That is a phenomenal post on many levels. As always, it is kind, insightful, and humble, and that's why we love you.

It is also a brilliantly succinct example of the limitations of a corrective approach. "I can't identify a flaw, so I cant help you." is the essence of it, when "I won't identify a flaw, so I can help you." is a better place to begin, especially with a stroke that is as classically "good looking" as this one. It's nice to look nice, but if he's not busting out some seriously quick swimming from that pretty stroke, there is room for improvement.

First, I am curious what that stroke looks like in the last 50 of an all out 200/500/1000 time trial. Second, the feet don't seem to be doing much, and there is very little opportunity to evaluate kick timing. Third, until a process driven by passive fundamental development is undertaken, we don't know where this might end up. It's a very real possibility that both 'uglier' and faster are the result.