You're correct: Wired has hyped the original title of the article in Quanta Magazine: "A Path Less Taken to the Peak of the Math World". Any time you see the words "Math Genius" you should assume hyperbole.

If you like this kind of story, I highly recommend putting Quanta (https://www.quantamagazine.org/) on your radar and avoiding most of the tabloid-science articles in Wired.

Yes, calling him a late bloomer when he's 34 is pretty awful.

There's a traditional view in math that most great accomplishments are had before 30, based on past mathematicians' successes.

"and the truly great ones are dead before they're 40 so all old mathematicians must be worthless" I've heard that one, too. Doesn't make it beneficial to the field.

Agreed. Great to have a counterpoint in the subject of this article.

Maybe he's a late bloomer in the sense that he was neither a math prodigy or attended IMO.

I personally know several IMO winners who started studying Math when they were 3~4 years old and it's been part of their life.