Sprinter reignites debate over correlation between race, speed

Even if he has no intention of taking part in the debate himself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/26/european-championships-christophe-lemaitre

Kid came a few years too late for Jimmy the Greek, unfortunately.

 

I'm beginning to get excited for the 100 and 200 meter dashes at the 2012 olympics; and this only ads to it. As dominant as Usain Bolt was and still is, I'm not convinced that he can't be beaten.

 

You realize Bolt's record is 9.58 and this kid ran 9.98...that's a huge difference in a 100.

 

Not discussing it would only be ignoring the pink elephant in the room. Nobody of non-African descent has ever run that fast before. It's the only thing that made the race noteworthy and no doubt the first thing everybody who saw it thought about. I don't see anything particularly Greek-ish about addressing the obvious.

As for the "old and controversial debate", I think all of us who've played sports or been paying attention over the years know the obvious answer. At least how it works out on average. As for "why", who cares? It is what it is. "Why" is a question best left unanswered. And those who've tried are the ones who've fucked up their careers with ignorant Greek type statements.

 

The answers are: 1. Generally, yes. 2. Nobody knows.

 

Who's the fastest player in Major League Baseball?

I'm having a hard time thinking of someone faster than Brett Gardner.

 

Its all about the time put in.

 

Hell with that. It's a fascinating question. It just needs to be answered by scientists.

 

Doesn't count. He is a Euro.

 

The problem is, there's a long, shameful history of racist pseudo-science that has poisoned the well. John Hoberman's "Darwin's Athletes" covered that topic quite thoroughly.

 

Nyjer Morgan.
Andrew McCutcheon.
Ellsbury (when he's not crying about his ribs).
Emilio Bonafacio.