PDA

View Full Version : Serious discussion on Monfils


unjugon
06-16-2006, 12:32 PM
This guy...keeps winning matches he shouldn´t be winning based on the analysis of him and his game made by fellow forumers in various topics. Some examples:

I agree that Monfils game seems awkward. He doesn't appear to have any weapons nor much variety, and he always seems to be off-balance and his tall, skinny, lanky body makes him look a bit awkward running around. Frankly, I don't understand what makes him so good and gets him all the wins.
This one is also telling:
I don't think Monfils is even at the same level as Gasqet. So much more talent in Richard.
And:
Monfils needs to work on that damn serve!
And also:
Monfils has the most awkward forehand I have seen ever. It looks like he doesn´t hit through the ball, goes over it too early. Bad technique.

So, to start things off: someone with an awkward forehand, a serve that needs work, who is most of the times off-balance, having mediocre volleys, and playing meters behind the baseline ala Roddick lately...is able to reach Monte Carlo semis, beat Blake -to the surprise of most people- after playing 3 five-setters, and beat Ljubicic -who is known for beating almost everyone who is behind him in the rankings routinely and losing just to the cream of the crop- on grass.

A credit to him, or to the lack of quality in men´s tennis?

exruda
06-16-2006, 12:48 PM
Maybe he's just an epitome of an anti-choker, winning all those matches that he shouldn't :)
Seriously, I have the same problem with him, but I think it comes down to his game being ugly, and not really that ineffective.

LowProfile
06-16-2006, 12:50 PM
Now what would you say if you were a young professional doing quite well while people who you could take a golden set off of with your eyes blindfolded and playing with a broom handle were to call your game awkward? Nothing.

Monfils is better than us. Perhaps he has his reasons for being so. Who are we to say that his game looks like it should be ineffective?

Ash Doyle
06-16-2006, 12:53 PM
So, to start things off: someone with an awkward forehand, a serve that needs work, who is most of the times off-balance, having mediocre volleys, and playing meters behind the baseline ala Roddick lately...

Does he really have these problems, or just appears to have these problems to some people on this message board who probably aren't exactly qualified to judge? An effective game isn't always pretty. He may not be consistent, but when it's all working together he as dangerous as most anyone out there.

grizzly4life
06-16-2006, 01:08 PM
Does he really have these problems, or just appears to have these problems to some people on this message board who probably aren't exactly qualified to judge? An effective game isn't always pretty. He may not be consistent, but when it's all working together he as dangerous as most anyone out there.

exactly.... the guy seems to hit hard, and is very athletic. not that many errors...

i don't think he's close to maximizing talent yet, but if people can't see a bunch of things he does alot better than gasquet, they're blind.

quest01
06-16-2006, 01:10 PM
Monfils gets lucky thats why. He is very ackward how he moves and reacts on the court. Also he showboats to much after winning a point. Hes a good player, but not as good as Blake.

unjugon
06-16-2006, 01:12 PM
IŽd say Monfils is a tougher competitor than Gasquet.

Plus IMO Monfils is a great talent though, in his own way.

quest01
06-16-2006, 01:14 PM
IŽd say Monfils is a tougher competitor than Gasquet.

Plus IMO Monfils is a great talent though, in his own way.

Hes good, but Blake is the better african tennis player. If you were comparing african tennis players, you would have to say Blake right now is the best, do you agree?

Ripper
06-16-2006, 01:20 PM
Hes good, but Blake is the better african tennis player. If you were comparing african tennis players, you would have to say Blake right now is the best, do you agree?

What's wrong with saying someone is black? Neither Blake or Monfils are African. I know all about black people in the US wanting to be called African-Americans, but I have to say this, they can't impose that "African _____ (fill in the blank with whatever), on other black people around the world.

Edit: I live in a country where, also, there's another "not offensive" word used to replace black. Is black a bad word? Neither black people are really black in color, the same as white people are not white in color. These are just names to refer to races. Where's the offense?! There, I said it...

MLoutch
06-16-2006, 01:28 PM
Whoa - African???

Blake is from Yonkers, New York! Monfils is as French as they come - His parents and family are from Guadalupe and Martinique (FYI both Islands are French departments - just like Hawaii is a US state).

I bet you would have to go back a few hundred years for both to claim they are from Africa. I can only hope you are trying to be flip?

Monfils is just very young and still growing into his frame - lots of the taller and lankier players can look awkward. Once he finishes growing and matures he will be a force -

exruda
06-16-2006, 01:30 PM
I know all about black people in the US wanting to be called African-Americans,
I have an American friend who is black and who feels insulted when being called African American -- he considers himself a pure american, just of a different skin color.

Hes good, but Blake is the better african tennis player.

why do we have to compare black players to each other, anyway? I really do think other characteristics, such as height, have bigger influence on Monfils' movement on the court...

Steven87
06-16-2006, 01:39 PM
You guys are way against this guy. I dont see a problem with his stroke, it works for him, so there is no problem. Maybe he can beat others because he was the better man at them time? Geez, get off him, he's a great player

and funny

Breaker
06-16-2006, 02:25 PM
People like Gasquet's game better because it's prettier, everyone likes nice, smooth strokes even if they are wielded by a headcase, like Gasquet. People don't like games from someone who is kind of jerky in every part of their game, even if they're getting the results, like Monfils.

JayxTheKoolest
06-16-2006, 03:43 PM
I think Monfils has a good chance to become a great clay court player. Beyond that, there's not much hope.

D-Bomb
06-16-2006, 06:37 PM
The main reason he's so good is that he's just so athletic. He's kind of deceiving with his game: You would think that a big tall guy like him with a big serve would be more offensive, but he's actually more of a defensive player. Plus not only is he athletic but he's also a competitor.

