October 7, 2009

My Taki article on white running backs

From my Wednesday column in Taki's Magazine:
Let’s celebrate diversity! In Division 1-A college football, 19 of the top 20 players in rushing yards are—as sports fans expect—black. Yet, the #1 rusher is a white guy.

Toby Gerhart, Stanford’s 235-pound tailback, has piled up 650 yards on the ground to power lowly Stanford to a 4-1 overall record and a Pac-10 leading 3-0 conference mark. ...

Gerhart has been the most valuable running back in college football so far this season because Stanford doesn’t have much else going for it. Every defense knows Gerhart will be coming at them, but they haven’t stopped him yet.

Of course, there are many white running backs who shine in high school. ...

Why are white starting tailbacks so rare in college football (at least, outside of the Mountain Time Zone)? ...

To help you understand where I’m coming from in thinking about race and running backs, allow me to indulge in a little nostalgia concerning the first college football game I ever saw. It was November 16, 1968, and I was nine. My dad had taken me to the museums in Exposition Park next to the University of Southern California. When we came out, a few minutes after one in the afternoon, the parking lot was full and the Coliseum next door roaring over the rematch between defending national champion USC and the only team to beat them the year before, Oregon State.

With the game already underway, a desperate scalper offered to sell us two tickets for whatever my father had in his pockets, which turned out to be $1.10.

As my dad and I trudged ever upward to our 55-cent seats in what turned out to be the 89th (and top) row in the end zone, I started to wonder if the scalper hadn’t gotten the best of the deal. Standing on my seat, I could peer over the back wall of the Coliseum and see our 1963 Pontiac down in the parking lot. Still, our Goodyear Blimpish view through the goal posts was ideal for watching the encounter of two All-American running backs.

Read the whole thing there and comment about it below.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

69 comments:

Truth said...

The Question:

Why are there no white running backs in the NFL?

The Theories:

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites.

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Blacks.

Genetics.

The Answer:

All of the above.

Another gem Steve. You know if you work really hard and keep your nose clean, you may have a future at this writing thing!

Truth said...

Strangely enough, that read like a Gladwell "New Yorker" article.

DCThrowback said...

"But Bills coach Johnny Rauch curiously decided that his best offensive weapon was future Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp’s 34-year-old arm, so Enyart was primarily used as receiver out of the backfield and Simpson as a wide receiver, kick returner, and the league’s most glamorous decoy."

My Buffalo Bills - the NFL's f**k ups since 1959. Ye gods.

Anonymous said...

Off topic - for the T99/Roissy crowd:

Taking the pill for past 40 years 'has put women off masculine men'
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 3:13 AM on 08th October 2009
dailymail.co.uk

Lexington Steele said...

Size matters.

Anonymous said...

Very thorough article Steve.


A little note: Iowa uses a dual tailback rotation, and one of those guys looked white. Both looked like solid, follow-my-blocking runners in the televised game I seen with them. They beat Penn State.

Jake Locker, Washington's 6-3, 220+ lb QUARTERBACK, has run a 4.39 40 yard dash according to the commentators doing the Washington/LSU game. Thats pretty fast for that size. He had good enough arm strength to be in the NFL, but I understand he turned down 300K from a MLB-franchise.

Was it just me, or does the Minnesota Vikings (and Green Bay for that matter) have an unusual amount of white players? (That was a hum-dinger of a MNF-game).


Ive always thought that fast-twitch muscle fiber and smaller calves were why blacks are usually faster than whites, but Ive developed a little personal theory on how whites through training might be able to increase their footspeed: Focus on the hamstrings/glutes/lower back muscles used in picking the feet "up". Many white fullbacks can squat a great deal of weight, but are not as fast as the tailbacks they block for. Their quads are obviously strong, but I dont think they can pick their feet up as fast to make that next push-off (bigger calves on some of them probably factors into this). Training that focuses on this area might make many whites who are 4.6's become 4.5's. You can do tailback at 210lbs if you can run a real 4.5.

Anonymous said...

@ Truth,

I do believe Steve got his anecdote on youth hockey early development from Malcom Gladwell's latest book.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I dunno why you let every Truth comment through, and yet do a lot of KK of some more conservative posters. None of Truth’s commentary adds value to a discussion, and if he's not misquoting and twisting things to support his Black Nationalist agenda, he is mocking you. I cannot see what this character has ever wrought himself, but he keeps telling others to shape up. Really a loathsome person.

Andrea the Ruthless said...

Very interesting article, especially the part as to why liberal Jews are worried about racial differences.
But, Sailer left out one huge factor as to why racial differences cannot be discussed honestly. The MAIN reason is the social implication of black superiority in strength. If blacks are tougher, faster, and more aggressive on the sports field, why wouldn't they be tougher, stronger, and more threatening in school, in the streets, on the school bus, etc, etc(thus validating the fears and hostility of 'racist' whites--and other non-black groups--toward blacks)? In sports, black athletic prowess is controlled by rules and regulations; and, as sports are a profession that feeds on the approval of the fans, black athletes have to maintain some degree of decorum and good manners(though in the age of gangsta rap, there have been a growing number of rotten thuggish black athletes in the NBA and NFL). Now, just ask this question: For every powerfully-built black guy who makes it in professional sports, how many drop out of school and amount to nothing useful in life or to society? Just take NY, Chicago, Detroit, or Philadelphia. Suppose Detroit Pistons and Lions have 50 black athletes on their rosters. Suppose it's also true of Chicago or NY. Well, what about all the 100,000s of tough blacks who have no future in professional sports? Of course, not all--nor even most--tough black men are thugs or criminals, but but a good many are(just look at crime stats), at least enough to cause grievous problems for society-at-large. If these thuggish blacks cannot make a living in sports, what do they turn to? Drug-dealing, robbing, mugging, even rape and murder. Since, they are physically stronger, they are fearsome to whites, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, Arab-Americans, etc. It's no wonder that most non-blacks--liberal or conservative--are generally eager to move out of black areas. Anyone who knows social reality doesn't want to take a chance with a community that has too many blacks.

