Here's a list:
Shooting
Rock climbing
Bodybuilding
Strongman competitions
Heavyweight boxing,-why can't stupid blacks defeat Klitscho brothers?
Mma
Strongwoman competitions
Olympic wrestling
Swimming
Rugby-Welsh,brits,irish,scots and french.
Gymnastics
High jumping
Cycling
Car racing
Baseball
Bull fighting
Powerlifting
Basketball-look at the no of whites,although blacks dominate it.
Hockey
Volleyball
Surfing
Diving
Surfing
Never underestimate a white.
Look at these videos,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABaKzzgo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCF_Lf36...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52C2Ute_...
There's no real evidence to suggest that some races are more athletic than others, although I do think that political correctness has meant that we probably can't ever properly study what is an interesting scientific question. And, in defence of the questioner (although badly phrased) from some of the answers, it's certainly not racist to raise the question. All humans are curious!
The reality is that there are likely to be a whole range of reasons why certain sports seem dominated by certain races. In long distance running, for example, one might draw the conclusion that because so many of the top athletes are African or of African descent, that there is some biological reason for that due to their race.
But it could, of course, be social or environmental in nature. If you're English, you want to be a premiership footballer when you grow up. If you're Jamaican, you might want to be a sprinter. If you're Canadian, you might want to play ice hockey. If you're Ukrainian, it might be gymnastics. Sports that are popular in your home country are likely to be sports you're going to train in and sports that have a high profile. So is it really surprising that certain countries excel in the same sports over many generations?
The point I'm making is that it probably isn't race that has anything to do with the racial profile of certain sports. Ukraine has a very small black population. Therefore one wouldn't expect many black Ukrainian gymnasts. In a country like England or the US, in which there is a different racial profile, you'd expect to find athletes of many races. And you do. But the choices of sports of different people is likely to be due to who their role models were, their upbringing, the facilities and sports played in the school they attended, and so on. If you were a black kid growing up in the ghettos of New York, would you be more likely to play basketball than, say, badminton? If you were a white middleclass kid in an English private school, would you be more likely to play rugby than, say, American football or figure skating?
And the question then would be - could that white kid who decided to play badminton have been a fantastic basketball player, but just never played basketball? Could the black kid who is a fantastic sprinter have been a world-class rower?
So I don't buy the 'genetic' differences argument. I think it's basically nurture rather than nature.
You're right, there are a lot of sports that are primarily made up of white people. I'm not sure what that says about the comparative physical fortitude of black and white people, but I still tend to lean more towards black people being more athletic. I think all the sports you listed just aren't as popular sports, or are just of more cultural significance to white people. Of course, I'm just speculating, since I still don't subscribe to the whole idea of "this race is better at ____ than that race". Anyone for the most part has the potential to achieve what they want, regardless of their race.
You've phrased that horrifically and it makes you sound like a racist but I think I know what you're getting at.
I don't think anyone can objectively argue that black people are better at all sports.
In athletics, however black people do tend to perform better and it is largely genetic.I believe black people are born with slightly more muscle mass than other races and there is also a gene which makes people able to run extremely fast which is found in white people too but more common in black people.
Being black doesn't make you better at soccer for example, though as that is about technical ability which comes from years of practice.
I think, to the extent that you can refer to blacks (at least, American blacks) being better at a given sport than whites (or, at least, American whites), it's largely due to natural selection, because of slavery.
Slaves who weren't healthy rarely had children, and often didn't survive long enough to even potentially breed, while not-very-healthy white people of the same era could often have children despite their infirmities. Also, a particularly "prime" male slave--one who was very large, strong, and healthy--might be encouraged to impregnate several of his fellow slaves. So, at least relative to white people in the same region, people of African descent will tend to be healthy, strong, and tall.
The same is likely true of people of African descent in other areas that had a significant history of slavery, such as Brazil and Cuba.
So, in any sport where raw strength, height, or similar characteristics are useful, a disproportionate number of people of African descent will be good at it (that is, disproportionate to the number that attempt it--if very few black people ever try to play hockey, for example, they will never dominate the sport, no matter how good they could be at it). In sports that rely more heavily on aim or finesse, they will have no particular advantage, and they are likely to be represented in proportion to their rates of entry into a particular field.
They are not.Definitely not better than whites.Yes,I agree and on average,whites are stronger.
Not true at all, Whites dominates more sports
you are half bigot and half racist
