Wes Welker and the Unbearable Whiteness of Being an NFL Receiver

[Don Wassall]

Wes Welker and the Unbearable Whiteness of Being an NFL Receiver

by Russell A. James

It's no secret that the NFL discriminates against White athletes, particularly in the so-called "skill positions" -- like wide receiver. On any given Sunday, during the regular season, there are 64 starting wide receivers on NFL rosters. For the last week of the 2012 season, only eight of them were White -- all the rest, were black. This is particularly surprising considering that Whites outnumber blacks by a factor of six in this country.

It's also surprising seeing that, with the exception of speed, the skills (agility and hand-eye co-ordination) that constitute a good receiver are more prevalent in the White population. That Whites are more agile is well-known among football coaches and player personnel -- because it is tested for in the scouting combines. There are three tests: 30 yard shuttle, 60 yard shuttle, and the 3 cone drill that directly measure agility. The mean scores for Whites are significanly higher than for blacks, for all three tests. While there is no test for hand-eye co-ordination, that White receivers are superior in this category is borne-out week after week, when they consistently catch the ball at a much higher rate than their black counterparts. (White starting receivers catch 63.4% of the passes thrown their way, black starters have a reception percentage approximately in the mid 50's.)

This obvious discrimination makes Wes Welker something of an anomaly. Over the last six seasons (seasons in which he has been allowed to start consistently) he has, arguably, been the best receiver in the game. No one has caught more balls -- 672 -- over that time period. The next closest player is Brandon Marshall with 592. Welker has caught an average of 13 more passes, per season, than the next best guy.

Receptions, however, are not the best measure of receiving excellence. There are better stats that demonstrate excellence at the position: yards per target (or the number of yards a receiver gains per chance he is given to gain yards), yards after catch, and reception percentage. I prepared a simple table to compare elite receivers. Players were chosen if they had finished in the top ten, at least four of the last six seasons, in one of two categories: receptions and yardage. Seven wide-outs qualified. They are listed in order of reception totals.

Player	Recepts	Targets	REC%	Yards	YPT	Avg./Reception
W. Welker	672	925	72.6%	7459	8.1	11.1
B. Marshall	592	993	59.6%	7446	7.5	12.6
R. Wayne	578	935	61.8%	7589	8.1	13.1
R. White	563	953	59.1%	7773	8.2	13.8
L. Fitzgerald	534	954	56.0%	7278	7.6	13.6
A. Johnson	507	779	65.1%	7301	9.4	14.4
C. Johnson	488	882	55.3%	7836	8.9	16.1

Player	YAC	YAC/Reception	YAC/Yards	GP	GS
W. Welker	3848	5.73	51.6%	93	78
B. Marshall	2281	3.85	30.6%	92	90
R. White	2265	4.02	29.1%	96	92
L. Fitzgerald	1967	3.68	27.0%	95	94
A. Johnson	2192	4.32	30.0%	77	76
R. Wayne	2131	3.69	28.1%	96	95
C. Johnson	2366	4.85	30.2%	92	86

As you can see from the table, Andre Johnson leads the yards per target (YPT) category with 9.4 yards. Wes Welker is tied for fourth place with 8.1 YPT. But because YPT depends so heavily on how an offense uses a receiver (those in an offense that throws a lot of deep passes will benefit from that) it alone isn't sufficient to determine the best receiver.

The other two categories, because they are largely dependant on the receiver himself, are somewhat better measures of receiver greatness. And Welker dominates both categories. He dominates the group in reception percentage (REC%) at 72.6%, with A. Johnson the next best at 65.1% and Calvin Johnson bringing up the rear with a 55.3 REC%.

But where he really separates from the pack is in his ability to gain yards after he catches the ball. He averages 5.73 yards after each catch. The next best among the elite is C. Johnson at 4.85 YAC with Larry Fitzgerald only gaining 3.68 YAC. Even more telling is the fact that 51.6% of his total yardage is gained after he receives the ball. The average of the rest of this group is less than 29%.

Although, Welker is perhaps the best receiver in the league, it is highly unlikely he is the best White receiver in the land. He is simply a very talented player who has been given an opportunity to play at the position. There are 10's of thousands of White football players across the land. But few of them -- no matter how much better than their black competitors, they prove themselves to be on high school and college gridirons -- will ever be given an opportunity to start an NFL game. Why?

