Earl Boykins DUNKS!!??!!

We've heard reports that Earl Boykins can dunk at 5-5. Can you confirm this from your days with him on the Clippers?

Miles: "On a good day, I think he can. He can definitely grab the rim, I know that much. And on a good day, I'll bet he can turn it over and dunk it."

fromhttp://www.nba.com/allaccess/miles_interview_040115.html

Is it true?
Has anyone ever seen him dunk???

When it's Darius Miles saying a 5 foot 5 guy can dunk, it sort of puts things in perspective.

If he can grab the rim, then he still has like 30 cm´s to go to dunk. And I doubt if a "good day" can give him that

well, on NBA Live at least...

hey, Miles is havin a movie... "The Perfect Score"

i doubt miles is a good actor, he was pretty horrible in van wilder even though he had that little tiny part.

well i had a neighbour who's 5'7 and dunks with no effort so i wouldnt be surprised if Boykins could dunk it

Boykins can dunk...there was a feature in sports illustrated last year on him (same issue with one on Ben Wallace, buncha kids hanging from his bicpes), and he said he could dunk, and that he did it once in college; he just doesn't do it because if he gets hit, he'll fall, and since it's a 10 foot rim, and he's 5'5...you do the math.

If he can bench over 300lbs, odds are that he has strong leg muscles as well. Mugsy Bogues dunked in college as well...just once, though.

i know some dude can hang on rim and he is just 5'6
and he isn't even that good..
he jumps high.. but i would think someone nba calibre can do better

I'm sure that Earl Boykins can dunk, it's just that he doesn't do it in game, like TP for instance or like Mitch Richmond did cause dunking is tiring and certainly not the best way to score for him.

You know..when i was 6 feet i used to feel pretty proud that i could dunk. I also had friends who were like 5'10" and 5'9" who could also and we were all pretty amazed. However, reading about these dudes and seeing phootage of spudd webb erased most of that enthusiam..heh. I dont know whos the world shortest dunker..but im sure hes black.

This may be a stupid question but is it true that black people jumps natural higher? Or are they just simpley trained better than white people

Yer it's true cos they have some stronger or extra muscles in their buns which give them more explosion when jumping.. *shrug* that's what my Dad told me.

Let me answer this.

First of all...it has NOTHING to do with "extra muscles." That's a very dehumanizing theory to spread about any group of people. There is only one human muscle and skeletal structure chart.

In fact...this is going to seem weird but there is no genetic difference between black people and white people at all. A scientist can look at a person's genetic code and not be able to tell if they are black, white, asian or otherwise. That's why there have been discussions lately about whether race actually exists.

What does exist...however...is natural selection and environmental influence. Kenya has had the top long distance runners for years...but it's not because Kenyans are "naturally" better runners than people from other countries. Kenya itself is in a very high elevation. The country is up in the mountains so over time the people with the strongest lungs were healthier and reproduced more...thus making most Kenyan people today have very strong cardiovascular and breathing systems.

Likewise...as African-American people...we spent a couple centuries performing only intense manual labor. Over time...that meant the strongest and most athletic people survived more often and now today you get a lot of African-American athletes who have 40" vertical leaps or who are very strong. Combine that with basketball being the most popular sport among black men and you can see why 70% of the NBA is African-American men.

Hopefully that answers your question in amanner that won't bring about too much flaming or offensive posts.

Actually, the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans, and, like you said, they're that way because of adapting to whatever. But there ARE ever so slight differences betweens whites and blacks when it comes to muscles. While there's only one human body chart, there are slight differences between the races. It's not good to stereotype because of that...I read this stuff in some book or other, and it was a textbook.

