Huh. Look at what I found:
In a 1989 study of more than 300 Army infantry trainees at Fort Benning Ga., those with flat feet had far fewer training injuries than recruits with normal or high insteps. In fact, trainees with high arches suffered twice as many injuries, including sprains and stress fractures, as their flat-footed comrades.
"Much of what we've believed about flat feet is mythology," said Dr. Bruce H. Jones of the Army Institute of Environmental Medicine in Natick, Mass., and one of the study's authors. "I've seen drill sergeants with arches as convex as the bottoms of rocking chairs, who are active and successful." Doctors Question Old Warnings
Orthopedists are now inclined to agree. "We've all been brought up on grandmother's warning that flat feet are bad, so we'd better correct them," said Dr. Francesca Thompson, chief of the orthopedic adult foot clinic at Roosevelt Hospital in New York. "As we've become more scientific, we've begun to ask, 'why?' "
Continue reading the main story
The notion of an ideal foot type "is almost all cosmetic, like trying to decide whether a pug nose or a Roman nose is better," she said. "The best thing is to have feet that work and don't hurt and it now appears that those feet come in high arches, normal arches and flat feet."
Dr. Michael Coughlin, president of the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society, said many professional athletes, particuarly basketball players, have flat feet. "We see people seven feet tall with size 16 shoes and the flattest feet you've ever seen," he said. The Army study "does substantiate many orthopedists' observations that many people with flat feet have no symptoms and do very very well," he said. No Strict Definition
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/22/news ... ntage.html
Maybe flat footers are the master race?