Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Any "large" pro climbers out there?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 


Timjitsu


Aug 31, 2012, 9:46 AM
Post #1 of 75 (8905 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 4

Any "large" pro climbers out there?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape. i started climbing a few months ago and i've been asked by a few people in the gym "damn it must be tough carrying around all that weight." and ive been watching some climbing videos and ive noticed that all of them are relatively small (compared to me). so it seems to me that being a large person really hinders someone from becoming a really good climber. can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?


acorneau


Aug 31, 2012, 9:56 AM
Post #2 of 75 (8891 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Timjitsu wrote:
im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape. i started climbing a few months ago and i've been asked by a few people in the gym "damn it must be tough carrying around all that weight." and ive been watching some climbing videos and ive noticed that all of them are relatively small (compared to me). so it seems to me that being a large person really hinders someone from becoming a really good climber. can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?

As far as I know, no.

Strength-to-weight ratio is the name of the game. That's why so many of those 90lb. middle school girls can climb circles around many adult men.

If you're bulked up from lifting weights then you'll need to quit that and slim down to lean muscles.

Good luck.


njrox


Aug 31, 2012, 10:00 AM
Post #3 of 75 (8883 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Timjitsu wrote:
can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?

Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.

Long, thin, and graceful seem like postive factors but not every really good or pro climber is built like Ichabod Crain.


granite_grrl


Aug 31, 2012, 10:03 AM
Post #4 of 75 (8877 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14838

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

That's pretty heavy for a serious climber at that height. Someone like my husband stands at 6'0" and 165lbs (ie - he has a good body type for climbing). Also, if climbing is your primary sport you don't tend to really "bulk up" either. You can still be quite powerful without huge muscles.

As for large famous climbers, there's always John Long reply, but in modern day standards I'm not even sure how hard he cranked.

In the end it doesn't really matter though. Not everyone is going to have that ideal body type for climbing, but you should be able to get to a decently high level with enough time and effort (I'm thinking 5.12 at a minimum).


healyje


Aug 31, 2012, 10:28 AM
Post #5 of 75 (8854 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Timjitsu wrote:
im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape.

Not sure where you got those 10-11% numbers, but I just punched that into a BMI web page and came up with a BMI of 30 which is way high. At your height you should definitely be under 200lbs and probably closer to 180lbs with a BMI under 20 to be considered "in pretty good shape" by climbing standards. At age 26 (a long time ago) I was 6'0' and climbed at a 155-160lbs.


http://www.active.com/...culators/bodyfat.htm


chopperjohn


Aug 31, 2012, 10:50 AM
Post #6 of 75 (8838 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 7, 2007
Posts: 87

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Im not a pro but I'm 6 foot and my weight ranges from 195 to 230 depends on if its a good buffet season. I crank at a steady 5.11 abc sometimes d. I'm a pretty lazy climber too so if you stick to it you'll be alright. You don't wanna be a skinny pro type climber anyway then you'll have to listen to Phish drive a shitty hippy subaru outback and eat a lot of healthy food. Stay a fat ass and enjoy climbing and making all the little climbers watch in amazement when you crank your first 5.12 with gear while they are sport climbing in there red spandex. Go ahead flame away skinnysWink


JimTitt


Aug 31, 2012, 10:55 AM
Post #7 of 75 (8834 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 982

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toni Lamprecht is been one of Germany´s top climbers (9a/5.14d boulder Fr8c/V15) and he is 6´3"/ca 200lbs and John Dunne is of course shorter and considerably fatter!
Hewever they have talent which is normally the most desirable characteristic to being a good climber, sadly as another 6´/200pounder I seem to be missing this.


Timjitsu


Aug 31, 2012, 10:56 AM
Post #8 of 75 (8834 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 4

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape.

Not sure where you got those 10-11% numbers, but I just punched that into a BMI web page and came up with a BMI of 30 which is way high. At your height you should definitely be under 200lbs and probably closer to 180lbs with a BMI under 20 to be considered "in pretty good shape" by climbing standards. At age 26 (a long time ago) I was 6'0' and climbed at a 155-160lbs.


http://www.active.com/...culators/bodyfat.htm

hahaha... for the sake of amusement, i put in the measurements of my wrist, waist, hips and forearms. and guess what it gave me mr. smartypants.... 12%. and i know my own body, i say im closer to 10-11%. but i must say thats pretty close for an online BMI calculator...

im a naturally big guy. i dont do any lifting that would put on size. and yes i know the difference between lifting for size and for endurance. i used to be 240 @ 8%BF and have friends who are bigger and leaner. i do kettlebells, pushups and pull ups and i still gain size. its just the way im built. i do go a little heavier with my legs to keep them in per portion with my upper body so i dont look like a cartoon.

so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.


healyje


Aug 31, 2012, 11:05 AM
Post #9 of 75 (8818 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Timjitsu wrote:
so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.


njrox


Aug 31, 2012, 11:25 AM
Post #10 of 75 (8802 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.

Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.

10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.


amarius


Aug 31, 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #11 of 75 (8793 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 111

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

BODY FAT percentage has nothing to to with BODY MASS INDEX
The extremes can be understood when looking at professional bodybuilders - their BMIs are through the roof, while body fat percentages are very low, especially during the comp period.

