Blacks' Abundance In Pro Sports: Affirmative Action ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He beat up a lot of white guys as well. In fact he beat up everything put in front of him.

Joe is a real gentleman and a Welsh Legend. He would be ashamed to be used in some sort of racist rant by the likes of you.
Every time you moronically hide behind your dopey race card, and toss it around aimlessly, you further display YOUR racism. You cannot point to anything that I've said that is racist, and you haven't, you just blabber the word "racist" and expect all your lemming followers to go along with you.

My mention of Calzaghe was a only a RESPONSE to Essien's racist and ridiculous question about a white fighter beating a black fighter in his prime. Boy, has this thread ever gone down the tubes. And it still looks like nobody (except ptbw) is even attempting to be on topic, and answer the QUESTION of the title of the OP.

The question of the OP has not been shown to be anything close to accurate.

That there are more blacks in pro sports does NOT mean affirmative action is present. YOu have presented no evidence at all that suggests any white player was replaced by a black player who was not as good.
 
The standard is the same. The best play and get paid.

No one is drafting black players because of affirmative action.
Winterborn, I appreciate your appearance here and attention to the subject, but this thread has progressed a long way, without anyone presenting much of any evidence in response to the question of the OP. Lots of unsubstantiated opinions being posted.

All I'm seeing is opinions which lack any substantial sourcing or link(s). If you can enter something with some kind of evidence attached, that would propel this thread to a much higher level. I'd welcome it, not matter what it says.

Before I can refute your supposition, it needs to be based on more than "There are too many blacks in sports". As I pointed out, the blacks today are only a few generations from being bred for physical attributes. And there is absolutely no evidence presented to prove that affirmative action is the culprit.
 
The question about the possibility of Affirmative Action doesn't need to be based on anything more than a large population of black NFL players, relative to a small population of white players.

This not a supposition. it is a QUESTION based on the facts of racial population in the NFL. As for there not being evidence of AA being the culprit, I'm asking for evidence of it being the culprit or not being the culprit.

If there is no evidence that it is the culprit (and I said IF), that does not necessarily mean that it's not the culprit. There may be no evidence that I can play the mandolin, but that doesn't mean I can't.

On possibility of AA in the NFL, I'm still waiting to see some evidence be presented one way or the other. ptbw has come the closest to doing that, but I'd like to see some sources for his posts.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Lacy an all time great ?
Be Serious
I'll be serious by not dignifying your airhead remarks with responses. At least I'll try to keep my conversation with you to a minimum. I try to avoid talking to nincompoops

So now it's "all time greats" we're talking about, huh ? Before it was >> "one black boxer who was in prime, who in the last 50 years, lost to a white fighter in the ring."

Maybe later today, you'll toss out yet another description. In answer to what you said before, Jeff Lacy was in his prime, undefeated (before the Calzaghe fight), and the IBF Champion. Second time telling you that.

Of course there are dozens, if not hundreds of white fighters who match the description you asked for, but I'm not going to spend all day naming them all, to answer a dumb question.
 
Jeff Lacy an all time great ?
Be Serious
I'll be serious by not dignifying your airhead remarks with responses. At least I'll try to keep my conversation with you to a minimum. I try to avoid talking to nincompoops

So now it's "all time greats" we're talking about, huh ? Before it was >> "one black boxer who was in prime, who in the last 50 years, lost to a white fighter in the ring."

Maybe later today, you'll toss out yet another description. In answer to what you said before, Jeff Lacy was in his prime, undefeated (before the Calzaghe fight), and the IBF Champion. Second time telling you that.

Of course there are dozens, if not hundreds of white fighters who match the description you asked for, but I'm not going to spend all day naming them all, to answer a dumb question.
Jeff Lacy was not a great fighter and you know this.

He was not one the great middleweights or super middleweights of the last 50 years. He's no Roy Jones Jnr, James Toney, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Mike McCallum
 
The question of the OP has not been shown to be anything close to accurate.

That there are more blacks in pro sports does NOT mean affirmative action is present. YOu have presented no evidence at all that suggests any white player was replaced by a black player who was not as good.
I didn't say affirmative action was present. I ASKED if it might have been. Got it ?
And questions don't have accuracy. Statements do.
 
I think you are the third rail no one wants to touch. But for different reasons.

As for your supposition in the OP, don't be daft. The people who make the decisions on hiring players have their livelihoods tied to winning. Do you actually think they would pass on a better player in order to hire one with the right skin color? Really??

First of all, the only third rail no one wants to address is that the black players are only a few generations out from being bred for physical abilities.

