M and I were watching track and field last night and wondering about the exact same thing. Except we estimated more like 95%. They all look like supermodels, or anime women, or CGI space aliens from a preternaturally beautiful planet. Those 100m hurdles finalists, my god.
I bet they all know how to pee standing up, too.
On the veldt the only sport was running away from lions, surely?
Olds find the young and healthy, in motion, attractive. News at 11.
Let me watch the opening casting call of All That Jazz to see if this observation is only for athletes.
Anyway, Sturgeon's law always applies, and if you think 80% of anything is great, you need to find the best of show, or best in imagination, and then rank by that standard. 80% of anything is shit. Consider it an duty to aesthetics.
Joe found the one to take home.
Olds find the young and healthy, in motion, attractive. News at 11.
Just back from parent night. My son's new teacher doesn't even need to be in motion.
On the veldt, women who met conventional standards of beauty got better sponsorship deals and were thus able to train harder.
Not just important for female beauty, Ogged.
America's recent (post '88?) hatred for track is the most mysterious thing ever. I just watched us winning the fucking decathalon and people promote non-Phelps swimmers as bigger stars. What the fuck.
Not making a dig at Phelps or others, but it's annoying when people talk about swimmers' range across events as if different distances and strokes are comparable to the Decathlon/Heptathlon in terms of variety.
Outside of European broadcasts on cable, and now the Olympic livestream (with the same announcers who do the Euro broadcasts, I think) track and field is extremely poorly served by tv coverage in the US.
NBC: "We don't think you'll sit through 8 minutes of live sports, so we'll edit it into 7 minutes of narrated storytelling garbage. And for field events, we'll just pick and choose a few instead of showing you how the competition develops."
It's that long legs corellate with high cheekbones because they're both manifestations of a... like, a prominent skeleton. And once you have high cheekbones it doesn't matter much what you do with the rest of the face, it will usually look good.
17 makes sense, comparing them with the sports that do not involve having long legs. Of course it would be ungallant to suggest specific counterexamples. But the divers and gymnasts are short and not bony, and they look like regular people, some pretty, some not so pretty, instead of having the supermodel look.
Yes, 16 is right. I'm actually mildly sympathetic to NBC's overall Olympic presentation dilemna (how DO you boil zillions of not that popular sports shown at awkward times in different countries into compelling prime time narrative? Not easy). But it's just bizarre that the world's most intuitive sport (fast running! Best general athlete!), one where the US has been generally amazing for years, and one where there's a world-historical amazing star (Bolt) seems to be less cared about than beach volleyball and infinitely less cared about than gymnastics.
17 may be on to something, but it's about muscles, not bone. "High cheekbones" are the result of muscular structure in the face, not bone structure. But that could still correlate somehow with the musculature of the legs, which of course would be unusually developed for elite runners.
But the women do, basically. And per the OP are super hot. But still doesn't seem to matter.
Fair point. And the bikini thing certainly doesn't explain the appeal of gymnastics. It's a mystery.
But it's just bizarre that the world's most intuitive sport (fast running! Best general athlete!), one where the US has been generally amazing for years, and one where there's a world-historical amazing star (Bolt) seems to be less cared about than beach volleyball and infinitely less cared about than gymnastics.
I disagree with this. Sprinting is cared about a lot. They're showing all the heats of all the rounds of all the sprinting events. But they only last a minute each whereas the gymnastics and volleyball lasts hours. And NBC does not care about any of the track and field events beyond sprinting. For something like the shot put it literally does not go beyond: Here's the throw by the top American... here's the throw by the person who ends up winning... Oh, and that person ended up winning. End of our Shot Put coverage, which was much worse than no coverage at all.
"High cheekbones are pronounced zygomatic arches, causing the upper part of the cheeks to jut out and form a line cut into the sides of the face. "
And the zygomatic arches are bone, not muscle. Sucking your cheeks in does only so much.
How's the rowing coverage in places that aren't Seattle?
