The New York Times posted an article yesterday in their “Well” column about different swim-athlete morphologies. The gist was that many different body types can stand on the podium, whether racing 50 or 10,000 meters.
“But the study’s broader subtext suggests that a short, well-muscled fireplug could out touch a lean six-foot swimmer in any distance, if both share a similar B.M.I., which happens to be about 23 for men and 21 for women.”
Yet when I look at who actually IS on the podium, they all look strikingly similar, tall with long wing span. Very few 5 foot fireplugs seem to be winning Olympic medals, while 6’+ males and females appear to be racking up the medal count.
I remember watching Phelps in the finals of the sprint free, he looked small at 6’5". Sun Yang is 6’8", Greivers is 6’8 or and back9" so there is the distance events covered. It just doesnt seem that anyone under 6’ are on those final blocks anymore, no matter what the event. Perhaps breast stroke, but I think those guys are big now too, forget about 5 footers…
The gist was that many different body types can stand on the podium, whether racing 50 or 10,000 meters.
The gist of the study is that top-level don’t significantly differ in BMI across disciplines. Or, in other words, differing swim disciplines appear to have roughly the same optimal BMI.
In the concluding paragraph of the article, the author seems to suggest that this implies that different body types don’t convey significant advantages as long as the BMI is similar. This does not seem to be a consequence of the study’s claims.
I think the point of the article was that body type matters less in swimming that in running, where if you are stocky (whether muscle or fat) you have a distinct disadvantage against those thin whispy types that don’t have to fight with gravity.
The New York Times posted an article yesterday in their “Well” column about different swim-athlete morphologies. The gist was that many different body types can stand on the podium, whether racing 50 or 10,000 meters. https://www.nytimes.com/...ef=headline&te=1
“But the study’s broader subtext suggests that a short, well-muscled fireplug could out touch a lean six-foot swimmer in any distance, if both share a similar B.M.I., which happens to be about 23 for men and 21 for women.”
Yet when I look at who actually IS on the podium, they all look strikingly similar, tall with long wing span. Very few 5 foot fireplugs seem to be winning Olympic medals, while 6’+ males and females appear to be racking up the medal count.
Discuss.
Generally, i think you are indeed correct and this study is off, not only in the height hypothesis but in the BMI numbers. Most top swimmers, male or female, are not light enough to have those BMIs as they generally have a good bit of muscle plus some fat. However, one exception i can think of to the height thing is Sheila Taormina, who is only 5’2.5", yet swam on the winning 4 x 200 free relay in the '96 Oly. IIRC, her best 200 LCM time was around 2:00 flat, which would be around 1:45-46 for 200 yd.
I think the article is talking more about BMI than height per se, but there have been several “non-tall” swimmers who have been successful. For example, Janet Evans is 5’5" and Dave Berkoff is 5’9".
I think the point of the article was that body type matters less in swimming that in running, where if you are stocky (whether muscle or fat) you have a distinct disadvantage against those thin whispy types that don’t have to fight with gravity.
Have you seen the 60m and 100m running guys that line up? They are ripped and muscular…far from whispy. I would even call guys like Coleman stocky.
Have you seen the 60m and 100m running guys that line up? They are ripped and muscular…far from whispy. I would even call guys like Coleman stocky.
They single out sprinters (for running) in the article. The point of the article was that body type matters less in swimming in terms of what distance you can excel in - muscular athletes can be good at the 50 and 10k open water simultaneously. In running however it’s very rare to be good at the 100m dash and marathon simultaneously because each requires a distinct body type.
Without reading the actual study, the authors concluding statement appears to be a gross elaboration on the real analysis. To me it seems like he just did his best to take a study that shows “elite swimmers will have a BMI around 23” and twist it into a “feel-good” story saying that anyone can be a professional swimmer regardless of body type.
While there have been fantastic swimmers that are short, they’re the exception to the standard. Same as short sprinters in track, or tall gymnasts.
Of course one doesn’t need to have the same body type as the elites to compete in a sport, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. And when it comes to being elite and every little piece matters, there is a reason that athletes tend to have a similar build in their respective sports.
A google search reveals that Joseph Schooling (won the 100 Fly at the last Olympics) is pretty generously listed at 6 feet. He definitely looked more than 4 inches shorter than Phelps when he was standing on the podium.
Therefore, you can be short and be world class at swimming
On a side note, it’s one thing to see how small Olympic/world class gymnasts look on TV, but to see them up close is another. The US Championships are here in Boston this week at TD Garden and I sometimes take the commuter rail to North Station (at the ground level of the arena) in to work. Yesterday morning as I am walking out of the station, two of the male gymnasts are walking into the building for the practice session and passed by me. I’m 6’2" and these two were about a foot shorter than me even though they both looked like they were in their early 20’s.
The New York Times posted an article yesterday in their “Well” column about different swim-athlete morphologies. The gist was that many different body types can stand on the podium, whether racing 50 or 10,000 meters.
“But the study’s broader subtext suggests that a short, well-muscled fireplug could out touch a lean six-foot swimmer in any distance, if both share a similar B.M.I., which happens to be about 23 for men and 21 for women.”
Yet when I look at who actually IS on the podium, they all look strikingly similar, tall with long wing span. Very few 5 foot fireplugs seem to be winning Olympic medals, while 6’+ males and females appear to be racking up the medal count.
Discuss.
Im assuming that the Times article was in reference to this:
What this article used as a data source was the BMIs of 2012 OLYMPIC SWIMMING COMPETITORS. So, this is already slanted towards the body type of the swimmers that are ALREADY swimming in the Olympics. Data is a funny thing.
Josh Prenot and Jordan Willamovsky both in the 5 10 range I believe. Katinka Hozzsu is probably average height maybe 5 6 or 5 7 but super buffed. Giles Smith is a sprint flier and is under 6 foot. The best one I came up with is Justin Wright who was national champ in 200M fly he is listed as 5 7.
My theory is that its partly the wingspan to height ratio that can give you an advantage but just speculating.
When I swam in college in the 80’s breastsrokers would often be fireplugs (think Lundquist, looked like a linebacker) and backstrokers weren’t all tall yet.
Now, I think some of the rule changes have eleminated that. Most all good swimmers are tall. Sure, some shorter ones have success; but most are tall.
My college BMI was 25.4 maybe that’s why I didn’t make it to NCAA’s?
(And BMI by itself is a crock. That BMI is overweight and yet my measured body fat was 8.8%)
My coach said basically the same thing – if your fingertips are near your knees, you have the best morphology for a swimmer. Then he said Sorry to me b/c I am not even close (shorter than Sally). That just means I have to try twice as hard.