Wikipedia has a decent entry for body fat measurements. None of the more reliable methods are DIY


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 11:37 AM
Post #12 of 75 (8792 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape.

Not sure where you got those 10-11% numbers, but I just punched that into a BMI web page and came up with a BMI of 30 which is way high. At your height you should definitely be under 200lbs and probably closer to 180lbs with a BMI under 20 to be considered "in pretty good shape" by climbing standards. At age 26 (a long time ago) I was 6'0' and climbed at a 155-160lbs.


http://www.active.com/...culators/bodyfat.htm


BMI is pretty much worthless as means to determine proper weight.


healyje


Aug 31, 2012, 11:38 AM
Post #13 of 75 (8785 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [njrox] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

njrox wrote:
A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.

Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.

10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.

Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 11:38 AM
Post #14 of 75 (8785 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.

Complete bullshit.


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 11:39 AM
Post #15 of 75 (8780 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
njrox wrote:
A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.

Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.

10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.

Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.

Again, more complete bullshit.


Timjitsu


Aug 31, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #16 of 75 (8774 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 4

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.

omg please just stop talking... better yet do me a favor, go into Golds gym in NV and walk up to Jay Cutler (5' 9" 275lbs BF is probably around 3-5% during season) and tell him his BMI is way too high and he is not in good physical shape. there's at least 3 things that will happen. he will laugh at you, slap you, or both.

the BMI is an "okay" way at best, to judge the physical fitness of a person who is barely active. but its a HORRIBLE way of judging the physical fitness of an very active person...

so please go away and lets get back on topic...


healyje


Aug 31, 2012, 11:45 AM
Post #17 of 75 (8772 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [chadnsc] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
healyje wrote:
njrox wrote:
A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.

Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.

10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.

Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.

Again, more complete bullshit.

Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional.


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 11:50 AM
Post #18 of 75 (8764 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [amarius] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

amarius wrote:
BODY FAT percentage has nothing to to with BODY MASS INDEX
The extremes can be understood when looking at professional bodybuilders - their BMIs are through the roof, while body fat percentages are very low, especially during the comp period.

Wikipedia has a decent entry for body fat measurements. None of the more reliable methods are DIY

While the most accurate test is still the water displacement method (1-2% error) a good hand held or digital scale that uses bioelectrical impedance analysis (3-6% error) to measure body fat is still a rather accurate method.

Caliper testing is the most inaccurate with a 15 -25% margin for error.


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 11:54 AM
Post #19 of 75 (8757 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
healyje wrote:
njrox wrote:
A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.

Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.

10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.

Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.

Again, more complete bullshit.

Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional.

I won't disagree that being lighter is better in CLIMBING but your statements about height and body fat percentages are total bullshit.

Besides I know plenty of people over 6'-1" and 180 pounds and they crank pretty dang hard (.12d to 13b range) so . . . .


redlude97


Aug 31, 2012, 11:55 AM
Post #20 of 75 (8755 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
healyje wrote:
njrox wrote:
A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.

Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.

10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.

Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.

Again, more complete bullshit.

Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional.
Way to backtrack


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 11:58 AM
Post #21 of 75 (8749 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [redlude97] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
healyje wrote:
njrox wrote:
A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.

Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.

10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.

Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.

Again, more complete bullshit.

Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional.
Way to backtrack

That's healyje, backtrackin', bull shit spewin', internet climber. Wink


lena_chita
Moderator

Aug 31, 2012, 12:11 PM
Post #22 of 75 (8730 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5762

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Timjitsu wrote:
healyje wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.

omg please just stop talking... better yet do me a favor, go into Golds gym in NV and walk up to Jay Cutler (5' 9" 275lbs BF is probably around 3-5% during season) and tell him his BMI is way too high and he is not in good physical shape. there's at least 3 things that will happen. he will laugh at you, slap you, or both.

the BMI is an "okay" way at best, to judge the physical fitness of a person who is barely active. but its a HORRIBLE way of judging the physical fitness of an very active person...

so please go away and lets get back on topic...

While you are correct in the fact the BMI is not a good way to measure physical fitness, bringing up a guy who is 5'9" and 275 lb ON THIS SITE as a paragon of fitness and good shape will get you nothing but laughter.

Listen, you started this thread. Don't get pissed when people tel lyou that less weight would be better.

Of course if you take two people who both carry 20 pounds of fat on them, and one of them is really built with bulky muscle, and the other one has no muscle worth mentioning, the BF percentage will look much better on the "built" guy, but it doesn't change the fact that they are both carrying 20 pounds of fat on them.

And for climbing it doesn't matter whether you are carrying 200 pounds of muscle+20 pounds of fat up that wall, or whether you are carrying 180pounds of muscle and 40 pounds of fat. Either way, you are carrying 220 pounds up that wall, most of that built-up muscle is not doing you any good when you are climbing. Your bulky legs will be just as much hindrance as a beer belly.

To give you an example, two strong tall climbers that I personally know, are in 6'2"-6'3" and maybe 135-145lb.


healyje


Aug 31, 2012, 12:24 PM
Post #23 of 75 (8717 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [chadnsc] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
That's healyje, backtrackin', bull shit spewin', internet climber. Wink

A Minnesota climber calling me an internet climber - that's a good one dude.


