I was really intrigued by this photo of Michael Phelps, which was used in an Omega ad. I wonder how much of his success is made possible by the physical properties he drew in the nature/nurture lottery, bearing in mind that the picture may have been electronically altered for artistic effect.
This is not to suggest that years of effort & training do not count - we can all improve on what we start with; but nature is bound to set limits on what can be achieved.
The first noticeable features are the curves at the edges of chest & thigh. I display real ignorance when I ask if you can have muscles up there – it seems to be all bone in me! In comparison with those thighs however, the legs below the knee look almost as undeveloped as the tadpole legs of a baby
Then there are those broad feet & unusually gappy toes. Does it help or hinder his forward propulsion to have water rushing through those gaps?
And those long arms*. Doing the best I can with an ordinary straight edge ruler I reckon that, with long, long fingers fully extended, they will reach to his knees, something usually associated (in cartoons) only with very low IQ
Together with the information that his training diet comes to 12,000 calories a day, he is living proof that variance, not averages, are the statistics which count
Without variation there can be no evolution, no progress
*Post script: Phelps is 6ft 4in tall with an armspan of 6ft 7in
Louis Smith, who won a bronze medal for Britain in the gymnastics, also has unusually long arms, with his span being 2" greater than his height. In his case the extra length seems to lie entirely between elbow & wrist, his upper arms look a normal length
The poor young man has also developed back problems from all his training on the pommel horse - he cannot stand for more than 30 minutes at a time
Related post: Ancient feet