It's amazing how big a part being a competitor is. Look at Gasquet vs. Monfils. Gasquet's got loads of talent, but he's streaky, and sometimes acts his age too much. Monfils doesn't have a wide repertoire of shots to pull out, but he makes what he has work by competing and staying tough. Actually, you could almost argue the same with Federer vs. Nadal, but I don't wanna get into that anymore.

jhhachamp
06-16-2006, 09:04 PM
This guy...keeps winning matches he shouldnŽt be winning based on the analysis of him and his game made by fellow forumers in various topics. Some examples:


This one is also telling:

And:

And also:


So, to start things off: someone with an awkward forehand, a serve that needs work, who is most of the times off-balance, having mediocre volleys, and playing meters behind the baseline ala Roddick lately...is able to reach Monte Carlo semis, beat Blake -to the surprise of most people- after playing 3 five-setters, and beat Ljubicic -who is known for beating almost everyone who is behind him in the rankings routinely and losing just to the cream of the crop- on grass.

A credit to him, or to the lack of quality in menŽs tennis?

He has not really done anything yet, so I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone in the top 50 has had some good wins. When he actually wins some big tournaments then maybe you have a point.

rlbjr
06-16-2006, 09:48 PM
Not many of us can trace our heritage back more than a few generations in the countries within which we were born or raised. Blake is an american, Monfils a Frenchman. When peoples heritage includes a visible difference americans have a PC habit of labeling them as Japanese-American, African-American etc. I have
Italian/Slovakian heritage, but because I look like any other white guy, I'm just american. Personally I think the whole PC thing is getting pretty silly.

I've seen Monfils play several times on hardcourts and he can really thump the ball. His forehand is as hard as anyone out there, including Gonzo, when he wants it to be. When that happens though, it doesn't go in much. I suspect his coach is training him to tone it down a bit and pick his spots.

He is a terrific talent physically, but I think it may be too late for the technical development required for him to reach the top and stay there.

ubel
06-16-2006, 11:05 PM
Monfils is kinda like that guy who you watch play and you think their play is kinda ugly, their stance is a bit weird, and there's this off-feeling about the way they just do things (like the way he runs) but somehow they just keep winning matches. I guess he's kind of a like a professional sandwhich maker: it's not how he goes about doing it, the only thing that matters is the finished product (which has been a couple of W's over some other, ahem, professional sandwhich makers).

monfils
06-17-2006, 05:10 AM
Not many of us can trace our heritage back more than a few generations in the countries within which we were born or raised. Blake is an american, Monfils a Frenchman. When peoples heritage includes a visible difference americans have a PC habit of labeling them as Japanese-American, African-American etc. I have
Italian/Slovakian heritage, but because I look like any other white guy, I'm just american. Personally I think the whole PC thing is getting pretty silly.

I've seen Monfils play several times on hardcourts and he can really thump the ball. His forehand is as hard as anyone out there, including Gonzo, when he wants it to be. When that happens though, it doesn't go in much. I suspect his coach is training him to tone it down a bit and pick his spots.

He is a terrific talent physically, but I think it may be too late for the technical development required for him to reach the top and stay there.

Whats wrong with his technique, explain. I don't see anything wrong with his technique or movement, infact i think he is very sound technically.

Dilettante
06-17-2006, 05:14 AM
Does he really have these problems, or just appears to have these problems to some people on this message board who probably aren't exactly qualified to judge? An effective game isn't always pretty. He may not be consistent, but when it's all working together he as dangerous as most anyone out there.

I agree. Monfils is VERY young and he's playing at a high competitive level. He has beaten some of the best players on the tour.

Many people here can't understand that you don't have to be aesthetically pleased by a player's game, to be able to recognise his talents and powers.

Not many of us can trace our heritage back more than a few generations in the countries within which we were born or raised. Blake is an american, Monfils a Frenchman. When peoples heritage includes a visible difference americans have a PC habit of labeling them as Japanese-American, African-American etc. I have
Italian/Slovakian heritage, but because I look like any other white guy, I'm just american. Personally I think the whole PC thing is getting pretty silly.

I agree.

But I think -obviously from my own country's and culture perspective, I don't expect to be universally right- the PCness is a trap: when you call someone for example "African-American" or whatever, I mean someone who is born and raised in the US, you seem to be meaning (in some way) that this guy is not merely "an American". Why aren't white people called "European-American"?

I don't hear that Monfils is an "African-Frenchman", he's merely a Frenchman.

I hope that no one would get offended by my comments (if that's the case, I apologize), I know that different countries involve different perspectives and different meanings.

monfils
06-17-2006, 05:22 AM
I think Monfils has a good chance to become a great clay court player. Beyond that, there's not much hope.
He has proven that he can play well on all surfaces. His won a clay court title, he has been to 2 hard court finals, 1 indoor carpet final, QF on grass and his best grandslam result was on grass. He won the junior grandslams on all three surfaces which proves that he can play well on all surfaces.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-17-2006, 05:50 AM
Ripper, blanket statements are so very low-brow. Not all "black" people in American wish to be called African Americans, simply because considering that they only have some ancestors who came from Africa, and many are extremely mixed of different nationalities, that would be like calling English people German, because many of their ancestors came from Germanic tribes. This posting was about a tennis player named Monfils, devolving it into a discussion of race or only comparing him to other darker skinned players is part of the problem of what makes it so difficult for such ones to be accepted or passed over based on their game play. In your attempt to be "correct" it only shows how very much ones do not understand what such "labels" are based on. Agreeing with MLouch and exruda here. Dilettantee quite true. Yet US is not the other country with such discussions, to be sure, here in Germany, if you are mixed African or a darker skinned people and German , you are considered simply black, and less often black German, but if you are mixed say, Polish or Russian with German, or a lighter skinned people, you are simply called German. It is solely based on color of skin, even if the lighter ones don't speak German, didn't grow up here, or don't consider themselves German. German people, as a majority, accept them amongst "themselves". No angst about this, it just continues to be a fact here.