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 12:27 PM
Post #24 of 75 (8713 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [lena_chita] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:

To give you an example, two strong tall climbers that I personally know, are in 6'2"-6'3" and maybe 135-145lb.

Tee heee, I would have to drop back down to 10% body fat and remove a leg to weigh that little! (6'-2", 195 pounds at 10% body fat)

I know that's great for climbing but dang, a 6'-3" tall man weighing in at 135 pounds is thin!


chadnsc


Aug 31, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #25 of 75 (8709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
That's healyje, backtrackin', bull shit spewin', internet climber. Wink

A Minnesota climber calling me an internet climber - that's a good one dude.

Road trip much?

Meh doesn't matter, I'm off to the Needles for the weekend. Have fun on the internet healyje!


saint_john


Aug 31, 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #26 of 75 (4449 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
That's healyje, backtrackin', bull shit spewin', internet climber. Wink

A Minnesota climber calling me an internet climber - that's a good one dude.

Typical Oregonian...


Timjitsu


Aug 31, 2012, 12:44 PM
Post #27 of 75 (4445 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 4

Re: [lena_chita] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
healyje wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.

omg please just stop talking... better yet do me a favor, go into Golds gym in NV and walk up to Jay Cutler (5' 9" 275lbs BF is probably around 3-5% during season) and tell him his BMI is way too high and he is not in good physical shape. there's at least 3 things that will happen. he will laugh at you, slap you, or both.

the BMI is an "okay" way at best, to judge the physical fitness of a person who is barely active. but its a HORRIBLE way of judging the physical fitness of an very active person...

so please go away and lets get back on topic...

While you are correct in the fact the BMI is not a good way to measure physical fitness, bringing up a guy who is 5'9" and 275 lb ON THIS SITE as a paragon of fitness and good shape will get you nothing but laughter.

Listen, you started this thread. Don't get pissed when people tel lyou that less weight would be better.

Of course if you take two people who both carry 20 pounds of fat on them, and one of them is really built with bulky muscle, and the other one has no muscle worth mentioning, the BF percentage will look much better on the "built" guy, but it doesn't change the fact that they are both carrying 20 pounds of fat on them.

And for climbing it doesn't matter whether you are carrying 200 pounds of muscle+20 pounds of fat up that wall, or whether you are carrying 180pounds of muscle and 40 pounds of fat. Either way, you are carrying 220 pounds up that wall, most of that built-up muscle is not doing you any good when you are climbing. Your bulky legs will be just as much hindrance as a beer belly.

To give you an example, two strong tall climbers that I personally know, are in 6'2"-6'3" and maybe 135-145lb.

I started this thread with the idea that less weight is better to begin with. my reason for starting this thread is to see if i was wrong and if there are any big pro climbers out there that overcame the size obstacle.

i wasnt getting mad at healyje for telling me less weight is better. i was getting mad at the fact that he told me theres no way i could be 6'1" 220lbs with 10-11%BF. and that im in bad shape because my BMI is too high. as a matter of fact i dont think he ever mentioned anything about less weight being better.

also i was only using Jay Cutler as an example as to how stupid the BMI is.

and with all do respect, your example of there being no difference between a man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat and a man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat is flawed. im pretty sure that the man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat can lift his body weight a hell of a lot easier than the man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat.

im not here to discuss mine or anyone else's physical fitness. i do that on other forums. so since healyje is done making a fool of himself can we please get back on topic?


(This post was edited by Timjitsu on Aug 31, 2012, 1:03 PM)


healyje


Aug 31, 2012, 1:16 PM
Post #28 of 75 (4420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

You guys can squawk all you want, but no one 6'1" and over 180 is in anything remotely approaching a "pretty good" shape in a climbing context.

A former top climber of that height who has let themselves go can may be able still be able to crank off some tens of feet of 5.12 or even 5.13, but anything longer than that they're going run out of gas quick and to be lucky to be able to untie the rope when they're done.


camhead


Aug 31, 2012, 1:19 PM
Post #29 of 75 (4417 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20760

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Timjitsu wrote:

and with all do [sic] respect, your example of there being no difference between a man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat and a man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat is flawed. im pretty sure that the man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat can lift his body weight a hell of a lot easier than the man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat.

Point 1: Healyj is kind of an idiot.

Point 2: your above quote is misunderstanding what Lena was saying. What she was was that you really don't need THAT much muscle to be an excellent climber. And in fact, once you get into elite level climbing, any extra muscle beyond the bare minimum is going to hinder you. People talk about lockoff strength and leg strength for climbing, but if you can support your own bodyweight (which is not that much strength, compared to elite body building), you'll go a long way climbing.


shotwell


Aug 31, 2012, 2:56 PM
Post #30 of 75 (4380 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 366

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
You guys can squawk all you want, but no one 6'1" and over 180 is in anything remotely approaching a "pretty good" shape in a climbing context.

A former top climber of that height who has let themselves go can may be able still be able to crank off some tens of feet of 5.12 or even 5.13, but anything longer than that they're going run out of gas quick and to be lucky to be able to untie the rope when they're done.

Well, I can provide an anecdote to counter this, but nothing more.