Tom Brokaw once hosted a special on the differences between white and black athletes, but he restricted the discussion purely to sports. Why should this have been? What should have been more important, especially to a good honest journalist: What happens on the sports fields or what happens in the streets and neighborhoods? Yet, Brokaw would not extend his observation--that blacks are stronger and tougher--to social reality. This is like limiting the discussion of superior Jewish intelligence to chess or mathematics while suppressing or forbidding any talk of what the social implications of superior Jewish intelligence may be. So, we can say blacks can run faster and hit harder, but we can't say this fact, IN THE REALM OF SOCIAL REALITY, accounts for much racial fear--even among liberals--of blacks. We can discuss Jewish excellence in Chess and winning Nobel Prizes, but we are not supposed to link Jewish intelligence to the fact that Jews are so much richer, more influential, and more powerful than other groups. Jews want the power but want to appear powerless(to play the Eternal Victim card). Blacks love flexing their muscles and pushing other people around('scaring whitey'), but they wanna play the 'historical victim' of evil whites. Liberals love to emphasize black triumph in sports because Americans are sports-crazy and naturally come to see blacks as local and national heroes. But, for every ballgame black athletes win for a major city, how many non-whites are bullied, mugged, beaten, or even murdered by criminal blacks who've taken over so many cities and towns? Why are much of racial bullying and violence black-on-non-black? Because blacks are generally stronger. Sure, there are even tough Mexican and Asian guys who can beat up some blacks, but I dare say, 99 times out of 100, black guy will beat a Mexican or an Asian. And, 19 out of 20, black will beat a white? How do I know this? I attended an integrated school, and the bullying/violence was almost entirely black on non-black.

Andrea the Ruthless said...

But, there's another reason why people don't want to honestly discuss racial issues, and I mean conservative white males as well. Much of white male pride has developed over the centuries with white man conquering and triumphing over all. White man was supposed to #1 with the gun or even as a jungle man called Tarzan. Conservative white males don't want to discuss the issue of black superiority in sports because it is an open admittance that blacks are the alpha males of society, which means the most attractive women--generally white--should go with blacks. Indeed, that has already become the new template for much of America. Just look at sports teams where mostly black athletes are cheered on by most white blonde women. This is the true significance of Barack Obama. His mother was ahead of her time. She rejected white males and went off with a black guy, and the product of her 'liberated sexuality, Barack Obama, is supposed to the ideal model of future America--black male/white female union.

Liberal white males are okay with this socio-racial reality because they are a bunch of Ken Burnsy wussies who've been psychologically castrasted--like the inmates under Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Conservative white males still have racial pride and don't like this new reality, but many of them don't want to discuss it because it is an open admission of the new social/sexual dynamic where blacks are the top males attracting the hearts and desires of the hottest white girls.

Anonymous said...

Minor point on high school sports: inner-city schools, where I live at least, are much smaller than the suburban schools. About 1000 kids in an urban hs, 3-5000 in a lot of suburban ones. This is the only reason the suburbs have a chance in the state basketball tournament - which, nonetheless, was won 3 years running by my (small, urban, mostly black) highschool.

Anonymous said...

In Division 1-A college football, 19 of the top 20 players in rushing yards are—as sports fans expect—black. Yet, the #1 rusher is a white guy.

Related fact of NFL life: The only way you can be white and play linebacker in the NFL is if you are in the absolute top tier of talent. There are no bottom tier white linebackers in the NFL. They don't exist. They get cut during training camp or don't even make it to the pro level whatsoever.

And there are very very few average talent white linebackers in the NFL. On the other hand there are always a group of white linebackers in the NFL who are among the very best players at their position.

This racial distribution doesn't make any statistical sense but it makes perfect sense from a political (political correctness) perspective.

Anonymous said...

Andrea the Ruthless,
What you're saying is generally correct. However it’s not true that whites are not strong. Germanic tribes are generally physically strong, so are Russians. Germans pre WWII were known to be physically very tough in addition to above-avg. intelligence and good practical skill sets. In spite of all the bile heaved on them, Israeli generals for instance admire their fighting skills and toughness on all fronts during the war. Since WWII they have been pacified and feature the same physical degeneration as Americans.

The Boers in South Africa, who are mostly of Germanic in origin (via Holland), are often large and very strong people, usually feard by blacks who only attack them well armed and in groups. Blacks in their natural state are actually not very large-framed because being light on their feet was the most important qualification for survival against wild animals and other hostile tribes. Whites tend to become academically oriented, craftsman or administrators (farmers, clerks, teachers, businessmen, army and police officers) and are then physically less active than when they were young. But if you take a high school with whites in South Africa they will often be physically more intimidating than blacks. However white kids generally are not as aggressive and unruly as white kids because it carries a social penalty for them. They will be excluded from favored social circles where the babes are, and ALL the boys want to get to the babes. It seems that violence does not carry much of a social stigma amongst blacks and that black women quietly encourage it.

Peter A said...

Running backs are the least intelligent players on the field. It may also be that fast white players are more likely to get shunted into positions where thinking matters - hence the emergence of the white slot receiver. But it seems highly unlikely that anyone is consciously discriminating against whites in the NFL, I would think the hierarchy is very worried that the game is going to go the route of the NBA. Unconscious discrimination is certainly possible. Also note that Bill Belichick has consistently tried to give white RBS a chance - Heath Evans for example. If there good white tailbacks out there the Pats would have one, Lord knows we have a hard enough time keeping our black tailbacks healthy.

Espn covered this last year:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/080926

Anonymous said...

"A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that blacks might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting; then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe blacks have lower average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A from ever happening."