During the middle part of the last century, a Jew-dominated group of Cultural Marxists from the Frankfurt School made what they called a "long march through [our] institutions." In other words, they infiltrated all of America's institutions of power and took control of them (they call this "Entryism"). They did this so they could, as they say, "induce cultural pessimism in White males." In other words, they wanted to use their new found control over our culture to strip White men and boys of their confidence. A key strategy of this plan was to gain administrative control of the sports leagues and use that control to slowly replace White men with non-Whites, (particularly) blacks. We see this in every one of the major sports leagues with the exception of hockey. Blacks are not better athletes, they are simply being used as part of a larger strategy to destroy White America.

http://theforemostproblem.blogspot.com/2013/01/its-no-secret-that-nfl-discriminates.html

 

[jaxvid]

Wes Welker and the Unbearable Whiteness of Being an NFL Receiver

by Russell A. James

It's no secret that the NFL discriminates against White athletes, particularly in the so-called "skill positions" -- like wide receiver. On any given Sunday, during the regular season, there are 64 starting wide receivers on NFL rosters. For the last week of the 2012 season, only eight of them were White -- all the rest, were black. This is particularly surprising considering that Whites outnumber blacks by a factor of six in this country.

It's also surprising seeing that, with the exception of speed, the skills (agility and hand-eye co-ordination) that constitute a good receiver are more prevalent in the White population. That Whites are more agile is well-known among football coaches and player personnel -- because it is tested for in the scouting combines. There are three tests: 30 yard shuttle, 60 yard shuttle, and the 3 cone drill that directly measure agility. The mean scores for Whites are significanly higher than for blacks, for all three tests. While there is no test for hand-eye co-ordination, that White receivers are superior in this category is borne-out week after week, when they consistently catch the ball at a much higher rate than their black counterparts. (White starting receivers catch 63.4% of the passes thrown their way, black starters have a reception percentage approximately in the mid 50's.)

This obvious discrimination makes Wes Welker something of an anomaly. Over the last six seasons (seasons in which he has been allowed to start consistently) he has, arguably, been the best receiver in the game. No one has caught more balls -- 672 -- over that time period. The next closest player is Brandon Marshall with 592. Welker has caught an average of 13 more passes, per season, than the next best guy.

Receptions, however, are not the best measure of receiving excellence. There are better stats that demonstrate excellence at the position: yards per target (or the number of yards a receiver gains per chance he is given to gain yards), yards after catch, and reception percentage. I prepared a simple table to compare elite receivers. Players were chosen if they had finished in the top ten, at least four of the last six seasons, in one of two categories: receptions and yardage. Seven wide-outs qualified. They are listed in order of reception totals.

Player	Recepts	Targets	REC%	Yards	YPT	Avg./Reception
W. Welker	672	925	72.6%	7459	8.1	11.1
B. Marshall	592	993	59.6%	7446	7.5	12.6
R. Wayne	578	935	61.8%	7589	8.1	13.1
R. White	563	953	59.1%	7773	8.2	13.8
L. Fitzgerald	534	954	56.0%	7278	7.6	13.6
A. Johnson	507	779	65.1%	7301	9.4	14.4
C. Johnson	488	882	55.3%	7836	8.9	16.1

Player	YAC	YAC/Reception	YAC/Yards	GP	GS
W. Welker	3848	5.73	51.6%	93	78
B. Marshall	2281	3.85	30.6%	92	90
R. White	2265	4.02	29.1%	96	92
L. Fitzgerald	1967	3.68	27.0%	95	94
A. Johnson	2192	4.32	30.0%	77	76
R. Wayne	2131	3.69	28.1%	96	95
C. Johnson	2366	4.85	30.2%	92	86

As you can see from the table, Andre Johnson leads the yards per target (YPT) category with 9.4 yards. Wes Welker is tied for fourth place with 8.1 YPT. But because YPT depends so heavily on how an offense uses a receiver (those in an offense that throws a lot of deep passes will benefit from that) it alone isn't sufficient to determine the best receiver.

The other two categories, because they are largely dependant on the receiver himself, are somewhat better measures of receiver greatness. And Welker dominates both categories. He dominates the group in reception percentage (REC%) at 72.6%, with A. Johnson the next best at 65.1% and Calvin Johnson bringing up the rear with a 55.3 REC%.

But where he really separates from the pack is in his ability to gain yards after he catches the ball. He averages 5.73 yards after each catch. The next best among the elite is C. Johnson at 4.85 YAC with Larry Fitzgerald only gaining 3.68 YAC. Even more telling is the fact that 51.6% of his total yardage is gained after he receives the ball. The average of the rest of this group is less than 29%.

Although, Welker is perhaps the best receiver in the league, it is highly unlikely he is the best White receiver in the land. He is simply a very talented player who has been given an opportunity to play at the position. There are 10's of thousands of White football players across the land. But few of them -- no matter how much better than their black competitors, they prove themselves to be on high school and college gridirons -- will ever be given an opportunity to start an NFL game. Why?

