Why are black players generally more explosive athletes than white players?

[gsafier]

There is a biological reason for that, and I'll try to explain it without going into too much technical details (also cause I'm not a biologist).

There are 2 types of energy sources for the muscle cells and each tends to "specelize" in one of them. Muscle cells of Black ppl can utilize the explosive energy more efficiently and that's why they are more athletic (on average of course).

Black people, as was mentioned here before, are not stronger on average, just more explosive.

Like everything in life, it has pros and cons. White people (and asians) swim much better, because black people need to invest much more energy in staying above water due to their higher bone density, which is probably required to keep the skeleton intact in light of the "explosiveness" (if you want to call it like that.
For that reason you will never see a black person in an olympic final in swimming.

It's not only black and white thing. Asians for example, also slightly differ in the sense they don't pump up. They can gain strength and mass in their muscles, but it doesn't show as much. That's why Asians don't do so well as body builders.

So to make a long story short (and I'm talking on averages):
Blacks will always be better in anything that requires explosive athletisicm.

Whites and Asians will always have the upper hand in the pool.

Asians can be mean Kong-Fu motherfakas, but you shouldn't get them into
a Mr. Olympia competition.

[Boris Pen]

Pretty racist man

[tpols]

You want technical explanation and so here it is:

Fact #1: Black absorb heat and White reflect heat.
Fact #2: Hot molecules move faster than a cold one.

Therefore, we can conclude that black people is able to be more athletic than white people because their molecules move faster due to the heat they absorb.

That's an absurd theory. Its not Africans that are insane athletes its African Americans mostly. And the answer as to why is blatantly obvious only the strongest were bred with each other for many generations and they did purely physical work.

[tpols]

Asians for example, also slightly differ in the sense they don't pump up. They can gain strength and mass in their muscles, but it doesn't show as much. That's why Asians don't do

That's actually really interesting. I remember in college there was this skinny Korean kid who loved lifting weights. He looked so thin probably weighed like 150 and I watched him press 80 lb dumb bells in each hand. The same weights the biggest looking guys in the gym would use.

[insight]

Actually saying blacks are the oldest people is wrong. The out of Africa theory suggests that Australopithecus or whatever started out in Africa but espread all over the world and eventually developed into homo sapien sapien along the same path. Also, asians have similar teeth to the neanderthal. Just throwing that out there.

He is correct, all human beings on earth today can be genetically traced to Africa via mitochondrial DNA. African is the origin of modern man, Homo Sapien, it's the only place on earth with the complete fossil record, every other race is a result of migration out of Africa.

[Smoke117]

Because they had all that time to evolve picking cotton back in the day ...boom. roasted, nigs.

[insight]

There is a biological reason for that, and I'll try to explain it without going into too much technical details (also cause I'm not a biologist).

There are 2 types of energy sources for the muscle cells and each tends to "specelize" in one of them. Muscle cells of Black ppl can utilize the explosive energy more efficiently and that's why they are more athletic (on average of course).

Black people, as was mentioned here before, are not stronger on average, just more explosive.

Like everything in life, it has pros and cons. White people (and asians) swim much better, because black people need to invest much more energy in staying above water due to their higher bone density, which is probably required to keep the skeleton intact in light of the "explosiveness" (if you want to call it like that.
For that reason you will never see a black person in an olympic final in swimming.

It's not only black and white thing. Asians for example, also slightly differ in the sense they don't pump up. They can gain strength and mass in their muscles, but it doesn't show as much. That's why Asians don't do so well as body builders.

So to make a long story short (and I'm talking on averages):
Blacks will always be better in anything that requires explosive athletisicm.

Whites and Asians will always have the upper hand in the pool.

Asians can be mean Kong-Fu motherfakas, but you shouldn't get them into
a Mr. Olympia competition.

The scientific reality is most human beings are 99.9 genetically the same. There is no DNA test that can determine race because it was a European concept developed 500 years ago and was not based on real science. Humans abilities are determined by genetics and environment, skin color alone does not dictate how fast you can run or how high you can jump.

[Thenameless]

skin color alone does not dictate how fast you can run or how high you can jump.

Then, you need to have a look at the line-up of an Olympic 100 meter final, lol.

[light]

They work harder at being explosive.

[insight]

Then, you need to have a look at the line-up of an Olympic 100 meter final, lol.

Funny you say that because for a long time Europeans claimed to be superior athletes. Prior to Jessie Owens in 1936 there were no blacks in the Olympic 100 meter finals.

