t-and-f: Individuals vs. groups
On 5/3/01 8:01 AM, "t-and-f-digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:46:58 +0100 > From: Randall Northam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: t-and-f: Jon Entine > > Two statements by Jon Entine written in different postings recently > >> That makes 800 meters very much a distance race. >> >> I'll say it again: Athletes of West African ancestry (African Americans in >> particular) will NEVER become great long distance runners. > > By any standard Johnny Gray was a great 800m runner. I submit that as a half > miler he is not a distance runner but what do I know? I've been writing > about athletics for only 35 years and have only the evidence of my own eyes. > Jon must have some scientific explanation. > No doubt it will be that Johnny Gray is an exception. > So I say Mark Everett. Randall: the 800 meters is NOT a "long distance" race although it is a "distance race." Please read the above quotations you reproduced. And for the thousandth time: individual variation tells you very little about group patterns. A 7 foot tall women does not "prove" that women are taller than men. Get it yet?? > Randall Northam. > > Ps. > He also said: >> BOTH THE Nigerians and Cameroonians won the world cup. >> >> 20 percent of the British Premiership are blacks of West African ancestry. >> Not one is from East Africa. The black population of the UK is less than 2 >> percent. > I commented on the fact that neither Nigeria or Cameroon (surely they are > Cameroons not Cameroonians) had won the world cup and was so excited I > forgot to mention the second paragraph. > So here goes. Most British blacks trace their ancestry to the Carribean (I > don't have the figures and I can't be bothered to find them) so it's only > natural that most British black footballers are of west African descent. > Isn't it? > You will be pleased to know that this is my last post on the subject of Jon > Entine. To my great and unalloyed pleasure I've realised that my e-mail > programme can send into oblivion posts containing certain names. Guess which > were the first two I have told it to zap? That's circuitous reasoning Randall. Kenya and Tanzania are part of the original Commonwealth too but produce NO footballers of note, despite far larger populations and a hunger for soccer that is at least the equal of the Caribbean nations. The reason that the Caribbean supplies the bulk of the top athletes (along with Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana and others, who also send athletes to other European countries, while East Africans send virtually zero) has mostly to do with body type. PLEASE: Read a physical anthropology textbook on body type differences. -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com
Re: t-and-f: Individuals vs. groups
>Randall: the 800 meters is NOT a "long distance" race although it is a >"distance race." I've been following this thread for some time with pretty much detached bemusement. My only comments are rather peripheral to the core debate of the thread: The terms "distance runner", "distance race" or just "distance" seem to have emotional meanings to practicioners of Steeple, 5K, 10K, and Marathon, that are quite apart from a dictionary definition. For instance, such athletes would surely claim that it is not possible for an 800m specialist (let alone a 100mH hurdler) to experience what has ubiquitiously been referred to as a "runners high". That realm of conciousness is reserved for those who...well, you get the idea. Those who are distance runners. This argument is circular. You can't qualify to be a distance runner unless you're a distance runner, and those who aren't don't understand. And those who already "are" get to decide who "is". Because there is a considerable amount of "pride" attached to the "club" of distance running, there is a tendency to protect the exclusivity of such a "club" very fiercely. Perhaps this fierce loyalty is rooted in the U.S. with distance advocates being somewhat social outcasts to the general public social norm of couch-potato heaven. Or that they are about as far away from the football player model as you can get. Thus the arguments are reactionary. But when it comes to club membership arguments are applied to exclusivity WITHIN OUR OWN sport, such arguments seem to collapse into some extreme positions. Thus, the arguments that 800m racers cannot possibly be "distance" runners. Not much science, a whole lot of emotional-based argument. The "long distance" club seems to be a radical offshoot of the "distance" club. The FBI is probably tapping their phones about now. :-) RT