Steve -- Great article, but I have to take issue with C, above. Speaking as a goyim, I don't feel the least resentment of Jews for having higher average IQs for genetic reasons. No fair-minded person ever holds someone's genetic heritage against them. What the Jews are afraid of the goyim holding against them is the way they practice E and promulgate the doctrine of anti-racism while at the same time practicing an extreme form of ethnic favoritism themselves. Anybody who doubts this should take a look at the credits of any movie coming out of Hollywood. Writing a movie takes brains. Directing a movie, a little less so. Producing a movie, less. And acting is a profession where IQ seems completely irrelevant (just watch any interview with an actor). Yet Jewish people get acting jobs way beyond their proportion of the population. And even in the other Hollywood professions where brains enter into the equation, there are plenty of goyim with adequate IQs who would enjoy those glamorous professions, but who can't get them because they don't have the right, uh, connections. Realizing that is what would cause D.

John Craig said...

Andrea the Ruthless -- I wouldn't extrapolate what happens with black professional athletes to the rest of society. Yes, top athletes who are multimillionaires can get beautiful women, but it is their money that gets them the women, not their status as the new alpha black males. If this were the case, you'd see big burl black guys who work at loading docks with beautiful blond wives, and that's just not the case. I used to work at an investment bank, and the short, ugly, wimpy guys who worked there all seemed to end up with beautiful wives as well, and it wasn't because of their physical superiority. Obama's mother -- who wasn't that hot, btw -- wasn't ahead of her time. She was simply the kind of epater-le-bourgeois (sp?) woman who springs up in every generation.

George said...

Just watched the video link. He reminds me a lot of Jim Kiick, only bigger

Anonymous said...

Andrea the Clueless said...

"Conservative white males still have racial pride and don't like this new reality, but many of them don't want to discuss it because it is an open admission of the new social/sexual dynamic where blacks are the top males attracting the hearts and desires of the hottest white girls."

This reads like something written in the '60's. As someone who lives in a city with a large black population, I can assure you that interracial couples are rare, and the white girls who do date black men are certainly not the hot ones, usually they're overweight and suffer from low self-esteem.

If so many white women are having sex with black men, then how do you account for the disparity in the rate of AIDS between black and white females?

Anonymous said...

NCAA FBS Rushing Leaders

Nebraska running back Roy Helu Jr. is samoan and has the sixth highest yards per game in the NCAA bowl division. Nebraska's back-up running back happens to be a white kid from Dallas.

Anonymous said...

I doubt many gifted white running backs are being discriminated against. Look at the US Olympic Track team. When's the last time a white man made the team for the sprints. 100m, 220m, or relay?

The fact is that of the 100 sprinters in the USA probably 95 are African American. That's why no white running backs.

And Andrea: Brevity is the soul of wit.

Marc B said...

"sportswriters, who may be the single most politically correct category of all journalists (because the reality of human biodiversity is so blatantly obvious in sports)"

Frank Deford's and and Bob Costas adulation of any notable black athlete are the first that come to mind. These two typify PC jock sniffing that borders on racial self-loathing.

MacSweeney said...

Quit whining about Truth. He provides necessary counterpoints on this blog. If it weren't for people like him, the comments section would practically be one big white nationalist circle jerk.

Aaaaanyway, the Canadian Football League also has a single white running back who might be the best in the league ... Jesse Lumsden. He's perpetually injured, though.

mark said...

At a certain point in this article you appear to lose track of what you want to say. You say that "the two serious theories are Genetics Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites. But you then go on to suggest that Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites can be equated with mere "prejudice" in a pejorative sense.

There's a problem here. If Genetics is a serious theory and is, as you suggest throughout the article, a major factor in determining who has the physical ability to become an NFL running back, then Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites is no more than reality based behavior. We all use stereotyping and discrimination in daily life--it's called generalization, and as long as it doesn't lapse into over-generalization it is a valid and efficient method for dealing with reality. In fact, under the rubric of predictability, it is the basis for most modern science and technology. Is it any wonder that college recruiters look where most of the talent is concentrated, since you yourself agree that "the very best running backs were likely to be black?" That's simply a more efficient use of their time and resources, especially in view of the overwhelming statistical disparity between blacks and whites and the running back position. The same strictures apply, of course, to other positions, such as quarterback. Now, when that leads to ignoring the obvious needle in the haystack that has caused you to say ouch! that's over-generalization, and that can cost you.

The video game anecdote doesn't prove that whites are discriminated against invidiously--it merely shows that most people are able to recognize what you elsewhere refer to as "the elephant in the living room—racial differences in physiques," and act accordingly:

"Recently, according to Gerhart, one of his friends was playing an NCAA video game and created a player with Gerhart’s speed and dimensions (6-foot-2, 230 pounds, 4.43 in the 40-yard dash). When his friend made the player white, the game automatically described the video version of Gerhart as 'power back.' When his friend changed the skin color to black, he became an 'all-purpose back.'"

The behavior the video game players is not necessarily (or likely) mere "prejudice." It is valid stereotyping and discrimination based on that "elephant in the living room--racial differences in physiques." Most observers of sports are fully capable of observing and making a mental note of the fact that the bare stats "6-foot-2, 230 pounds, 4.43 in the 40-yard dash" may not tell the entire story as far as predicting suitability as an NFL running back, and that between white and black athletes who share these stats there may yet be significant difference at the margins of performance--which is what pro sports are largely about. For example, straight ahead speed over 40 yards versus quickness in changing direction, etc.

Anonymous said...

"Conservative white males still have racial pride and don't like this new reality, but many of them don't want to discuss it because it is an open admission of the new social/sexual dynamic where blacks are the top males attracting the hearts and desires of the hottest white girls."

The readers of this blog who go into this must be very well-behaved fellows who never go around actually looking at pretty girls. Because I do, and I don't see them with black guys. When I see white girls with black guys, even good-looking black guys, the girls are fat and ugly. I think most conservatives, outside of isteve commenters, have noticed this too.