[FultzNationRISE]

He is correct, all human beings on earth today can be genetically traced to Africa via mitochondrial DNA. African is the origin of modern man, Homo Sapien, it's the only place on earth with the complete fossil record, every other race is a result of migration out of Africa.

I believe the point of the quoted poster is that "African" in the context of ancestral humans does not mean West African or modern African (the phenotype most commonly associated with African Americans).

When people say "the first humans were from Africa" a common misconception is that it means the first humans looked like modern American descendants of slaves.

The homo sapiens who evolved in Africa did so in EAST Africa and moved out across the ME and into India and out into the Pacific Archipelago would have looked something like this:



From India some migrated into Mongolia and 'morphed' into Asians, others into the Caususes where they became Caucasian.

Some of those same original homo sapiens in East Africa also migrated further WEST into Africa and EVOLVED to look something like this:




So when people say "we come from Africa and all evolved from Africans" it is not accurate to picture a typical modern African as the common ancestor, since West Africans eventually displaced or intermixed with most of the indigenous homo sapiens on the continent. The Australio aboriginal is actually the closest modern approximation to the common ancestor we all share.

I'm pretty sure white people would not have any ancestry that looks like Krepin Diatta, pictured above.

[insight]

I believe the point of the quoted poster is that "African" in the context of ancestral humans does not mean West African or modern African (the phenotype most commonly associated with African Americans).

When people say "the first humans were from Africa" a common misconception is that it means the first humans looked like modern American descendants of slaves.

The homo sapiens who evolved in Africa did so in EAST Africa and moved out across the ME and into India and out into the Pacific Archipelago would have looked something like this:



From India some migrated into Mongolia and 'morphed' into Asians, others into the Caususes where they became Caucasian.

Some of those same original homo sapiens in East Africa also migrated further WEST into Africa and EVOLVED to look something like this:




So when people say "we come from Africa and all evolved from Africans" it is not accurate to picture a typical modern African as the common ancestor, since West Africans eventually displaced or intermixed with most of the indigenous homo sapiens on the continent. The Australio aboriginal is actually the closest modern approximation to the common ancestor we all share.

I'm pretty sure white people would not have any ancestry that looks like Krepin Diatta, pictured above.

I am referring to the Continent of Africa, which was known as Alkebulan. It is the birth places of ALL homo sapiens, every persons on the planet can be traced back to Mitochondrial eve no matter there mutation patterns. Ancient Kemet and ancient Egyptians, the ones who built the pyramids, sphinx and created belief in Monotheism looked like the African you see today.

[FultzNationRISE]

I am referring to the Continent of Africa, which was known as Alkebulan. It is the birth places of ALL homo sapiens, every persons on the planet can be traced back to Mitochondrial eve no matter there mutation patterns. Ancient Kemet and ancient Egyptians, the ones who built the pyramids, sphinx and created belief in Monotheism looked like the African you see today.

What youre saying is only quasi-accurate, Jefferson Money.

[insight]

I believe the point of the quoted poster is that "African" in the context of ancestral humans does not mean West African or modern African (the phenotype most commonly associated with African Americans).

When people say "the first humans were from Africa" a common misconception is that it means the first humans looked like modern American descendants of slaves.

The homo sapiens who evolved in Africa did so in EAST Africa and moved out across the ME and into India and out into the Pacific Archipelago would have looked something like this:



From India some migrated into Mongolia and 'morphed' into Asians, others into the Caususes where they became Caucasian.

Some of those same original homo sapiens in East Africa also migrated further WEST into Africa and EVOLVED to look something like this:




So when people say "we come from Africa and all evolved from Africans" it is not accurate to picture a typical modern African as the common ancestor, since West Africans eventually displaced or intermixed with most of the indigenous homo sapiens on the continent. The Australio aboriginal is actually the closest modern approximation to the common ancestor we all share.

I'm pretty sure white people would not have any ancestry that looks like Krepin Diatta, pictured above.

I posted the wrong section of video, if you go to 36:30 Dr Diop talks about what our recent ancestors looked like.

[Solidsnake]

Although black players are explosive and athletic, when it comes to IQ, they are generally inferior to whites.

Statistics say white players accounted for 16.9% of the total NBA players but if we look at the top 50 players of all time (Bleacher Report), there are 14 white players or 28%. So black players are more athletic and explosive but white players are smarter...... and we know that higher IQ is better than athleticism..

The argument would be different if 50% of NBA players are white. I could not imagine what John Stockton can do on defense if he was 6'4. Or, I could see more Larry Brid or Tom Chambers - like players if half of the league is white...