But when talking solely about tennis and tennis players, does anyone remember how very awkward, lanky, and often out balance Goran Ivanisevic was at a young age? I remember watching replays on television of how he often struggled to keep his footwork effective. Eventually he grew out of it and became a champion, and was always a dangerous player in any event.

emcee
06-17-2006, 07:17 AM
Now what would you say if you were a young professional doing quite well while people who you could take a golden set off of with your eyes blindfolded and playing with a broom handle were to call your game awkward?...

First of all, he can't.

Second of all, that's what being a fan is. I can say Tayshaun Prince's jump shot looks weird but it goes in a lot and it's certainly better than mine. Do I not have the right to do that?

If pros are just pros and so different from us and untouchable, let's just get rid of this entire forum. Monfils' technique is not as good as other pros. He seems to have a mental/athletic edge to make up for it. But if Gasquet grew some balls and was as tall as Monfils, he's beat Monfils every time because his technique is better.

Eviscerator
06-17-2006, 09:02 AM
I have rarely seen him play, but people might not be sold on him because they question his fundamentals/foundation.

The same can be said in other sports like football where a quarterback has a strange throwing motion, or in baseball where the pitcher throws sidearm. Over the long haul players like that either break down physically, or are broken down due to a lack of consistency. However some players are just unorthodox, play well despite their atypical style, and go on to have great careers.

In his case, only time will tell.

matty p
06-17-2006, 09:26 AM
I have rarely seen him play, but people might not be sold on him because they question his fundamentals/foundation.

The same can be said in other sports like football where a quarterback has a strange throwing motion, or in baseball where the pitcher throws sidearm. Over the long haul players like that either break down physically, or are broken down due to a lack of consistency. However some players are just unorthodox, play well despite their atypical style, and go on to have great careers.

In his case, only time will tell.

Some people may not be drawn to him because of him by his unorthodox style, however there are so many young people who like him because he is exciting and fiery on court. I was at his 1st round match at the aus open this year and the majority of the crowd consisted of young people. Surely this is a good thing for tennis, isnt it? Even if the purists don't like his demeanour or his style, at least hes drawing more young people to the game of tennis.

monfils
06-17-2006, 09:53 AM
People keep on saying there is something wrong with his technique. I don't see anything wrong. Can someone please explain.

Kobble
06-17-2006, 11:22 AM
He puts up a good fight, and that makes him fun to watch.

fantenam08
06-17-2006, 11:54 AM
why do we have to compare black players to each other, anyway? I really do think other characteristics, such as height, have bigger influence on Monfils' movement on the court...

Agreed!! Sigh. I'm sure it has been pointed out but the fact that they are from two different countries is more of an influence, than their race.

As far as the irrelevent African-American vs Black issue, either one is fine. African-American is an ethnicity, black is a race, thus Monfils can not be African-American because he is from France. If it makes folks feel better America also has Jewish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Carribean-Americans etc, because Americans just love hyphens. :rolleyes: I have some friends who prefer to refer to themselves as African-American because they feel as though it represents both sides of their heritage. I have other friends who don't like the idea of being hyphenated, because they feel they are as much American, as any of the whites in the country. The only true Americans, are the Native Americans, everyone else is either of European, or some other mixture of descent.

End of rant.

Off topic, but I would love to see Monfils play in the NBA. His personality seems much more suited for contact sports, though I think his showboating with create alot of discord among team members.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-17-2006, 01:00 PM
"Black" is not a race. Where from the racist subworld did that come from? LOL But interesting point you did put up..."Native Americans" are only the true Americans. I suppose that might be so considered from some standpoints. But as a Native American of Apache blood, who also enjoys tennis, played collegiate level and has followed it since very young age....always disappointing to see threads such as this focus on ethnicity instead of ability.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-17-2006, 01:01 PM
And fantenam, if you really wished to see Monfils in a contact sport, why not suggest hockey? Much more contact... but then certainly, less of the darker skinned players on the ice.

monfils
06-17-2006, 01:06 PM
And fantenam, if you really wished to see Monfils in a contact sport, why not suggest hockey? Much more contact... but then certainly, less of the darker skinned players on the ice.
Whats your point?

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-17-2006, 01:13 PM
The simply point that the person suggested a "contact sport". Basketball has contact, but it is not a "contact" sport, nor one where they are many "darker skinned" players. It was a honest suggestion and thought, but also an ironic one. Multi-sided, nicht wahr?

fantenam08
06-17-2006, 02:50 PM
The simply point that the person suggested a "contact sport". Basketball has contact, but it is not a "contact" sport, nor one where they are many "darker skinned" players. It was a honest suggestion and thought, but also an ironic one. Multi-sided, nicht wahr?

So I stand corrected on the contact sport perspective. Monfils expressed an interest in playing in the NBA, not hockey. Being that he is so extraverted, I thought the sport would fit him as well, not that he isn't a great tennis player.

If you can better distinguish the difference between black and african-african american (no real difference) to the question asker then be my guest. I've been checking black (non-hispanic) as my race for years, but each country does have different ideas as to what signifies race. Some folks believe there are only three real races, I could care less, it's just not that deep to me.

Aykhan Mammadov
06-17-2006, 03:01 PM
Black people in general are stronger than white. So to say naturally.

If to be serious I don't see any promising future for Monfils. He is young, full of energy, as a black player he has got some strength from nature, but he doesn't get that amazing and magician feel of the ball what is necessary to become great player.

fantenam08
06-17-2006, 03:30 PM
Black people in general are stronger than white. So to say naturally.