Most conservatives, I think, approach racial differences in sports the same way Steve does. They think blacks are generally better at football and basketball - "but, but, some of these white boys aren't getting the chance they deserve!" Which may be true, anyhow this is the line I've heard a lot from normal rank-and-file conservative Americans.

Truth said...

"Steve, I dunno why you let every Truth comment through,"

What makes you think he does, Sport? You don't understand, I quit my job just so that I could post on this board. I send roughly 90-95 daily comments and 2-3 get through!

"None of Truth’s commentary adds value to a discussion,"

Have to disagree with you once again, chief; here's that etymology of the word "discussion:"

"discussion Look up discussion at Dictionary.com
c.1340, from O.Fr. discussion, from L.L. discussionem "examination, discussion," in classical L., "a shaking," from discussus, pp. of discutere "strike asunder, break up," from dis- "apart" + quatere "to shake." Originally "examination, investigation, judicial trial;" meaning of "talk over, debate" first recorded 1448. Sense evolution in L. appears to have been from "smash apart" to "scatter, disperse," then in post-classical times (via the mental process involved) to "investigate, examine," then to "debate."


Notice the words "strike assunder, break apart, scatter, disperse." Discussion, in the Latin sense is a violent thing.

It doesn't say "politely caress each other's tallywhackers in a circlejerk" now does it?

"to support his Black Nationalist agenda, he is mocking you."

Do you know how to read? Exactly when did I ever promote any "Black Nationalist Agenda?" I think those people are stupider...well...just as stupid...as I think you are.

"Tom Brokaw once hosted a special on the differences between white and black athletes, but he restricted the discussion purely to sports. Why should this have been?"

Well Andrea, it may have something to do with the fact that athletes play sports.

"but I dare say, 99 times out of 100, black guy will beat a Mexican or an Asian. And, 19 out of 20, black will beat a white?"

Damn, that's a high-ass ratio!

You going to let him (her?) get away with that, Jody?

"Related fact of NFL life: The only way you can be white and play linebacker in the NFL is if you are in the absolute top tier of talent...And there are very very few average talent white linebackers in the NFL. On the other hand there are always a group of white linebackers in the NFL who are among the very best players at their position."

I'd say that's the case with black linebackers, and in every position on the field there, Bill Parcells.

No, for some strange reason they don't pay high school waterboys $600,000 a year to play NFL linebacker, strangely enough.

ESPN's Stewart Scott tried out for the Jets at 33 and lost his eye after being hit with the football.

I mean he looks about 5'8 and probably runs a 4.93 40 but they should have let him play anyway!

mnl said...

Hi Steve. Enjoy your writings.

About the Taki article... I wonder if you've still ignored much of the elephant in the room. Maybe it's my misinterpretation of the flow, but you quickly go through three reasons there is a preponderance black running backs: discrimination against blacks, genetic reasons, and discrimination against whites. But you wrap-up with a fourth driver, "Arbitrary forces have some impact as well". As examples you mention how a dryer West coast might favor a quick cutting running game. You also mention nationalized recruiting.

But these last two reasons simply re-word or escalate the same fundamental question: 1) Why do black athletes do so much better than non-blacks on quick cutting dry turf? 2) Why in national recruiting do coaches favor blacks as running backs?

Seems we just come full-circle all over again.

I suspect one has to strongly consider the HBD reasons of which your point #2 begins to address. For example, might there be something akin to the Achilles tendon argument in distance running? (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0228.htm) or perhaps there's a mix of genetics and lifestyle reasons (http://www.impactmagazine.ca/running/news-and-articles/kenyansrunning.html).

Loved the article. I was just left wanting more.

Wayne said...

She rejected white males and went off with a black guy, and the product of her 'liberated sexuality, Barack Obama, is supposed to the ideal model of future America--black male/white female union.

Liberal white males are okay with this socio-racial reality because they are a bunch of Ken Burnsy wussies who've been psychologically castrasted--like the inmates under Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.


Interesting. This seems to tie in with the modern sexual dynamics (serial monogamy, de facto polygyny), "alphas", "betas", type stuff that "Game" bloggers like Roissy in DC have been writing about recently.

Incidentally, all this stuff on alphas, betas, sex dynamics, was being written about by James Bowery way back in 1992 in his essay "Race, Gender and the Frontier" Part 1 and Part 2. It's pretty fascinating. It's like the beta male theory of human expansion/history.

Justin said...

Like Andrea the Ruthless's comment above, our whole mental framework for this discussion is warped by the fact that our racial perceptions are created in school. When black boys enter puberty almost 2 years earlier than white boys!

Blacks seem bigger and better developed because they REALLY WERE, back in 7-12th grade!

We have very few comparisons based on fully developed adult competitions. Pro sports do not reflect this because the competitive weeding process starts in junior high and high school, when the black puberty advantage is at its peak.

It is made even worse by the affirmative action policies of colleges, which intentionally and systematically discriminate in favor of blacks, helping athletes most of all.

Weird example, but look at Pete Maravich. Tore the college game up, playing against all-white teams in the 1960's SEC. But notice, he also tore the pro game up, in the fully integrated and already black-dominated NBA of the 1970s. In today's athletic environment, would he even be playing at a SEC school?

My point is, when white athletes are allowed to develop in segregated environments, they can compete just fine against blacks at the adult level, after the black developmental advantage has disappeared. The problem is, they are weeded out by early competition.

Steve mentions the early-in-the-year birthday advantage in hockey. How can it not be far far worse when one race hits puberty almost 2 full years later than the other???

Anonymous said...

“…they figured the crucial games late in the season would be played on slippery fields when straight ahead pile-driving and upper body strength would matter most.”

“Because footing is more consistent, lower body quickness has grown more important relative to upper body strength, giving blacks an advantage.”

