|
delarig
Apr 19, 2006, 6:11 PM
Post #1 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 167
|
I was thinking about his the other day and could'nt think of too many climbers that weigh 190+ that climb at this level....I was thinking maybe Fred Roughling or Fred Nicole maybe? Can anyone think of any REALLY good climbers that weigh over 190?
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
Apr 19, 2006, 6:19 PM
Post #2 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
I am not really sure a human body could crank that hard, if it were to weight 190+.
|
|
|
|
|
sevrdhed
Apr 19, 2006, 6:20 PM
Post #3 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2004
Posts: 923
|
Well, I don't know about Fred Nicole, but I do know that I just happened to read an article in climbing about fred rouhling, and they measured him at 5'9"... and based on pictures, I'm guessing that he's not 190+ :D Steve
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 19, 2006, 6:30 PM
Post #4 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Can anyone think of any REALLY good climbers that weigh over 190? No. OK, I lied. John Dunne. But that's about it, and he's quite the anamoly.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 19, 2006, 7:30 PM
Post #6 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: I was thinking about his the other day and could'nt think of too many climbers that weigh 190+ that climb at this level....I was thinking maybe Fred Roughling or Fred Nicole maybe? Can anyone think of any REALLY good climbers that weigh over 190? Fred Nicole, 190? http://www.fdgroup.com/.../images/fredskip.jpg I'm guessing not.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Apr 19, 2006, 8:12 PM
Post #7 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: I was thinking about his the other day and could'nt think of too many climbers that weigh 190+ that climb at this level....I was thinking maybe Fred Roughling or Fred Nicole maybe? Can anyone think of any REALLY good climbers that weigh over 190? Fred Nicole, 190? http://www.fdgroup.com/.../images/fredskip.jpg I'm guessing not. Well, Fred must be a monster because Kangaroos are like six feet tall and can be quite heavy. Judging by the photo Fred is about 400lbs.
|
|
|
|
|
moonshine505
Apr 19, 2006, 8:18 PM
Post #8 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 148
|
Klem Loskot doesnt' exactly have the Dave Graham physique, but I doubt he's over 190...
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 19, 2006, 8:23 PM
Post #9 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Klem Loskot doesnt' exactly have the Dave Graham physique, but I doubt he's over 190... People say he's huge, but I think he's only about 175ish. Not small but definitely not enormous.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Apr 19, 2006, 8:24 PM
Post #10 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
I saw Fred in Squamish last summer. That guy is climbing harder then ever and he's about the same size as me, and I'm about 190. Of course where I have fat Fred's got rock solid muscle. The guy's built like a brick shithouse! His forearms alone have got to weigh about 50lbs a piece. Not only does he weigh at least 190lbs, I bet he smokes about 190lbs of cigarettes a day!
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 19, 2006, 8:26 PM
Post #11 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I think this is an interesting question. I'm less interested in the 190 number (I assume that's the OP's weight) than in the idea of weight becoming a limiting factor on harder climbs. In other words, at some point your grip strength and total body strength are unable to compensate for total mass. Both Sharma and Jason Campbell seem to be pretty big guys. Not near 190, but probably in the 160-70 range. What about Chris Lindner? I can't think of any other really big climbers. Oh wait, what was the name of that really strong Canadian climber that beat Sharma at the last couple of PCA comps - Nels? Yeah, he never climbed routes but he's a hulk.
|
|
|
|
|
solo
Apr 19, 2006, 8:44 PM
Post #12 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 100
|
I do not know about 5.14 climbers, but one of my friends weight between 90 to 100 Kg and could climb in .13b - c range a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
dru
Apr 19, 2006, 8:50 PM
Post #13 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2003
Posts: 35
|
I read that both JD and Klem are over 200 lbs. Although, John would slim down quite a bit for his hardest routes.