I'm 6' and pretty typically around 185 pounds (give or take 5.) I've climbed well into the 5.13 range with this body type, and bouldered as hard as v9. While this doesn't put me anywhere near the 'pro levels' I would consider that I'm in pretty solid climbing shape and certainly outperforming what you consider to be possible for me.


areyoumydude


Aug 31, 2012, 3:38 PM
Post #31 of 75 (4363 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [njrox] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

njrox wrote:

Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.

Alex is not 6ft. Dean is 6' 4" and weights around 180.

I'm 5'7 138lbs and not nearly as lean as that guy.




FullertonImages


Sep 2, 2012, 10:27 PM
Post #32 of 75 (4286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 30, 2009
Posts: 40

Re: [areyoumydude] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yeah, Dean is definitely pretty big. I've ,et him a few times, and I'm 6'7 and 215 lbs, and he is pretty close to my size. And his hands/fingers are giant. Don't know how in the world he got up the Tombstone.

Also, Levente Pinter is a pretty big dude, and he climbs pretty hard and is kind of pro-ish (not really sure).


sycamore


Sep 3, 2012, 12:04 PM
Post #33 of 75 (4231 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: 161

Re: [FullertonImages] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
Doug Reed was real big. Maybe not a pro climber, but a legend in his own right.


olderic


Sep 3, 2012, 7:47 PM
Post #34 of 75 (4186 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1536

Re: [sycamore] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Could someone give a definition of a "pro" climber?


danger


Sep 3, 2012, 11:37 PM
Post #35 of 75 (4167 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 8, 2010
Posts: 17

Re: [olderic] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

It's actually not just about BF% . That doesn't matter as much as your pure strength to weight ratio.

Last year i lifted a lot, had a very low bf%.

I got sick for a month, and lost 3kg because I couldn't exercise much. i lost quite a bit of muscle and put on some fat, but i ended up climbed BETTER becausei was significantly lighter

Obviously it's better to be light AND fit, but what im saying is that spraying about your bf% when climbing is barking up the wrong tree. You may be "fit" but for climbing a "fat" light dude is fitter than a muscular heavy dude.

The one benefit i see of starting from a big frame like it sounds like you have is that if you can get your weight down healthily, your tendons and muscles are going to be extremely strong for your new weight.


(This post was edited by danger on Sep 3, 2012, 11:43 PM)


skroobal


Sep 4, 2012, 12:18 AM
Post #36 of 75 (4158 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2007
Posts: 4

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hi everybody. I'm 6'3" 300lbs, and I can climb all damn
day. Maybe I'll never climb 5.12, or even 5.11 for that matter, but I love climbing, and my rack is WELL worn, so anyone who thinks that big people can't climb can just never stop eating dicks. We'll never be pros, and I'm ALWAYS the biggest guy at the crag, but I guarantee that after you're pumped, I'll still be climbing, so eat me.


(This post was edited by skroobal on Sep 4, 2012, 12:29 AM)
Attachments: 19934_102281873133978_2442479_n.jpg (73.0 KB)


healyje


Sep 4, 2012, 12:54 AM
Post #37 of 75 (4143 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [skroobal] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Glad you get after it, but the conversation wasn't about large people climbing - it was about being large as a pro. Over the years I've been in and out of shape having swung from (6'0" @) 155 to 200 at various times. I know firsthand exactly how grueling losing the weight and getting back in shape can be having done it a couple of cycles - and how rewarding. For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest where; from 185-175 I can get by on years of experience and technique for 5-6 pitches of [trad] .10 multipitch; 175-165 gets me back in the ballpark putting up some FA roof projects I have going. Below 165 probably isn't going to happen at this age and with the lifestyle my wife and I enjoy.

Bottom line, like running, every pound you lose just makes it that much easier in climbing. It's certainly not mandatory if you're just out for fun, but if you're thinking about turning pro or putting up long, hard multipitch trad FAs then there's simply no choice in the matter - you just have to get into an optimal zone.


skroobal


Sep 4, 2012, 4:25 AM
Post #38 of 75 (4124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2007
Posts: 4

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

seems the conversation is mostly about how you're pretty much an enormous ass. but that's just my opinion.

and for the record, I have put up multipitch trad routes. You'll probably never see them though, as I try to climb far, far away from elitist d-bags.


acorneau


Sep 4, 2012, 6:20 AM
Post #39 of 75 (4109 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: [skroobal] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

skroobal wrote:
Hi everybody. I'm 6'3" 300lbs, and I can climb all damn
day. Maybe I'll never climb 5.12, or even 5.11 for that matter, but I love climbing, and my rack is WELL worn, so anyone who thinks that big people can't climb can just never stop eating dicks. We'll never be pros, and I'm ALWAYS the biggest guy at the crag, but I guarantee that after you're pumped, I'll still be climbing, so eat me.


First off, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, I don't think anyone was saying that if you're big you can't climb. It is/was a discussion if any big climbers are professional climbers.

Congrats on being an active climber, but chill out!

Cool


njrox


Sep 4, 2012, 7:04 AM
Post #40 of 75 (4093 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251

Re: [areyoumydude] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

wow. I thought Honnold was a beanpole, huh.


redonkulus


Sep 4, 2012, 8:14 AM
Post #41 of 75 (4078 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 2, 2010
Posts: 216

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.


