…the litte fellows faded out before the big fellows according to the time-honoured pattern of life.
H.G. Wells
Evolution favours big! Larger members of a species will have an advantage over their smaller rivals as size, on average, has a positive correlation with attributes such as strength and speed. With regard to human beings, improvements in sanitation and nutrition lead to an increase in body size. Increased size therefore also equates with good health.
However, the causal arrow between environmental conditions and human corporeality is not unidirectional. With his notion of the ‘extended phenotype’ Richard Dawkins explicates how the genetic proclivities of individual beings reach out beyond the construction of biological bodies. For example, the genetic inclination of beavers to build dams will make a significant impact upon their local context. The biological underpinnings of human conduct also shape the environment. Through a complex interplay of cultural forces and genetic predilections, the phenotypic effects of human action exemplify evolution’s drive toward ‘bigger is better’. For example, when urban people started to use large 4×4 vehicles there was a social stigma attached, as it was deemed impractical and unnecessary to use such large cars (which are designed for use in rural areas) in towns and cities. But this stigma was powerless to thwart the urge towards people using absurdly large cars, as phenotypic indicators of status are more important than practical concerns. Now it seems as though every other car on the road is some kind of terrestrial aircraft carrier.
Despite this proclivity, human narratives demonstrate something of an alternative orientation. When formulating stories we prefer to tell of the underdog battling and usually defeating a more powerful opponent. Examples include Rocky versus Ivan Drago, Erin Brockovich, and Bill Paxton’s storm-chasers in Twister trying to place their sensors into the updraft of a tornado ahead of Cary Elwes’ corporately-backed team. These stories provide reassurances that human endeavour, including attributes such as guile, wit and effort, can overcome brute force or wealth. Whilst we view superiority attained via physical resources to be the mark of a bully in narrative forms, in actuality we are quite happy to monopolise the landscsape of our cul-de-sac with a massive Range Rover.
In sports such as tennis, rugby and athletics, the size and power of players have increased quite markedly. Increases in player size and improvements in racquet technology now mean that current tennis players serve much faster than those from a couple of decades ago. And in rugby, backs were often slight and nippy but are now much bigger on average. Perhaps part of the enduring appeal of football is that it is largely immune from this upsizing trend. Players who were smaller than the mean used to be able to rise to the pinnacle of the game – and that is still the case today. The most talented player at Mexico ’86 was Maradona who is 5ft 5″. Presently, one of the world’s best players is another Argentine, Lionel Messi who is only 5ft 7″ tall and of slight build. Furthermore, one of England’s key attacking players, Aaron Lennon is 5ft 5″ while Joe Cole, Theo Walcott and Jermain Defoe are also shorter than average.
So football comfortably encompasses the apparently countervailing human preferences for both bigger is better and the plucky underdog. At World Cup 2010 we can marvel at players’ strength and power, but also appreciate a sport within which brute force has not usurped skill, craft and guile.
The most talented player at Mexico ’86 was Alvin Martin.