Fastest White Man (Charlie's Space)

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,246
Location
Michigan
charlie180 said:
So why have there been plenty of ideal black sprinters, but in 40 years not one white one? Are we waiting for just the one? With 97% of Europeans being white and having had 40 years of waiting, you'd think we'd have found at least one?


Charlie you have been saying this same thing in every post you've made here. What's your goal? Circular arguments, flame wars? Contrarian? Pestering the members of the board? Your point has been refuted by many others. No one is going to convince the other guy so again I ask: What's your point?
 

ToughJ.Riggins

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
5,063
Location
Ontario Canada
charlie180 said:
Leaf - If it were that simple we'd all be geneticists. Vietnamese
people have the highest average IQ of any race on earth, they live or
lived until recently in huts. Your argument is so full of holes it
would be impolite of me to pick over it. The first civilisations
emerged in Africa and then the Middle East, whites are just the most
recent. The Egyptians were building pyramids when white Europeans were
living in caves, literally. <span style="font-style: italic;">To insist that whites will never break the 10 second barrier because they are white is childish in its conception</span>Not
really, it is like saying a woman will never break 10s, it is a
physical impossibility. They just are not built for it, the same as
white sprinters. If you have evidence to the contrary then please
supply it. 200 years ago white people claimed that Negroes were dumb
inferiors, genetically not up to intelligent acts, couldn't be taught
to read and write, couldn't reason, and were a sub species. These
theories were only proven inaccurate by Negroes proving them to be
through their actions.

I agree with your post on intelligence, I see small differences between different races, just as I see small differences in athletic skill. Civilization mostly rose out of cultural diffusion and necessity. In 1450 China was ahead of Europe as far as technology. The Chinese invented gun powder, the compus etc. etc.

Africa is arranged more on a north-south basis of different landscapes more than east-west, therefore limiting cultural diffusion. Plus the Sahara prevented a lot of cultural diffusion with Europe and the Middle East in the past. Add to that that Africa is brutal as far as natures elements.

The Nubians at one point conquered Egypt and they were black and became an advanced society. Africa just may not have seen the need to change the tribal life-style, just as Europeans did not for thousands of years. The Irish and also Germanic tribes were still Pagans in A.D times.

However, I do see a small intelligence gap between American whites and African Americans in the Science and Math arenas despite cultural differences and poorer school systems. There is also a gender gap in Math and Science. I just choose not to harp on this, but I have picked up on this. As far as the arts, some of my favorite entertainers are black.

To go on further, the Japanese have a higher average IQ than whites 104 to 100. But whites I would say are historically more creative in the arts, the Japanese more innovative.

But I disagree with you that a white will never run under 10 seconds wind legal-non altitude. It would have happened already with a +2.0 w/s.

West Africans have a small advantage in short sprints, but do not in football, 400 meter, high jump, triple jump, boxing, decathlon and certainly not in power-lifting events. That is a figment of the media and culture.

Please read "What Constitutes Athleticism" and my article "Arguing the Caste System with Youtubers" on the Homepage. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins
 

charlie180

Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
74
jaxvid said:
charlie180 said:
So why have there been plenty of ideal black sprinters, but in 40 years not one white one? Are we waiting for just the one? With 97% of Europeans being white and having had 40 years of waiting, you'd think we'd have found at least one?


Charlie you have been saying this same thing in every post you've made here. What's your goal? Circular arguments, flame wars? Contrarian? Pestering the members of the board? Your point has been refuted by many others. No one is going to convince the other guy so again I ask: What's your point?

Several times people have stated as fact that white runners have run 100m in under 10s if yards are converted or that it is possible due to x, y, z. Or that blacks have all the breaks, etc. No one has refuted my argument, simply said it is possible and left it at that.

Where is the proof that many posters keep claiming shows that whites can run sub 10s. That is all that I am asking for.
 

charlie180

Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
74
waterbed said:
To be ideal sprinter you also need a fast track for example if Armin Hary was now in his 20's and not in the 60's he would have run 9.8-9.9.