Second of all, can you name a white player who was replaced by a clearly inferior black player? Not one involving the draft, because there are plenty of guys drafted who never worked out in the pros. But a white player who was starting and was replaced by a black player that is clearly not as good.
1. Got no idea how I would be a third rail. :confused:

2. In answer to your question >> "Do you actually think they would pass on a better player in order to hire one with the right skin color? Really??" Do you "actually" think this might be an unusual thing in our society in 2019 ? NFL teams are businesses. Businesses use AA to hire less qualified blacks over more qualified whites and Asians EVERY DAY all across America, and have been doing it ever since Lyndon Johnson coined the term "Affirmative Action" in 1965. Do you see some reason why NFL teams should be an exception ?

3. You're coming into this thread a bit late. The question of ?? "can you name a white player who was replaced by a clearly inferior black player?" was already raised by Tommy Tainant (repeatedly), and was addressed by the fact that whether one can or can't do that, there is more than enough existing condition just in the disproportion of black to white players, to support a question pertaining to AA. No need to name this player or that.
 
I think you are the third rail no one wants to touch. But for different reasons.

As for your supposition in the OP, don't be daft. The people who make the decisions on hiring players have their livelihoods tied to winning. Do you actually think they would pass on a better player in order to hire one with the right skin color? Really??

First of all, the only third rail no one wants to address is that the black players are only a few generations out from being bred for physical abilities.

Second of all, can you name a white player who was replaced by a clearly inferior black player? Not one involving the draft, because there are plenty of guys drafted who never worked out in the pros. But a white player who was starting and was replaced by a black player that is clearly not as good.
1. Got no idea how I would be a third rail. :confused:

2. In answer to your question >> "Do you actually think they would pass on a better player in order to hire one with the right skin color? Really??" Do you "actually" think this might be an unusual thing in our society in 2019 ? NFL teams are businesses. Businesses use AA to hire less qualified blacks over more qualified whites and Asians EVERY DAY all across America, and have been doing it ever since Lyndon Johnson coined the term "Affirmative Action" in 1965. Do you see some reason why NFL teams should be an exception ?

3. You're coming into this thread a bit late. The question of ?? "can you name a white player who was replaced by a clearly inferior black player?" was already raised by Tommy Tainant (repeatedly), and was addressed by the fact that whether one can or can't do that, there is more than enough existing condition just in the disproportion of black to white players, to support a question pertaining to AA. No need to name this player or that.

Yes, NFL teams are businesses. And their product is winning. Who has a better business model, the New England Patriots or the Cleveland Browns?
 
Jeff Lacy was not a great fighter and you know this.

He was not one the great middleweights or super middleweights of the last 50 years. He's no Roy Jones Jnr, James Toney, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Mike McCallum
HA HA HA. Well, it didn't take you long to come up with yet another description for us. So now it's "great fighter" we're talking about. Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this many changes of the subject in so short a time in all the 5 years I've been in this forum.

Well, I'm still addressing your original question >> "name one black boxer who was in prime, who in the last 50 years, lost to a white fighter in the ring."

That would clearly be Jeff Lacy.

Secondly, I noticed one of the fighters you mentioned >> "He's no Roy Jones Jnr"
It so happens that Roy Jones Jr also was one of the fighters who Joe Calzaghe beat. And while Jones was past his prime for that fight, so was Calzaghe. Jones was the 46th fighter who Calzaghe fought, and ended his career after that at 46 and 0. Both guys were in their late 30s at the time.
 
Yes, NFL teams are businesses. And their product is winning. Who has a better business model, the New England Patriots or the Cleveland Browns?
Perhaps the Patriots do, since they are more balanced racially, don't appear to be employing AA, and clearly have superior athletes (at least on offense), enabling them to win 6 super bowls.
 
Victims of discrimination typically speak up in today's environment.

If they are out there, they would have by now.

You have no common sense, and at best are a conspiracy theorist who posts stupid subjects based on speculation.

Good for nothing except ridicule and entertainment.
Jersey Joe Walcott was the HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD when he fought Marciano. THAT is what determines prime, you knucklehead. And oh gee, how astute of you to use that stylish, laughingstock, liberal catch-phrase > "conspiracy theorist" Oh gosh. We've all got to duck under out desks now don't we ? :rolleyes:

And I see you are bringing up things REPEATEDLY (which have already been repudiated) They would have spoke up by now, huh ? LOL. What the matter ? you got a short memory ? That's the sure sign of a debate loser.

