WTF does is MATTER? Next you will asking who was the lightest? The one climbing is the one having the most fun.

climbing is interesting, you defintely can't tell a book by its cover. i've climbed with, or seen folks climb, that you would NEVER guess climb hard (ie 13 or harder). you would probably snicker at them before they tie in, and eat your words later. then there are folks who look like they should climb hard, but will always be chronic 5.10 or 5.11 climbers.

Don't know about 6'6", but Dean Potter is ~ 6'4", and I guess he qualifies as 'pulling hard'?

I'm 6'1" and was 185lbs at my climbing peak and I was leading hard 11 sport routes with a handful of sandbagged 12's at NRG. Bouldered V6 in the Gunks. I wasn't doing any real training, just was getting outside about 2-3 weekends per month and inside the gym 2 nights a week. This was when I was about 23 and I'm 25 now.

These days I've been ice climbing exclusively so I can't say for sure, but I would guess I am hovering in the easy 11's range (on sport) and could boulder V4's in the Gunks. I'm a big fat pussy so I probably wouldn't get on any trad lines harder than 5.8 in the Gunks and 5.9 most other places.

Too lazy to train and nursing a shoulder injury so I'm very happy with those numbers. I probably weigh right about 180 right now.

You don't get it. The whole purpose of this thread is to establish that climbing is harder for heavy people. Thus, heavy people deserve extra credit for their sends.

In my opinion, route difficulty should be pro-rated for weight at one number grade per 10 lbs over 160. For example, if a first ascentionist weighs 160 lbs and grades his route 5.12, then the same route is 5.16b for me because I weigh 205 lbs.

The ultimate result will be that I can drink more beer, climb harder grades, and probably kick more ass than you. You might claim that this makes no difference. But to me, it makes all the difference in the world.

'm not sure that I want to rehash the climbing/height dead horse, but Potter has not climbed 5.14. And, the style of climbing at which he excels the most is crack climbing, which for a variety of reasons is easier for tall folks to climb at a high level than sport climbing.

with a mixing finger a

Dude, it's spray. I'm trying to talk about how hard I am. Get with the program.

I
That is one of the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. Someone better let Lynn Hill and Beth Rodden know they are too short to climb hard cracks.

Oh wait, they can climb hard cracks because they have small fingers.

Oh wait, Tommy climbed the great roof with a mixing finger and Scott did all the moves free too.

People will always make excuses. Want the truth, the biggest factor on how hard you climb is how committed you are to climbing hard. Are you willing to put in the workouts, the effort, and the mileage. Are you willing and do you absolutely push your physical and mental limit when you climb.

Interesting post...It's true that not many climbers that have climbed 5.14 weigh close to 200. It is obviously more difficult to throw that much weight around. Again, Dean Potter has not climbed 5.14.

But to answer the question. Mark Smith is the biggest 5.14 climber I've ever climbed with. He's not that big. Probably 6'4" and right around 200 lbs of solid muscle. What's even more interesting is the fact that he excels at technical crimpy routes. This is due to the fact that he is probably the most dedicated climber I've met. He'll wake up at 4 am to get warmed up before his project goes in the sun. He trains, takes care of himself, and as an added bonus he's the nicest guy ever.
I don't believe that climbing at a very high level is possible for everyone but....I think despite the body you were born with if you are properly disciplined it is possible to climb into the 5.12+ and above range. And part of this is being commited to bringing your weight down. For someone like Mark dieting down to 200 is a healthy weight and any more would be anorexia. But to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI. that much is proven.

That's not possible if you're tall. I'm 6'4 and just under 200 that's a BMI of 24 the highest that's considered healthy. To get in the low range of healthy I need to drop over 40lbs which would probably kill me.

That's not possible if you're tall. I'm 6'4 and just under 200 that's a BMI of 24 the highest that's considered healthy. To get in the low range of healthy I need to drop over 40lbs which would probably kill me.

Weak sauce. Gain 20 pounds, get your BMI over 26, and you can join my Clydesdale club.