From the statistics you gived I think the people from CIA world factbook most be fired.The whole team.

You see, this is what I am finding. People stuck in the past. If Armin was running today, he'd still only be a 10.2 sprinter. The fact that whites once competed with blacks and that there were once some great white sprinters detracts from the great white sprinters that are running today. Matt Shirvington would wipe the floor with any white sprinters from the past. People seem to be watching clips and comparing slower white sprinters and much slower black sprinters with the sprinters of today.

As for the statistics, they are from national census data, widely available. The 50/50 figures you mentioned earlier are just plain nonsense. The only places you get splits like that is in prison.
 

white lightning

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
21,501
Just thought I would post a race from 2006 to show you that we can compete. Andrey Yepishin took the silver in a time of 10.10 and Matic Osovnikar took the bronze in 10.13 all wind legal. The track was very wet as well. As you guys probably know, Matic made the World Championships Finals in 2007 in the 100 so he was one of the fastest 8 sprinters in the world in that meet. He beat alot of high quality sprinters. Pickering and some of the younger guys will go above and beyond what these guys have done. Just be patient. Here is the video link.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmOd1zypLDQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmOd1zypLDQEdited by: white lightning
 

white lightning

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
21,501
The two college guys that I think have the best chance here in America to continue to close in on that magical 10 second barrier are Shane Crawford and Michael LeBlanc. Here is the bio of Shane. He tied the Purdue School All Time Record last year in only his freshman year in the 60 running a 6.70! He is only a kid.


http://purduesports.cstv.com/sports/c-track/mtt/crawford_sha ne00.html


Now here is the link for Michael LeBlanc. He is a junior with a p.b. of 10.16 so far!


[url]http://www.suathletics.com/roster.asp?playerid=2077&spor t=1004&roster=220&path=trun [/url]Edited by: white lightning
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,181
charlie180 said:
jaxvid said:
charlie180 said:
So why have there been plenty of ideal black sprinters, but in 40 years not one white one? Are we waiting for just the one? With 97% of Europeans being white and having had 40 years of waiting, you'd think we'd have found at least one?


Charlie you have been saying this same thing in every post you've made here. What's your goal? Circular arguments, flame wars? Contrarian? Pestering the members of the board? Your point has been refuted by many others. No one is going to convince the other guy so again I ask: What's your point?
Several times people have stated as fact that white runners have run 100m in under 10s if yards are converted or that it is possible due to x, y, z. Or that blacks have all the breaks, etc. No one has refuted my argument, simply said it is possible and left it at that. Where is the proof that many posters keep claiming shows that whites can run sub 10s. That is all that I am asking for.
I agree about white runners never running a converted 100 yard time into a sub 10 100 meter time. But for different reasons. These times are from a period where nobody broke 10 in the hundred meters. I think colleges and US national meets stopped running 100 yards in the early 70's. I also think Hary would be at least a 10.0X guy and most likely have a pb of sub ten. Also if he took roids and his body responded well to it he easily breaks 10.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,246
Location
Michigan
ToughJ.Riggins said:
I agree with your post on intelligence, I see small differences between different races, .


TJR you must be kidding. You see small differences? Then read about the extensive IQ testing that has been done. You will see LARGE differences. You even mention the IQ of Japanese. Why is it applicable there and not with other races???


As for the argument that because the Chinese invented gun powder (but not usefull guns or artillery) or that Egyptians threw up a couple of big stone triangles, in some way shape or form compares to the fact that every facet of modern life has sprung from the brain of a white man is ludicrous. Electricity, nuclear fusion, space flight, phyics, chemistry, and on and on, should not be cheapened by comparison to the few clever things other races did a LONG time ago. It's a silly argument, silly when made by the major media and multiculturists and there is no reason to let it pass here!
 

charlie180

Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
74
white lightning said:
Just thought I would post a race from 2006 to show you that we can compete.

Obikwelu is precisely my point. The whitest continent in the world, yet
the European 100m record is held by a Nigerian born black, who took if
from a Jamaican born black.