17 while I appreciate the support I remain a "prominent skeleton" partisan even though I just invented that, and I will die on this hill and sir I will do it proudly.
I too appreciate the support from myself.
Wow, uh 21 I mean this is a really baffling recurring problem I have. Welcome to team prominent skeleton btw.
Turn your dial right now to NBC to see some very long legged athletes who are not that attractive, the Serbian volleyball team. Featuring the palest person I have seen at the Olympics thus far.
NBC has started to care a bit more about distance running as English speaking runners are doing better, but they don't care enough to sound interested.
I keep hoping Tom Hammond will retire, since he's been calling races and sounding bored with anything longer than a lap since the 1990s. I don't understand why he does track when most of it doesn't appear to interest him. I've wondered if he's too mediocre to do big name sports and NBC looked at track as a dumping ground for adequate announcers, especially since he's ok on the sprints. The color commentators are better.
I was so pissed that the only men's shotput I saw was the medals ceremony. It was not NBC, but some feed ESPN is doing for the Caribbean. I am getting tired of watching people run various distances.
I would counter that even in these crummy shots at least half the Serbian women's volleyball team is obviously gorgeous. Prominent skeleton theory continues to pull ahead.
Where do they stand on the incurable sadness spectrum?
Of course, you can watch coverage of whatever you want on the NBC website. If you have a comprehensive cable package, that is. To watch the boxing I should have thought ahead and made sure I got the USA Network, the network we all associate with people from Uzbekistan and Ecuador punching each other.
I don't have a cable subscription but I'm somehow getting the livestream on my home network. I'm not going to ask if it's a mistake.
25: Source? I know I've read the "muscle not bone" explanation somewhere, but I admit I don't remember where. Maybe it wasn't as reliable a source as it seemed.
Prominent cheekbones have a lot to do with percentage of body fat too. Without much, both muscle and bone show up more. Cheekbones are one of the things I like best about being at lower weights.
My speedy daughter has the child version of the running look, long face with prominent and defined cheekbones, long strong limbs. At this point in life she'd be baffled by any desire to run in long extension hair or makeup, though.
The source for 25 appears to be this Wikipedia page, but its sources seem to mostly be evo-psych books that might not be reliable about the anatomical details. But maybe I was thinking of the fat thing in 38.1 instead.
Low body fat % would actually explain both the cheekbones and the legs, I think. Sorry, Clytie.
I've been watching track and field online and thought the same thing. The long jumpers all looked like runway models.
I have high cheekbones but not long legs, so that's a data point against the long legs/high cheekbones theory.
I think it's not so much that there's a correlation between the two in general, but that the training practices of elite runners may also lead to higher cheekbones by reducing overall body fat. This is still all just speculation, of course, but per the post title that's what we're supposed to do.
Well, low body fat would explain slim legs, but not long legs. Not that I actually think there's a correlation between the two. This is a frivolous enough study that we could probably rake in lots of ev psych grant money if we slapped together a proposal.
No, the long legs is just genetic coincidence that makes them naturally good at running. It's the training to be among the best runners in the world that leads to the other stuff.
I mean, it's not as silly as ogged's symmetry theory, and I can totally see a study of that getting funded.
Ogged's symmetry theory is an ev psych goldmine. If someone wrote the grant the money could be used to buy an ekranoplan...
Yes, only wikipedia, but -- feel your face. On mine the big muscles run under the zygomatic arch. Skulls have high or low cheekbones.
Looked up relevant plastic surgery which comes in two types: more cheekbone for Caucasians, less for Asians.
http://www.asiancosmeticsurgery.com/procedures/cheek-reduction/
Elsewhere: "you may have lost [high cheekbones] over time as gravity pulled the fat that was covering the cheekbones down. This lower fat fills the hollow below the cheekbone and, thus, makes the loss look even worst."
In conclusion, I don't know, but plastic surgery is terrifying.