C’mon Steve. You obviously haven’t played football. Except for some line positions, upper body strength isn’t very important in football except for holding you shoulders together (i.e., not dislocating) in all the collisions. In all positions, it’s leg, hip and core strength that are overwhelmingly important. Without it, even a 650lb. bench-press is meaningless. Also, whites may have a biomechanical advantage in powerlifting bench-press competitions over blacks (because of shorter arms and larger ribcages), but do you have any real evidence that blacks lack the contractile power or explosiveness in the upper body that whites have? Also, for line play, it’s much better to have long arms, which hurt one’s bench, than short stubby arms which allow one to bench more.

Anon:
“This racial distribution doesn't make any statistical sense but it makes perfect sense from a political (political correctness) perspective.”

Same for the WR position.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous with theory about black speed,

You are undoubtedly correct that training hams and glutes would improve white speed, but it would also work for blacks. There are a lot of biomechanical advantages that blacks have that you can’t do anything about. Blacks have a narrower pelvis, which places the hip joints, through which force is applied to the ground, closer to the centerline of the body, thereby wasting less force in rotation and increasing the efficiency of straight ahead movement. They also have longer legs (greater stride length) and differently shaped legs (relatively long lower legs in relation to the femur and relatively thin calves and heavy thigh and hip musculature). What this means is that the mass driving locomotion (thighs and glutes) is concentrated towards the hip in backs and the long, thin lower legs means that the center of mass of the leg is kept close to the hip while still allowing the legs to being long. This keeps torque low allows blacks to rotate the hip joint rapidly even though the leg is long, allowing greater terminal velocity at the foot, contributing to a black advantage in running speed. Also, blacks tend to have long tendons and short muscle bellies. They also have greater muscle elasticity (tendon elasticity is similar in both races and tendons are more elastic than muscles; elasticity = force with which stretched tissue wants to return to its normal length – to see this, bend your index finger back towards the top of your hand, release it and notice how it snaps back.). This leads their muscle-tendon structures articulating their joints to have greater overall elasticity. This greater tendency for their muscle-tendons to spring back at the end of each stride leads to greater efficiency as more energy from the previous stride is recycled into the next stride. Then there’s the fast twitch fibers you noted. All of the above cannot be changed. So, you will find fast white guys, but you’re always going to have a disproportionate number of black speedsters.

Florida resident said...

Dear Mr. Sailer !
I hope you do not mind me making a citation form your article on the Amazon discussion
"Human Biodiversity, history and modernity:
Murray, Sailer, Derbyshire."

http://www.amazon.com/tag/history/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgNo=92&cdPage=4&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxQ9S8KTFXXWLH&cdMsgID=Mx11MY9403BFLM9#Mx11MY9403BFLM9

Comments there will be greatly appreciated.
Your truly, Florida resident.

Andrea the Ruthless said...

"Size matters."

Muscle size matters more than penis size. If black men had huge penises but the physique of geeks, I don't they would be athletically and/or sexuall admired.
If you've seen the nude photo of Schwarzenegger, it's obvious that he wasn't particularly well-hung, but many women have panted after him just the same.

I've heard that Asian-Indian and Jewish men have larger-than-average penises, but they aren't regarded as macho men. If they attract some quality chicks, it's because of the size of their wallets than their puds.

Conrad Bibby said...

You know what I've never seen, ever? A black kicker. I suppose historically all-black schools like Grambling must use black kickers, but I can't recall ever seeing a football game at the professional or major-college level that featured a black kicker.

Whiskey said...

Strawman of the "Jews" type Steve that is beneath you. For example, most of the Sportscenter guys are not Jewish (Stuart Scott, etc.) and in the LAT, for example, you are as at least as likely to encounter trans-sexuals as Jews as sportswriters.

Secondly there is a point about Boxing, that various groups have dominated over time, and now Blacks are not very well represented (mostly Mexicans in the lower weight classes and tough Eastern Europeans in the higher weight classes). Take UFC/Cage fighting, for example. There are a few Blacks guys, most of them from Brazil, and the few US Blacks are jokes (Kimbo Slice, Rampage Jackson). Or Pro Wrestling/Entertainment -- most of the big stars there are White

I am more inclined to Caste Football's explanation -- discrimination against White players by the wrong perception that Blacks make better football players.

Let's accept that on average, Blacks have superior speed and short term strength, as a working hypothesis. Does that mean they make better football players? No. Football is a team game requiring everyone to be in unison, not a series of one on one actions. Take Jerry Rice, unheralded out of college and slow on the verge of being cut. His insight was to promote endurance AND catching the football. He did not get "faster" in the fourth quarter, merely lose speed less than the corners, through superior conditioning, and had better abilities to catch the football. Middle Class Larry Fitzgerald follows the same path (lots of training to catch the football).

Guys like Steve Largent, slow, unimpressive, always open, sure-handed, used to hang around in the NFL when the focus was on winning. Revenue sharing and salary caps make even the Detroit Lions an attractive proposition and most owners would rather be PC and not attract national media attention than win. Black players simply will not accept Whites at "Black" positions any more than Black kids on that St. Louis Schoolbus would accept a White kid sitting down next to them.

Instead we get "athleticism" with metrics for speed, vertical leap, etc. for selecting and keeping football players, instead of hard-to-measure but sure to win ability to catch, block, and throw the football. My hope is that the Wildcat by requiring some blocking and throwing ability by running backs (in other words more complete football players) will stop they hyper-specialization and create a more representative NFL and College setting. The NFL after all can look at the NBA, nearly 3 billion less in revenue from TV, and see what happens to an all Black league. Much less interest by the White Majority fanbase.

josh said...