If to be serious I don't see any promising future for Monfils. He is young, full of energy, as a black player he has got some strength from nature, but he doesn't get that amazing and magician feel of the ball what is necessary to become great player.

Umm, not helping.

Race- a social construct used to identify people who have similar phenotypic traits.

Biologically there is no difference between blacks and whites in terms of intellect, athleticism, or other potential

Ethnicity- a social construct used to identify a group of people who share a similar cultural heritage

emcee
06-17-2006, 03:44 PM
...
Biologically there is no difference between blacks and whites in terms of intellect, athleticism, or other potential
...

First of all, Mr. Enlightened, there are lots of people who are neither black or white.

Second of all, people might want to believe that race is just the color of your skin, but you know it's not true. Not every black person is a Larry Allen but they TEND to be stronger/more athletic.

Racism sucks, but then some people take it too far the other way. There are differences between races. Saying that to yourself doesn't make it true.

malakas
06-17-2006, 03:49 PM
I think Monfils has huge potential.I have faith in him,that he will much excell himself and become a great tennis player.
Umm, not helping.

Race- a social construct used to identify people who have similar phenotypic traits.

Biologically there is no difference between blacks and whites in terms of intellect, athleticism, or other potential Ethnicity- a social construct used to identify a group of people who share a similar cultural heritage

Hem..yes..Well,in fact there is.People from different races and regions have different athletic abillities.White people from the Scadinavia region have greater ratio length hands-legs to body length.
Different gonotype means different phenotype which means different characteristics which quite often mean different athleticism-abilities in sport.

fantenam08
06-17-2006, 04:07 PM
Race is a social construct, but if you want to believe that race equates athletic abilities Malakas, then that's your perogative.

And thats Ms. Enlightened emcee, and thanks for pointing out the obvious, that their is more than one race. Since I was replying to Aykhan who was trying to point out that blacks are "by nature" stronger than whites, I refered only to those two races.

The difference genetically between one human as another I believe is less than 1%. I put the idea that blacks are prone to be more athletic, right up their with the idea that by nature being of asian desent makes you prone to be smarter. Its a ridiculous stereotype.

exruda
06-17-2006, 04:11 PM
People from different races and regions have different athletic abillities.
There is something in this, IMO.
Look at athletes in different running distances.
100m and all sprints are owed by black athletes.
martahons are won by white
(and the longer the distance, the less dominant the blacks become).
Scandinavians win in the high jump.
and this can go on and on and on.

But imo tennis is one of those all-round sports that does not favor any type of athlecism, so that everyone can have a go :)

edit: i forgot chinese in gymnastics :)

malakas
06-17-2006, 04:13 PM
Race is a social construct, but if you want to believe that race equates athletic abilities Malakas, then that's your perogative.

And thats Ms. Enlightened emcee, and thanks for pointing out the obvious, that their is more than one race. Since I was replying to Aykhan who was trying to point out that blacks are "by nature" stronger than whites, I refered only to those two races.

The difference genetically between one human as another I believe is less than 1%. I put the idea that blacks are prone to be more athletic, right up their with the idea that by nature being of asian desent makes you prone to be smarter. Its ridiculous to me.

No,I don't say that race equates athletic abilities.But there are some differences in one's characteristics apart from the colour of their skin that derive from the gonotype.These differences in characteristics can sometimes translate in athletic abilities depending on the sport.
As for the 1% difference,keep in mind that the difference between the dog and the wolf is about 2% and they are different species!

fantenam08
06-17-2006, 04:30 PM
No,I don't say that race equates athletic abilities.But there are some differences in one's characteristics apart from the colour of their skin that derive from the gonotype.These differences in characteristics can sometimes translate in athletic abilities depending on the sport.

As for the 1% difference,keep in mind that the difference between the dog and the wolf is about 2% and they are different species!
Yes, but we're not different species. I see where you are coming from, yes genotype affects phenotype, by the very definition that genes determine how we look physically. Phenotype- includes all observable physical traits, skin color, hair texture, etc, which is what most people use when they are trying to categorize a person as one race or another. But being of a certain race, does not automatically assure certain traits such as strength, agility, speed, intellectual capacity. That's my only argument. To be honest, even certain traits such as height don't guarantee athleticism, if so Justine Henin, wouldn't keep winning tournaments against these tall players who have much better range.

malakas
06-17-2006, 04:41 PM
Yes, but we're not different species..

Yes.We are the same species.And yet,we are so diverse.If only 2% of the genes makes two species differ,it is quite logical that the 1% of our difference would change more than our colour.

I see where you are coming from, yes genotype affects phenotype, by the very definition that genes determine how we look physically. Phenotype- includes all observable physical traits, skin color, hair texture, etc, which is what most people use when they are trying to categorize a person as one race or another. But being of a certain race, does not automatically assure certain traits such as strength, agility, speed, intellectual capacity. That's my only argument. To be honest, even certain traits such as height don't guarantee athleticism, if so Justine Henin, wouldn't keep winning tournaments against these tall players who have much better range.

But of course!!And yet,this is big trap that the human species may fall into.And if we don't want an ominous future for our children we all must, aknowledge that genes is definitely not what determines our abilities!!Not what determines our success in sports,scienses all fields of our civilization!But I am very afraid and worried that it will affect our happiness,if we only let it to happen.:( Natural choise is very very important also for our survival as a species.And humans must realise that...

fantenam08
06-17-2006, 04:49 PM
Yes.We are the same species.And yet,we are so diverse.If only 2% of the genes makes two species differ,it is quite logical that the 1% of our difference would change more than our colour.