39 is making me really tempted to bring that Lincoln photo in next time I get my hair cut. And while she's not a sprinter, I think we need some Essie Davis as Miss Fisher as pop culture support for any theory of movement and cheekbones. I'm sure no one has ever complained about her symmetry either.
Yes, only wikipedia, but -- feel your face. On mine the big muscles run under the zygomatic arch. Skulls have high or low cheekbones.
Right, but whether they look like what people call "high cheekbones" depends on the distribution of muscle and fat underneath the zygomatic arch. If the cheekbones on the skull are high but the tissue underneath fills up the whole space, they aren't going to look like that.
The Wikipedia article mentions that this is linked with testosterone in men but doesn't elaborate or connect that to women. I haven't really kept up with studies of prenatal testosterone since I was a tween and they told me I had gay finger length, but it's possible there's a probably-bogus connection. But I stand by long limbs, low body fat, and small breasts being common among both runners and models without wanting to make an on-the-veldt case for it.
Not for nothing is "fit" synonymous in British English with "attractive". I don't think it's symmetry, to any great extent; I think it's that they're slim, apparently healthy (rather than wasted) and generally young.
30: Featuring the palest person I have seen at the Olympics thus far.
Doesn't look that pale to me. This is pale. Or this.
Or perhaps you mean "stays pale when actually doing the sport and does not go pink in the face", which, fair enough.
30, 52 Is Finland not participating in this year's Olympics. They're sure to be pretty damned pale.
A lot of them are fairly tanned, it seems. https://www.facebook.com/OlympicTeamFinland/photos
Zygomatic arches, leg length, whatever, can we get to the core of the theory, which is symmetry? Specifically, can anyone point to asymmetric female athletes for comparison? I could look them up maybe, but I'd prefer not to have that in my search history.
Just clarifying here, Prominent Skeleton Theory claims that people with crazy long legs will often have high cheekbones but does *not* claim people with high cheekbones will typically have crazy long legs, so it's safe even with Buttercup as a data point. Insomnia is a hell of a drug.
Child insomnia is even worse. I could have slept fine without the intrusions, I suspect. But the world will never know!
Another big part of it is, for the whiteys at least ... Slavs (Czechs, Serbo-Bosnio-Croatians, Russians, etc), who run to a particular cheekbone-y facial structure.
Since we are doing borderline letching, I saw someone at the beach at the weekend who had the deepest tan I think I've ever seen on a white person. Not that fakey body-builder type tan, or the sort of tan that comes out of a spray, but the kind of tan that you get by spending hours and hours outdoors doing athletic things -- I'd guess something watersporty. She also had the crazy long legs and sun bleached hair. None of those things are on the list of things that particularly interest me, but in the right combination she radiated the same kind of incredible good health and athleticism that is attractive in athletes (male or female).
39 is making me really tempted to bring that Lincoln photo in next time I get my hair cut.
I usually tip the barber $5 too.
Is anyone else unable to read the words "bone structure" without thinking of Madeline Kahn?
symmetry is an important component of female beauty
Supersymmetric female athletes are the most beautiful of all.
You just need to be very energetic to find them.
Apparently, the synchronized swimmers put gelatin in their hair to keep it in place while swimming. I wonder what the 80s would have looked like if this technology was available for use on bangs.
I'm really enjoying having a bunch of you arguing that it's very simple, skinny girls are just beautiful. Symmetry, people, symmetry.
On track vs. gymnastics, people moving in straight lines is boring and you also don't get the "oh my god how do they DO that" thing from people running fast. I can run in a straight line. I can't do the things those gymnasts do.
For swimming, it's probably mainly that we have a singularly (maybe uniquely?) dominant athlete in the sport and also Michael Phelps.
I can run in a straight line.
Stop with the bragging.
I really want to know what an unprominent skeleton would look like. I'm imagining a pelvis like a snail's shell, concealing the legs.
A lot of the women who compete at the sprint distance also wear make-up, keep their hair long, etc. So now we have a mystery -- why do long-legged women with high cheekbones who accentuate their looks look beautiful?
