On 4/23/01 9:46 AM, "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is interesting is that in both Boston and London an American or Brit
> was 6th. I do believe Cox would have been top 5 at Boston if it wasn't for
> the cramp in his side. What does Jon have to say about South African
> runners?
According to gene studies, such as Cavalli-Sforza's "The History and
Geograpy of Genes," South African blacks (by and large) trace much of their
ancestry to East Africa.
>Of course I haven't read your book Jon. I already know what it
> basically says because you've told us countless times...:) Still doesn't
> prove that North/East Africans are dominating marathoning.
North and East Africans win approximately 50 percent of the top marathons,
all drawn from a population base of less than 3 million or so (the areas
that turn out such runners). Poverty probably cuts into the potential of a
good percentage of those. If that's not dominance, you've managed to
redefine the term.
>If that was the
> case then there would never be a Brit, American, Asian, Russian, ect in the
> top 10 and the world record would be shot into the stratosphere.
Alan:
You miss the point entirely. This is not genetic determinism. Genes
proscribe possibility, they don't confer inevitability. A marathon is too
filled with serendipity to exclude anyone from POSSIBLY doing well. Are
their tall women in the world? Yes. Are men taller than women? On average,
yes -- the bell curve distribution for "tallness" is both longer towards
tallness and fatter -- there are more at each of the longer heights. It's
exactly the same in running. The Bell Curve distribution at sprinting is
VERY long and VERY thick for athletes of West African ancestry. It's quite
long and thick on the endurance end for North and East Africans. The bell
curve distribution for whites may be longer at both (more body type variance
in general) but not thicker at either end. At least that's what
anthropologists believe.
>Americans
> and Brits once produced a good flow of 2:10 or better marathoners or those
> capable of a sub 2:10. Running under 2:10 will still win you quite a few
> international marathons. Add a drop of EPO here and there and we've got a
> good stream of 2:06's. The 2:10 marathoners of the 80s would most likely run
> 2:08 or better today simply because that is what it would take to win, so
> that is how they would train.
>
> Alan
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
--
Jon Entine
RuffRun
6178 Grey Rock Rd.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
http://www.jonentine.com
