|
jeffleads
Feb 22, 2010, 4:32 PM
Post #26 of 75
(9479 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
(9460 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
(9458 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
(9425 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
(9420 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
(9396 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
(9363 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
(9359 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
(9322 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
(9259 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
(9239 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
(9179 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
(9152 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
(9106 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
(9067 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
(9059 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
(9050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
your mom.
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
Feb 24, 2010, 9:23 AM
Post #45 of 75
(9041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
and... Your sister.
|
|
|
|
|
curator
Feb 24, 2010, 2:29 PM
Post #46 of 75
(9023 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
(8985 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
(8974 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
(8956 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
(8942 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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|