Andrea The....RUTHLESS:( have we ever dated? Never mind) Your post brings to mind the fate of two football stars in their respective love lives,and the role of race. First you have Shawn Merriman,marrying supermodel Giselle Bundchen in a fairy tale wedding. Giselle says she loved Shawn at first sight. Awww. Then theres the sad case of Tom Brady,arrested in a sordid domestic squabble with his live in girlfriend,the sleazy and bisexual reality TV wannabe Tila Tequila. Shame.

albertosaurus said...

Again you quote Tom Wolfe. My experience with quoting Tom Wolfe has been rather different.

I once explained that the most highly regarded novel of the day, Wolfe's A Man in Full began its complex and disastrous plot with the Oakland police seizing the car for a traffic infraction. I was explaining this to the Oakland police who were at the time seizing my car.

It didn't help.

Anonymous said...

I played high school soccer, I once did football practice and played as a running back and kicked ass too, unfortunately I'm only 5'7" 140lb, unfortunately in football and basketball size matters especialy in player durability. I'm guessing many of the high school top performers are taken out by injury before the even reach a major college or pro team, while many players with lesser skills but more durable and robust bodies continue, Toby Gerhart, Stanford’s 235-pound tailback aint small.

Anonymous said...

There is a front page article in the WSJ today about the cancellation of the traditional Nantucket - Martha's Vineyard football game: There Once Was a Football Game With Nantucket... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125495604024771879.html#mod=todays_us_page_one

The second paragraph, a quote by "16-year-old DuVaughn Beckford, Nantucket's starting running back", led to to wonder whether overwhelmingly white Nantucket recruited their black running back from elsewhere, as done routinely by private schools and many affluent suburban public schools. When even Nantucket has a black running back, the opportunities for teenage white running backs obviously are few and far between.

Svigor said...

Sure, there are even tough Mexican and Asian guys who can beat up some blacks, but I dare say, 99 times out of 100, black guy will beat a Mexican or an Asian. And, 19 out of 20, black will beat a white? How do I know this? I attended an integrated school, and the bullying/violence was almost entirely black on non-black.

First of all, you're projecting high school onto society.

Second, you're conflating behavior and size/strength.

Third, you're exaggerating, big time. Average black tougher than 19/20 whites and 99/100 yellows/browns? That is way out there.

Maybe you should go kick the crap out of a black guy or something.

I mean, I got beat up by a black kid once. I also beat up a black kid. Does this mean I'm 1/20 among whites? If you'd seen me at the time you'd laugh at the notion; I was apt to blow away in a strong wind. And he was bigger, though not by much; I just wanted it more.

Svigor said...

Conservative white males still have racial pride and don't like this new reality, but many of them don't want to discuss it because it is an open admission of the new social/sexual dynamic where blacks are the top males attracting the hearts and desires of the hottest white girls.

Another joke post. The part where white men are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation doesn't enter into it then?

White men will freely express their feelings about race around...fellow white men. Try it some time. Or maybe not - I do live in the south so maybe what you say holds true elsewhere.

ironrailsironweights said...

Running backs are the least intelligent players on the field.

I thought wide receivers and defensive backs were the least intelligent, keeping in mind the adage that the closer to the ball at the snap, the higher the I.Q.

Peter

Truth said...

"I mean, I got beat up by a black kid once. I also beat up a black kid."

Yeah but Svigor, come on, she hadn't had her period yet.

Dutch Boy said...

Caste Football cites plenty of outstanding white high school running backs and receivers who could not get Div I scholarship offers. This puts them at a great disadvantage because Div I schools are the pipeline to the pros. The small school guys are typically low draft choices and more likely to be released.

Anonymous said...

I quit my job just so that I could post on this board. I send roughly 90-95 daily comments and 2-3 get through!

That's better than my success rate.





Just kidding (but not by much).

Svigor said...

Yeah but Svigor, come on, she hadn't had her period yet.

Yeah but everybody knows black chicks are hell on wheels.

(Wanna see the whites who are really intimidated by blacks in public school? Hint: if you're looking at the boys you're missing all the action)

Anonymous said...

"Quit whining about Truth. He provides necessary counterpoints on this blog"

He provides useless snark.

An actual, factual counterpoint would be a pleasure to read.

Chuck said...

Whiskey:

"Let's accept that on average, Blacks have superior speed and short term strength, as a working hypothesis. Does that mean they make better football players? No. Football is a team game requiring everyone to be in unison, not a series of one on one actions. Take Jerry Rice, unheralded out of college and slow on the verge of being cut. His insight was to promote endurance AND catching the football. He did not get "faster" in the fourth quarter, merely lose speed less than the corners, through superior conditioning, and had better abilities to catch the football. Middle Class Larry Fitzgerald follows the same path (lots of training to catch the football)."

the article is about white running backs. whites have fared better at wide receiver because if they are able to run precise routes, their deficiencies in speed and athleticism aren't as obvious.

this doesn't apply to tailback. with whites, there is very rarely a combination of speed and size. running backs, if they aren't fast (like Barry Sanders) are big (like Eddie George). black tailbacks - if they are big - are usually faster than white tailbacks of the same size. often, white running backs (Mike Alstott and John Riggins) gleaned their competitive advantage from their size to the detriment of speed.

black running backs (brandon jacobs today, fred taylor in his prime, curtis martin etc) were big guys who also had pretty good speed for their size. this makes a world of difference. they had a good enough mixture of speed and size to break tackles and get past the defensive line. white running backs (alstott) were better for short yardage. their speed/size combo couldn't get the past D lines.

couchscientist said...

One thing to consider in the fading white running back is the sophistication of coaching/training today. In the old days, a player (especially an average one) was on his own to figure out how to maximize his physical potential through training and to maximize his game day performance through study. Now the game, especially at the higher levels, is all business. There are teams of smart dudes to figure out how to get the best return out of an athelete's body, and more coaching to make sure even the idiots know their blocking assignments, how to cut, etc. The intelligence and hard work advantage of being white just doesnt go very far at running back any more.