I am sure that the Portuguese authorities were falling over themselves to get Obikwelu to become a citizen.

Interesting
about Crawford and LeBlanc but white sprinters tend to peak around
10.1-10.2. It will be interesting to see if either of them dips below
10.1.

Also LeBlanc had a PB of 10.6 in 2006, but ran a 10.17
in 2007? Big improvement, he must have been doing some serious training
over the winter, or doing something serious. What happened to him this
year?
 

charlie180

Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
74
white is right said:
I agree about white runners never running a converted 100 yard time into a sub 10 100 meter time. But for different reasons. These times are from a period where nobody broke 10 in the hundred meters. I think colleges and US national meets stopped running 100 yards in the early 70's. I also think Hary would be at least a 10.0X guy and most likely have a pb of sub ten. Also if he took roids and his body responded well to it he easily breaks 10.

Armin Hary ran his 10.00 time in 1960, setting the world record, but
remember these were manually timed so not as accurate. Official IAAF
rules are to add .24 to hand timed times, so that would make his 10.24s
by today's standards. I think that there are have been better white
sprinters since then.



Vladimir Krylov ran a hand timed 9.9 in 85 as did Gary Ryan (Ireland)
in 2003 and Paul Narracott (AUS) ran a 9.9 in 84. Narracotts offical PB
was 10.26, Ryan's was 10.35 so you can see what a difference hand
timing makes.
 

white lightning

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
21,501
What a joke. Usain Bolt went from 10.03 to 9.69 in one year and that was celebrating 20 meters before the end of the race. In fact, all of the Jamaican Sprinters are now making .50 to 1 second improvements. It must be their diet? Lol.


LeBlanc was hurt all of last season. He missed the whole year with the exception of a race at the Canada Nationals where he didn't qualify. He had a serious injury that has led to multiple other nagging injuries. Michael has a build similar to Shirvo and if you watch his races on youtube.com, you will see a very talented young man. If he can regain his health, big things are to come. They drug test in the ncaa championships and he passed. He has never even been suspected of doing anything. Your hatred for white sprinters is very dissapointing charlie180. You either need to contribute something positive or go to blackathlete.com or one of the many other sites. We here support all white athletes and nothing anyone can say will change our beliefs. Deal with it!
 

charlie180

Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
74
jaxvid said:
As for the argument that because the Chinese invented gun powder (but not usefull guns or artillery) or that Egyptians threw up a couple of big stone triangles, in some way shape or form compares to the fact that every facet of modern life has sprung from the brain of a white man is ludicrous. Electricity, nuclear fusion, space flight, phyics, chemistry, and on and on, should not be cheapened by comparison to the few clever things other races did a LONG time ago. It's a silly argument, silly when made by the major media and multiculturists and there is no reason to let it pass here!

The Egyptians invented physics and chemistry, chemistry itself is named
after the Egyptian word for earth - chem. The Egyptians also discovered
electricity.

You fail to realise that human development and
civilisation itself is built on blocks, as I said before, white
Europeans were building on the blocks that others had laid down. Whilst
Europe was living in the Dark Ages, the Middle East was developing most
of the scientific principles that we use today.

As for
gunpowder the Chinese invented that, they also invented the first guns
and cannons. They were first used in Europe not by white Europeans, but
against them by the Arabs.



And space flight and nuclear fusion would not have been possible
without mathematics, which of course was invented by the Egyptians.
Maybe white Europeans would have invented everything themselves
eventually, but judging by the Dark Ages, probably not.



As for cheapened, should I be more grateful to Steve Jobs for creating
the iPhone, or Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone? Your thinking is bizarre.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,246
Location
Michigan
charlie180 said:
jaxvid said:
charlie180 said:
So why have there been plenty of ideal black sprinters, but in 40 years not one white one? Are we waiting for just the one? With 97% of Europeans being white and having had 40 years of waiting, you'd think we'd have found at least one?