During the middle part of the last century, a Jew-dominated group of Cultural Marxists from the Frankfurt School made what they called a "long march through [our] institutions." In other words, they infiltrated all of America's institutions of power and took control of them (they call this "Entryism"). They did this so they could, as they say, "induce cultural pessimism in White males." In other words, they wanted to use their new found control over our culture to strip White men and boys of their confidence. A key strategy of this plan was to gain administrative control of the sports leagues and use that control to slowly replace White men with non-Whites, (particularly) blacks. We see this in every one of the major sports leagues with the exception of hockey. Blacks are not better athletes, they are simply being used as part of a larger strategy to destroy White America.

http://theforemostproblem.blogspot.com/2013/01/its-no-secret-that-nfl-discriminates.html

Very nice article. I left my compliments at his website. I wonder how he calculated the catch ratios? That's a lot of math. The White fellows would be easy, the blacks not so much. On that subject I heard some DWF's saying that Welker had the "worst" hands of any high profile receiver because he has had some drops lately. Apparently the guy doesn't pay much attention the rest of the time.

 

[Average American]

the idea that there is institutionalized discrimination against Whites in the NFL, passes the eye test for me personally.. lots of good high school & college WRs & RBs, and virtually none at the highest level.
I wish I knew more details tho,.. which teams/GMs are the worst offenders, hear admissions from ppl in the game who may have overlooked Whites based on their race and then later, publicly admitted their unfair assessments.. etc

bcuz of the QBs, kickers, & O-lineman I think Whites still comprise about 1/3 of the NFL [right (?)].. but the drop off between college hoops & the NBA is much more stark to me.. lots of good White college ballers, highest level programs like Duke, and now Butler.. and White American guys become completely invisible in the NBA..

my question & concern is.. is there something the average sports fan can do to alter this unfair paradigm (?)

 

[Don Wassall]

the idea that there is institutionalized discrimination against Whites in the NFL, passes the eye test for me personally.. lots of good high school & college WRs & RBs, and virtually none at the highest level.
I wish I knew more details tho,.. which teams/GMs are the worst offenders, hear admissions from ppl in the game who may have overlooked Whites based on their race and then later, publicly admitted their unfair assessments.. etc

bcuz of the QBs, kickers, & O-lineman I think Whites still comprise about 1/3 of the NFL [right (?)].. but the drop off between college hoops & the NBA is much more stark to me.. lots of good White college ballers, highest level programs like Duke, and now Butler.. and White American guys become completely invisible in the NBA..

my question & concern is.. is there something the average sports fan can do to alter this unfair paradigm (?)

Write well thought out comments whenever possible after articles that show bias against an individual White athlete or White athletes in general. There's a lot more of us doing that than before (though it seems to have dropped off lately), and it does make a difference. Although it's impossible to measure definitely, the sense of some of us here is that there is less stereotyping in the corporate media of White athletes than there used to be and more acknowledgement of their athleticism, though obviously there is still a very long way to go.

Letting your friends and acquaintances know about the Caste System helps too. It will only change due to awareness and pressure from the grassroots, not from the top down.

 

[Hawk]

No offense, but this article is comically misleading. Comparing a slot receiver, to 6 outside receivers is like comparing apples to golf balls.

The overwhelming majority of Welker's catches are 3 to 5 yard slants.. which are high percentage attempts, and taylor-made for YACS. The other 6 guys are #1, outside receivers who are targeted 10, 20, 30+ yards down the field while double, sometimes triple-teaming corners are positioned to tackle them right after the catch. Comparing their respective target completions and YACS are like comparing the ease of completing open layups to the "ease" of draining heavily-guarded 3 pointers.

Also, when Tom Brady is your QB, your numbers are gonna skew favorably against, say, Larry Fitzgerald, who's skatter-armed QB's are Kevin Kolb, John Skelton, and Ryan Lindley.

Reggie Wanye had Andrew Luck and a horrific Curtis Painter passing him the ball the last 2 years. They're both only 54% passers.

In 2006, when some guy named Andrew Walter was passing the ball to Randy Moss, he had 42 catches, 553 yards, and 3 touchdowns. The very next year with Tom Brady passing him the ball, he had 98 catches for 1,493 yards, and an NFL record 23 touchdowns. You have the same dramatic spike in production between the 2006 Miami Dolphins Joey Harrington/Wes Welker combo to the 2007 Patriot Tom Brady/Wes Welker combo. For the author to not mention Tom Brady's brilliance, or Bill Belicheck's system's role in Welker's numbers is absurd.

