first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 12:39 am

Canada's Nick Macrozanaris - pb 10.03 (this year)
Australia's Matt Shirvington - pb 10.03

Which one of these guys will be the first to run a sub 10 second 100m. I know of a Japanese sprinter who I believe has run a 10.04/10.05 within the last couple of years.

Me, being canadian, i gotta go with macro, running good this year.

Whose your pick?

(and don't copy this in any form, people can tell which message you're replying too!)
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:38 am

Please not this again.It causes an argument EVERYTIME.
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 6:42 am

Find the thread "A Day I'll Never Forget" for all the babble on this subject you'd like. (But you won't like it)
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby TrackWayne » Wed Jun 18, 2003 8:28 am

Australian Patrick Johnson ran 9.93 earlier this year. His father's Irish and his mother's Aborigine.
TrackWayne
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 11:44 am

Well, following the silly American "one drop" rule . . . there have been lots.

Tim Montgomery has run 9.78. Since he's got at least one drop of white blood in him, he's obviously white.
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Powell » Wed Jun 18, 2003 11:56 am

I thought his blood was 100% red...
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 12:16 pm

>I thought his blood was 100% red...

You're forgetting about white blood cells ...
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:10 pm

What I mean by this is that race is a social construct. In the United States, there's the "one drop" rule which means that if any of your ancestors are considered non-white (by the ever-changing standard of the day) then you are not considered white. (If you doubt that this rule is still widely used, start checking school records.) For example, Dan O'Brien had one "white" and one "black" parent, but is considered "black". Implicit in this is that whiteness is something that can be tarnished. By standard racial catgorization, no Japanese runner is "white", and a few generations ago a Canadian of Greek heritage would not have qualified either.

To stand the notion on its ear, I'd bet that none of the American sprinters who have broken 10.00 have 100% African ancestry. Furthermore, if the African genetics are so important, why are American, British and Caribbean sprinters so much better than African ones?
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:28 pm

>Furthermore, if the African genetics are so
>important, why are American, British and
>Caribbean sprinters so much better than African
>ones?

It's called "hybrid vigor" in biology/genetics. Sometimes favorable characteristics are amplified when different "species" are mixed. Much more common among plants than animals though. Bodybuilders noticed over a decade ago that there is a greater synergistic effect between steroids and HGH in Caribbean/American blacks (blacks with white blood) than in whites or in W. African blacks. This could account for much of what is seen in sprinting as well.

Race is very real. It's not a social construct. There are differences. It's not about the one drop rule and that silliness. It's about which traits are dominant etc. in individuals or groups.
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 3:12 pm

<To stand the notion on its
>ear, I'd bet that none of the American sprinters
>who have broken 10.00 have 100% African ancestry.
>Furthermore, if the African genetics are so
>important, why are American, British and
>Caribbean sprinters so much better than African
>ones?>>

Diet, disease, training facilities, coaching and weather. How's that for a start?
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:35 pm

My favorite quote from Magic Johnson in response on all the genetics controversy. "I know a LOT of slow black folks."
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:45 pm

Bill Nye the Science Guy??

Good point. It is nice to see someone back up a point with an intelligent statement that has a basis in fact.
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:50 pm

I agree with Bill Nye. To say that "race is a social construct" based on a few widely-held notions about race that happen to be silly (such as the "one drop" rule) is more PC than it is honest.....
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Twister » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:20 am

The way I see it is that I want to see records no matter the color of the skin of the guy(or gal) who sets them. Sometimes I wonder if the posters obcessed with "white" track athletes are also the same ones that post on Stormfront.org.
Twister
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:53 am

>The way I see it is that I want to see records no
>matter the color of the skin of the guy(or gal)
>who sets them. Sometimes I wonder if the posters
>obcessed with "white" track athletes are also
>the same ones that post on Stormfront.org.

This thread is silly.There was one just like it a few days ago.The person who started this
thread could have read that.
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 19, 2003 5:24 am

>Race is very real. It's
>not a social construct.

Bull. I could choke the bandwidth here with real scientific data to show that any defining charactaristics of race simply don't hold water. But, of course, race is so terribly important here in the USA that most people don't like to be confused with the facts.
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:59 am

Actually, more bandwidth could be used up showing race is a real, biological fact. People get confused looking at skin color and assuming that's "race", etc. No, it's a characteristic. There are racial differences. They are a function of the selection pressures faced by the ancestors of particular groups. This should be nothing to alarm people. Do you think the number black sprinters is chance? The number of Nordic/Slavic outstanding weightlifters and strength men is chance? Not related to race? Please. There is overlap amongst all racial groups, but there are differences, tendencies, so what?
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:15 pm

Do we have to keep beating a dead horse?How many times is this going to be discussed?
Guest
 

Re: first sub-10 second 100m by white runner?

Postby The Flash » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:25 pm

Totally unrelated to this discussion, but was it you that was looking for a freshman national record a few days ago?
The Flash
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests