The Front Row

This.

And all Black76 is saying is that there are far more factors at play toward becoming an accomplished athlete than fast-twitch muscle fibers. The hard work, the preparation, the training, the mental outlook. It's more than being able to jump high or run fast.

Thanks, Black76

Genetics may or may not play a major role in the greatness of an individual, but as the article stated before, it's practice, practice, practice in the chosen field you wish to be great. We talk about Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain and others of African American decent. However, lets look at those 7 footers who have excelled like Nowitske, and Ming, Paul Gasol and others who are not African American.

One major case in point can be found on tOSU basketball team. Aaron Craft is not the most athletic point guard in college basketball, nor is he one of he best shooters, but he is by far and away one of the best defenders and that comes from hard work. The same was the case with Dane Sanzenbacher. You can not dismiss the hours of practice and hard work and rely on the assumption that it is genetics.

I commend folks for keeping this thread semi-intellectual and not driving it directly into the racism ditch. Problem is, much of the intellectual discussion so far has been factually incorrect.

The nature versus nurture argument is pretty well resolved scientifically. Nature won, hands down.

Every cell in your body was created through two sources: Mom's DNA and Dad's DNA. That's nature. No matter how hard you train, not matter how supportive your parents, no matter what sports you practice every day -- you're never, ever, going to get better than your cellular make-up allows. You've either got fast twitch muscles in your thighs or you don't. You've either got eyes with great peripheral vision or you don't. You've either got a 99th percentile skeletal frame or you don't. It's all nature, not nurture.

Not saying hard work and long hours of practice don't make you better. Of course they do. It's just that we all have genetically-derived limits to how good we can get. Take two twins with absolutely identical genetics and cellular anatomy. One can become faster or stronger than the other by working harder or smarter. But he can't become taller. And neither of them can become a world class sprinter without the genetically-derived cellular make-up of a world class sprinter. Usain Bolt was a world class sprinter the moment he was conceived. The baby in the crib next to his in the maternity ward probably never had a chance. That's biology. That's life.

Even in psychology, where nurture has historically been touted as the cause of practically everything, nature has won the scientific debate. We now know that at least 90% of human personality is genetically determined. That leaves maybe 10% for us, our parents, and our wives to try to modify. A measly 10%! I've tried my whole life to change aspects of my personality, with next to no luck. When I've tried to change other people's [wives] personalities, I've had even less success. [WARNING: Do NOT try this at home]

Some wonder if there's a superior athletic gene pool in SEC-land compared to Big10 country? That's an answer none of us can possibly know. Trying to short-cut the answer, relying on demographic and racial stereotypes instead of science, won't cut it. [Take that Jimmy the Greek] There is simply no scientific evidence to support such an assumption.

Seems to me there are two very well known and scientifically provable explanations for the SEC's success at stocking their teams with great athletes. Weather and oversigning. Anyplace where kids can run around outdoors 12 months a year will produce more athletic kids that a place where kids are confined indoors 3-4 months a year. And any team that gives out 110 scholarships to get 85 players will do better than the teams that only give out 85.

Weather and oversigning give me all the explanation I need.

Thanks Malcolm for the kind words!

Littlewoody, lets jump straight to the end of your post where you conclude that weather and over signing create the advantage. I am illiterate on the subject of over signing so I will leave that be.

But weather supports my claim. Ordinarilly, the weather would not be agreeable enough for football from the mide of the fourth quarter of the year till about the second quarter. So lets settle on November to march. That's 4months that you couldn't reasonably do more than play ruff and tumble with your buddies, no organized leagues. However in the south those months are a just fine. So lets say a kid starts playing at 6 years old till he goes to college at eighteen. 12 yrs x 4 mo per year =48 months or 4 years of extra organized ball.

4 yrs of additional training is an unfair advantage in any discipline.

As a student in grad school for clinical psychology I'll cordially disagree with your first state. Psychology is a science so how can psychology "tout" one thing and "science" suggest something else? The emerging and prevailing theories responsible for the outcome of individuals behaviors is the biopsychosocial model. A half century ago it was the popular thought that schizophrenia was among the most biologically based "psychological" disorders. We now know through studies involving identical twins raised apart that genetics is responsible for only 50%.

Now personality (level of extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, etc) are considered to be highly genetic but there is really no conclusive evidence for this as compared to mental disorders. Genetic factors work as a kind of varying window of possible outcomes. e.g., When you are born you could have an IQ of around 110 but the experiences and upbringing you have will affect exactly where you end up.

I will agree with you that there is really no scientific way to determine why the south has more talent. We can only hypothesize.