Was Eric Decker a better player and athlete this year as opposed to last year? Or is he the same guy who just happened to have Peyton Manning throwing to him instead of Tim Tebow?

I don't think disingenuous, easily-dismissed articles like this help our cause.

 

[jaxvid]

No offense, but this article is comically misleading. Comparing a slot receiver, to 6 outside receivers is like comparing apples to golf balls.

The overwhelming majority of Welker's catches are 3 to 5 yard slants.. which are high percentage attempts, and taylor-made for YACS. The other 6 guys are #1, outside receivers who are targeted 10, 20, 30+ yards down the field while double, sometimes triple-teaming corners are positioned to tackle them right after the catch. Comparing their respective target completions and YACS are like comparing the ease of completing open layups to the "ease" of draining heavily-guarded 3 pointers.

Also, when Tom Brady is your QB, your numbers are gonna skew favorably against, say, Larry Fitzgerald, who's skatter-armed QB's are Kevin Kolb, John Skelton, and Ryan Lindley.

Reggie Wanye had Andrew Luck and a horrific Curtis Painter passing him the ball the last 2 years. They're both only 54% passers.

In 2006, when some guy named Andrew Walter was passing the ball to Randy Moss, he had 42 catches, 553 yards, and 3 touchdowns. The very next year with Tom Brady passing him the ball, he had 98 catches for 1,493 yards, and an NFL record 23 touchdowns. You have the same dramatic spike in production between the 2006 Miami Dolphins Joey Harrington/Wes Welker combo to the 2007 Patriot Tom Brady/Wes Welker combo. For the author to not mention Tom Brady's brilliance, or Bill Belicheck's system's role in Welker's numbers is absurd.

Was Eric Decker a better player and athlete this year as opposed to last year? Or is he the same guy who just happened to have Peyton Manning throwing to him instead of Tim Tebow?

I don't think disingenuous, easily-dismissed articles like this help our cause.

Nice try troll. We ain't buying it. It's just as easy to make the case that those downfield guys get LESS coverage as Welker is in the slot and has a lot more people in his area, linebackers, etc. Furthermore the yards after catch that Welker has in his favor is also another measure that should be easier for those downfield guys who only have to beat a corner and safety to add big yards.

And your use of Fitzgerald as the comparison to Welker is obviously cherry-picked. As is Wayne who had both Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck in the last six years. Sure Brady is good, partly because he has a catching, yardage churning machine in Welker to throw to, but Calvin Johnson has a 5000 yard Qb throwing to him, Marshall had Jay Cutler, White has Ryan, Andre Johnson - Matt Schaub, those guys aren't shabby either.

The main point that Whites catch the ball better then blacks cannot be disputed unless you dispute the numbers, which you cannot. So suck it buddy.

 

[Awake in America]

No offense, but this article is comically misleading. Comparing a slot receiver, to 6 outside receivers is like comparing apples to golf balls.

The overwhelming majority of Welker's catches are 3 to 5 yard slants.. which are high percentage attempts, and taylor-made for YACS. The other 6 guys are #1, outside receivers who are targeted 10, 20, 30+ yards down the field while double, sometimes triple-teaming corners are positioned to tackle them right after the catch. Comparing their respective target completions and YACS are like comparing the ease of completing open layups to the "ease" of draining heavily-guarded 3 pointers.

Also, when Tom Brady is your QB, your numbers are gonna skew favorably against, say, Larry Fitzgerald, who's skatter-armed QB's are Kevin Kolb, John Skelton, and Ryan Lindley.

Reggie Wanye had Andrew Luck and a horrific Curtis Painter passing him the ball the last 2 years. They're both only 54% passers.

In 2006, when some guy named Andrew Walter was passing the ball to Randy Moss, he had 42 catches, 553 yards, and 3 touchdowns. The very next year with Tom Brady passing him the ball, he had 98 catches for 1,493 yards, and an NFL record 23 touchdowns. You have the same dramatic spike in production between the 2006 Miami Dolphins Joey Harrington/Wes Welker combo to the 2007 Patriot Tom Brady/Wes Welker combo. For the author to not mention Tom Brady's brilliance, or Bill Belicheck's system's role in Welker's numbers is absurd.

Was Eric Decker a better player and athlete this year as opposed to last year? Or is he the same guy who just happened to have Peyton Manning throwing to him instead of Tim Tebow?

I don't think disingenuous, easily-dismissed articles like this help our cause.