Charlie you have been saying this same thing in every post you've made here. What's your goal? Circular arguments, flame wars? Contrarian? Pestering the members of the board? Your point has been refuted by many others. No one is going to convince the other guy so again I ask: What's your point?

Several times people have stated as fact that white runners have run 100m in under 10s if yards are converted or that it is possible due to x, y, z. Or that blacks have all the breaks, etc. No one has refuted my argument, simply said it is possible and left it at that.

Where is the proof that many posters keep claiming shows that whites can run sub 10s. That is all that I am asking for.


So your point is that we here at Caste football claim that it is within the possibilities of science and metaphysics that a white man can run 100 meters in under ten seconds which is a few TENTHS of a second less then some have already, about the length of an eyeblink. And since it has not happened yet you want proof because you think it may be an impossibility like exceeding the speed of light.. Ok here is your proof:


where d= 9.9 secs. andX = white man.


formula.jpg
 

ToughJ.Riggins

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
5,063
Location
Ontario Canada
Jaxvid, I included the Japanese IQ and not the black IQ, b/c of the fact that the Japanese are a more economically privileged group. And they don't have the cultural breakdown of the family in recent black America fueled by rap culture and drug problems possibly stemming from victimization sentiments from the past.

I am not sure what the difference in black and white IQ would be of black children adopted by whites or even black children from middle class neighborhoods compared to white middle class, but it wouldn't be the 15 point difference or whatever it currently is. It might be low to mid 90s compared to 100, but it wouldn't be as much as it shows when you count in cultural factors.

I am not saying that I think that blacks are as smart as whites in most academic areas, but they can at least hold their own IMO overall as a group. BTW, I happen to think that blacks as a group are talented in the arts.

And I have admitted before that blacks as a group may be prone to tempers, which could be why they have a higher violent crime rate overall. But there are white ethnic groups that have temper problems too or drinking problems etc.

There are many different groups with negatives and positives. I just prefer to focus on sports and less on intelligence. I try to show positives about our race and negatives about others rarely.

But I still think a white man will run under 10 seconds in the next ten years. Charlie, I believe it already would have been done with a +2.0 w/s. Armin Hary might have done it with better training that truly started in the late 60s/ early 70s and on the current track surface that is faster. With a +2.0 w/s in contemporary America Armin Hary goes sub 10. Craig Pickering will be the one that does it in the next 3 or 4 years, you wait and see!
 

Observer

Mentor
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
523
charlie180 said:
jaxvid said:
As for the argument that because the Chinese invented gun powder (but not usefull guns or artillery) or that Egyptians threw up a couple of big stone triangles, in some way shape or form compares to the fact that every facet of modern life has sprung from the brain of a white man is ludicrous. Electricity, nuclear fusion, space flight, phyics, chemistry, and on and on, should not be cheapened by comparison to the few clever things other races did a LONG time ago. It's a silly argument, silly when made by the major media and multiculturists and there is no reason to let it pass here!
The Egyptians invented physics and chemistry, chemistry itself is named
after the Egyptian word for earth - chem. The Egyptians also discovered
electricity. You fail to realise that human development and
civilisation itself is built on blocks, as I said before, white
Europeans were building on the blocks that others had laid down. Whilst
Europe was living in the Dark Ages, the Middle East was developing most
of the scientific principles that we use today.  As for
gunpowder the Chinese invented that, they also invented the first guns
and cannons. They were first used in Europe not by white Europeans, but
against them by the Arabs.

And space flight and nuclear fusion would not have been possible
without mathematics, which of course was invented by the Egyptians.
Maybe white Europeans would have invented everything themselves
eventually, but judging by the Dark Ages, probably not.

As for cheapened, should I be more grateful to Steve Jobs for creating
the iPhone, or Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone? Your thinking is bizarre.

The pre-Nubian Egyptian mummies are predominately caucasian, including redheads and even blondes. This should perhaps not be surprising, because north Africa has these types still today (although the casual observer usually assumes that this was from recent immigration, which may not be the case).