Come back when you have EVIDENCE. We're almost 400 posts into the thread, and you haven't offered a shred of it. :uhoh3:
 
HA HA HA. Well, it didn't take you long to come up with yet another description for us. So now it's "great fighter" we're talking about. Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this many changes of the subject in so short a time in all the 5 years I've been in this forum.
Jeff Lacy wasn't a great fighter
Well, I'm still addressing your original question >> "name one black boxer who was in prime, who in the last 50 years, lost to a white fighter in the ring."
That would clearly be Jeff Lacy.
Great black boxer. That's the key.

And you can not point to one great black boxer (who was in his prime) who in the last 50 years lost to a white fighter in the ring
Secondly, I noticed one of the fighters you mentioned >> "He's no Roy Jones Jnr"
It so happens that Roy Jones Jr also was one of the fighters who Joe Calzaghe beat. And while Jones was past his prime for that fight, so was Calzaghe. Jones was the 46th fighter who Calzaghe fought, and ended his career after that at 46 and 0. Both guys were in their late 30s at the time.
So I was I right. Jones was not in his prime[/QUOTE]
 
Sports gets away with still being a meritocracy because it has worked out better for Blacks that way. If it had been that Whites were in general superior athletes, it would be a different story. That is all.

This is what happens when slave owners breed slaves for size and strength.

I bet it's unintended consequences, but a fact nonetheless.
 
I like Calzaghe. Maggots like no protection makes you root against good decent men and women.
Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really.

th
 
So I was I right. Jones was not in his prime
Folks, should I really be bothering to talk to this idiot ? When you have refuted everything someone has moronically put out here, and the fool keeps blabbering the same balderdash over and over, is there really any point, other than to put on ignore ?

I don't see other posters here to be dumb enough to take this guy seriously. Just don't. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Sports gets away with still being a meritocracy because it has worked out better for Blacks that way. If it had been that Whites were in general superior athletes, it would be a different story. That is all.
Hey dumbbell. You do know that it is whites who have been the superior athletes, don't you ? I guess you don't bother to read threads before you post in them. Try reading this one. Always better to know what you're talking about. Sheeeesh!

th
th


th
th
bryan-stork-tom-brady-nfl-divisional-round-baltimore-ravens-new-england-patriots.jpg
 
Last edited:
Victims of discrimination typically speak up in today's environment.

If they are out there, they would have by now.

You have no common sense, and at best are a conspiracy theorist who posts stupid subjects based on speculation.

Good for nothing except ridicule and entertainment.
Jersey Joe Walcott was the HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD when he fought Marciano. THAT is what determines prime, you knucklehead. And oh gee, how astute of you to use that stylish, laughingstock, liberal catch-phrase > "conspiracy theorist" Oh gosh. We've all got to duck under out desks now don't we ? :rolleyes:

And I see you are bringing up things REPEATEDLY (which have already been repudiated) They would have spoke up by now, huh ? LOL. What the matter ? you got a short memory ? That's the sure sign of a debate loser.

Come back when you have EVIDENCE. We're almost 400 posts into the thread, and you haven't offered a shred of it. :uhoh3:

Have you ever put on gloves and boxed? I doubt it very seriously, because you apparantly do not understand the rigorous training required that goes into being in top shape for ANY fight, let alone 15 tounds of fighting at a championship level, as they did in that era.


A professional boxer at the age of 37 who has fought for over 20 years is simply not in the same physical condition and have thd same physical strength and endurance as he had in the earlier part of his career.


There is a big difference in still being competitive versus being in your prime for a fighter. Still being competitive at an advanced age can be atttibuted to many factors, but being at ones peak means that EVERY physical attribute is at the best that it can be.

Even a senile, schizo freak like you should understand that.


Anyone who has experienced competition in the ring will tell you the same facts

For you to actually think that just because Walcott was a champion at the age of 37 means that he was at his peak at that age clearly illustrates that you have no clue about sports of any kind.

You are a crazy, old, nutcase.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Have you ever put on gloves and boxed? I doubt very seriously, because you apparantly do not understand thd rigorous training required that goes into being in top shape for ANY fight, let alone 15 tounds of fighting at a championship level.

A professional boxer at the age of 37 who has fought for over 20 years is simply not in the same physical condition as he was in the early part of his career. There is a big difference in still being competitive versus being in your prime for a fighter. Anyone who has experienced competition in the ring will tell you the same thing, you are just to stupid to understand facts.

For you to actually think that just because Walcott was a champion at the age of 37 means that he was at his peak at that age clearly illustrates that you have no clue about sports of any kind.

You are a crazy, senile, old nutcase.
Jersey Joe Walcott was the HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD when he fought Marciano. THAT is what determines prime,

Some people have to be told twice. Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle) :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top