I believe it, too...I'm not an outstanding athlete, but I have a decent verticle for my height. There's been plenty of pick-up games at the rec where some black guy joins us or whatever and he's not that athletic, but he can almost always jump higher than all of us. A generalization, yes, but I don't think saying that 'most blacks jump higher than whites' is a harmful generalization...otherwise 'white men can't jump' wouldn't have been nearly as funny of a movie. Besides, it is generally true...otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned in a biology textbook.

looks like Melo is surprised by the dunk lol

Boykins should be at the Dunk Contest.. even if he doesn't participate, i jus' wanna see him dunk and then walk off the court like it ain't a thing to him

Last edited by flip_wun on Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans, and, like you said, they're that way because of adapting to whatever.

That's not black people. That's any person who is athletic. Fast-twitch muscle fiber is a characteristic of an athletic human being...not of black people exclusively. I said a higher percentage of black people are athletic...which also means that a higher percentage have characteristics of an athletic person. That's not a different muscle structure. There is no physical or biological characteristic that you can use to distinguish "black people" from "white people" or latino people. Including skin tone if you think about it...

A generalization, yes, but I don't think saying that 'most blacks jump higher than whites' is a harmful generalization

By itself it isn't...but saying that is a few steps away from saying "most whites are smarter than blacks" which is very harmful. Thus it's better that we avoid generalizations as best we can in this case.

As a side note...let me reiterate that what geneticists have determined...and what is causing so much debate lately...is that there really is no such thing as "the races." There's no gene that makes you black or white. Over time...as people intermingle more...it's going to be as pointless as dividng cheetahs based on the number of spots they have.

That's not black people. That's any person who is athletic. Fast-twitch muscle fiber is a characteristic of an athletic human being...not of black people exclusively. I said a higher percentage of black people are athletic...which also means that a higher percentage have characteristics of an athletic person.

So...me saying that blacks have more fast-twitch muscle fiber is different from what you just said how? I never said whites didn't have that quality, I said:

the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans

I said most...you said higher percentage...what's the difference?

no genetic difference between black people and white people at all.

There is no genetic difference? Every person has genetic differences. There are GENES that determine skin color, hair color, fairness of skin, eyes, and so on...traits that make a person an idividual. While there is no real differences in humans - that is, regardless of race or hair color or whatever - there are genetic differences between whites, blacks, latinos, etc. But they are not genetic differences that matter, just those of appearnace. If there was no genetic difference between humans, then we would all look exactly alike...

However, there is no difference other than the color of stuff and physical traits (which is usually due to adaptation) - such as having more fast-twitch muscles.

Actually, the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans, and, like you said, they're that way because of adapting to whatever.

So we're not disagreeing at all...but apparently you think I'm being racist or something, even though I read this out of an anatomy textbook, and you said the same thing.

By itself it isn't...but saying that is a few steps away from saying "most whites are smarter than blacks" which is very harmful. Thus it's better that we avoid generalizations as best we can in this case.

So...what you're saying is that it's ok for you - a black man, correct? - to say that a higher percentage of african americans have athletic qualities, ie fast-twitch muscles, but it's not ok for me - a white man - to say that most african-americans, or blacks, have more fast twitch muscles, something that I read in a recent (two summers ago) biology textbook? Why can't I say the same damned thing as you? I said the same thing, yet you're acting like I'm Adolf Hitler. What the hell? Everything I said was factual, something that can be looked up in the textbook which I read, and I admitted that it was a generalization and wasn't always true.

Guess I'll ignore everything I read in textbooks because they're wrong because EG said so...

Edit: forgot this paragraph...

As a side note...let me reiterate that what geneticists have determined...and what is causing so much debate lately...is that there really is no such thing as "the races." There's no gene that makes you black or white. Over time...as people intermingle more...it's going to be as pointless as dividng cheetahs based on the number of spots they have.

There is a gene that determines pigmentation. I'd like to see a source of this so-called debate that I've heard nothing about. If there was no gene that caused pigmentation, then kids wouldn't look like their parents. I'm not talking about skin color, either, I'm talking about hair color and what not. That goes for facial structure - nose, cheeks, ears, and so on - and general body structure, such as height, metabolism, and so on. It's also been determined that intelligence can be passed down from parents to children through genetics, and that's why there's been stereotypes regarding blacks and low intelligence. The only reason that stereotype's around is because educating slaves was against the law, and if you don't educate someone, of course they won't seem as intelligent. It's not a given, that a smart parent will have a smart child, and a great deal of intelligence depends on how a child is raised, but natural intelligence is natural, and guess what? That's also determined by genes...