Poor-soiled, cool, and wet, Europe did not invent or discover everything or even most things. However, it is not really disputable that it was in Christian Europe that the scientific METHOD was codified, having never quite made it under neither the Indians nor the Greeks even though they had almost all the elements in place that should have made it possible.

Charlie, you do not seem to be a beneficiary of this scientific method, judging from your illogical assertion that no white man can run 100m in under 10s. Would you thus say that no Japanese man can run under 10s? Kojo Ito never ran under it, so should we therefore conclude that it is impossible? But what if he had fallen forward 2" and gained .01? A physics calculation would prove that this would have happened had he been willing to skin up his face.

Will an aboriginal Australian never run under 10s? Of course not, because none ever has! But there is Patrick Johnson, you say. But you cannot count him as an Aborigine; or if you do, then you must also necessarily count him as a Caucasian.

The calculus of Leibnitz and Newton was necessary for many of our modern age discoveries and inventions.

I'm not sure why you credit so much to the Egyptians, although I suspect you've watched a couple TV shows. Certainly, they were a great civilization, but there is still much to be learned about the ancient world. For instance, the Bronze Age seems to have been a flourishing time in ancient Europe, and then from about 1200 - 800BC we know almost nothing. There are hints from both archaelogy and mythology that a very great catastrophe occurred.

Yes, in many ways Europe is but one little stony corner of the world, but it is blindness to not recognize its particular contributions to humanity.
 

Observer

Mentor
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
523
jaxvid said:
Ok here is your proof:


where d= 9.9 secs. and X = white man.</font>


formula.jpg

I hope jaxvid writes ads or something where he gets compensated for his cleverness.
 

ToughJ.Riggins

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
5,063
Location
Ontario Canada
It is true that Egypt was pretty white until the Nubian invasion, but I don't know if I would consider Arabs white. The Nubians invaded by surprise attack it is told and had adopted Egyptian technology before hand. They were very innovative more than inventive.

But Observer, that was a great post overall. Europe from 1492 to present day has given more Scientific contributions than any continent by far. In ancient times of course the Romans and Greeks were very advanced, but there were other non-white cultures that were advanced in those times as well.

Recently the Japanese have begun to pass America in certain Science arenas, like Genetics. It is sad that American culture has begun to be dumbed down and we are getting passed, maybe this is why many people are going to vote for Obama?
smiley5.gif
 

albinosprint

Mentor
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
1,078
Location
New York
charlie180,

let say that Hary 10.0 hand time = 10.25 auto, don't you think the fact that he ran on cinder as opposed to tartan may have slowed him down. having ran about half of my high school meets on a cinder track, 1 can tell you that "from experience" my time on rubberized tracks were .2 -.3 secs faster then on cinder. if Hary was in his prime today, he would have broke 10 no problem. what is your reasoning for blacks getting a bit faster every year, but whites have been maxed out since the 60's?
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,181
I agree on Hary he didn't run on a mondo track and did no weightlifting so his time is a minimum low 10.0X in todays on context. As for the Nubians from what I have seen of the Nubians they must have gotten "whiter" than they originally looked because most Nubians that live in the south of Egypt look more biracial in todays context. It could be the reverse to the darkening of modern Egyptians or Greeks.
 

waterbed

Mentor
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Outside North America
Blacks have lower naturel bodyfat% then whites.their are also whites with naturel lower fat then blacks but I mean average.3% bodyfat for a black is no exception for a white it is.This is why you see the muscles at blacks most of the times so good.The reasen in differnt naturel bodyfat(the fat that your body want to keep) between whites and blacks has to do with evolution in differnt climates.Do you guys think lower bodyfat is a benefit?and will whites have a advantage when sprinting chamionschips are hold when it's freezing.?
 

mastermulti

Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
2,399
Location
Sydney Australia
Charlie, your posts are good to read and contain much wisdom (as are
many here by others too).
But I must point out the folly of saying whites won't break 10.00.

