What about bodily ratios, as in the length of one’s legs compared to torso size, and so forth—any advantage there?
So we’ve been hearing how Phelps has a long torso with shorter-than-expected legs and how that gives him a powerful push when he turns off the wall. There’s a problem here: If two fellows of [the] same height are trying to turn [off the wall after a lap in the pool], the guy with the longer legs will hit the wall from farther away and should also have the better kick going back the other way.
What about the claim that Phelps’s ankles can bend more than other people’s ankles?
It’s true that more supple joints do give you an advantage, and so that’s why stretching helps athletes out a great deal. But I’m not satisfied that Phelps has more flexibility than the other guys swimming in his events. Yes, compared to the average 23-year-old walking down the street, Phelps probably is more flexible that they are, but he’s also in far better shape. If he has some pronounced laxity in his ankles, he is not likely to be that much more flexible [than his competitors].
As for double-jointedness...?
Having elbows and wrists that bend easily should not be an advantage, mechanically speaking. If you put force through a joint that is unstable, you are in danger of hurting the joint. His joints may be somewhat looser, but that could put him at a disadvantage in the weight room.
Another specious claim is that there’s been some talk about him being able to utilize oxygen better than other people. Not having been to [Phelps’] autopsy, I think that’s rather hard to say at this point.
What do you think accounts for Phelps’s success then?
[Phelps] has very good stroke mechanics—that certainly goes a long way. Some people also have better [so-called] “locomotive genius”—this is when swimmers have that sense of moving the water around them and how much water they are displacing. By analogy, think of someone who is stroking a backhand in tennis who just seems to know better [than other tennis players] where the ball will go. Mark Spitz [the swimmer who won seven gold medals in the 1972 Munich Olympics] was claimed to have anatomical advantages. [Spitz] and I swam the same events, though he did them a whole lot quicker. But it was not like he had six fingers. Almost everyone who has success [in sports] is said to have some unusual property, though I have not seen this borne out.
You can compare it to the Ted Williams [urban legend in baseball]—they say he could see the stitching on the ball [of the incoming pitch] rotate, and that he would know by the rotation whether he was getting a fastball or a curveball. I’m inclined to be a little bit skeptical of that. It is the same as saying people have some special intellectual gift. Why is it these people tend to be the ones to close down the libraries and study all the time? Tiger Woods probably was not born being able to hit a ball 250 yards in a straight line, but hundreds of buckets of balls later, he developed such a skill.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentI am disappointed to see this interview in Sci Am.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo answer these questions you needed a person with the right expertise and background. Comments like "this 5'8 guy won this" are anecdotal evidence which goes against all the other trends, like that most of the guys in the 100m final were about 6'4. The fact that one taller guy didn't beat Phelps just shows the glaringly obvious fact that there's more to swimming than being tall.
This is actually a very complex question of fluid mechanics and physiology, and there are people who could give intelligent and data-based answers. But you can't expect a random scientist who just happens to be an ex-swimmer to have studied this in detail.
The truth is: there is a very strong rationale, both based on fluid mechanics and based on empirical data, which says that physiological differences are vital advantages in swimming - making differences of a few seconds in races that are decided by hundredths of seconds. Already all the top swimmers have most of the right physiological edges (otherwise they wouldn't be there).
Then of course you add in factors like stroke efficiency, training, attitude, ... and these factors become less important. But when you get to the very very top, often the best athletes all train as hard as they believe they should, they all study technique, their coaches follow similar manuals, they're all dedicated, ... and so the physiological differences become critical.
very interesting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarfan's Syndrome.....look it up if interested...it may apply
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarfan's Syndrome....look it up.... it might apply here
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarfan's Syndrome.....look it up....it might apply
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen all is said and done, the complainers are just jealous. Phelps is great, get over it! We seem to have reached the point in humanity's history, where nothing can be true, honest or real. The complainers try to find any reason for negativity. At least with Phelps, we know he wasn't taken away at 3 and put somewhere away from parents to train for some Olympic sport decades later. Bask in the glory of our country having produced not one but many, many excellent sportpeople.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissum of that stuff may have to do with him winning 8 gold medals but the real truth is that he is the best at swimmingnd those 8 gold medals prove it! so all the scientists around the world can kill themselves trying to firgure out how but the only answer is that he is GREAT!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that a lot of comments miss the point of Dr. Weiner's analysis. It's a vast oversimplification to say that the reason Phelps won is his build, or his shoe size, or his joint flexibility. He had these same attributes in Athens in 2004, and he didn't win 8 gold medals. What I took Dr. Weiner's remarks to mean is that physical attributes may make it possible for an athlete to reach an elite level, but what makes a champion is a something beyond what can be measured empirically. That was the point in the example of the 5'8" Japanese swimmer. An equally compelling example, not mentioned in the interview, is former American speed skater Bonnie Blair. She's only 5'4" and by the "tale of the tape" should have been an underdog in every race she skated. Instead she was not only unbeatable but dominant. The difference between being good -- even very good -- and being a champion is something that will never show up on a chart, graph or any physiological monitoring equipment, because it isn't measurable. Here's to Michael Phelps for having the heart of a champion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgreat n outstanding
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this178cm = 5ft 10 , not 5ft 8 as stated in the article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I think it would have been interesting to see some sort of statistical data/study on the subject. Just some guy who knows how to do calculus and also swim says a bunch of his opinions without any scientific back up. Kind of disappointing from SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am Aussie and have large feet and arm span and it truly does work. I don't get tired as easily because I don't need as much effort. To verify I have size 12 in male but 14 female. (Standard sizing) Michael phelps is amazing and who can blame him he is a tall. I am 179cm. So if you say that this article is wrong look at the facts. Also it is probably because he trains hard?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this