The yards per target stat shoots down a good bit of your counter-argument. Catching shorter passes means that he has to be elusive to get enough yards after catch to even be competitive in the yards per target area. By definition, he cannot be elusive, because he's white. Therefore, we have a contradiction in the caste system. I'm not sure what scheme employs "triple teaming corners", but I'm sure they have bigfoot well-covered. The bottom line of the article is that Welker is ultra-productive at a position that whites are not usually allowed to play. The article points out just how productive. Oh, and Welker didn't have Brady for the 2008 season, so that sort of blunts your Reggie Wayne point, does it not?

How does he do it? I mean it can't be due to athleticism, because .... well,...... just look at him ...... he's, you know,..... like ....... it must be the system. Yes! That's it! It's the system and Tom Brady! Whew! I almost had to admit that a white player was a great athlete. Thank God the conditioning kicked in!

Can you imagine how awesome Manning and Brady would be if they had more "athletic" receivers? Even better, imagine if they were to combine super-athletic receivers with super-athletic quarterbacks!!! :faint2: It's a shame that the NFL isn't trying to go this direction.

 

[whiteathlete33]

The yards per target stat shoots down a good bit of your counter-argument. Catching shorter passes means that he has to be elusive to get enough yards after catch to even be competitive in the yards per target area. By definition, he cannot be elusive, because he's white. Therefore, we have a contradiction in the caste system. I'm not sure what scheme employs "triple teaming corners", but I'm sure they have bigfoot well-covered. The bottom line of the article is that Welker is ultra-productive at a position that whites are not usually allowed to play. The article points out just how productive.

How does he do it? I mean it can't be due to athleticism, because .... well,...... just look at him ...... he's, you know,..... like ....... it must be the system. Yes! That's it! It's the system and Tom Brady! Whew! I almost had to admit that a white player was a great athlete. Thank God the conditioning kicked in!

Can you imagine how awesome Manning and Brady would be if they had more "athletic" receivers? Even better, imagine if they were to combine super-athletic receivers with super-athletic quarterbacks!!! :faint2: It's a shame that the NFL isn't trying to go this direction.

Great point AwakeinAmerica. I personally think that Welker is the quickest player in the NFL. His agility and elusiveness is unstoppable. He doesn't have great deep speed and I'll admit that. He's probably average in straight line speed though and has proven he can catch the deep ball as well. Even Weenieworld agrees that he's the quickest player in the NFL.

 

[Average American]

Nice try troll.

(laughter).. yeah, it's pretty evident this guy is a troll.. but his point is fair enough, that WRs (of all races) benefit or suffer from the guy throwing 'em the ball. so what, we all understand that..
I believe, the point is, are White WRs not being given a chance, because of the attitudes of GMs in the pros.. college recruiters, etc. (many who are White themselves). I'm only speaking for myself, but that is why I joined this forum, to learn more about that problem. I'm not sure what to think yet..
but it's seems obvious to me, there is a caste system in endorsements, and sports talk. Guys are still fawning over RG3 & Wilson, & I'm still watching RG3 in Subway & Gatorade commercials, while Flacco & Brady are preparing for a conference championship game.

 

[Gibbon]

" That Whites are more agile is well-known among football [COLOR=#009900 !important]coaches[/COLOR]and player personnel -- because it is tested for in the scouting combines. There are three tests: 30 yard shuttle, 60 yard shuttle, and the 3 cone drill that directly measure agility. The mean scores for Whites are significanly higher than for blacks, for all three tests."

The article needs to be specific here or link to an article that details this.

Nevertheless, one possible counter argument for the other side is that the whites that reach the level of athletic accomplishment required to warrant an invite to the combine would have to be more agile than their black counterparts who generally possess greater straight line speed in order to compensate for this deficiency. However this doesn't indicate that whites as a population are more agile than blacks. Certainly stereotypes (including the famous stereotype of blacks as better dancers) indicate otherwise.

Discipline, focus (which relates to "hand eye coordination"), diligence in training and in play, intelligence, attitude and hence the ability to better coordinate in a team sport (all desperately undervalued in professional sports — to say nothing of society at large) and, perhaps, superior strength, especially upper body strength, are all very salable as traits in which whites are superior. Agility is a tougher sell. To make this contention, WE would have to deal cogently with the counter argument outlined in the paragraph above.

I am sure I'll take flack for this but I just want to make certain the angles are considered and that arguments that can't work are abandoned in lieu of ones that can. And perhaps this argument can be shown wrong by your own.

IMHO, the reason Eastern European athletes have been shown generally superior to their White American counterparts in the sports in which they have participated (i.e. Basketball, Ice Hockey and especially Boxing), has to do, in part, with a toughness instilled in them by a less decadent and abundant setting, albeit more barbaric and primitive in its way. Theirs is a hunger and focus that grows out of want and lack. However I believe there could also be a second component to this.