Female sprinters probably look less attractive in slow motion, the way that Ichikawa filmed some of the runners in Tokyo Olympiad. Their faces, at least. I'm still puzzling over the whole symmetry thing.
70: also of course for swimming there's the whitey mcwhiterson aspect.
The track cyclists are certainly fleshier, with a variety of practical hairstyles from long to shaved, all under a helmet anyway.
Off the bike, celebrating—which is what we see telecast—they look very normal to me, some pretty some less so.
Paul Manafort doesn't look very symmetrical. That's probably why Trump fired him.
Prominent Skeleton Theory is often misinterpreted as advancing the position that "thin is pretty." This is not the case; Prominent Skeleton Theory posits that an overweight person with very long legs would be likely to have noticieably high cheekbones and so to be pretty.
Prominent Skeleton Theory also recognizes that high cheekbones are not a necessary condition of beauty, it's just that once you have them you can throw basically any features on them and still look great. They are the clothes-hangers of the face.
CONSIDER ALSO, if symmetry is such a big deal why does no one on this earth look best with a middle part in their hair.
79: So, where do you stand on Exoskeleton Theory?
81 I put it to you that if persons convincingly dressed as insects had sought admission to Butchart Gardens, Bryan at Admissions, despite what he beleives about himself and his principles, would have been overcome by their beauty and let them in.
80 13 year old me certainly thought I did.
80: Having a prominent asymmetrical feature disguises how lopsided you really are.
Then why wouldn't having like half a nose make you more attractive by disguising how asymmetrical your eyes are? Maybe it would idk.
79. Personally, I would like to see if slightly overweight with long legs and prominent cheekbones would enjoy a drink. Where is she?
I have a middle part because that's probably the best way for a guy to handle no-haircut-in-at-least-six-months hair, but no, it doesn't look great. I guess I should start wearing bandanas. In my hair, not as shirt replacements, that's a loss for everyone.
Wow, whoops 85 reads like it is specifically directed at Eggplant which it is not.
Stabs, theory needs ground in order to succeed, otherwise castles in the air. Here are symmetrical portraits-- beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, but these do not improve on life IMO.
http://www.julianwolkenstein.com/project/symmetrical-portraits/
86.last: I'm pretty sure I'm technically in normal BMI range although I only know my weight when I see the doctor, plus you shouldn't buy me a drink until I finish your sweater, but other than that I'm pretty sure I count.
90: But do you have an exoskeleton?
90. This place is pleasant. Maybe November sometime?
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/Czech_Republic/Bohemia/Prague/Prague/photo1446940.htm
Chest tattoos and robotic exoskeletons are all the rage among Cincinnati lesbians aged 25-45, and you aren't going to convince me otherwise.
88: I'm pretty sure I started it in 84.
no ur asymmetrical
Robotic? What is this, the 90s? Biopunk chitin exoskeleton or go home.
Anyway, my half-nose is sort of instrinsic and reveals my unbalanced soul.. An asymmetrical hair style is an affectation.
89 I've found one study proposing estimation of height from zygomatic width in South Indian populations which to me is p. much a ringing endorsment of Prominent Skeleton Theory.
I also found "Human face structure correlates with professional baseball performance," thanks, science.
Just to disclose conflicts of interest, I had a slightly deviated septum for most of my life, but on the other hand I don't think I have unusually high cheekbones, so it's not like I benefit from any of these quanta of beauty. It's ok, I'm still cute af.
This morning I was walking and saw in front of a hospital this super-hot woman wearing a skintight dress that was 50/50 professional/cocktail. I was wondering her deal, then I saw her big pin reading "Ask me about Ventorlax" or whatever. Drug rep, of course.
Was it here that I learned that's a thing?
Ventorlax is the only laxative that is clinically proven to not only provide you with the relief you need, but also to accompany it with comically loud flatulence.
