Rancid thread.

Correct to a point. There is some circumstantial evidence that a larger proportion of black people from certain ethnic black groups are more gifted at say sprinting or long distance running. Obviously pigmies don't fall in that category for a start. However most of the greatest sprinters were and are black so there is something in it. It's pure genetics - in the same way as a slightly larger proportion of Scandinavians are more blonde and seem to make great Weightlifters, Germans more tall and make good headers of a football, Somoans are more often very big and make good RL players. It's a genetic mutation (Darwin) that has allowed certain ethnic groups to develop modest extra abilities in certain muscle groups with the result they can run very slightly faster than most people - in the story of human evolution it's no big WOW.

To suggest this is general amongst all black people is wrong, for every Linford Cristie there are dozens of not very athletic black people.

Only at the very elite 0.1% is there any real difference and frankly it's only a few who ever achieve it. In all my years of following the sports only Ellery Hanley has ever displayed any real superhuman abilities not found in any white players. Offiah was not that quick that he couldn't be caught, he had a good brain for RL and played in a great team which made the difference. Oddly Ellery was far from "pure" black for want of a better description.

So to conclude, being black as far as I can see occasionally offers extra but not very often. It's not a myth but it's very very out of the norm - you certainly couldn't pick young players based on skin colour and expect to see any better results.

League is faily representative of the make up of the UK although its Aisan players that are non-existent if you are looking at SL level. 3-4 black/mixed race players in the England team is more than representative, you could even argue its too black, which would be as ridiculous as too white. The one sport in the UK that can hold its head up as a leader in the inclusion of 'non-white' players, coaches etc is League.

Viv Anderson was first black England footballer and that was in late 70's, and I've got no idea about Yawnion.

We should celebrate Leagues diversity and its progressive support of minorities. (gets off soapbox)

Just imagine the uproar if you started a thread on here titled 'Too many blacks in RL?' The thread would be locked and you would be banned in about two minutes, so why hasn't this one?

The problem as I see it (and I do see it as a problem) is that the most black and to an even greater extent, asian people are just not interested in Rugby League.
My son plays under 12s in West Yorkshire and I can think of only 2 players in his division who are black and none who are asian. The same is true of his school team.
Given the local demographic, this is a massive under-representation. Racial athletic diffences dont even come into it.

Chile

I'm not sure why people have an issue with Celt's statements - he absolutely right. There are differences between blacks and whites, but it's not quite that simple. In terms fast and slow-twitch muscles, West Africans and Polynesians, for example, have a predominance of fast twitch muscle fibres, whilst it's also been found that East Africans are able to run at a higher maximum oxygen capacity than whites (or West Africans, for that matter). rlThis article explains it fairly clearly.rl

People of West African and Poynesian are, therefore, probably marginally more suited to League (and boxing, sprinting, etc), whilst people of East African origin are more suited to duration running. But - and this is key - many studies also conclude that those differences are only noticeable at the top end of any sport, where the marginal split-second differences count - sprinting being the obvious example.

Of course there are differences. To say there aren't is ridiculous. But to label it simply a 'black' or 'white' issue is wrong. Look at Papuans, generally short and stocky, against Kenyans, generally tall and slim. Yet both are black. Are they they same? Suited to the same sports, perhaps? Of course not. The fact is that different ethnicities have difference origins, their bodies had difference climatic and territorial factors to adapt to and overcome and over tens or hundreds of thousands of years different body types have developed. rlA look at Polynesian origins here.rl

Too many people are terrified to discuss any differences in race or ethnicity - because there are differences you know, and it's not just skin colour.

Anyway, is League too white? Not at all.

I bet you have a problem with the MOBO awards too don't you?

The “little white bloke with the 6 on his back” who is the “brains of the operation” is exactly the same argument that was prevalent in the world of NFL that black players can be linebackers, receivers etc but couldn’t be a quarter back – it was BS then and its BS here

Makes me cringe to even read it

As above.... In my view, it was when he moved away from anatomy and started talking about the intelligence bit

That is exactly what I said but you put it very well

With regard to the NFL quarterback that's because the USA is still very racist and in many parts has a white supremicist stance. Often black QBs that have been very successful at college (winning the Hiesmann trophy) get short shrift compared to their white counterparts in the same position. I'm sure it's very anecdotal but given the radicalism in the US being equal to or even worse (in some areas) than some of the muslim states it surprises me not in the least.

Rugby League should hold its head up high, it is a very inclusive sport, more so than most others and history has shown that we are not afraid to take the lead (through opportunity and not through political pressure). When it comes to sticking our heads above the parapet league has been there and done that long before most other recognised sports especially with regard to class & race.
This is something we should be proud of & continue to make it a sport for all without needing to fanfare it or take it to the 'ghettos' as a some sort of political gesture.

First of all just let me say that it's not conducive to a good debate--and more than a little frustrating--to have your views repeatedly attributed to fear or political correctness. Personally I've made it clear that my opinion is not informed by either. Of course discussing race isn't racist, and nobody has suggested it is, but [isome remarks[/i made by the OP and other posters in which racial stereotypes are presented (whether these be positive or negative) characterising the innate abilities of so-called races (and I do mean so-called) [iare[/i racist since they make grossly simplified generalisations about groups of people between whom there is far more variety than there is uniformity. Besides which every positive generalisation has a negative one by disassociation - blacks athletic/whites weedy, whites are the brains/blacks lack the brains.

The first article you linked to is, despite it's claims, a rather unscientific regurgitation of myths. Fast twitch muscles, for instance, have very little variation from person to person, (in fact all mammals have pretty much a 50/50 mix of fast and slow twitch,) and what variation there is owes as much to training as it does to genetics. Also, fast twitch muscles "max out" at the same rate for everybody so all other things being equal the real difference is in technique and energy consumption.

Long distance runners, on the other hand, do experience a biological effect of training at high altitudes. Far from being a permanent racial trait, however, this is a temporary effect which everybody experiences (as I mentioned previously on this thread). Take a Kenyan gold medal winner out of Kenya for long enough and the playing field will level out.

These stereotypes and myths are very prevalent though and have been around for a long time, and in that regard they have their own material effect. I remember some years ago reading a study which addressed the perception that Asians aren't interested in football. It was shown that Asian youths were neither under or over represented in [iyouth[/i football but that football scouts, when interviewed, used their preconceived ideas about the non-interest of Asians as justification for not focusing on teams and players from predominantly Asian areas. It isn't surprising then that few Asians go on beyond the amateur game if this is the prevalent practice. I imagine there are corollaries with other sports and groups of people. In the US, for example, sports scholarships are a vehicle for social mobility, whilst Blacks are massively over-represented in lower socio-economic groups. Add to that the widely held perception that Blacks are better athletes and you have the ingredients for higher participation, and therefore more success, in sports amongst Blacks.

Just to reiterate, these views aren't being expressed because I'm scared of discussing race, but because at various times I've had cause to read publications such as 'The European Journal of Applied Physiology' and 'Sports in Society' to name two which sprang immediately to mind as I read the OP.

I was very specific in how a phrased the term "more suited to league".

I agree we the theory that some races may have a natural physiological advantage over others (you can't ignore how many top sprinters are from Western African heritage, or distance runners from Eastern African heritage, etc). But there's more to RL than physiological advantage. I disagree that some races have a natural mental/intellectual advantage over others. There is no evidence of this, and any evidence ever used is usually to do with culture and upbringing of certain people in certain areas. To say we need "a little white bloke dictating play" is what made the thread daft.

How many from Western Africa itself? Surely Western African countries should be winning gold medals by the bucket load?


I've got deja vu.