school district in California and have found standardized testing to be an accurate predictor of academic performance (despite how much people hate it). I understand why this rubs people the wrong way. I myself hate the limitations. We're Americans. We don't like to have any limitations. We're all like Rocky Balboa, "if you have two hands and a heart, you have a chance to be heavyweight champion." This idea is great, but just isn't true. Humans have finite limitations, and there are differences across races.

I've seen many white athletes with fast reflexes, but I've seen more blacks with them. And I'm not even talking about pro sports. I'm just talking about growing up in a big city neighborhood.

Our differences go to a deeper level than just the paint jobs.

 

[Alpha Male]

The sample size used in the study citing differences in fast and slow twitch muscle fiber is 12.

I haven't taken a stats class in a couple of years, but if I recall, a sample size of at least 30 (N >30) must be used for the study to be considered statistically significant.

 

[Colonel Callan]

Just to drop in another two or three cents...

Rushton's problem with IQ isn't all about the 'gaps' etc. There is a gap
between blacks and Whites - it's actually slightly larger than 15 points.
What Rushton and others do is play off areas where Whites excel above all
other groups in order not to appear 'racist'. For example, E. Asians have a
slightly higher overall average on IQ tests - but that bulge is due to high
scores in the visuospatial portions of the tests. Whites outscore Asians on
the verbal portions of the tests - which involve more than just 'language',
the questions test analytical thinking and the ability to deal with certain
abstractions. On tests of purely analytical ability, Whites outscore Asians.
Here's one kicker - the scoring on IQ tests was changed a couple of
decades ago, in regards to how questions are 'weighted'. It was 'decided'
to give the visuospatial portions of the tests more weight, as it was felt
they are involved in mathematics (computation actually) so they must be
more important. As if analytical ability etc. aren't as important. This made
a 'slight' change in things, as it gave E. Asians a slight advantage in
'average', where before Whites had a slight advantage in overall average.
Some people feel that one group of academics wanted the change made
so that they couldn't be accused of racism - it moved Whites off the top
spot. Others feel that the 'usual suspects' wanted it done just so they'd
have something else to stick in whitey's nose. The main 'problem' with
this adjustment of scoring is that it didn't help blacks or latinos much at
all, much to the chagrin of the folks at the top. It does appear that Whites
are more inventive and creative due to a 'balance' between the 'verbal'
and visuospatial, and the ability to engage in divergent thinking, which
Asians have a very hard time doing. It has to be due to the differences in
'structure' between Whites and Asians. Even Asians are beginning to
admit it exists, but they don't want to quite say it's genetic in nature -
yet; http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep04120128.html &nb
sp;  BTW, it
does appear Whites have a wider Standard Deviation in IQ than Asians -
although PC 'researchers' are trying to deny it. Daniel Vining's work
showed a definite difference, which bothered a lot of the establishment
psychometrists. Rushton's problem is that he is aware of this info, but
chooses to ignore it, as he is still trying to struggle against being called a
racist by showing how whites are inferior. In the end, IQ tests do not
measure all areas of cognitive ability, but what they do test, they test
well.

Most of us who have grown up in the 'big city' actually tend to feel that
blacks aren't all that superior overall - it's the suburban folk, etc. who
didn't grow up around blacks, hispanics, etc. who usually have the
'inferior white' views. Of course there are differences, but the
overwhelming numbers of blacks you see in the NFL don't match up with
'testing' has shown - Hell, the numbers don't even add up with what
happens at the NFL combine - and that's AFTER most Whites have already
been pushed to the wayside. Anyone who thinks there isn't even one
white, just one, in the US who isn't capable of being a starting CB or RB
etc. in the NFL has been brainwashed top to bottom as has been intended
by the fine folks in charge of manufacturing the world around us. It's as
fake as Obama's credentials and leadership abilities. Fast whites are
discouraged in football, track, and so on down the line. Whites are
discouraged in basketball, told to expect that maybe, maybe they can be
good enough for college, but certainly not the high flyin', high jivin' NBA.
Maybe "... some of them foreign dudes," can make it in the NBA, but not
you, whitey. Same thing in boxing. Look at the media's reactions to White
success. They're panicked, and in full fairy-tale (should be fairy-tail)
mode, with us being told the 'talent' is headed to other sports when in
fact the numbers of blacks and browns in the boxing gyms is at an all
time high. Anyway, this discouragement is led by the same group
throughout the West, same propaganda spewed left and right. It's no
wonder a large number of the Whites emerging and taking over 'black'
slots are from E. Europe, where the carpet baggers packed up and fled, or
poor Whites from the rest of Europe who a) aren't paying attention to the
drivel or b) are too poor to care.