But of course!!And yet,this is big trap that the human species may fall into.And if we don't want an ominous future for our children we all must, aknowledge that genes is definitely not what determines our abilities!!Not what determines our success in sports,scienses all fields of our civilization!But I am very afraid and worried that it will affect our happiness,if we only let it to happen.:( Natural choise is very very important also for our survival as a species.And humans must realise that...

Okay I see what you mean. I'm not a biologist, so I have no real way of knowing. But I mostly agree with what you are saying. :)

jhhachamp
06-17-2006, 09:27 PM
The difference genetically between one human as another I believe is less than 1%.

You are right here. With the vast combinations of genetic makeup of life forms, all humans are within 1% of every other human. But this means absolutely nothing.

I put the idea that blacks are prone to be more athletic, right up their with the idea that by nature being of asian desent makes you prone to be smarter. Its a ridiculous stereotype.

Why is the idea that blacks are prone to be more athletic a ridiculous stereotype?

superman1
06-17-2006, 09:37 PM
It's not a ridiculous stereotype. I don't know if it's been scientifically proven (looking at fast twitch fibers vs slow twitch between races), but just from observation it's pretty easy to tell that in general Black people seem to be more athletic. There are plenty of statistics to prove other things (Blacks more prone to high blood pressure, lower life expectancy, higher rates of obesity, higher rates of arrest), so I'm sure you could prove this.

Ztalin
06-17-2006, 09:47 PM
Yeah, there's evidence supporting the "stereotype" that blacks are more athletic at a number of things. But there is also evidence supporting that on average, they have lower IQ's. That isn't to say that there aren't many brilliant black people, though.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-18-2006, 12:28 AM
I have no need to list a definition of what is so different between being "black" American or African American, one would have to ask one of such person who calls themselves such to explain it to you. I made a comment as did you, a response to another reply, as did you. In the US, on the forms one has the option to check (though sometimes those receiving the forms with check it for you if you decline) I cannot in honesty check any of them, but just choose the closest, "Native American". It's no deep thing for me either, I am who I am, and people see me different ways, depends on their own background and/or nationality.

As far as sports goes, and seeing that this thread has continued to devolve into something the original poster did not make an issue of (and yes, I've become involved with this also LOL), in running, many "blacks" have denser and larger muscles, therefore have more explosive power making them quite successful in short distance running needing greater speed. But consider in the latter years you see ones from other countries, for example, Russia, Spain, Greece, who have become faster in short distance running, but you see obviously their body structure is more similar to the traditional "black" runners: larger and more heavily muscled buttoks, thighs and calves. Yes, I go there. And I agree with the person who said, some people take the racism thing so far over the other way as to be equally annoying. There are some differences that are more based on racial background. That is not promoting separatism or racism, but just a fact. There was an American sports announcer, Howard Kosell, I believe who made a statement about "blacks" in sport, which raised a considerable protest in the 70s or perhaps 80s, I can't remember what year, but what he said was not incorrect. It was an observation and could be seen as possibly true, but people just didn't want it to be said. Yes, it was regarding how many "blacks" during slavery times had been specially bred to create more powerful bodies in order to help them "work", and this had been carried down through the years so that many modern "blacks" in America were physically stronger than their lighter-skinned neighbors. Rather off topic true, before I am (re)lectured, but just a consideration on racism and/or realities.

Yes, there are racial diseases factors also to support some aspects of certain races deal more with this than that. Certainly for Native Americans, who are considered by many to be an Asian group, are mor prone to diabetes. And the age old stereotype that they have a problem handling alcohol consumption is based on fact: we lack an enyzme to negate the affects of alcohol.

Some things one has to accept, and other things, one doesn't.

fastdunn
06-18-2006, 01:10 AM
Biologically there is no difference between blacks and whites in terms of intellect, athleticism, or other potential


That's fairly correct statement. However, "intelect", "atheleticism"
and "potential" are somewhat fuzy concept.

But if you compare more concrete metrics, there are certain differences.

For example, composition of muscle fibers in different races.
There are two different muscle fibre: fast twitch and slow twitch.
Fast twitch is for quick abrupt motion and slow twitch is for long term
repetitive motions.

White people have more of slow twitches and black people have
more of fast twitches. Asians are somewhere in the middle.

superman1
06-18-2006, 01:52 AM
Intellect and potential all have to do with the brain, and since we don't know the first thing about how the brain works, it's better to stick with stuff you can prove like physical anatomy between races. There obviously are differences. Color and facial features are the obvious ones, but if you go deeper you will see small differences in the actual biology of the person. Black people seem to have a higher incidence of people with denser, fast twitch muscle which you need in most sports. So the stereotypes that Black people are good athletes and know how to dance (hehe) are based on truth. Don't be overly politically correct and pretend otherwise. Black people are also very obese (if we're talking general statistics) so it evens out.

jhhachamp
06-18-2006, 06:55 AM
It's not a ridiculous stereotype. I don't know if it's been scientifically proven (looking at fast twitch fibers vs slow twitch between races), but just from observation it's pretty easy to tell that in general Black people seem to be more athletic.

I agree, it seems pretty hard to argue all races are exactly physically equal of one another. It seems like common sense that blacks are more athletic on average. When I was in basketball camp in like 8th grade, they tested the vertical leaps of players. I think I got like 18" and most of the others in my group got around the same, if not lower. The one black kid in my group got over 30". This is not to account for the huge percentages of black players in the NBA and NFL.

There are plenty of statistics to prove other things (Blacks more prone to high blood pressure, lower life expectancy, higher rates of obesity, higher rates of arrest), so I'm sure you could prove this.