The problem with that theory is that there aren't that many prominent skeletons out there. There's Skeletor and Baron Samedi and that's like it. Oh, and the dude from Grim Fandango.
Xykon is forgotten at one's peril.
101: If you saw more chest tattoos, you wouldn't so easily have forgotten how obsessed white people are with Day of the Dead imagery.
I had lunch ate a Mexican restaurant run by white people and decorated in Day of the Dead imagery.
how obsessed white people are with Day of the Dead imagery.
Well now that we're not allowed to wear fake mustaches, sombreros, and ponchos, how else are we supposed to celebrate Mexican culture?
By walking past the restaurant in Oakland run by actual Mexicans and eating at the one run by local white people.
104: We can't help it. We saw Once Upon a Time in Mexico on cable and we were hooked.
The Grim Fandango dude is, among other things, Day of the Dead inspired, although GF is probably a pretty early and I'd hope less cynical example of such appropriation. (I'm probably giving it a pass because I like Tim Schafer and adventure games.)
I was going to say, before many others already said something along these lines, I have high cheekbones but stubby stubby legs. And my skeleton is prominent, in the sense that I am literally big boned (underneath the fat). However, horrible athlete and my cheekbones are slightly covered up by chubby cheeks.
107: I haven't eaten Mexican in Oakland in a long time. Checking the street I think you're talking about and using Street View's back-in-time look, it's kind of amusing to see how there's three or four properties that just cycle between Indian/Chinese/Mexican food. Good memories of half-price at La Fiesta and India Garden.
I can't believe I missed the development of Prominent Skeleton Theory. Strikes me as promising.
Thank you Ogged, now I am looking at all the female Olympians to see which ones are unattractive, because I'm a feminist. Russian water polo team, dump the uggos and you would have beaten Hungary easily!
I have a prominent torso skeleton, so visible ribs/sternum/vertebrate/collar bones even if I'm not that skinny elsewhere. I don't know if there's a correlation between this and high cheekbones.
OT: Which is likely to be cheaper? Repairs after kicking in a door (deadbolt not locked, just the knob) or hiring a locksmith to pick it. Asking for a friend.
114: depends on the manner in which the door breaks when kicked in. In general, I'm guessing a locksmith is cheaper.
Any chance of picking it yourself or gently prying it? I've done both before, although the picked lock was a very very basic yale type.
My friend could certainly pry it. The whole contents of his garage would be available to him.
It will work if you have a symmetric foot.
although the picked lock was a very very basic yale type
The Harvard types here just preened a little bit.
Wait also re the original theory wouldn't it be an advantage for track runners at least to have one leg a little shorter than the other so they kind of leaned in toward the inside of the track?
I've been inspired by all the hot Olympic runners to go out running more regularly, but instead it's reminded me that being out of shape in your 30s is way worse than being out of shape in your 20s. Also, I have memories of what it's like to be in shape and relatively fast, so it makes being slow and out of shape feel even worse.
Thinking more about it, it's really astonishing not only that they look hot, but that most of them continue to look hot while running. I'm a red sweaty mess when I exercise.
The 4x100 relay intros were just ridiculous. Comment 1 had it right.
yap.
Micronesia's only female Olympic runner does have high cheekbones (and she appears to also have long legs, though it's hard to tell from that pose and angle), but it's not clear that she's actually from Yap.
I was watching more track and field, this time focusing heavily on cheekbones, and without exception the female athletes in t&f events had them. It does seem like a statistically improbable coincidence*
*I guess it depends on the % of the general population with prominent cheekbones.
128 assumes that coverage isn't being distorted by the producers' High-Cheekboned Gaze.
Well, they are at least limited by the height of the cheekbones in front of them. They can't just cut to some hotter gal in the stands. (I mean, they can, but they're under a lot of pressure to cut back to the actual athletes soon.)
Breaking! I was watching 100 m hurdle heats, and one athlete had pudding face. She didn't do that well.
First letter in the local rag's sports "mailbox" column starts, "Why are the Olympians so ugly?"