All this stuff is genetic, and all this stuff is contained in each individuals DNA. Genes are in DNA, correct? So give me a bunch of sources for your so-called debate, and then I might believe you. Until then, I'm gonna go with the whole genes give people physical traits theory that is logical and proven...

As for your "intermingle" comment? Yeah, guess what? A mullato or light skinned black person usually has one white ancestor, be it a parent or grandparent or whatever. You're quite correct in saying that the skin color will be non-existant, but that only supports the differing genes "theory." When people reproduce, genes from the mother and father, and their ancestors, are combined, and that includes the genes that cause pigmentation...now, I may not be the best with colors, but someone help me out here...if I combine a dark brown with a creme color, what color do I get? I honestly cannot fathom how there are no "races;" of course, the human race is one thing, but we've subdivided (needlessly) the race into skin colors. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter, but it isn't a perfect world. If we were in a utopia, I can almost bet that geneticists would say that genes cause the differences in humans that we see - regardless of race.

So...me saying that blacks have more fast-twitch muscle fiber is different from what you just said how?

To me...it sounded like you were saying black people's muscles are different from white people's muscles. I wanted to clarify that they aren't. If you cut a slab of muscle from a black person and a slab of muscle from a white person and mixed them up...you couldn't tell what came from who. If you agree then great.

but apparently you think I'm being racist or something, even though I read this out of an anatomy textbook, and you said the same thing.

I don't think you're being racist at all. In fact I think this discussion is very necessary and healthy. There are a lot of misconceptions out there and a lot of people seem to divide themselves too much. This doesn't mean you in particular...but I think it would help everyone to read this.

There is a gene that determines pigmentation. I'd like to see a source of this so-called debate that I've heard nothing about.

Does Race Exist? - Scientific American Magazine

Race: Social Concept, Biological Idea, by Gloria Ramon

Race: Is it a valid issue?

When Racial Categories Make No Sense, By Dan Gardner

New York Times: Race is an unscientific concept, experts say...reprinted in the Augsberg College press

Wired News: Gene Map Presents Race Concerns

Race: Some conceptual and empirical issues, Moral Debate Outline

Is the Concept of Race Legitimate? By Matthew Hocutt

There's tons more where that came from...it's a pretty interesting issue.

EDIT: Let me add this link also...

From the PBS Miniseries "Race: The Power of an Illusion" - 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Race

This I think is the most important....and some things a lot of people don't seem to understand. Pay special attention to the first four.

TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea.

Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis.

Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist.

Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep.

Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races."

Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

6. Slavery predates race.

Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together.

The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural.

As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real.

Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

10. Colorblindness will not end racism.

Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.

To me...it sounded like you were saying black people's muscles are different from white people's muscles. I wanted to clarify that they aren't. If you cut a slab of muscle from a black person and a slab of muscle from a white person and mixed them up...you couldn't tell what came from who. If you agree then great.

I agree...but I still don't understand how you thought "the muscle structure of African-Americans is generally slightly different; there are more fast-twitch muscles in most African-Americans" equalled "different than white people." While I did say different, I said how they were different, and it's a slight difference at that...and I never specified who they were different from. Not arguing, just a little confused.

Scientific American Mag:

Do physical features reliably say anything informative about a person's genetic makeup beyond indicating that the individual has genes for blue eyes or curly hair?

This is all I was saying about differences: physical characteristics.

Some groups do differ genetically from others,

you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic.

Skin-color genes...

In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished.

Humans are the same, but different...due to genes.

Over the past 100,000 years or so, anatomically modern humans have migrated from Africa to other parts of the world, and members of our species have increased dramatically in number. This spread has left a distinct signature in our DNA.

More ways to distinguish humans...

Some polymorphisms do occur in genes, however; these can contribute to individual variation in traits and to genetic diseases.

...

But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist.

This supports what you and I both said...


The New York Times:

We truly are all kin beneath the skin, many scientists are concluding.

I've known this since my mom told me when I was four that blacks and asians are just the same as whites, just different shades...and most children think this as well, depending on the family and environment (community) one grows up in...

"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corp. in Rockville, Md.

Well, duh...I made an illusion to this when I said the thing about the human race, and then it being subdivided into other "races." Humans love classifying things into categories, especially when they are different...

"Science got us into this problem in the first place, with its measurements of skulls and its emphasis on racial differences and racial classifications," he said. "Scientists should now get us out of it."

I don't know how many people actually know about all the crap "scientists" of Europe pulled, and this is one of them. The classism of the time was horrible, and the treatment of different races, classes, and of women were downright cruel. The poor were treated horribly, as were everyone else who weren't rich white men. Depression was treated differently for the rich and the poor; the poor were locked up and put on display for the rich to enjoy, they were forced to act in costume balls and what not. The rich were given the "rest" cure and treated with respect....I'm probably screwing up periods, but I'm sure you get the idea...science isn't always the kindest. However, science nowadays is much more advanced and much less biased...

Yet a few researchers continue to insist that among the three major races, there are fundamental differences that extend to the brain. Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario and author of "Race, Evolution and Behavior," is perhaps the most tireless proponent of the belief that the three major races differ genetically in ways that affect average group IQ and a propensity toward criminal behavior. He asserts that his work reveals east Asians to have the largest average brain size and intelligence scores, those of African descent to have the smallest average brains and IQs, and those of European ancestry to fall in the middle.

Many scientists have objected to Rushton's methods and interpretations, arguing, among other things, that the link between total brain size and intelligence is far from clear. Women, for example, have smaller brains than men do, even when adjusted for their comparatively smaller body mass, yet average male and female IQ scores are the same. For that matter, fossil evidence suggests that Neanderthals had very sizable brains, and they did not even last long enough to invent standardized tests.

And people listen to this guy?

"There's no scientific evidence to support substantial differences between groups," he said, "and the tremendous burden of proof goes to anyone who wants to assert those differences."

And this is what I was saying...

EG, you're confusing no anatomical difference with no genetic difference. As I have shown, both in my comments and the articles you provided, there are genetic differences that control appearances - including skin colors. People can be grouped into categories based on physical appearances, and, like one article said, responses and susceptability to various diseases. The word 'race' in reference to skin color has a lot to do with the scientists who said that if you have a large forehead, you're more likely to be poor (not exactly, but along those lines...). It's the human race, and then the subsequent groups would be caucasion, african/african-american, latino/a, asian, and so on. Those classifications depend on your physical traits, which is exactly how races are divided into groups and categories, based on...Darwin, I believe. Think of how rats and mice are of the same race, but they're different species. They share many characteristics, and are essentially the same, but they differ. I'm probably goofing something up, but the idea is there.

Dividing humans into groups is the worst idea possible, as that points out ways that people are different. However, the world has color, and so do humans; we don't live in a utopian world without color, ala The Giver (I figure, if there was a utopian society, no one could see color, as that make people realize their differences and thus cause problems).

Think of it this way: color makes our world and its people and animals unique. Without color, without differences, everyone would be the same. If everyone was the same, the world would be boring, stale, and painless. Differences cause problems, but they cause joy as well. If somoene rejoices in how they're different, even if they're ostracized because of that difference, then they will be a much better person in the long run and...

*cough*

I'll get off my pedestal now...

Yes you are right, for example sickle cell anemia only occurs in people of African descnet, my cousin had that actually. There are some other diseases which are ethnically specific, don't remeber them anymore but you learn them in highschool Bio.