Under the soviet system, for example, the state was much more actively involved in selecting athletes based on a genetic propensity for athletic success in order to compete more successfully on an international level. What seems to have grown out of this, at least temporarily, is a "class" of athletes, whom often marry each other. Sort of a de facto breeding program for athletes. As to the current state of this practice in Russia, I am unaware.

If whites were ever to establish a clear dominance to blacks in sports (particularly those sports most exciting, visible and thus important) I have an intuition that the state would have to become involved. Certainly, at the very least, at the Media level in a pro-white way (as we know the media is out of our hands). Naturally the system wouldn't be communist. Other systems of the 20th century come to mind (however flawed they may have been themselves).

Just food for thought. Let me know what you think and certainly no reason for hostility as we are all brothers here. Haha. But that would never happen!

 

[Awake in America]

I'm only speaking for myself, but that is why I joined this forum, to learn more about that problem. I'm not sure what to think yet..

Stick around for the draft and preseason. The language of the system is on full display at those times. Look at the message boards of a few teams: the Patriots (of all fan bases) had plenty of fans moaning about needing to replace the unathletic Rob Ninkovich, Vikings fans were seriously perplexed by the Harrison Smith pick. It's pervasive. Just yesterday, Mike Greenberg (!) was saying that Welker owes his entire career to Tom Brady and the Patriots system. The disdain was palpable. The fact that the coaches and GMs are largely white is irrelevant. The conditioning is such that blacks are thought to be better players by definition, and it goes all the way down to pee wee league sports. These are the things that made me wake up:

1) The language. "Sneaky fast", "quick, but not fast", "stiff", "blue collar", "motor never stops", "gym rat", "Room-brightening smile", etc... It's laughable. ANYTHING but admit that a white player is a good athlete.

2) What I see at the high school level. Running backs that chew up yards or are tackling machines against black competition, but can't even get a look from a 1-A program. They walk on at places like Georgia, and sometimes even end up starting, though not at their natural positions. Their high school coaches are amazed that they didn't get any offers.

3) The weird statistical distribution of white players in categories like catches and sacks: the only ones who get a chance are near the top. That makes no sense. There aren't many mediocre white receivers or defensive ends. They are generally either good, or cut.

4) The overwhelming need of the Mike Greenbergs of the world to denigrate players like Wes Welker, even when the conversation is about something else.

There is a system, though how it works and how it's enforced are up for debate.

 

[Awake in America]

If whites were ever to establish a clear dominance to blacks in sports (particularly those sports most exciting, visible and thus important) I have an intuition that the state would have to become involved.

Actually, what would happen is those sports would simply no longer be covered by the media. See boxing, for example. It doesn't exist anymore. It stopped existing the moment whites started to dominate the heavyweight ranks. There is no such thing as boxing. Down the memory hole it went.

 

[Gibbon]

Actually, what would happen is those sports would simply no longer be covered by the media. See boxing, for example. It doesn't exist anymore. It stopped existing the moment whites started to dominate the heavyweight ranks. There is no such thing as boxing. Down the memory hole it went.

Yes, because Eastern Europeans came to dominate it. Whom, to my contention, are a product of a state supported athlete class. It didn't go down the memory hole in E. Europe. The media there naturally and healthily promotes the athletes of their native race even if dark forces are always seeking control from the periphery. And thankfully boxing has remained above ground in Western Europe as well — Germany in particular. Walk around London or Scotland and every pub is showing the fight.

 

[Gibbon]

Actually, what would happen is those sports would simply no longer be covered by the media. See boxing, for example. It doesn't exist anymore. It stopped existing the moment whites started to dominate the heavyweight ranks. There is no such thing as boxing. Down the memory hole it went.

But I think I understand your point. Maybe basketball, for instance, would disappear if whites regained control of their countries. Is that what you are driving at?

I think our countries could make better basketball players if we were ever to regain control of them. As has occurred to a certain extent in E. Europe. And it would be a nice symbolic gesture and cleansing of the memory that we were ever dominated by blacks in any endeavor, let alone athletic.

 

[jaxvid]

" That Whites are more agile is well-known among football [COLOR=#009900 !important]coaches[/COLOR]and player personnel -- because it is tested for in the scouting combines. There are three tests: 30 yard shuttle, 60 yard shuttle, and the 3 cone drill that directly measure agility. The mean scores for Whites are significanly higher than for blacks, for all three tests."

The article needs to be specific here or link to an article that details this.