True, but statistics of those types don't really prove anything conclusively because there are many factors at work. Blacks are much more likely to live in poverty and dangerous neighborhoods, so this obviously makes it more likely they will be more unhealthy and have lower life expectency. You can't really tell if it is something genetic or not until you control for those significant variables. Same goes for higher arrest rates. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by the poor and blacks are more likely to be poor. There is also still inherent racism in our laws and criminal justice system that account for at least some of the discrepency of arrest rates.

slice bh compliment
06-18-2006, 07:13 AM
There is something in this, IMO.
Look at athletes in different running distances.
100m and all sprints are owed by black athletes.
martahons are won by white
(and the longer the distance, the less dominant the blacks become).
...

The Kenyan marathoners are an exception, then.
Maybe this exception proves something? Maybe not.

It is just tough to generalize. You run the risk of being very wrong....or totally PC, which is also not so good.
What is the truth?

Back to Monfils for a moment. Sure, he does not play 'the beautiful game' like Gasquet or Federer, but I think he is going to be a solid top tenner, especially if he keeps improving the weapons in his game. Sadly, his look scares some white people into thinking and saying things they do not mean. I do not have a link for you, but there was a thread in which someone said how scary his hair has become now without the safer nappy/knobby 'do.
ANyway, he is a fun player to watch and I hope he does well.

fantenam08
06-18-2006, 07:28 AM
OMFG Everytime any thread is started about a black player it turns into a race debate. If folks believe that blacks are by nature more athletic, then I won't continue to argue, this "stereotype" hasn't hurt professional black athletes in any way.

But nothing, I mean nothing will convince me that black people in general have lower IQ's, by nature. :rollseyes:. Let me get out of here before I become that other stereotype "the black bi*ch". I am starting to understand why Venus and Serena were always stand-offish and avoided the tennis scene when they weren't playing. I just watch tennis, I can't imagine what it must be like for them to play it, seeing as though the world really has not changed that much since our parents were kids. James Blake will never be Arthur Ashe, and Monfils will never be James Blake. No point of comparing them, they are in different leagues, and I have no idea why people feel the need to compare one black athlete to another. You all are right about one thing, there is a difference between blacks and other races, and I don't feel bothered to explain it. I learned my lesson, no matter how benign the subject title, steer clear of threads about black players, because all people see is their race.

exruda
06-18-2006, 07:53 AM
The Kenyan marathoners are an exception, then.
Maybe this exception proves something? Maybe not.

I was just generalizing to underline a trend.

Although I do feel you can be genetically predisposed to some specific kind of physical activity, the sport you will perform is also a cultural issue, IMO.
Look at the achievements of the former soviet camp nationalities in sports such as weightlifting, fighting etc. I don't know if I it can be attributed to some genetic predispositions (you have Romanians who are not slavic), or rather the fruit of a once implemented policy (showing off power, perhaps?).

And yes it is sad that the race issue has been brought up in this thread to begin with.

malakas
06-18-2006, 11:12 AM
There was an American sports announcer, Howard Kosell, I believe who made a statement about "blacks" in sport, which raised a considerable protest in the 70s or perhaps 80s, I can't remember what year, but what he said was not incorrect. It was an observation and could be seen as possibly true, but people just didn't want it to be said. Yes, it was regarding how many "blacks" during slavery times had been specially bred to create more powerful bodies in order to help them "work", and this had been carried down through the years so that many modern "blacks" in America were physically stronger than their lighter-skinned neighbors.

Sorry but that is absolutely wrong.There is no way the acquired characteristics of an organism be transfered to their offspring.Maybe..in thousands of years acquired characteristics play a small role in a species differentiation and evolution.Though these processes are not fully understood and researched so,their role is even in doubt.But that theory is absolutely ridiculous.In just, how many 400 hundred,500 hundred years?,such things in such a developed and evolutionary superior organism as is human ,is not even a possibility.

For example, composition of muscle fibers in different races.
There are two different muscle fibre: fast twitch and slow twitch.
Fast twitch is for quick abrupt motion and slow twitch is for long term
repetitive motions.

White people have more of slow twitches and black people have
more of fast twitches. Asians are somewhere in the middle.

Sorry,but I am not very good in english terminology.So,since striated and smooth muscles wouldn't make much sense,I will assume you mean white and red muscles.
It is true,that red muscles,are thinner contain more myospherin and their twiching is slower but the duration of the twiching is longer.White muscles are fatter,contain less myospherin and their twiching is faster but they get "tired" easier and faster.However, in human and in many mammals muscles are composed by both kind of muscles(plus an intemediary type) in different analogy in every muscle.In some mammals and birds there are some muscles that are composed solely by one kind of muscle,white or red.
I don't know about differences in compositions of muscle fibres according to race in human,so please can you provide some sources about these information?Thanx in advance.

(you have Romanians who are not slavic)

Really?I didn't know about that!I thought they had slavic roots..

sandiegotennisboy
06-18-2006, 11:21 AM
all i wanna say about monfils is that i find his game, face and demeanor to be fugly.

exruda
06-18-2006, 11:24 AM
[on Romanians]
Really?I didn't know about that!I thought they had slavic roots..
some slavic influences too, but they were mostly a romanized group of dacians (?)

malakas
06-18-2006, 11:27 AM
Oh..I know about Rumis that most live in Romania but also all over the Balkans,but I always thought Romanians were slavic.Of course come to think of this,their language in the first place is not slavic but Romance root...

RiosTheGenius
06-18-2006, 11:29 AM
I think Monfils is a very good player

127mph
06-18-2006, 02:21 PM
i hate it when people get athleticism confused with talent. people say monfils is talented because he can run fast and he is strong. talent is based on your strokes and how easy and smooth you can make your strokes look. running fast and strength is athleticism. mix talent and athleticism together you get federer, safin, and gasquet. monfils is athletic. hes in the same category as ginepri, roddick, and nadal. they are atheletes who could have played well in other sports.

jhhachamp
06-18-2006, 07:37 PM
OMFG Everytime any thread is started about a black player it turns into a race debate. If folks believe that blacks are by nature more athletic, then I won't continue to argue, this "stereotype" hasn't hurt professional black athletes in any way.