Anonymous said...

All I can say that black-white relations in modern government schools have followed the pattern of gifted "nerd" vs. normal IQ in all-white schools in the Good Old Days (TM).

IOW, all white kids are the "nerds" now.

MaryJ said...

but I can't recall ever seeing a football game at the professional or major-college level that featured a black kicker.
-----
Reggie Roby, a Pro-Bowler punter who played for the Dolphins in the 80s.

Steve Sailer said...

I saw a game at Malibu High School once where both placekickers were black.

Upper middle class black kids who grow playing in the American Youth Soccer Organization with their neighbors make fine kickers. But schools in the 'hood can have a hard time finding a kid who will suffer the ignominy of being the kicker.

Anonymous said...

there's more to being an "alpha male" than pure physicality. dominating the modern tribe...think bill clinton.

Anonymous said...

“often, white running backs (Mike Alstott and John Riggins) gleaned their competitive advantage from their size to the detriment of speed.”

Point taken, but Riggins WAS NOT slow for his era (4.6s 40).

“Gerhart’s speed and dimensions (6-foot-2, 230 pounds, 4.43 in the 40-yard dash).”

According to this site: http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=65195&draftyear=2010&genpos=RB Gehart is 6’0.5”, 235 and runs an average 40 time of 4.55 (Hi: 4.64 Low: 4.48). Basically, he’s like John Riggins, only slightly shorter.

“Or Pro Wrestling/Entertainment -- most of the big stars there are White”

WTF Testy? Pro wrestling is not a sport! The big stars are white because that’s who the overwhelmingly white prole fans identify with and you have to be able to speak to do that job. Pro Wrestling is basically soap opera for white male proles.

“I've heard that Asian-Indian and Jewish men have larger-than-average penises, but they aren't regarded as macho men.”

Well Andrea, here’s what a little searching around PubMed found (apparently what you heard wasn’t quite true):

For Indians, “Erected length and circumference were measured for 93 subjects… Mean erected length was found to be 13.01 cm and erected circumference was 11.46 cm.” (Penile length and circumference: an Indian study.: Int J Impot Res. 2007 Jun 14; [Epub ahead of print Promodu K, Shanmughadas KV, Bhat S, Nair KR. 1Dr Promodu's Institute of Sexual & Marital Health, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi, Kerala, India.) A study of “50 Jewish Caucasian patients… published in the December 2000 International Journal of Impotence Research found that average erect penis length was 13.6 cm (5.35 in) (Measured by staff).

In contrast, “A study conducted by LifeStyles Condoms found an average of 14.9 cm (5.9 in) … (Measured by staff)… 401 [American] college students volunteered to be measured during 2001 Spring Break in CancĂșn, Mexico.” The same study “found an average circumference of 12.6 cm (5.0 in).”

Similarly, a study by “PRO FAMILIA Landesverband NRW,” the University Clinic of Essen [in Germany] and the firm Condomi found an average erect penile length among German young men of 14.48 cm (measured by staff).

Anonymous said...

Here would be an interesting exercise: Imagine a scenario where you got to pick two NFL all-star teams, one black, one white. Additionally, for the black team and the white team, all the coaches (head, assistants, O and D co-ordinators, etc.), training staff, doctors and other support staff had to be of the same race as the players. How do you think the two teams would do against one another? Even though the white team would have a speed deficit and have to use players who are currently safeties and FBs at CB and RB, I suspect the white team would have a much better chance of winning than most people would think.

Jokah Macpherson said...

I saw Toby Gerhart live at the Stanford/Wake Forest game this year. Wake's defense was the only one to hold him under 100 yards rushing - I didn't realize what a big deal it was at the time. He has a lot of talent and is fun to watch.

Outland said...

Caste Football offers an interesting PoV. I don't see a lot of nasty language or poor arguments on their site, they just put forth what they really believe and back it up with facts, anecdotes, logic. Not PC, but certainly no BS either.

How funny that commenter "Truth" thinks it's absolutely idiotic to even suggest that discrimination against whites is possible -- that's what I get from the tone of his comment -- while practically the whole world (including some HBD-sites) wouldn't deny for a second that antiblack discrimination is a real phenomenon. However, antiwhite discrimination, such a thing simply cannot be. People simply don't believe it's possible.

Peter A said...

This whole discussion, like most discussions about American "blacks" - is ignoring the elephant in the room - lot of top running backs are actually mulattos. Are there any running backs of "pure" 100% African descent? I notice I don't see many African immigrants making a splash at that position. Maybe it's not "black" vs. "white", maybe it's strong mutt vs. weaker pedigree.

Anonymous said...

Outland sez:
However, antiwhite discrimination, such a thing simply cannot be. People simply don't believe it's possible.



I guess the reason, apart from ethnic lobbyism, is that most blacks apart from the AA gravy train and a few African dictators are actually croaking, whilst many whites are doing OK to well. Since most people think egalitarianism by default, they will only believe it when they see impoverished whites, which the MSM carefully keps off the screen.

Anonymous said...

What is really ironic about this conversation is that the very same toughness and physical dominance of blacks that have so many whites concerned about losing racial dominance, is the very same reason that the ancestors of these whites brought and bought blacks to live and breed among them.

What's that old saying - "what goes around, comes around?"

Truth said...

"I suspect the white team would have a much better chance of winning than most people would think..."

Well, the last two coaches to win the Superbowl were black (in addition to Steeler's Assistant Head Coach, Tight Ends Coach, Defensive Backs Coach, Running Backs Coach, Offensive Quality Controller, Tony Dungy's Assistant head coach, who is now the head coach, Assistant Strength Coach, Running Backs Coach, Special Assistant to the Defense, Tight End Coach, and Defensive Backs Coach)

The GM of the losing team last year was black as were the Running Backs Coach, Defensive Line and Defensive Backs Coaches so who knows?