It was specific, he mentioned better results at an event where agility was measured. He's not writing a doctoral thesis, why do you need references when you are a member of castefootball? Go to the many threads of the results of the combines and you will see how well White players do in these measured events vs. blacks.

Nevertheless, one possible counter argument for the other side is that the whites that reach the level of athletic accomplishment required to warrant an invite to the combine would have to be more agile than their black counterparts who generally possess greater straight line speed in order to compensate for this deficiency. However this doesn't indicate that whites as a population are more agile than blacks. Certainly stereotypes (including the famous stereotype of blacks as better dancers) indicate otherwise.

That's a flawed argument. First of all the combine is supposed to be represented by the elite of the elite so whatever blacks are there should be as agile as Whites especially considering their renowned "dance" skills which is little more then the tendancy to not be embarassed at acting the fool. I think John Travolta and Fred Astaire are far superior dancers to any break dancing hip hop black fool. How's that for kicking a sterotype in the ass!!

And can I see some references from you on scientific studies that blacks are better dancers? If not then why should I accept your personal view on the matter?

 

[dwid]

Whites do tend to time better in all of the agility drills, the only thing the author got wrong is that it is a 20 yard shuttle. I need to find a way to email him about that, I don't see it listed.

Welker had one game this season with the case of the drops. In the past he would try to catch everything, like a ball thrown almost into the dirt on a screen pass with a defender right in his face ready to hit him so he loses yards. Sometimes he just lets those passes go, there's no point in losing yards. He still tries to catch anything thrown close to him, I see other recievers just let them go, not even putting their arms out for it.

 

[whiteathlete33]

I think it's a good article and find it incredible that we have members questioning it? Do you not believe in the caste system in sports?

 

[Awake in America]

But I think I understand your point. Maybe basketball, for instance, would disappear if whites regained control of their countries. Is that what you are driving at?

I think our countries could make better basketball players if we were ever to regain control of them. As has occurred to a certain extent in E. Europe. And it would be a nice symbolic gesture and cleansing of the memory that we were ever dominated by blacks in any endeavor, let alone athletic.

My point is that the media will simply focus on the sports that fit their agenda. The moment a sport no longer does so, it ceases to exist. Boxing is an example of a sport being memory-holed, baseball is headed there, and wrestling is a sport that has always been ignored by the media types because blacks mostly aren't any good at it. NCAA wrestling on television would show a lot of white guys physically dominating black guys; only to be followed by television advertisements showing the exact opposite. THAT MUST NOT be seen by the masses. It would screw up the messaging.

Whites don't need governmental control of sports training to compete at a high level, they just need a level playing field. The Eastern Europeans compete well because there is no caste system there to keep them down. They are also less touched by feminism, and the rest of the rot that the West has inflicted upon itself. Cultural Marxism might actually be more detrimental to a society than proper Marxism.

 

[Gibbon]

[/COLOR]

It was specific, he mentioned better results at an event where agility was measured. He's not writing a doctoral thesis, why do you need references when you are a member of castefootball? Go to the many threads of the results of the combines and you will see how well White players do in these measured events vs. blacks.

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

That's a flawed argument. First of all the combine is supposed to be represented by the elite of the elite so whatever blacks are there should be as agile as Whites especially considering their renowned "dance" skills which is little more then the tendancy to not be embarassed at acting the fool. I think John Travolta and Fred Astaire are far superior dancers to any break dancing hip hop black fool. How's that for kicking a sterotype in the ass!!

And can I see some references from you on scientific studies that blacks are better dancers? If not then why should I accept your personal view on the matter?
[/COLOR]

Hi Jaxvid,

To the extent that this is an outwardly facing article (i.e. one directed toward those outside of the Castefootball circle) and not one preaching to the choir, its strength as a piece of persuasion would benefit from references that someone who is new to the CF arguments can easily access. I think that's objective.

We can leave dancing aside because ostensibly its an activity that can only be subjectively measured. My point, as should be clear from my statements, was not that blacks are better at dancing but rather that the mainstream perception is that blacks, if anything, are more agile and not less agile than whites. I did refer to it as a stereotype which in todays political correct lexicon are assumed to be false. Hence, to the extent we want to claim that Whites are more agile than blacks, the onus is on US to prove it because, as we know, "conventional", "mainstreami" thinking says otherwise.

As it concerns the combine argument (which is not MINE by the way but rather a potential argument CF members should be equipped to refute, hence my bringing it to light) I don't see that you have refuted it or directly addressed it. To be clear, I posit it here so that CF makes strong, supportable arguments and thereby increases in credibility and influence, rather than wanes. In other words, I am not here to detract but to strengthen.