Well, you seem a bit sensitive on the race issue, but I don't think anyone got out of line in this thread. Aykan is from some other country where it is more accepted to make statements like he did since his country probably did not enslave and oppress blacks for hundreds of years.

But nothing, I mean nothing will convince me that black people in general have lower IQ's, by nature. :rollseyes:

I agree, the human brain is way too complicated to truly understand at a level required to make an argument about that sort of thing. But I don't think anyone was really pushing the idea (I might have missed a post).

I learned my lesson, no matter how benign the subject title, steer clear of threads about black players, because all people see is their race.

The color difference is quite noticable though, so people are going to notice it. I don't think there is anything wrong with comparing one black to another in tennis, though I wouldn't do that. Imagine a sport which consisted only 5 whites in the top 500. People would naturally compare those players to each other just as is happening here. I don't think there is any need to take offence to it though, so long as it does not seem racist.

devila
06-18-2006, 09:32 PM
Safin, Gasquet and Federer're not smoother than most players.
Just because they have better balanced backhands doesn't mean they're
more talented than everyone else.

Monfils is plenty stronger than Roddick in his arms and shoulders.
Roddick is only average athletically speaking and he's not very fast on his legs. He weight lifted too much and it resulted in heavy
legs and flat-footedness. He also lacks foot and leg agility.
He wouldn't be good in track races. He's only ok in basketball.
Ginepri doesn't have much power and can't really play other sports.
These players aren't faster or stronger than Federer.
Federer wouldn't be scraping through matches while facing
4 match points
if he didn't have the most athleticism (long strong arms and foot flexibility).

Santoro has more talent, creativity and variety but he has no
power on his shots, so he loses to Federer.

BeautyVenus
06-18-2006, 10:31 PM
Some of The comments about Monfils on this board are extremely insensitive and just plain racist. Monfils isn't James Blake he's not a coward and he's not a push over. He's a young black man that believes in himself and he believes in his talent and skills. Monfils will be winning slams that for sure. As for Blake don't count on it.

diegaa
06-19-2006, 06:18 AM
ruben, como la liaste aqui, justo lo que me comentabas el otro dia... jeje...
:mrgreen:

emcee
06-19-2006, 07:45 AM
We're racist because we're saying that he has good athlete genetics???

Notice we're not criticizing James Blake's technique. Only Monfils'. They're both black but one has much prettier strokes.

This is what's sad about non-prejudiced people today. They want to focus on their shtick that there is "only one race...the human race". We should be celebrating our differences, not spewing nonsense saying that the ONLY way whites, blacks, hispanics, and asians differ is ONE gene and ONE gene only that specifies the color of our skin. We all know that's ridiculous.

slice bh compliment
06-19-2006, 08:02 AM
The nature versus Nurture agrument will always be there. There was a thread about comedies from the 1980's. I think Trading Places applies here as well as there.
You guys have covered the nature side of the coin pretty well.
As for the nurture end, I think it is worth a minute to mention that technique often comes from the coaches. It is more than clear to me that the coaches who had a hand in Federer, Blake and Gasquet's development were aesthetes. Monfils' coaches might be more results-driven.

Tchocky
06-19-2006, 08:28 AM
He's a great athlete and a good competitor. I don't think much of his game but he's definitely having a better year than any of his countrymen.

Shabazza
06-19-2006, 08:44 AM
He's a great athlete and a good competitor. I don't think much of his game but he's definitely having a better year than any of his countrymen.
Ditto!

Duzza
06-19-2006, 09:08 AM
I say yes it is racist. The same as being sexist when letting girls do something that boys don't as in school. This is being racist to caucasians:D

fastdunn
06-19-2006, 06:02 PM
I don't know about differences in compositions of muscle fibres according to race in human,so please can you provide some sources about these information?Thanx in advance.


Well, just google it and there are many articles related to this issue.
This is merely a muscle fiber issue and don't try to conjecture anything
other than that, please.

127mph
06-19-2006, 07:53 PM
Safin, Gasquet and Federer're not smoother than most players.
Just because they have better balanced backhands doesn't mean they're
more talented than everyone else.

Monfils is plenty stronger than Roddick in his arms and shoulders.
Roddick is only average athletically speaking and he's not very fast on his legs. He weight lifted too much and it resulted in heavy
legs and flat-footedness. He also lacks foot and leg agility.
He wouldn't be good in track races. He's only ok in basketball.
Ginepri doesn't have much power and can't really play other sports.
These players aren't faster or stronger than Federer.
Federer wouldn't be scraping through matches while facing
4 match points
if he didn't have the most athleticism (long strong arms and foot flexibility).

Santoro has more talent, creativity and variety but he has no
power on his shots, so he loses to Federer.

i didnt say because they're backhands are the reasons that they are talented, theier stokes are timed right and balanced all round and they have a natural feel for classican form. most plays have a prety forehand (djokavic, verdasco) but the rest of their strokes are medocre. thats what makes federer, safin, gasquet, rios, nastase so special is because they had all around great mechanics.
of course ginepri is just athletic he has no natural tennis ability. there are three types of players. athletes(ginepri, nadal, roddick, monfils) who rely on thier athleicism and natural strength and have uncommon stoke mechaincis. the natural players (mcenroe, nastase, gasquet) rely heavly on thier nataural tennis gifts. and the mix of both (safin, federer) have quickness and are strong and theier natural gifts in strokes blend perfectly with their athlecisim. holla!!!

fastdunn
06-19-2006, 08:29 PM
I would consider Safin has superb atheleticism while Federer
has both atheleticism and gifted hand a la McEnroe.