|
|
|
|
|
trebork2
Deleted
Apr 19, 2006, 9:37 PM
Post #14 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Of course where I have fat Fred's got rock solid muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. If you are six foot and well built 190 isn't bad at all. Doesn't matter how much you weigh aslong as you have the strength to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
moonshine505
Apr 19, 2006, 10:33 PM
Post #15 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 148
|
Bullshit, it totally matters how much you weigh when it comes to hard climbing. In the very most basic sense, look at it like this, if you're trying a crimpy route/bloc and you weigh 190lbs vs 160lbs, your skin's going to limit the number of tries you get, it simply can't take the abuse. This was Klem's point when talking about attempting Action Direct, he just couldn't work it without absolutely shredding his skin and ended up giving up. Of course there's more to the argument, but this is a basic point.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 19, 2006, 10:43 PM
Post #16 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: I saw Fred in Squamish last summer. That guy is climbing harder then ever and he's about the same size as me, and I'm about 190. Of course where I have fat Fred's got rock solid muscle. The guy's built like a brick s---! His forearms alone have got to weigh about 50lbs a piece. Not only does he weigh at least 190lbs, I bet he smokes about 190lbs of cigarettes a day! I found an interview he did here.
In reply to: Weight? My God! It’s really personal. I am actually 76 (kilograms). Height? 180 (centimetres). That's around 5'10" in normal human measurements, and just under 170 pounds.
|
|
|
|
|
estwing
Apr 21, 2006, 2:12 AM
Post #17 of 75
(29732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 344
|
Doesn't Dean Potter weigh about 180. I'm 6'-3", and he is a bit taller than I am, "he's even taller that you!" said my friend. He is thin, but muscular.
|
|
|
|
|
brokesomeribs
Feb 22, 2010, 11:20 AM
Post #18 of 75
(25915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2009
Posts: 361
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
brokesomeribs
Feb 22, 2010, 11:29 AM
Post #19 of 75
(25909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2009
Posts: 361
|
I'm pretty certain I read an interview with Dean Potter where he said he was 6'5" and 180lbs. Fred Rouhling is also a tall guy, probably 6'1" or 6'2" and ridiculously jacked. He easily weighs 180-185. Klem Loskot, Nels Rosaassen, and Sharma are all definitely close to the 180 mark, but I don't know exact numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Feb 22, 2010, 11:49 AM
Post #20 of 75
(25878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
brokesomeribs wrote: Fred Rouhling is also a tall guy, probably 6'1" or 6'2" and ridiculously jacked. Why does this rumor keep floating around? Direct quote from a good Climbing magazine article a few years ago...
In reply to: He is five feet, nine inches tall with a plus-one-and-a-half ape index. The myth begins to unravel. http://www.climbing.com/...rouhling/index1.html
|
|
|
|
|
brokesomeribs
Feb 22, 2010, 11:51 AM
Post #21 of 75
(25877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2009
Posts: 361
|
I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. Dude looked huuuuuge in the few pictures I've seen of him.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Feb 22, 2010, 12:07 PM
Post #22 of 75
(25869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
[quote "delarig"]I was thinking about his the other day and could'nt think of too many climbers that weigh 190+ that climb at this level....I was thinking maybe Fred Roughling or Fred Nicole maybe? Can anyone think of any REALLY good climbers that weigh over 190?[/quote] Me definately. I'm 6'4 200lbs and can crank like the best of them, the other day in the gym I climbed the green route next to the green 5.14, so clearly because they are the some colour they are the same grade, therefore it is I! Expect to see my in such productions as: Go fatty! A lardass guide to climbing, and the next big up production regression where I am one of the data point in the correlation between weight and performance in elite climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
clews
Feb 22, 2010, 4:12 PM
Post #23 of 75
(25745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 190
|
I know a strong climber who is very close to red pointing his first of many 14's. I believe he's 20 or 21 and pushing 200
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Feb 22, 2010, 4:18 PM
Post #24 of 75
(25738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
Along the same lines. I wonder who the tallest person is that can climb 5.14 or higher? Are there any 6’6” guys that can pull that hard?