The problem isn't that people don't acknowledge differences, it's that
people don't want to admit that different advantages and disadvantages
can be negated. They also don't want to admit there is a large crossover
between human groups when it comes to physiological traits. Heaven
help a White at QB who shows 'black' traits - Crouch, Matt Jones etc.
"They" don't want whites to encroach on 'black territory'. Hence the
shameful treatment of White boxing champions, many of whom would
mop the floor with some of the black gods from the past, like media
darling Roy Jones Jr.

BTW - the muscle fiber differences aren't what most people think. There
are two types of fast twitch fiber (yes, look it up) and whites on average
tend to have more of the type geared for strength, while blacks on
average tend to have the type suited for speed. But the differences aren't
major, and we're dealing with averages, a concept which I have to admit a
lot of people do not grasp. In that area, I sense some of the frustration of
both Alpha Male and Freedom1, as small samples are no good for
determining averages. Unfortunately, it's numbers from small studies that
get the most pub - when they suit the overall agenda of the enemies of
whites. (30 is in fact a miniscule number to use in any population study,
never mind 12)

BTW, what do some of you make of this 'gem' from Wikipedia on Matt
Jones: Jacksonville head coach Jack Del Rio recently stated during an ESPN
interview that Jones is the most naturally talented wide receiver playing
the game today, in his opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Matt_Jones_%28American_football%29&n bsp;  Does ol' Jack believe
this, or is this just his scripted excuse to keep everyone's mind off the
fact that here's a White guy with Vick's speed, more mobility, more size,
and with of course a better arm? A guy who should have been playing QB?
It's enough to make one think that guys sit around a table and actually
discuss how they must keep whites from upsetting certain 'standards' in
place, or 'new' standards being put in place.

In the end, I suppose people on this board are tired of hearing about
black superiority, as we are hammered with that 24/7 by the MSM - yet
we are aware enough that we are able to look at things sideways and see
that much of what is served up is nothing more than steaming plates of
b.s. Boise State anyone? The rapid change in the complexion of boxing
champs? NBA players at the World Champs/Olympics? Some of also have
real-life experiences to back up our belief that much of what is shown in
sports is rigged when it comes to the participants 'chosen' to take part.
Chalk up many here - including myself, as a member of both groups. Edited by: Colonel Callan

 

[freedom1]

I think it was the Hernstein Murray Book (the Bell Curve)that compared the Asian and White bell curves. Even though the Asian curves was slightly higher at the average, it was much narrower than the white curve. In other words. Asian are more similar in intelligence whereas with whites there are more on the far ends on both sides. When you get out the far end on the right side, you get the innovators and super geniuses like Sir Issac Newton. It partially explains why the whites innovate and the Asians build. Yes, and I acknowledge and agree with what you said about spatial and verbal scores.

We need a large sample test to examine percentage of both kinds of fast twitch fibers across races, but we won't get it at this time in history because everyone is too easily offended on this race topic.

 

[freedom1]

Oh, and as a point of interest, the Bell Curve book reported that as an ethnic group, Ashkenazic Jews have the highest average scores in the world on IQ tests because of their high verbal performance.

 

[Don Wassall]

BTW, what do some of you make of this 'gem' from Wikipedia on Matt
Jones: Jacksonville head coach Jack Del Rio recently stated during an ESPN
interview that Jones is the most naturally talented wide receiver playing
the game today, in his opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Matt_Jones_%28American_football%29&a mp;n bsp;

That quote is no different than Houston Nutt saying that Peyton Hillis' skills (size, speed, power) compare favorably to those of former Auburn star Ronnie Brown, who was the 2nd overall pick in 2005 N.F.L. Draft.


It's complimentary, but it's just empty rhetoric. Jones will never be a star under Del Rio's watch as a wide receiver, while Nutt has treated Hillis like, as DraftDaddy puts it, "a walk-on." Jon Gruden used to claim that Mike Alstott was "in the mix" for Tampa's starting tailback job, but of course he never was. Coaches feel the need to occasionally speak highly of a white player even though they have no intention of using him the way they would a black with the same kind of talent.


BTW, it's great to see you back and posting again, Col.Callan. We miss your insight.

 

[Colonel Callan]

Read some other material besides "The Bell Curve" - it's good, but clouded. The fact that Murray's wife is Asian leads him to conveniently 'ignore' certain things, even today. Look at Richard Lynn's work on IQ (much of it quoted in "The Bell Curve" and "A Question of Intelligence"). He also states Ashkenazi have a higher 'than average' IQ - but the number is about 108, the same as Western and Northern Europeans in various studies (there are differences among European groups - which is why the overall average is 101). (Lynn is considered the King of psychometry by many - and if not the top in the field, he is among the top three) The "117" the tribe began to toss around was a number derived from a small group of youngsters in a school for gifted children. Go figure. In fact, the tribe has been guilty of some manipulation in IQ, not the least of which is making sure they raise their average in publication every few years. For years they would make sure their average was listed as 108, then it became 110, then it became 113, then it became 115, then up to 117. Their IQ structure is tilted toward verbal, unlike other Caucasians, who tend to be balanced between the two areas of cognitive ability. This is probably due to the heavy inbreeding amongst jews(their eugenics program) for centuries. Which is why they make fun of Southerners, etc., claiming they are inbred to keep everyone's attention off the most inbred group of all; Themselves. It's similar to their screeching over non-existent white supremacists, while their culture is the most ethno-centric and supremacist of all. The main key to the tribe's "success" is their group cohesiveness, and in fact they do place importance on Education, on having a 'career' instead of a job. Of course, they owe a lot of their flooding certain fields with their presence to networking and flat out ethnic nepotism. If brains and talent were the only standards, their numbers would be far, far less in all fields. Lynn put together a nice 'map' that was posted on several sites, including Amren (which I think is a 'front' for something not exactly friendly to whites).

Thanks for the kind words Don. Thanks for putting together this site. My thinking was about the same on Del Rio's remarks about Jones. I also feel they're to deflect attention from Jones not being a QB. Down the line, when Jones continues to be underutilized, we'll hear about how he never developed despite every opportunity. At the opposite end of the scale is the praise for Vince Young, where I had this misfortune to hear Ditka say he should be ROY - "... ignore his numbers, he's a winner!" Really? Within two minutes of the tossing of bouquets to Young, Ditka et al begin a 5 minute dump job on Rex Grossman. Haven't seen that on Vick. Won't see it on Young either as his career progresses. The fact that Young is offensive ROY is offensive. And proof that there is an agenda being aggressively pursued.
Edited by: Colonel Callan

 

[freedom1]

Colonel, in your second to last post you made a comment about "the usual suspects," do you think a good sized percentage of the usual suspects are member of the tribe?

Yes, they do have quite a eugenics program going, and they get pissed whenever anyone else tries to start one up.

 

[Bart]

This is probably due to the heavy inbreeding amongst jews(their eugenics program) for centuries. Which is why they make fun of Southerners, etc., claiming they are inbred to keep everyone's attention off the most inbred group of all; Themselves.

Good observation, along with many others in your posts.

 

[PitBull]

Colonel,

Could you elaborate on your views of AMREN? I read the articles there quite
frequently. Its occurred to me once or twice that someone could be tracking
these sites on the internet, and who frequents them. Is this what you are
talking about?