Sincere Regards,

Gibbon

 

[Gibbon]

Whites don't need governmental control of sports training to compete at a high level, they just need a level playing field. The Eastern Europeans compete well because there is no caste system there to keep them down. They are also less touched by feminism, and the rest of the rot that the West has inflicted upon itself. Cultural Marxism might actually be more detrimental to a society than proper Marxism.

I relate strongly to the sentiment of your argument. However, I don't think there is or could ever exist a perfect society where everyone is treated fairly (i.e. there is a level playing field). That sentiment is utopian in my view leading to the sort of problems we are currently experiencing (i.e. a minority takes advantage of this disarming naivety and exploits it to their own end). The key is having a society where a controlling elite supports the positive and sustaining (racial) elements of their nation. My observation is that Eastern European countries support and promote their own out of an entirely unconscious, natural and healthy instinct. And yes, less touched by the feminism and the cultural Marxism that indeed seems more insidious and toxic than openly brutal and oppressive Communism.

 

[Gibbon]

I think it's a good article and find it incredible that we have members questioning it? Do you not believe in the caste system in sports?

Yes, I believe that equivalent or superior white athletes are routinely passed over in favor of blacks on a systematic basis. I just want to make sure that we are making claims that are tenable.

I understand that at the combine level whites test as more agile than blacks. That whites as a population are more agile than blacks is less clearly shown by this article and, IMHO, needs to be substantiated if it is to be part of the CF claim.

However, I think the "superior average agility claim" is unnecessary to the broader CF claim that whites are discriminated against in football. I think this is shown clearly by examples of athletic accomplishment, where whites have performed the same or better than black counterparts but have not received the same recognition, collegiate or professional opportunity. This claim is easy to make. And combine results can frequently help make it.

Just want CF to remain credible. That would theoretically make me a more loyal member, now wouldn't it?

Respectfully,

Gibbon

 

[dwid]

How are you going to test the whole population? A small amount of blacks run sub 10 and people seem to act like it is common knowledge that ALL blacks have better straight line speed to the point where Whites can't even come close which is ridiculous. I would say on average the difference is minimal.

Withe agility, you can see it on the field, all the way down to high school . My theory is that Whites tend to have shorter limbs, including legs which makes it easier to change direction, basically better agility. Also helps with initial burst. I forget what site talked about this I will have to look it up. I think I remember it saying that most Whites with this kind of body have better balance as well, like,guys with frames similar to Welker. But we have seen many long limbed Whites and there is more variety with black people, especially since many have some White in them. So the difference might also be minimal but that still means Whites are more agile on average, even if it is minimal.

But that's my theory/opinion, no way to scientifically test it, just like blacks and straight line speed, but somehow that is regarded as scientific fact.

Why are we talking about the average joe though? Shouldn't it be focused on athletes?

 

[Don Wassall]

Few people on our side have the time to write articles, much less footnote them through voluminous research. Our folks tend to have full-time jobs and other responsibilites and are volunteers on the side for the cause when they can find the time. The other side has countless paid propagandists to be found on websites, the corporate media networks, foundations, government agencies, well-financed interest groups, and on and on.

 

[Gibbon]

Few people on our side have the time to write articles, much less footnote them through voluminous research. Our folks tend to have full-time jobs and other responsibilites and are volunteers on the side for the cause when they can find the time. The other side has countless paid propagandists to be found on websites, the corporate media networks, foundations, government agencies, well-financed interest groups, and on and on.

Don,

I get all that. My only point is that we should try to put forth arguments that are irrefutable. I think we (CF) may loose credibility if we unnecessarily include claims that are both unprovable (whether due to our available resources or otherwise) and counter to mainstream perception.

If you can show multiple examples of a white athlete with accomplishments equivalent to or greater than their elite black peers, yet nevertheless denied the same opportunities (as CF does) than I think that is sufficient. After all, essentially we are talking about discrimination in employment (and education, scholarships, etc).

BTW I do think that if whites score higher on agility scores at the combines that IS a very useful piece of data for our side however I don't think we can then extrapolate that whites are more agile than blacks in general (whatever the real case may be). That's all I am saying. I want us to look good and not get too ahead of ourselves.

 

[Gibbon]

But that's my theory/opinion, no way to scientifically test it, just like blacks and straight line speed, but somehow that is regarded as scientific fact.

Why are we talking about the average joe though? Shouldn't it be focused on athletes?

I do think that if whites score higher on agility scores at the combines that IS a very useful piece of data for our side however I don't think we can then extrapolate that whites are more agile than blacks in general (whatever the real case may be).

Interesting theory about longer limbed athletes vs. shorter limbed athletes. Blacks do tend to be more gangly on average.