Thread: Bernard Hopkins: Black fighters, we are built differently

Bernard Hopkins: Black Fighters, We Are Built Differently - Boxing News

B-Hop talks about how black fighters are built differently and that most blacks are just athletic and he says that as a whole they are just more athletic and that other races have to work hard to get those attributes that blacks don't. He says it's called genetics.

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Bernard Hopkins: Black Fighters, We Are Built Differently - Boxing News

B-Hop talks about how black fighters are built differently and that most blacks are just athletic and he says that as a whole they are just more athletic and that other races have to work hard to get those attributes that blacks don't. He says it's called genetics.

Calz must have those genes too.

Pretty fair comments really. They can't swim though.

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Bernard Hopkins: Black Fighters, We Are Built Differently - Boxing News

B-Hop talks about how black fighters are built differently and that most blacks are just athletic and he says that as a whole they are just more athletic and that other races have to work hard to get those attributes that blacks don't. He says it's called genetics.

It's called practice. Police are racist, and if I was getting chased by the police I'd run too!

its actually true

there was a big study done on it, ill find something on it if i can

but athleticness was tested on different races from an early age right through to late teans

for instance black kids could run much faster than any other race at all ages

they have a lower body fat percent which seems to make the difference, but even when you take say 5 black kids and 5 exception white kids all with the same body fat percentage, the results are closer, but the black kids still run faster

didnt a study once find that black people have denser bone muscle structures to every other race therefore are more competitive in impact sports such as sprinting

Either way its a dumbfounded argument, the white race could claim its genetic advancements make it better allround athletes, asians could claim being mentally superior gives them advantages.

swings and roundabouts, whats more concerning is since getting his ass handed to him by calzaghe hopkins seems fixated on the whole issue of race

If Hopkins were white then the KKK would be asking him to open up The Philly branch of the clan.

Stupid comments again but it gets him press time.

To some extent what he mentions is true. African Americans and other blacks that can trace their lineage to West Africa have naturally lower body fat percentages and subtle differences in skeletal structure. This is why Jamaicans (apart from sprinting being ingrained in the culture) and other black sprinters can run sub 10 and a white male is yet to do it. They also have higher levels of testosterone.

On the other hand you won't see a black man do what Michael Phelps did at the Olympics either or dominate gymnastics.

Depends on the sport......certain physical traits may make some black boxers faster (more quick twitch muscle fibre) but at the end of the day boxing is equal opportunity and it's skills and other aspects (styles) that win you fights. The Jews and Italians no longer send the hundreds of contenders to the ring they once did, so circumstance plays a part too.

I really like Hopkins, an exceptional fighter. But if a white fighter or sportsman were to come out with similar comments he would be chastised for being an "Aryan!"

I've heard this before. To the posters who stated that they had read about this idea too, I have a question. Do you recall the explanations for why athletes with black (or West African) + white racial backgrounds compete on the same level with athletes with only black backgrounds? If the theory is true, why haven't athletes with solely West African backgrounds dominated?

There may be something to all this genetic talk though. With some exceptions, Ethiopians win every marathon and Northern Europeans win every heavy weight-lifting competition.

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

I've heard this before. To the posters who stated that they had read about this idea too, I have a question. Do you recall the explanations for why athletes with black (or West African) + white racial backgrounds compete on the same level with athletes with only black backgrounds? If the theory is true, why haven't athletes with solely West African backgrounds dominated?

There may be something to all this genetic talk though. With some exceptions, Ethiopians win every marathon and Northern Europeans win every heavy weight-lifting competition.

Athletes with solely West African backgrounds don't have the finances or resources to dominate the sports because they are mainly in Africa. Those are poor 3rd world nations there mainly. But there is another theory that if those same West Africans were given the same kind of training and resources in the west, they too would dominate athletics. But that's just a theory as of right now.

Yeah plus African Boxers always get robbed by the judges.

I haven't read the article but but I assume he's saying Black Athletes are the best?

If so, rubbish. They have their own qualities, same as everyone else.

Apparently Bernard wants to go out of his way to make sure everyone knows he's a dumbass. Bernard if all this race stuff is true then how do you explain Sergio Martinez, Manny Pacquiao, The Klitschko's, etc?

sub·jec·tive

/səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled[suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

7. Grammar . a. pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.

b. (in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.

c. similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative.


8. Obsolete . characteristic of a political subject; submissive.

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

I've heard this before. To the posters who stated that they had read about this idea too, I have a question. Do you recall the explanations for why athletes with black (or West African) + white racial backgrounds compete on the same level with athletes with only black backgrounds? If the theory is true, why haven't athletes with solely West African backgrounds dominated?

There may be something to all this genetic talk though. With some exceptions, Ethiopians win every marathon and Northern Europeans win every heavy weight-lifting competition.

Athletes with solely West African backgrounds don't have the finances or resources to dominate the sports because they are mainly in Africa. Those are poor 3rd world nations there mainly. But there is another theory that if those same West Africans were given the same kind of training and resources in the west, they too would dominate athletics. But that's just a theory as of right now.

But, there are West Africans with those resources in the states, UK and Europe. Do they fare any better than athletes of mixed ethnic backgrounds?