But I don't think we should overlook Nadal's talent.
It's hided behind his youthful energy and enthusiasm
but Nadal has got pretty gifted hand/touch, IMHO.

tennisjunkiela
06-19-2006, 08:55 PM
Well, I just googled it and there are many articles related to this.
One of them is
"The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes", by Jon Entine
http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php

Some of paragraphs in there:
"For years it was axiomatic that muscles have two types of fibers - white, or fast-twitch, which were thought to be adapted for power movements, such as leaping or sprinting; and red, or slow-twitch, which were adapted for endurance. Now we know the model is more complicated. There are in fact two different types of fast-twitch fibers, one more metabolically efficient. Whites on average have a higher percentage of slow-twitch fibers than West African blacks who generally have more of both types of fast-twitch fibers.".

first lesson to learn from the internet - just because someone posts a story on the internet doesn't make it true or a fact!

jon etnine, the author you quote above, is a self-taught sociologist trying to peddle a book. And how best to sell a book in america than to use tried and true race baiting arguments.


a critical view of etnine's hypothesis:

The most basic problem is Entine's confusion of racial and population differences. It is true that gene frequencies vary across populations, so that some populations may be more athletically talented than others. But this is not the same thing as saying that blacks are bred to run. As population geneticists never tire of telling us, 'race' has little biological validity. It is certainly possible to divide humanity into a number of races, as we conventionally do, according to skin colour and body form. But it is also possible to do it many other ways – using, for instance, blood groups, lactose-tolerance, sickle cell anaemia, or any combination of these as the basis for our new races. Genetically, each would be as valid a criterion as skin colour. The current division of the world into black, white and Asian races is, in other words, as rooted in convention as in genetics.

Entine rejects such criticisms as mere 'semantics'. But his own argument shows why it is not so. According to Entine, East Africans are naturally superior at endurance sports, West Africans at sprinting and jumping, and 'whites fall somewhere in the middle'. But if East and West Africans are at either end of a genetic spectrum of athletic abilities why consider them to be part of a single race, and one that is distinct from whites? Because conventionally we use skin colour as the criterion of racial difference.

Entine also ignores evidence that does not fit his thesis. It is true that athletes of West African descent living in North America, Western Europe and the Caribbean dominate many sports. But contemporary West Africans don't. This is the opposite of what one should expect if athletic ability was predominantly genetic.

IN AMERICA, CONSIDERABLE INTERMIXING BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE POPULATIONS HAS MEANT THAT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION EMBODIES, ON AVERAGE, SOME 30 PER CENT OF 'WHITE' GENES. HENCE AFRICAN AMERICANS SHOULD BE POORER ATHLETES THAN (PURE BLOOD) WEST AFRICANS. THE REVERSE IS TRUE.


following etnine's theory, james blake, who is half white, should be slower and athletically inferior to scofield jenkins, donald young, and any of the other black male tennis players who are all-black??? Players whose "naturally" superior black athletic genes haven't been diluted by inferior white athletic genes like james blake has.


the moral of the story, don't believe everything just because it's on the internet or in a book!!

superman1
06-19-2006, 09:01 PM
How about just going outside and making observations on your own. Black people who work out seem to be extremely toned, whereas people of other races seem to just gain mass. No one here is an expert on the subject, but if you find one you will hear all about the genetic differences in muscle.

slice bh compliment
06-19-2006, 09:03 PM
...following etnine's theory, james blake, who is half white, should be slower and athletically inferior to scofield jenkins, donald young, and any of the other black male tennis players who are all-black??? Players whose "naturally" superior black athletic genes haven't been diluted by inferior white athletic genes like james blake has....

The kid's name is Scoville.

malakas
06-19-2006, 09:05 PM
I also have serious doubt about the validity of this article..But I quess I am just too bored to do a serious search about it..
Though to what you say tennisjunkiela :But it is also possible to do it many other ways – using, for instance, blood groups, lactose-tolerance, sickle cell anaemia, or any combination of these as the basis for our new races. i have to say that all these are singles characteristics whereas the race division is about more than one characteristic.

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 11:00 AM
OK. Fellas,

Here are bibliography of some research papers.
These are just samples and do your own research.
I'm NOT going to quote text from these article here since it seems
to provoke wrong ideas irrationally from some people.
Note: I DO NOT suggest here anything other than muscle fiber compositions.


* Architectural characteristics of muscle in black and white college football players.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 31(10):1448, October 1999.
ABE, TAKASHI; BROWN, JAMES B.; BRECHUE, WILLIAM F.

* Ama, P. F. M., J. A. Simoneau, M. R. Boulay, O. Serresse, G. Theriault, and C. Bouchard. Skeletal muscle characteristics in sedentary black and Caucasian males. J. Appl. Physiol. 61:1758-1761, 1986.




the moral of the story, don't believe everything just because it's on the internet or in a book!!

malakas
06-20-2006, 01:03 PM
OK. Fellas,

Here are bibliography of some research papers.
These are just samples and do your own research.
I'm NOT going to quote text from these article here since it seems
to provoke wrong ideas irrationally from some people.
Note: I DO NOT suggest here anything other than muscle fiber compositions.


* Architectural characteristics of muscle in black and white college football players.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 31(10):1448, October 1999.
ABE, TAKASHI; BROWN, JAMES B.; BRECHUE, WILLIAM F.

* Ama, P. F. M., J. A. Simoneau, M. R. Boulay, O. Serresse, G. Theriault, and C. Bouchard. Skeletal muscle characteristics in sedentary black and Caucasian males. J. Appl. Physiol. 61:1758-1761, 1986.



Great job fastdunn.:D
I might as well read some of it during the summer.
You see I still find it very odd,since I haven't read YET about differences in muscle fiber compositions in different races of other mammals.But I may in the future.;)