"How funny that commenter "Truth" thinks it's absolutely idiotic to even suggest that discrimination against whites is possible"

I never once wrote anything of the sort, you provided a point, I provided a counterpoint. For the record I beleive that there is prejudice (not discrimination) against some white skill position football players.

"Prejudice" means to prejudge. For instance in the NBA, Tyler Hansborough, the first 4-time 1st team All-American went #14 in last year's NBA draft. Would he have gone a little higher if he were black, probably, but there is a lot of money involved and the WHITE guys who draft players have written too many million dollar contracts to too many white busts before him.

I think of two, Joe Wolf and Eric Montross, who were big, white, and actually went to THE SAME SCHOOL Hansborough did. It's business, and it's a copycat business at that. Ehen you guys start judging every black person you meet with a completely clean slate, you have a moral case to start whining, not before.

ironrailsironweights said...

This whole discussion, like most discussions about American "blacks" - is ignoring the elephant in the room - lot of top running backs are actually mulattos. Are there any running backs of "pure" 100% African descent? I notice I don't see many African immigrants making a splash at that position.

None of the NFL's top ten current rushing leaders are particularly light. Whatever white ancestry they may have is minimal.

Peter

Svigor said...

What is really ironic about this conversation is that the very same toughness and physical dominance of blacks that have so many whites concerned about losing racial dominance, is the very same reason that the ancestors of these whites brought and bought blacks to live and breed among them.

What's that old saying - "what goes around, comes around?"


I think the primary reason was, they were for sale. Whites sold fellow whites (and everyone sold everyone) for most of history.

So if what goes around comes around, what's the comeuppance for the blacks, Arabs, and Jews who were so crucial to the trade? Just curious.

For that matter, what's the comeuppance for all the everyone selling everyone? Or has that been lost to the annals of history? Again, just curious.

P.S., if you're a soul waiting to be born, and you're told you're to be born black, and offered "descendant of slaves," or "not descendant of slaves," which do you choose?

Ultimately, you're talking about a big karmic payback for one of the bigger boons of history. So when do I get my check?

Anonymous said...

"Well, the last two coaches to win the Superbowl were black (in addition to Steeler's Assistant Head Coach, Tight Ends Coach, Defensive Backs Coach, Running Backs Coach, Offensive Quality Controller, Tony Dungy's Assistant head coach, who is now the head coach, Assistant Strength Coach, Running Backs Coach, Special Assistant to the Defense, Tight End Coach, and Defensive Backs Coach)"

Were the offensive and defensive coordinators black? The Obama administrations top man is black, and he has other blacks in high positions, but it seems that whites (often Jews) really run things.

Also, if you had an all black team, where would you get a QB? Maybe you could use the massively overrated Donovan McNabb with his 88 IQ (14 wonderlic score)? (Notice how when Donovan got hurt the fist time, the Eagles played well under the mediocre AJ Feeley. Then the second time he got hurt they played much better under Garcia than they had played under Donovan. Then look what Kevin Kolb just did the last time Donovan got hurt. It's lookin' like Donovan sucks and his rep has been based on his skin color and the Eagles' excellent defense over the years).

ATBOTL said...

Steve, can you please stop posting comments by the poster "Andrea."

"Andrea" is a male with some kind of sexual fetish for black men and all his posts are expressions of this. He has been making similar posts, all with the same theme, on various racially oriented sites for the last six months or so. Allowing posts like this, that are written for the author's own sexual gratification, degrades the level of discourse.

Anonymous said...

"Well, the last two coaches to win the Superbowl were black"

Correct- Tom Coughlin is black Irish

Riggins was a Big 8 sprint champion

Donald Igwebuike- Tampa Bay Bucs placekicker- Justin Medlock from ucla was close last year

Dan in DC

ben tillman said...

You know what I've never seen, ever? A black kicker. I suppose historically all-black schools like Grambling must use black kickers, but I can't recall ever seeing a football game at the professional or major-college level that featured a black kicker.

Clemson had had three by 1981, starting with Willie Jordan who played QB and PK in 1975. Then there were the Nigerian soccer players: Obed Ariri from 1977-1980and Donald Igwebuike beginning 1n the national championship season of 1981. As the previous commenter noted, Donald then played for the Bucs for years.

Anonymous said...

Are there any running backs of "pure" 100% African descent? I notice I don't see many African immigrants making a splash at that position. Maybe it's not "black" vs. "white", maybe it's strong mutt vs. weaker pedigree.

Or maybe it's the relatively low international popularity of American football as opposed to other sports like association football or basketball.

Look at African-born blacks who immigrated at a young age (i.e. below-school age). I wonder how much interest there is in American football among them.

angelus said...

Well, the last two coaches to win the Superbowl were black

Who knew Tom Coughlin, the New York Giants in 2008, was a black head coach? I have no idea who your sources are, but I am suitably impressed.

Anonymous said...

Your point made about blacks often developing earlier is very true and could point a finger towards an unwitting institutional racism on behalf of colleges. When we look at elite sports we find whites are stronger, jump higher, are the most explosive and powerful athletes on the planet (weightlifters) and have a physiology that deals with impact better (higher subcataneous body fat and thicker joints. Why the hell are there so few white running backs then? Speed is far from being the most important quality in a running back despite the saying "speed kills". Players like Hillis can only be stopped by full contact tackles so need only be fast enough to stop that from happening.

It's offensive how much noise is made about the lack of black head coaches and quarter backs but there being no mention that the NFL is way blacker than is proportional or that whites are non existent in many positions. The idea that whites are physically inferior is so obviously stupid.

The college system is just racist as is the NFL. The culture of bad behavior among black players at both levels is ignored and no one wants to point out that very few white players bring this kind of controversy (many black players do not either).

Toby Gerhart was quizzed about feeling 'entitled' as a white running back. Hillis has been racially abused on the NFL fields. WTF???