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 22, 2010, 4:25 PM
Post #25 of 75
(25721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Along the same lines. I wonder who the tallest person is that can climb 5.14 or higher? Are there any 6’6” guys that can pull that hard? Don't know about 6'6", but Dean Potter is ~ 6'4", and I guess he qualifies as 'pulling hard'?
|
|
|
|
|
jeffleads
Feb 22, 2010, 4:32 PM
Post #26 of 75
(9474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2009
Posts: 1
|
WTF does is MATTER? Next you will asking who was the lightest? The one climbing is the one having the most fun.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Feb 22, 2010, 4:53 PM
Post #27 of 75
(9455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
jeffleads wrote: WTF does is MATTER? Next you will asking who was the lightest? The one climbing is the one having the most fun. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Feb 22, 2010, 4:54 PM
Post #28 of 75
(9453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
if i remember correctly, john dunne was about 220 when he put up a 14a R/X route back in the mid to late 90's. there is a guy named taylor roy in boulder that has climbed in that range. i'm not sure what he weighs, but a friend of mine who is built like a brick shithouse climbs with him a lot and says he is probably around 200. not only is taylor strong as hell, but his technique and execution are superb. nice guy too. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
bigjonnyc
Feb 22, 2010, 5:43 PM
Post #29 of 75
(9420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 369
|
Man 11 posts with no mention that this is a four year old thread revival. That's gotta be some kind of record.
|
|
|
|
|
mr.tastycakes
Feb 22, 2010, 5:48 PM
Post #30 of 75
(9415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Posts: 310
|
lemon_boy wrote: 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. This is true.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Feb 22, 2010, 6:25 PM
Post #31 of 75
(9391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
lena_chita wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Along the same lines. I wonder who the tallest person is that can climb 5.14 or higher? Are there any 6’6” guys that can pull that hard? Don't know about 6'6", but Dean Potter is ~ 6'4", and I guess he qualifies as 'pulling hard'? I'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.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Feb 22, 2010, 8:59 PM
Post #32 of 75
(9358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
brokesomeribs wrote: 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're so far from climbing 14's that I don't understand the point of your post? Everyone from little girls to big heavy guys can climb 11's, heck, I climbed 11's after surgery on both shoulders.....
|
|
|
|
|
brokesomeribs
Feb 22, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #33 of 75
(9354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2009
Posts: 361
|
Dude, it's spray. I'm trying to talk about how hard I am. Get with the program.
|
|
|
|
|
donald949
Feb 22, 2010, 11:13 PM
Post #34 of 75
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11455
|
shimanilami wrote: jeffleads wrote: WTF does is MATTER? Next you will asking who was the lightest? The one climbing is the one having the most fun. 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. Then I climb 5.18a Sweet.
|
|
|
|
|
daggerx
Feb 23, 2010, 5:30 AM
Post #35 of 75
(9254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2001
Posts: 761
|
There is no way to really know, The only people we hear about are the big names in the game. There are lots of others that can climb just as hard as the big names and just stay out of the lime light. Dont ask dumb ass questions
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Feb 23, 2010, 6:03 AM
Post #36 of 75
(9234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
IIn reply to: '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. 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 missing 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.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Feb 24, 2010, 7:36 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Feb 23, 2010, 1:18 PM
Post #39 of 75
(9174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
guangzhou wrote: I In reply to: '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. 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. Serious logic fail. That's all I'm going to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Vicar
Feb 23, 2010, 4:24 PM
Post #40 of 75
(9147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2009
Posts: 16
|
guangzhou wrote: 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. Amen brother. That is one of the best comments I've read on RC in a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Feb 23, 2010, 8:30 PM
Post #41 of 75
(9101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
Taylor's like 5'8", he might weigh 160.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Feb 24, 2010, 7:40 AM
Post #42 of 75
(9062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
What amaze me about this thread is how many of you know how tall and how much these guys weigh. Sounds like football guys seating on the couch talking about the latest interception.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Feb 24, 2010, 7:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Feb 24, 2010, 7:59 AM
Post #43 of 75
(9054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Almost 4 years, all those posts, and no one replied "your mom" yet?
|
|
|
|
|
airscape
Feb 24, 2010, 8:27 AM
Post #44 of 75
(9045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
your mom.
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
Feb 24, 2010, 9:23 AM
Post #45 of 75
(9036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
and... Your sister.
|
|
|
|
|
curator
Feb 24, 2010, 2:29 PM
Post #46 of 75
(9018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 91
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Feb 24, 2010, 10:14 PM
Post #47 of 75
(8980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
curator wrote: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
onarunning
Feb 24, 2010, 11:02 PM
Post #48 of 75
(8969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2007
Posts: 94
|
I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Feb 24, 2010, 11:31 PM
Post #49 of 75
(8951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. Weak sauce. Gain 20 pounds, get your BMI over 26, and you can join my Clydesdale club.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Feb 25, 2010, 12:20 AM
Post #50 of 75
(8937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
boadman wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. Weak sauce. Gain 20 pounds, get your BMI over 26, and you can join my Clydesdale club. Well I've been training a lot harder lately and that usually means my weight is in the lift. Just give me another year or so, aight!
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Feb 25, 2010, 12:22 AM
Post #51 of 75
(17085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Fair enough, but generally speaking taller people will have a higher BMI at a similair fat percentage. Body type is very important as well, I used to be more like you but beefed up at some point. I don't climb very hard either .
|
|
|
|
|
donald949
Feb 25, 2010, 10:03 PM
Post #52 of 75
(17057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11455
|
onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Been there, done that. Wait a few years, the lbs will start adding up.
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Feb 26, 2010, 1:22 AM
Post #53 of 75
(17029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
[quote "estwing"]Doesn't Dean Potter weigh about 180. I'm 6'-3", and he is a bit taller than I am, "he's even taller that you!" said my friend. He is thin, but muscular.[/quote] I was going to suggest Dean, that dude always seems huge to me.
|
|
|
|
|
onarunning
Feb 26, 2010, 2:25 PM
Post #54 of 75
(17005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2007
Posts: 94
|
donald949 wrote: onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Been there, done that. Wait a few years, the lbs will start adding up. Haha, that's probably true. I better enjoy these years while I can...
|
|
|
|
|
curator
Mar 13, 2010, 6:03 PM
Post #55 of 75
(16934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 91
|
Just read through this post again. It made me wonder about how I phrased my last post. I stated that "to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI" I stand by that. You just have to define what is low for you, and what is healthy. I think a more accurate statement would be: 'to climb at the very highest level of the sport, you have to have a low BMI.' Do a BMI test on every guy that has ever climbed 5.15 and I think you'll get surprising similar results. Look at these guys: Sharma, Ondra, Graham, Andrada, Iker Pou, Fred Rouhling, Patxi Usobiaga, etc. None of them have a lick of fat and are pure sinew and gristle. That's why they can kill it. So to the folks saying: "It's not possible or healthy for my body style to come down to a low BMI." The unfortunate fact is that not all of us were born with bodies capable of climbing 5.15 or even 5.13. Just a fact. I'm a scrawny dude and excel at climbing. But if I were to get into bodybuilding it would be futile. No matter how much I work out and take supplements and steroids I could never bulk up with the frame I was given. Same dilemma, different sport.
|
|
|
|
|
airscape
Mar 15, 2010, 6:15 AM
Post #56 of 75
(16849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
curator wrote: Just read through this post again. It made me wonder about how I phrased my last post. I stated that "to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI" I stand by that. You just have to define what is low for you, and what is healthy. I think a more accurate statement would be: 'to climb at the very highest level of the sport, you have to have a low BMI.' Do a BMI test on every guy that has ever climbed 5.15 and I think you'll get surprising similar results. Look at these guys: Sharma, Ondra, Graham, Andrada, Iker Pou, Fred Rouhling, Patxi Usobiaga, etc. None of them have a lick of fat and are pure sinew and gristle. That's why they can kill it. So to the folks saying: "It's not possible or healthy for my body style to come down to a low BMI." The unfortunate fact is that not all of us were born with bodies capable of climbing 5.15 or even 5.13. Just a fact. I'm a scrawny dude and excel at climbing. But if I were to get into bodybuilding it would be futile. No matter how much I work out and take supplements and steroids I could never bulk up with the frame I was given. Same dilemma, different sport. Your frame has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
lazymonkey
Apr 29, 2011, 10:41 AM
Post #57 of 75
(16305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 75
|
airscape wrote: curator wrote: Just read through this post again. It made me wonder about how I phrased my last post. I stated that "to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI" I stand by that. You just have to define what is low for you, and what is healthy. I think a more accurate statement would be: 'to climb at the very highest level of the sport, you have to have a low BMI.' Do a BMI test on every guy that has ever climbed 5.15 and I think you'll get surprising similar results. Look at these guys: Sharma, Ondra, Graham, Andrada, Iker Pou, Fred Rouhling, Patxi Usobiaga, etc. None of them have a lick of fat and are pure sinew and gristle. That's why they can kill it. So to the folks saying: "It's not possible or healthy for my body style to come down to a low BMI." The unfortunate fact is that not all of us were born with bodies capable of climbing 5.15 or even 5.13. Just a fact. I'm a scrawny dude and excel at climbing. But if I were to get into bodybuilding it would be futile. No matter how much I work out and take supplements and steroids I could never bulk up with the frame I was given. Same dilemma, different sport. Your frame has nothing to do with it. sure it does
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 29, 2011, 2:37 PM
Post #58 of 75
(16260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
I_do wrote: onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Fair enough, but generally speaking taller people will have a higher BMI at a similair fat percentage. Body type is very important as well, I used to be more like you but beefed up at some point. I don't climb very hard either . BMI is a hight weight chart with a fancy name. No more, no less. It has a passing correlation to body fat percent, but it is not a measure of percent body fat. Pinch tests, neck to waist ratio, and electrical impedence measures all only estimate percent body fat, but are better than BMI. BMI is skewed towards shorter people. And, yes you can shed 20 pounds, and, no it won't kill you.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Apr 29, 2011, 2:56 PM
Post #59 of 75
(16251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: I_do wrote: onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: 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. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Fair enough, but generally speaking taller people will have a higher BMI at a similair fat percentage. Body type is very important as well, I used to be more like you but beefed up at some point. I don't climb very hard either . BMI is a hight weight chart with a fancy name. No more, no less. It has a passing correlation to body fat percent, but it is not a measure of percent body fat. Pinch tests, neck to waist ratio, and electrical impedence measures all only estimate percent body fat, but are better than BMI. BMI is skewed towards shorter people. And, yes you can shed 20 pounds, and, no it won't kill you. Funny you replied to this rather old post, because I accidentaly stepped on a electrical impedence scale last week. First I understand how BMI works and how I should not pay to much attention. Secondly am at 207 pounds atm @13.5% fat (lets assume this measurement is correct. I said I couldn't drop 40. 13.5% of 207 is 28... So if I were to drop even 20 pounds of fat i'd be left @ 180 pounds and a fat percentage of 4.4%. So 40 is impossible to do in a healthy way losing twenty would be very hard. At the moment I'm aiming to bring my weight to under 195 which I think shouldn't be too hard and I would be sub 10% body fat both of which is fine. Lets see if it helps my climbing, i guess it should.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
May 4, 2011, 4:41 AM
Post #60 of 75
(16127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
Fred is 160... tops.... he's short climbed w him in font two yrs ago... klem is 175.... I stood right next to him at big bend inmoab... my buddy is 172 6 ft 2 .... climbs v13.... u ppl r trippin..... when my friend while sitting in iso at a comp w sharma asked him his weight he said 155-165.... he's 6 1....... I'm sorry peeps.... u gotta cut the weight..... and the guy who said he would have 0% fat at 177 must b built like a brickshithouse... ur trippin too.... now go back to ur pretend world. Listen.... it won't help u make progress pretending.
|
|
|
|
|
justanotherclimber
May 4, 2011, 5:34 AM
Post #61 of 75
(16114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 60
|
once bumped into a6 6', 240lb, 19 years old some years back that walked up to the crag i was at and proceeded to onsight every route at the cliff up to .13b...i had no doubt he would hit .14 sometime very soon.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
May 4, 2011, 5:51 PM
Post #62 of 75
(16049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
There's some anomalies. I'd like to point out these strong men you see climbing are much lighter than you would think. The body carries fat in places you can't see. Follow this link, the guy in the video Steve, is 6 2 172, according to him when my friend asked him. ANother friend is 6 1 160, he's been as low at 158, they both boulder v13. Granted, this is harder than .14a. He looks huge in the video, right? It's the guy with tatoos and scruff. You can look very very strong(and heavy) at a very light weight when your 5% body fat. When I showed some guys in the office this guy they thought he weighed 190 and called him a beast. That being said, this guy could probably climb a .14a with an additional 18lbs extra weight if he really projected it and climbed extremely efficiently, maybe one that has a bouldery crux with good holds above and below this crux, that was a bit short. http://www.momentumvm2.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:hellbelly-eric-decaria-noah-bigwood-and-steve-maisch&catid=13:video&Itemid=3
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
May 4, 2011, 6:04 PM
Post #63 of 75
(16039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
[quote "sidepull"]I think this is an interesting question. I'm less interested in the 190 number (I assume that's the OP's weight) than in the idea of weight becoming a limiting factor on harder climbs. In other words, at some point your grip strength and total body strength are unable to compensate for total mass. Both Sharma and Jason Campbell seem to be pretty big guys. Not near 190, but probably in the 160-70 range. What about Chris Lindner? I can't think of any other really big climbers. Oh wait, what was the name of that really strong Canadian climber that beat Sharma at the last couple of PCA comps - Nels? Yeah, he never climbed routes but he's a hulk.[/quote] Sharma hovers around 160, nels and jason are ripped, but small. When nels beat sharma at the pca comp he was about 140, 145 max. After the comp he proceeded to to 8 one arm with each arm. I'm sure some of these guys could climb a 14a at 190 lbs, but they certainly don't weigh 190, like Klem could gain 15lbs and do a 14a I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 4, 2011, 6:41 PM
Post #64 of 75
(16016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
I'm going to have a hard time believing vasya vorotnikov is less than 190. that guy is pretty huge (not in height but with muscle)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 4, 2011, 7:00 PM
Post #65 of 75
(16005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: I'm going to have a hard time believing vasya vorotnikov is less than 190. that guy is pretty huge (not in height but with muscle) ok, just saw some pics and not sure that's true. i just remember seeing him one or two years ago and remembering that he had gotten bigger from the first time I saw him.
|
|
|
|
|
Brooklyn_Mikey
May 5, 2011, 12:21 AM
Post #66 of 75
(15943 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2011
Posts: 8
|
I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol
(This post was edited by Brooklyn_Mikey on May 5, 2011, 1:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 5, 2011, 2:17 AM
Post #67 of 75
(15922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Weight is hard to guess by looking at someone. I'm 5'10 and 165. Someone commented on how skinny I am at work one time and when I told them I weighed 165 they didn't believe me. So we pulled in a few people for a guessing game, and the average guess was around 145. When I stepped on the scale people couldn't believe it. I've always had very low body fat, just lucky genetics. About the only lucky genes I got..... all that said, climbing seems to be one of the few sports where being skinny is an advantage.
(This post was edited by dynosore on May 5, 2011, 2:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
May 5, 2011, 8:10 PM
Post #68 of 75
(15825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra
|
|
|
|
|
theextremist04
May 7, 2011, 4:43 PM
Post #69 of 75
(15730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2010
Posts: 189
|
dynosore wrote: all that said, climbing seems to be one of the few sports where being skinny is an advantage. I agree, but a lot of cyclists make climbers seem big.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
May 8, 2011, 4:08 AM
Post #70 of 75
(15677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
probably this guy
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
May 8, 2011, 3:29 PM
Post #71 of 75
(15635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
May 8, 2011, 9:03 PM
Post #72 of 75
(15612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
enigma wrote: suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's Check MP. I keep better track over there. DO YOU EVEN CLIMB? Supra
|
|
|
|
|
BigBob13
May 9, 2011, 1:01 AM
Post #73 of 75
(15566 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2011
Posts: 5
|
lazymonkey wrote: sure it does [image]http://www.fat2fitradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bodytypes.jpg[/image] I love lifting heavy things. Successful, knowledgeable people in the strength community (not gay body builders) have decided the body type stuff is mostly crap. I certainly believe that climbing while very heavy is a large disadvantage. I weigh 210 at about 7% body fat. These are not bulshit padded numbers. I have huge strength, unfortunately huge strength is usually worthless in climbing. It hinders my ability to work tough crimpy routes. The only benefit is that huge strength helps a lot on compression boulder problems
(This post was edited by BigBob13 on May 9, 2011, 1:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 9, 2011, 4:47 AM
Post #74 of 75
(15516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
suprasoup wrote: enigma wrote: suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's Check MP. I keep better track over there. DO YOU EVEN CLIMB? Supra No. She doesn't. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
May 9, 2011, 5:24 AM
Post #75 of 75
(15501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
curt wrote: suprasoup wrote: enigma wrote: suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's Check MP. I keep better track over there. DO YOU EVEN CLIMB? Supra No. She doesn't. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|