As Jaxvid wrote on page one of this topic, I agree that west African blacks
for any of a number or mix of reasons seem to have superior sprinting
skills over the short sprints. But to hone in on "10" as being the limit to
any white sprinter's progression is not logical.
No it hasn't yet happened (one of the reasons I would guess at is the
dearth of whites going into the sprints now) but 10.00 is such an
arbitrary notion. It's not as if it is a preordained magic gate through
which we cannot pass.....

I don't believe we'll find a white Usain Bolt. And the top black sprinters
may well all be clustered around 9.70 at the time, but a sub 10 white man
is hardly dream status. It's just that 9.98 won't cut it against those
running 9.70 at the time.

Witness for example the 1999 Seville worlds where Urbas ran a mighty
19.98 (after PBing at 20.32 in the quarters) in the semi of the 200 but
finished 2nd behind the African Obikwelu and received no accolades
whatsoever.
As the bar is raised more is expected.

That's part of the reasoning behind Athletics Australia canning funding
for any sprinters (see topic) as of now.Edited by: mastermulti
 

Alpha Male

Mentor
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
775
Location
California
charlie180 said:
jaxvid said:
As for the argument that because the Chinese invented gun powder (but not usefull guns or artillery) or that Egyptians threw up a couple of big stone triangles, in some way shape or form compares to the fact that every facet of modern life has sprung from the brain of a white man is ludicrous. Electricity, nuclear fusion, space flight, phyics, chemistry, and on and on, should not be cheapened by comparison to the few clever things other races did a LONG time ago. It's a silly argument, silly when made by the major media and multiculturists and there is no reason to let it pass here!

The Egyptians invented physics and chemistry, chemistry itself is named after the Egyptian word for earth - chem. The Egyptians also discovered electricity.

You fail to realise that human development and civilisation itself is built on blocks, as I said before, white Europeans were building on the blocks that others had laid down. Whilst Europe was living in the Dark Ages, the Middle East was developing most of the scientific principles that we use today.

As for gunpowder the Chinese invented that, they also invented the first guns and cannons. They were first used in Europe not by white Europeans, but against them by the Arabs.

And space flight and nuclear fusion would not have been possible without mathematics, which of course was invented by the Egyptians. Maybe white Europeans would have invented everything themselves eventually, but judging by the Dark Ages, probably not.

As for cheapened, should I be more grateful to Steve Jobs for creating the iPhone, or Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone? Your thinking is bizarre.





How does this guy go from disparaging white athletes to ripping on white civilization? You're either a self-loathing white or worse -one of the myriad jealous non-whites that adhere to revisionist history. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" />


Why are you on this site? You haven't posted one positive attribute to the white race since you been here. It's a shame that white men invented the computer from which you espouse your filth.


Here's an excerpt refuting your Chinaman gun invention claim:



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=700><T>
<T>
<TR>
<TD align=middle></TD>
<TD>
The genius who realised that gunpowder could be used as a propellant remains unknown. All we do know is that the first illustration of a piece of ordnance occurs in a treatise by one Walter de Millemete entitled <CITE>De Officiis Regum</CITE> (On the Duties of Kings). Dated 1326, it is preserved in the library of Christ Church, Oxford. The gun was called a vaso from the Italian for a vase which it closely resembled. The Gunner is pictured in the act of firing the piece by inserting a red-hot iron into the vent. The projectile leaving the muzzle was a species of arrow known as a dart, carreau or quarrel. The gun has no carriage; it simply lies on a trestle table.


</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=2>
England lagged behind the rest of Europe in gun-making during the 14<SUP>th</SUP> century. Judging from the name vaso, Walter's gun was probably made in Italy which led Europe in metal-working at that time. Also, the earliest known reliable reference to guns occurs in a decree of 11 Feb 1326 by the Council of Florence ordering the casting of a quantity of brass pieces and iron shot. Guns were probably in use before 1326 but claims to that effect as yet lack supporting evidence.
http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/firstgun.htm</TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>





Edited by: Alpha Male
 
Top