Bro, when I was in the best shape of my life playing college soccer, I was 185 pounds and 6'1''. My BMI still had me listed as overweight, which I guarantee you I was not. BMI is not a good indicator of body fat %, and that especially goes out the window when it's an athletic person you're talking about.


styndall


Sep 4, 2012, 10:18 AM
Post #42 of 75 (4042 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Glad you get after it, but the conversation wasn't about large people climbing - it was about being large as a pro. Over the years I've been in and out of shape having swung from (6'0" @) 155 to 200 at various times. I know firsthand exactly how grueling losing the weight and getting back in shape can be having done it a couple of cycles - and how rewarding. For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest where; from 185-175 I can get by on years of experience and technique for 5-6 pitches of [trad] .10 multipitch; 175-165 gets me back in the ballpark putting up some FA roof projects I have going. Below 165 probably isn't going to happen at this age and with the lifestyle my wife and I enjoy.

Bottom line, like running, every pound you lose just makes it that much easier in climbing. It's certainly not mandatory if you're just out for fun, but if you're thinking about turning pro or putting up long, hard multipitch trad FAs then there's simply no choice in the matter - you just have to get into an optimal zone.

Anyone know how big John Long was during his yosemite days? He always looked pretty huge.


chadnsc


Sep 4, 2012, 10:42 AM
Post #43 of 75 (4027 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [skroobal] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

skroobal wrote:
Hi everybody. I'm 6'3" 300lbs, and I can climb all damn
day. Maybe I'll never climb 5.12, or even 5.11 for that matter, but I love climbing, and my rack is WELL worn, so anyone who thinks that big people can't climb can just never stop eating dicks. We'll never be pros, and I'm ALWAYS the biggest guy at the crag, but I guarantee that after you're pumped, I'll still be climbing, so eat me.

My brother from another mother! Tongue


chadnsc


Sep 4, 2012, 10:52 AM
Post #44 of 75 (4019 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Glad you get after it, but the conversation wasn't about large people climbing - it was about being large as a pro.

Actually that's what the OP was, then you started making claims about how no decent climber was over such and such a height and weight. You went on to say how if you weighed X number of pounds you couldn't have less than 30% body fat.


healyje wrote:
Over the years I've been in and out of shape having swung from (6'0" @) 155 to 200 at various times. I know firsthand exactly how grueling losing the weight and getting back in shape can be having done it a couple of cycles - and how rewarding.

Good for you. I understand that this is meant to lend authenticity to your statements but this post has nothing to do with you and your weight gain / loss. In fact the OP has nothing to do with your weight.

healyje wrote:
For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest where; from 185-175 I can get by on years of experience and technique for 5-6 pitches of [trad] .10 multipitch; 175-165 gets me back in the ballpark putting up some FA roof projects I have going. Below 165 probably isn't going to happen at this age and with the lifestyle my wife and I enjoy.

That's for you personally. I understand that you personally figured out your optimal weight but please try to keep in mind that everyone is different and your ideal weight isn't going to be everyone eases.

healyje wrote:
Bottom line, like running, every pound you lose just makes it that much easier in climbing. It's certainly not mandatory if you're just out for fun, but if you're thinking about turning pro or putting up long, hard multipitch trad FAs then there's simply no choice in the matter - you just have to get into an optimal zone.

True but just like in running you reach a point of diminished returns in regards to weight and increased performance. Just like in running this 'optimal zone' is different for each person.


areyoumydude


Sep 4, 2012, 11:42 AM
Post #45 of 75 (4012 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [skroobal] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

skroobal wrote:
so anyone who thinks that big people can't climb can just never stop eating dicks.

God I hate dick eaters.


healyje


Sep 4, 2012, 11:24 PM
Post #46 of 75 (3913 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [chadnsc] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
healyje wrote:
For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest

That's for you personally.

If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.


chadnsc


Sep 5, 2012, 5:03 AM
Post #47 of 75 (3895 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
healyje wrote:
For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest

That's for you personally.

If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.


You're either:

a.) obtuse
b.) delusional
c.) a & b


johnwesely


Sep 5, 2012, 6:38 AM
Post #48 of 75 (3884 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [njrox] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

njrox wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?

Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.

Long, thin, and graceful seem like postive factors but not every really good or pro climber is built like Ichabod Crain.

There is now way Alex Honnold is 6ft+.


camhead


Sep 5, 2012, 7:07 AM
Post #49 of 75 (3871 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20760

Re: [johnwesely] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
njrox wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?

Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.

Long, thin, and graceful seem like postive factors but not every really good or pro climber is built like Ichabod Crain.

There is now way Alex Honnold is 6ft+.

It's really funny how in threads like this, there are certain climbers who might be "bigger," but for that reason whom people claim are HUGE. Klem Loskot, Fred Rhouling, Dean Potter, Chris Sharma, I've seen all of these guys cited to be 200+ lbs. They're not.

You want to talk about large climbers who were climbing at a world class level at their peak? John Dunne, and MAYBE John Long. That's it. They're anomalies.


styndall


Sep 5, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #50 of 75 (3804 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: [camhead] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
johnwesely wrote:
njrox wrote:
Timjitsu wrote:
can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?

Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.

Long, thin, and graceful seem like postive factors but not every really good or pro climber is built like Ichabod Crain.

There is now way Alex Honnold is 6ft+.

It's really funny how in threads like this, there are certain climbers who might be "bigger," but for that reason whom people claim are HUGE. Klem Loskot, Fred Rhouling, Dean Potter, Chris Sharma, I've seen all of these guys cited to be 200+ lbs. They're not.

You want to talk about large climbers who were climbing at a world class level at their peak? John Dunne, and MAYBE John Long. That's it. They're anomalies.

It is hilarious how all these weird rumors about Fred Rouhling went around. "Oh, the grades are only because he's 6'9" with a 7'2" wingspan," I heard, circa 2001.


healyje


Sep 5, 2012, 11:57 PM
Post #51 of 75 (3617 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [styndall] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Similar mythical tales were told about Layton Kor bitd.


healyje


Sep 6, 2012, 1:00 AM
Post #52 of 75 (3611 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [chadnsc] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
You're either:

a.) obtuse
b.) delusional
c.) a & b

Or

d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape.


granite_grrl


Sep 6, 2012, 4:59 AM
Post #53 of 75 (3595 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14838

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
You're either:

a.) obtuse
b.) delusional
c.) a & b

Or

d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape.

I think you have too narrow a definition of what being in shape is. Check out :http://espn.go.com/...s-want-espn-magazine

Yes, there are plenty of people who are tall and light, but what about Danelle Leyva at 5'7" and 165lbs, Rob Gronkowski at 6'6" and 265lbs, Brad Richards at 6'0" and 195lbs or Walter Dix at 5'10" and 195lbs!

Different body types, different sports, all in way better shape that you could ever dream to be. No, the OP doesn't have a good body type to become a great climber, but that goes for most of us though, doesn't it.


Partner cracklover


Sep 6, 2012, 11:37 AM
Post #54 of 75 (3539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10037

Re: [granite_grrl] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

granite_grrl wrote:
healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
You're either:

a.) obtuse
b.) delusional
c.) a & b

Or

d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape.

I think you have too narrow a definition of what being in shape is. Check out :http://espn.go.com/...s-want-espn-magazine

Yes, there are plenty of people who are tall and light, but what about Danelle Leyva at 5'7" and 165lbs, Rob Gronkowski at 6'6" and 265lbs, Brad Richards at 6'0" and 195lbs or Walter Dix at 5'10" and 195lbs!

Different body types, different sports, all in way better shape that you could ever dream to be. No, the OP doesn't have a good body type to become a great climber, but that goes for most of us though, doesn't it.

Well made point, and WOW, what a fantastic set of images. It does a great job capturing the (perfect) human body in many shapes and sizes. Nice link! Those shots of Anna Tunnicliffe I think are my favorite. Awesome!

GO


chadnsc


Sep 6, 2012, 12:28 PM
Post #55 of 75 (3524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
You're either:

a.) obtuse
b.) delusional
c.) a & b

Or

d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape.

You're an obtuse, egotistical fool.


healyje


Sep 6, 2012, 1:34 PM
Post #56 of 75 (3498 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [granite_grrl] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

granite_grrl wrote:
I think you have too narrow a definition of what being in shape is. Check out :http://espn.go.com/...s-want-espn-magazine

Yes, there are plenty of people who are tall and light, but what about Danelle Leyva at 5'7" and 165lbs, Rob Gronkowski at 6'6" and 265lbs, Brad Richards at 6'0" and 195lbs or Walter Dix at 5'10" and 195lbs!

Different body types, different sports, all in way better shape that you could ever dream to be. No, the OP doesn't have a good body type to become a great climber, but that goes for most of us though, doesn't it.

Except we're not talking other sports - we're talking climbing. We're talking gravity. And in a world where gravity rules - height-to-weight ratio will always be key when it comes to operating at a high level of performance.

This guy took the gold in super-heavy weight lifting at the Olympics and is in great shape for that sport at 6'6" @ 364 - but don't look for him to be floating 5.14 anytime soon.




healyje


Sep 6, 2012, 1:37 PM
Post #57 of 75 (3492 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [chadnsc] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
You're an obtuse, egotistical fool.

Climbing has become more 'inclusive' after thirty years of bolting and gyms. But the truth remains as harsh as ever when it comes to what is required of an individual who wishes to perform at the higher echelons of the sport. A lot of people don't want to hear that and / or are in denial about it. C'est la vie...


chadnsc


Sep 6, 2012, 2:10 PM
Post #58 of 75 (3482 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

I agree that being lighter and tall is very beneficial in the climbing world.

I don't agree with this:

healyje wrote:
And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

healyje wrote:
If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.

You're not talking about climbing in those statements. Your reading comprehension and understanding of human physiology when it comes to body composition is horrendous.


healyje


Sep 6, 2012, 4:58 PM
Post #59 of 75 (3463 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [chadnsc] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
I agree that being lighter and tall is very beneficial in the climbing world.

I don't agree with this:

healyje wrote:
If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.

You're not talking about climbing in those statements.