I should know this but then again I didn't take Biology last semester, even though im majoring in BioChemistry but s'all good.

The only thing I'll take issue with from your post is...

Think of how rats and mice are of the same race, but they're different species. They share many characteristics, and are essentially the same, but they differ. I'm probably goofing something up, but the idea is there.

That example is exactly the type of thinking I was trying to dispute. Mice and rats are different subspecies. They actually do have traits that are different. Just like alligators and crocodiles. But as was stated in the article I quoted...

3. Human subspecies don't exist.

Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

The difference between people isn't like rats and mice...that thinking is what leads people to think skin color is linked with other characteristics. There are no characteristics linked to skin color but skin color. Differences are due to social environment or other factors that might happen to loosely coincide with skin colors but really have nothing else to do with them.

A better example would be people with brown eyes against people with blue eyes. If someone says..."well...the brown eyed race tends to do this and this"...you could see why I would jump to assert that there is no significance at all to eye color...it's just a random characterisitc that has no effect on a person's intelligence etc. Social evironment determines those things and we have to keep it very separate from things like skin or eye color because people are easily confused.

The significance of the genetic finding is that there is no gene that distinguishes a "white" person from a "black" person. Skin color is even less significant than hair or eye color. But people think it's indicative of deeper differences (like what Nick was saying that jarred me to post in the first place) when it's not at all.

So if someone asks..."Why are black people so athletic?" My answer is "people weeded for manual labor ability tend to become more athletic on average. Skin color has no more effect on it than hair or eye color...it just so happens that the people who were weeded in America happen to have darker skin on average."

The final result...for everyone to read (not you Shane as you seem to understand it) is that if you are white...the black person walking down the street really truly isn't different from you. He just comes from a different environment. Really...truly...not any different from you. It might seem cliched but you have to really think about it.

Last edited by EGarrett on Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yup you are both right, EG is right that the phyiscal abilities come from the enviroment and the changes people from that enviroment's body's have gone through, and people of different races really aren't that different. Sean is also right that there are some genetic things, but atheleticism isn't really genetic component of human development.

That example is exactly the type of thinking I was trying to dispute. Mice and rats are different subspecies. They actually do carry common traits that are different. Just like alligators and crocodiles. But as was stated in the article I quoted...

You kinda misunderstood me, but I wasn't clear...it was kind of an explanation of why we call people of different skin color different races, when a different sort of classification is more apt; rats are bigger and stronger than mice, mice are 'smarter,' but they essentially look the same. While the differences aren't so clear to label a person of a different color a different subspecies, there is enough of a difference to name a different group, such as caucasion, latino/a, etc. That make a little more sense, or did I just muddy it further?

Yup you are both right, EG is right that the phyiscal abilities come from the enviroment and the changes people from that enviroment's body's have gone through, and people of different races really aren't that different. Sean is also right that there are some genetic things, but atheleticism isn't really genetic component of human development.

In a way it can be. Ever notice how athletes sons or daughters are generally athletic as well? Their parents were athletic, so some of those genes and traits were passed down from the parents to the children...hence, "natural" ability. Also, if a "race" adapts to the environment that it lives in, then those adaptations are passed down genetically through the generations, such as slaves being "bred" for manual labor, thus making ever so slight differences in their offsprings phsyical characteristics.

There isn't enough difference. You can group people by country of origin...which would have some defined criteria at least. But grouping people by skin color is inherently less logical than grouping them by hair or eye color...because eye color is defined (blue, brown, green etc) and skin color isn't. Some people you would call "white" are darker than people you would "black" and such.

The only reason it is useful now is because people have been doing it so long that people have received different treatment based on their skin color and it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For now...it might be a handy label to combine a bunch of social aspects...but it really does more harm than good because you start to get people thinking that they are different species and that naturally ends up in "us" and "them" thinking which lead to segregation...or racism and all that messy business.

Last edited by EGarrett on Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

this thread went from Earl Boykin dunks to racism