Scholars have been conducting studies on the physical differences between white and black athletes for many decades. However, there is still no concrete evidence that these physical differences are the contributing reason for the so-called athletic superiority of blacks. In a study published in the journal "Medical & Science in Sports & Exercise," the architectural characteristics of muscle in black and white college football players were compared. This study was conducted by Professor Takashi Abe, Professor James Brown, and Professor William Brechue , who studied thirteen black college football players and thirty-one white college football players. At the beginning of the study, the authors alluded to the fact that blacks had a greater percentage of type II muscle fibers but reiterated that there was not much scientific evidence beyond that. However, they believed that muscle architecture could possibly be linked to improved sports performance and were hoping to use this study to prove that. They looked at a variety of physical characteristics, including muscle thickness at thirteen anatomical sites, body mass index, and the isolated muscle thicknesses and fascicle pennation angles of the triceps, vastus lateralis, and gastrocnemius medialis. Muscle thickness was measured using a B-mode ultrasound, and body density was measured using a oxygen dilution method. Vertical jump and 40-yard dash time were also measured. The results of this study were somewhat surprising. Only the muscle thicknesses of the biceps, abdomen, quadriceps, and hamstrings were significantly greater in blacks than in whites. None of the other measured sites showed any difference in thickness between the two races. There were also no noteworthy differences in height, weight, body mass index, limb circumference, and arm and leg lengths between blacks and whites. The only major difference between the two races was that blacks had a larger ratio of leg length to standing height. In addition, the vertical jump and 40-yard dash of the black defensive and offensive backs was significantly greater than their white counterparts but only at these positions. Finally, there were no significant differences in the isolated muscle thicknesses and fascicle pennation angles of the triceps, vastus lateralis, and gastrocnemius medialis between the two racial groups. From this study, the professors concluded that while there may be some differences in anatomical build between black and white athletes, muscle architecture is likely not significantly different between the two races. Thus, the so-called black athletic superiority in sprint and jump performance is not a result different architectural characteristics of muscle. This study is really intriguing to me in that it somewhat surprises me that the muscle architecture between black and white athletes is not that different. It has often been a common belief that black athletes are physically superior and stronger than white athletes, which allows them to thrive in sports. However, this is probably not the case. The differences in muscle thickness of some of the anatomical sites is probably a result of the differences in the shape of the muscles, which can be changed through high-intensity weight training. This study reiterates my belief that the athletic success of blacks is mainly due to their work ethic and attitudes and not their physical superiority. Black and white athletes are far more physically similar than most people think. My only problem with this study was the small number of subjects that were tested. In addition, the ratio of black subjects to white subjects was not 1:1; there were far more white subjects than black subjects.