I'm definitely talking about climbing in all these comments, that's because we're on climbing site, if I were talking about something else I'd be on some other forum


chadnsc


Sep 7, 2012, 5:27 AM
Post #60 of 75 (3420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [healyje] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
I agree that being lighter and tall is very beneficial in the climbing world.

I don't agree with this:

healyje wrote:
If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.

You're not talking about climbing in those statements.

I'm definitely talking about climbing in all these comments, that's because we're on climbing site, if I were talking about something else I'd be on some other forum


Valid point and I agree with it to a point.

However it would make your posts much more coherent and you sound like less of an idiot if when the topic splits (in this case what's considered 'in shape' for climbing and non climbing) that you differentiate which topic your discussing.

I noticed that you omitted the quote of your original ignorant comment that split this discussion into two topics. Let me fix that for you . . . .

healyje wrote:
And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.


(This post was edited by chadnsc on Sep 7, 2012, 5:31 AM)


flesh


Sep 20, 2012, 5:11 PM
Post #61 of 75 (3210 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 418

Re: [chadnsc] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toni Lamprecht is 6 3 175. Klem Loskot is 6 1 175.

They are the largest Pro climbers I can think of going way back . Sharma is 6 1 160. Sometimes he gets as low as 155 he told me.

I know a guy thats about 190 that boulders v10. He could easily cut 25 lbs and crush v13. But he would rather eat and his mustache is heavy.

Most of the guys you think are big and strong are skinny and ripped and light. Low body fat and no muscle except climbing muscle = super light.


david7896


Sep 21, 2012, 5:17 PM
Post #62 of 75 (3119 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2010
Posts: 43

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Fred Nicole.... i couldnt find any info about his weight and height, but he looks tall and bulky. i would say he has the same problem that we both share.


flesh


Sep 21, 2012, 11:12 PM
Post #63 of 75 (3099 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 418

Re: [david7896] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

david7896 wrote:
Fred Nicole.... i couldnt find any info about his weight and height, but he looks tall and bulky. i would say he has the same problem that we both share.

When I shook his hand in font he was at least 3 inches shorter than me... he around 5 9, his forearms are huge and the rest of him is not... I"m guessing 135lbs when hes fit... maybe 140.

Its time to get over it peeps, you have to be light to climb hard and yes, unless u have rare body type... if your 6% fat... you will be light even if your 6 2 assuming you only have the muscles you need for climbing.


I just found a fred nicole interview... he says hes 78 kg... but he's lying or quoting the heaviest he's been with Boots pants and a jacket on. No way in hell he's heavier than me.


(This post was edited by flesh on Sep 21, 2012, 11:24 PM)


JasonsDrivingForce


Sep 24, 2012, 11:00 AM
Post #64 of 75 (3057 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [flesh] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jon Glassberg is 255 cm tall according to his 8a.nu profile. That is something like 8 foot 4 inches. He isn't really that tall. However, he is still probably at least 6'5" and he has done well in a number of comps.

http://www.8a.nu/...spx%3FUserId%3D10441

There are a few young climbers out there right now that are VERY tall for their age and have some potential to be very good. I wonder if that will be the next big progression in the sport? Very tall and light climbers?

I know I have seen a few of these very good young climbers standing next to their gigantic fathers and wondered if they will be that tall one day and will it help or hurt their climbing.


pfwein


Sep 24, 2012, 2:14 PM
Post #65 of 75 (3025 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353

Re: [JasonsDrivingForce] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JasonsDrivingForce wrote:
There are a few young climbers out there right now that are VERY tall for their age and have some potential to be very good. I wonder if that will be the next big progression in the sport? Very tall and light climbers?

I think it will likely be that there are certain types of routes that only these tall climbers will be able to do, but on other routes, where super long reaches are not necessary, they will not be able to climb quite as hard because tall climbers will always be at a strength/weight disadvantage.

To it more concretely:
huge reaches necessary: tall climber will win
tiny crimps that do not require huge reach and cannot be reached around: short climber will be better.

It will therefore be impossible to say that any person is the "best"--it will just depend on the type of route.


zxcvbnm


Sep 24, 2012, 3:22 PM
Post #66 of 75 (3008 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 12, 2011
Posts: 16

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Tall climbers also have the disadvantages of bigger fingers, worse arm leverage, and more torque bringing them off the wall and making it harder to hold onto the holds on overhanging terrain.


flesh


Sep 25, 2012, 8:33 PM
Post #67 of 75 (2945 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 418

Re: [zxcvbnm] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Generally speaking, being above 6 ft is worse. The point I'd like to make is not that your screwed if your taller simply that you fooling yourself if your taller and you think you're going to be the rare exception that will climb hard and weight 180 plus. The rule is, you need to be as light as possible. This means you need to cut all fat possible, probably more than you even believe you can, combined with losing any unneccesary muscle. Stack the odds in your favor. Hope is better than nothing but it's not a good action plan.

After asking many elite climbers myself what they weigh I've found that for some unknown reason, they generally like to say they are heavier than they actually are, for men that is. This is based on a large enough sampling that I believe it to be true at this point. You can speculate as to why.

I climb pretty hard myself and I've spent plenty of time climbing with top climbers so this is based on experience over 15 years. If you want to get better at climbing more than you want to be a BIG guy, cut it.


(This post was edited by flesh on Sep 25, 2012, 8:36 PM)


JasonsDrivingForce


Sep 26, 2012, 11:52 AM
Post #68 of 75 (2898 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [flesh] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

According to Adam Ondra’s 8a.nu profile he is 6 feet tall and 139 pounds. That is pretty tall for as good as he is.

http://http%3A/...aspx%3FUserId%3D1476

However, I wonder if there is more to it than absolute height? For instance some people like Adam Ondra have an extremely long neck and a short torso. This makes them have a taller height and a longer wingspan but still maintain an unreasonably low body weight because having your height in your neck weighs a lot less than having it in your torso.

The drawback to having height in your neck is that when you measure your vertical reach it will be much shorter than someone who has a more proportional body. This is due to the fact that even if you have a plus zero wingspan your shoulders are farther away from the top of your head than a normal person.

When someone with this body type measures their wingspan they are measuring the length of their arms and the width of their chest. It will usually measure a normal value. However, when you measure their vertical reach it will measure much lower than their height would suggest because their shoulder height is not in proportion to their overall height.

I don’t by any means intend to suggest that Ondra’s long neck is what makes him such a good climber. However, having a long neck and long arms will allow you to be very tall and still very light.

I have this condition but to an extreme(6’4” and as low as 152 pounds at that height). I wonder if someday a climber(Not me) with a very long wingspan and this condition to an extreme could do things that we never imagined were possible?


climb9708


Dec 26, 2012, 10:51 AM
Post #69 of 75 (2580 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 26, 2012
Posts: 1

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dude im 15 almost 6ft 2 ,and like 180, im climbing for around 8 monthes and am working on my first 5.12. I know how you feel i was looking at all these stickmen climbers in the gym and in climbing magazines and i was discouraged as i thought i had to look like that, but the fact of the matter is i can never be that light my build just wont allow me so i have to work with the body i was given and just fucking train hard to get the goals in climbing that i want, btw Im not toned like no six pack and my torso is chubby but i have a really small torso with really long legs which have no fat on them
In reply to:


juststrange


Dec 28, 2012, 9:38 PM
Post #70 of 75 (2508 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2004
Posts: 80

Re: [Timjitsu] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jimmy Webb is 6' and ~180 IIRC. Nalle looks pretty big too, but that could be perspective. Rob DAnistaio is pretty tall but probably light - Steve Jeffries is build like a brick house and crushed for a good while. You might have more luck looking to bouldering for strong heavy dudes - at 5'7"ish and 160-165 my BMI is overweight, but my bodyfat is low and I can hold my own we;; enough.


camhead


Dec 28, 2012, 10:31 PM
Post #71 of 75 (2499 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20760

Re: [juststrange] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

juststrange wrote:
Jimmy Webb is 6' and ~180 IIRC.

Uhh... No.


juststrange


Dec 29, 2012, 6:38 AM
Post #72 of 75 (2478 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2004
Posts: 80

Re: [camhead] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I got that off of here: http://www.seclimbers.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=507

Other sources seem to put Jimmy's height at 6+, and the dude sure isn't a beanpole. Or were you thinking Defensive Tackle Jimmy Webb....?


camhead


Dec 29, 2012, 8:22 AM
Post #73 of 75 (2464 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20760

Re: [juststrange] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

juststrange wrote:
I got that off of here: http://www.seclimbers.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=507

Other sources seem to put Jimmy's height at 6+, and the dude sure isn't a beanpole. Or were you thinking Defensive Tackle Jimmy Webb....?

I was going off of his 8a.nu profile, which puts his height at 157 cm. Though, that seems really short.


shotwell


Dec 29, 2012, 9:08 AM
Post #74 of 75 (2459 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 366

Re: [camhead] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
juststrange wrote:
I got that off of here: http://www.seclimbers.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=507

Other sources seem to put Jimmy's height at 6+, and the dude sure isn't a beanpole. Or were you thinking Defensive Tackle Jimmy Webb....?

I was going off of his 8a.nu profile, which puts his height at 157 cm. Though, that seems really short.

His 8a profile is way off as every time he is quoted in feet it is 6+. It is not uncommon for US climbers to mess up the metric conversion though.


namoclimber


Dec 29, 2012, 12:14 PM
Post #75 of 75 (2445 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 118

Re: [shotwell] Any "large" pro climbers out there? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just thought I would way in here.
My stats 5 11 ish 150lbs I'm 32.
I climb around v10 v11
All the people I climb with that climb at this level or harder are all younger then me(around 17 and all around 5 8ish) and very lean sub 125pounds.
I've climbed some 5.14s too but lack the endurance now because of family and kids just no time. It takes serious training to get to these levels.

If you dedicated you can climb hard.
That being said I remember reading an article on climbing and physics and the larger and taller you are the more leverage is apply to your fingers and the more core strength is required to pull in to maintain tension. It simply put it, if your bigger you had to be quite a bit stronger in relation meaning stronger then the smaller person pound per pound. Just harder to keep the tension. But there will always be exceptions just be one of them.
And the person having the most fun is the best climber.

sorry for the run on sentences.


Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook