|
zxcvbnm
Oct 28, 2012, 1:50 AM
Post #26 of 58
(10554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2011
Posts: 16
|
I think you think I'm arguing things that I am not.
Obviously Ondra is above average height for this subset. In my posts I am saying that height is just a small part of it all, and is not any sort of deciding factor for anyone as an individual. Obviously one disadvantage doesn't mean you can't excel at something.
We are speaking the the context of hard face climbing, and it would seem preposterous to say that everything equals out in the end, or that a climber's build doesn't matter. (" It all comes out in the wash") When it does come out in the wash the top 100 8a average is 5'6.
As for the "new climbers" thing I'm not sure what you are talking about, it was just an imperfect example and you seem to have made it into something else I wasn't intending.
(This post was edited by zxcvbnm on Oct 28, 2012, 2:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bobby1964
Oct 30, 2012, 7:47 PM
Post #27 of 58
(10455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2012
Posts: 3
|
shotwell wrote: zxcvbnm wrote: Exactly, if the top 100 climbers on 8a.nu avg. only 5'6 then that means that the majority of elite climbers are short. What else do i need to say? Of course there are lots of exceptions and avg-ish, small, and even a lil on the big side can still be elite climbers. That's what i was saying before, height is only a small piece of the pie. So it's not suprising that a couple inches above average 6'1 guy like sharma can climb 9b and onsight 14b, and a tiny 5'2 ramon julian can climb 9a+ and onsight 14c, even though they are very different. And about the jimmy webb thing, I think in general the advantages of tall climbers are much more pronounced than the advantages of short climbers. If you ask a new climber they will probably say it's easier for the tall people.(especially if the new climber is short) We hear "height dependant" a.k.a. hard for short people (most of the time) b/c it's blatantly obvious when you can't reach the next hold easily. However the disadvantages of tall climbers are much more natural and ingrained. Every time they make a move on overhanging terrain the holds are smaller for them, they are fighting poorer arm leverage and a worse weight/strenght ratio, as well as more torque. However it's never really seen as them being disadvantaged (even though they are), it simply seems and looks like their not strong enough and not a good enough climber. You're not really following the argument. If the majority of elite climbers are 5'6" tall, then Ondra IS above average for this subset. Your argument suggests that he has a 'disadvantage.' While he may have a slight disadvantage in certain styles, it is clearly not enough to matter. He doesn't have to be taller than the average man to be significantly taller than the people he competes against. You're right, by the way, that tall climbers have a disadvantage on certain climbing styles. They have advantages on others. Again, it comes out in the wash. It doesn't matter. Your 'new climbers' argument is also bull. I'm not new by any means, and am better able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of climbers at and above my level as a result. If Sharma is 6'+, there is just another example of a person taller than the average of elite climbers excelling. I wonder why his natural disadvantages didn't hold him back on Witness the Fitness or Practice of the Wild (two VERY steep boulder problems.) Argue advantage or disadvantage all you want. The fact is that people wh you claim should have a disadvantage still excel. If this is the case for people that are 6' tall, why not someone who is taller? It will just take the right individual with the right motivation to make it happen. Height is not an acceptable excuse in a general sense despite specific difficulties in specific routes. Why are the two best climbers in the world significantly taller than their average elite contemporaries? Bueller?
No, zxcvbnm's argument does not suggest that Adam Ondra has a disadvantage. When we refer to height and its advantages and disadvantages, we are referring to the height of humans in general. Adam Ondra may be tall for an elite climber, but that doesn't mean he is a tall human.
Let's apply your argument to an even more obvious example. We all know that elite gymnasts are short. I think the tallest male gymnast from this year's US Olympic team was like 5'7". Your argument is like saying, "Look at that gymnast. He's 5'7". He's taller than all of peers, so he's an example of height not mattering in gymnastics."
The thing is, 5'7" is not tall. It doesn't make any sense to compare heights within a given subset. You have to compare that subset to the general population.
|
|
|
|
|
shotwell
Oct 30, 2012, 8:23 PM
Post #28 of 58
(10444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2009
Posts: 366
|
bobby1964 wrote: shotwell wrote: zxcvbnm wrote: Exactly, if the top 100 climbers on 8a.nu avg. only 5'6 then that means that the majority of elite climbers are short. What else do i need to say? Of course there are lots of exceptions and avg-ish, small, and even a lil on the big side can still be elite climbers. That's what i was saying before, height is only a small piece of the pie. So it's not suprising that a couple inches above average 6'1 guy like sharma can climb 9b and onsight 14b, and a tiny 5'2 ramon julian can climb 9a+ and onsight 14c, even though they are very different. And about the jimmy webb thing, I think in general the advantages of tall climbers are much more pronounced than the advantages of short climbers. If you ask a new climber they will probably say it's easier for the tall people.(especially if the new climber is short) We hear "height dependant" a.k.a. hard for short people (most of the time) b/c it's blatantly obvious when you can't reach the next hold easily. However the disadvantages of tall climbers are much more natural and ingrained. Every time they make a move on overhanging terrain the holds are smaller for them, they are fighting poorer arm leverage and a worse weight/strenght ratio, as well as more torque. However it's never really seen as them being disadvantaged (even though they are), it simply seems and looks like their not strong enough and not a good enough climber. You're not really following the argument. If the majority of elite climbers are 5'6" tall, then Ondra IS above average for this subset. Your argument suggests that he has a 'disadvantage.' While he may have a slight disadvantage in certain styles, it is clearly not enough to matter. He doesn't have to be taller than the average man to be significantly taller than the people he competes against. You're right, by the way, that tall climbers have a disadvantage on certain climbing styles. They have advantages on others. Again, it comes out in the wash. It doesn't matter. Your 'new climbers' argument is also bull. I'm not new by any means, and am better able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of climbers at and above my level as a result. If Sharma is 6'+, there is just another example of a person taller than the average of elite climbers excelling. I wonder why his natural disadvantages didn't hold him back on Witness the Fitness or Practice of the Wild (two VERY steep boulder problems.) Argue advantage or disadvantage all you want. The fact is that people wh you claim should have a disadvantage still excel. If this is the case for people that are 6' tall, why not someone who is taller? It will just take the right individual with the right motivation to make it happen. Height is not an acceptable excuse in a general sense despite specific difficulties in specific routes. Why are the two best climbers in the world significantly taller than their average elite contemporaries? Bueller? No, zxcvbnm's argument does not suggest that Adam Ondra has a disadvantage. When we refer to height and its advantages and disadvantages, we are referring to the height of humans in general. Adam Ondra may be tall for an elite climber, but that doesn't mean he is a tall human. Let's apply your argument to an even more obvious example. We all know that elite gymnasts are short. I think the tallest male gymnast from this year's US Olympic team was like 5'7". Your argument is like saying, "Look at that gymnast. He's 5'7". He's taller than all of peers, so he's an example of height not mattering in gymnastics." The thing is, 5'7" is not tall. It doesn't make any sense to compare heights within a given subset. You have to compare that subset to the general population.
Let me write this as a logical equation to see if you guys can understand.
if (height.of.climberA >= height.of.climberB)
climberA has a 'disadvantage' due to having to build a bigger muscle for equivalent strength.
That is pretty simple, right? And this is what you guys are saying? If not, forgive me, I failed to understand you.
Now, my counter example is this:
if (adam.ondra.height >= the.average.height.of.top100)
Adam should be at the same disadvantage as compared to his contemporaries. Global average doesn't fucking matter as he isn't competing against freakishly tall or short desk jockeys.
if (chris.sharma.height >= the.average.height.of.top100)
Chris is in the same boat as Adam. Supposedly 'disadvantaged' by his relative height.
Finally, and this should be fairly obvious:
if (adam.ondra.height >= sean.mccoll.height)
Adam supposedly has a 'disadvantage' when climbing as compared to Sean McColl. Yet, Ondra just flashed the hardest grade Sean has ever climbed. Clearly, this height thing isn't all that big a deal, right?
It isn't up to me to answer the question as to why the average is where it is, or to answer the question as to why there aren't any high end climbers remarkably above the global populations average. My only argument this WHOLE TIME has been that height doesn't seem to convey any obvious advantage when considered against the difficulty that top climbers of today are currently climbing at. The absence of a person significantly above the global average just doesn't matter. At all. Adam is significantly taller that Ramon, McColl, Schubert, etc. It hasn't held him back at all.
As far as the global average question goes, I have no interest in trying to find out why there aren't more tall climbers. Perhaps it doesn't appeal to the majority of tall people. Perhaps they have an easy time initially and subsequently get discouraged when the going gets tough. I just can't believe that a height difference of very nearly a foot between Ramon and Sharma would be all that different than the difference between a person six inches taller than Shama and himself. 6' is not a magic number. There is no reason, whatsoever, that a taller person can't climb hard.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Oct 30, 2012, 8:33 PM
Post #29 of 58
(10439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
very tall people go into basketball where they can make REAL money, get HAWT groupies, and drive around BLING cars ... its that simple 
tall, short, old, fat, young, poor, no time, lazy, etc ... its all an excuse used by people who will never push the physical human limits anyways ...
what they should be doing is going out and finding THEIR limits ... and chances are it wont be from a physical excuse
you have one legged people leading 5.12, 60 year olds leading 5.14, people with barely any fingers on one hand leading hard grit, little < 5' gurls leading 5.14+, people whove been climbing less than 2 years doing 5.14, disabled gimps doing a big wall in yos, etc ...
all this argument is pretty pointless on RC 
|
|
|
|
|
bobby1964
Oct 30, 2012, 9:58 PM
Post #30 of 58
(10424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2012
Posts: 3
|
shotwell wrote: That is pretty simple, right? And this is what you guys are saying? If not, forgive me, I failed to understand you.
That IS simple. Too simple. So, I'm sorry, but you haven't understood the previous arguments, and your cute little equations miss the point.
zxcvbnm wrote: That's what i was saying before, height is only a small piece of the pie. |
|
|
|
|
shotwell
Oct 30, 2012, 10:06 PM
Post #31 of 58
(10421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2009
Posts: 366
|
bobby1964 wrote: shotwell wrote: That is pretty simple, right? And this is what you guys are saying? If not, forgive me, I failed to understand you. That IS simple. Too simple. So, I'm sorry, but you haven't understood the previous arguments, and your cute little equations miss the point. zxcvbnm wrote: That's what i was saying before, height is only a small piece of the pie.
If you're trying to make a point, please proceed with more clarity. I said in the last post that I might be misunderstanding; I meant it. The point of simplifying my point with "cute" equations was to find out which of us was out to sea.
Now, please proceed with yours. What is the impact of height on maximal climbing ability? What exactly am I missing here?
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Oct 31, 2012, 1:55 AM
Post #32 of 58
(10386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
The patently false title of the article is Why Women Can't Do Pullups, but the research reported tells us nothing about the issue of gender differences and potentials.
What the study says is that of a small and almost certainly non-random sample of women who couldn't do a pullup, 24% could do a pullup after three months of training. We don't know what would happen with several years of training, we don't know how an analogous group of men would have fared, we don't know how anyone would have done with a different training regimen, we don't know why the trainers were surprised that the percentage wasn't higher, and we don't know why they thought it should have been higher.
I think most men who have worked on a gymnastic strength element will tell you that three months isn't even close to enough time for their mighty testosteronic systems to adapt.
It is certainly difficult to know just how much effect cultural norms have on strength statistics---my suspicion is that for strength-to-weight measures, the differences are primarily cultural rather than physiological. For many purposes, it is misleading to look at average results without considering how much the distributions actually overlap, and whether the spreads are comparable. In this regard, no discussion of the tremendous spread of human abilities is complete without Lillian Wetzel's 26 one-arm pullups (only 13 on the weaker arm), which far exceeds what most men can do on two arms, kipping or not.
In climbing, where a combination of technique and strength is involved, I think it is fair to say that the differences between the genders are nearly indistinguishable, and are only really detectable at the highest ends of achievement. Except for the most elite levels, men and women are basically equal when it comes to climbing, and even at the elite levels the difference is small and not always decisively in favor of the men (think about Lynne Hill's free ascent of the Nose).
As for any correlation between high numbers of pullups and climbing ability, I've never seen or heard a shred of evidence suggesting there is any.
|
|
|
|
|
bobby1964
Oct 31, 2012, 2:04 AM
Post #33 of 58
(10382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2012
Posts: 3
|
shotwell wrote: bobby1964 wrote: shotwell wrote: That is pretty simple, right? And this is what you guys are saying? If not, forgive me, I failed to understand you. That IS simple. Too simple. So, I'm sorry, but you haven't understood the previous arguments, and your cute little equations miss the point. zxcvbnm wrote: That's what i was saying before, height is only a small piece of the pie. If you're trying to make a point, please proceed with more clarity. I said in the last post that I might be misunderstanding; I meant it. The point of simplifying my point with "cute" equations was to find out which of us was out to sea. Now, please proceed with yours. What is the impact of height on maximal climbing ability? What exactly am I missing here?
So, first of all, I think you'd agree with the idea that there is no one perfect physical characteristic for climbers. It's all about the balance between different characteristics and the advantages and disadvantages they confer. For example, strong fingers are great, but their usefulness depends on the weight of the body they will have to support.
Additionally, the ability of each climber to climb hard will be the sum of not only his or her physical characteristics and the specific advantages and disadvantages that those confer, but also the sum of the mental and psychological characteristics of the climber. The climber who has the highest potential to climb hard will be the one who has the greatest positive balance between total advantages and disadvantages.
However, you missed the point and phrased the 'height matters' hypothesis as being "climber A has a 'disadvantage' due to having to build a bigger muscle for equivalent strength". That's just way too simple. This is one disadvantage, yes, but it ignores the other disadvantages and advantages of height, and it ignores the sum of the advantages and disadvantages determined by all the other physical, mental, and psychological traits.
There are too many factors at play to be able to isolate one individual trait and compare two climbers of insignificant difference in that trait like you did when you compared individual elite climbers of various heights. Relative height within a subset is pretty irrelevant. You have to visit the extremes to see the real effects of a characteristic, in this case, height, so that the other variables don't obscure the impact. In order to do this, you have to compare the average elite climber to the general population to draw any meaningful conclusions, so yes, this issue is relevant.
When you do get to the extremes of this trait, you see that the disadvantages start to heavily outweigh the advantages. zxcvbnm has already explained what those disadvantages are.
Now, is it possible that those disadvantages in turn be outweighed by other factors that would give the climber an outrageous overall balance of advantages to disadvantages? Yes, of course. He/she could be the smoothest, quickest climber ever, he could have fingers made of iron, he could have 6% body fat, and could have started training at the age of 2 with more intensity than anyone who has ever trained before him.
But this is highly unlikely and that's why you don't see tall climbers climbing super hard. They just have too much to overcome. The fact that almost all the elite climbers are of average height says it all.
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Oct 31, 2012, 3:10 AM
Post #34 of 58
(10366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
shotwell wrote: If you're trying to make a point, please proceed with more clarity. I said in the last post that I might be misunderstanding; I meant it. The point of simplifying my point with "cute" equations was to find out which of us was out to sea.
Let's use your logic on basketball to show that it doesn't make sense. In 2001 Allen Iverson was the MVP in the NBA, which means that subjectively he was the best player in the world. He's also 5'11" and 160 pounds and beat out players who are 7'0" and 280 lb. Does that mean that being tall is not an advantage in basketball ? You can't seriously argue that.
Individual athletes can be outliers, but if the average world class male climber is 5'6", while the average man is 5'10", then it strongly suggests that being on the short side is advantageous for climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
JAB
Nov 1, 2012, 1:16 PM
Post #35 of 58
(10321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
I think the major finding of this "study" has been totally overlooked both in this thread as well as by the researchers themselves. It is something that is stressed by almost all climbing coaches all the time: to improve at x you need to train x (and not y even though it might be a bit similar to x). These women trained pull-ups by doing all kinds of shit - but never actually doing pull-ups. No wonder the results were poor. If they really wanted them to perform better on pullups, assisted pullups would probably have had meant far better results in far less time.
Conclusion: if you want to be a better climber, climb more! Training pullups in order to improve at climbing will probably be just as productive as those women's training plan.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Nov 1, 2012, 1:58 PM
Post #36 of 58
(10313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
shotwell wrote: jomagam wrote: First of all I did not mean to imply that you were stupid. Of course at the level where 99% of the climbers are, say 5.12 and under, height is a non-issue. But it's also telling that the tall end of the examples you're giving for world class climbers is say 6'1", which is the average height of a male in the Nederlands. I am certainly not talking about wanking around at the 5.12 level when I'm saying that there is no obvious ideal body type; my specific point is that there are people of many body types at the absolute pinnacle of the sport. 5'10" is average in the U.S., and a cursory look at other populations suggests this is on the high side, though the Nederlands is one of the few populations with a significantly taller average height. The absence of taller than roughy 6'1" elite climbers doesn't necessarily suggest a lack of potential. It may, but I would imagine that a very tall climber could excel on certain movement styles and stone types. http://www.google.com/...t:429,r:15,s:0,i:117 From the Parisian World Championships - Second: Sean McColl - First: Jakob Schuber - Third: Adam Ondra Most notably, Sean was not the shortest competitor to make finals in Paris. And that tall guy seems to climb pretty well!
I read a while back that the average height of a male 5.14 European climber was 5'6". Can't remember the citation. For the dominant type of high-end sport climbing in the world right now (Euro limestone), I think that high strength to weight ratio trumps reach in most cases.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Nov 1, 2012, 11:01 PM
Post #37 of 58
(10267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
I wonder if the average American man can do a pull up?
Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Nov 2, 2012, 4:04 AM
Post #38 of 58
(10244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
dynosore wrote: I wonder if the average American man can do a pull up? In reply to: I've seen an estimate that the average young man in the US back in the early 1960s could do 9 consecutive pull-ups. (I think I've posted this information before) I doubt that's true today - if it was true then. My recollection of my gymnastics course at Ga Tech in 1954 was that the figure might be correct. We were required to do 19 for an "A" in that skill, and most were able to do 10 or 12, within a few weeks. Numerous examples show that there is little correlation with climbing achievements. Watch Ondra as he hangs full extension from one arm then the other. Not many pull-ups in evidence. But if you like bodyweight exercises for their own sake - I sure do - then they are fundamental. 
|
|
|
|
|
DemolitionRed
Nov 4, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #39 of 58
(10155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 77
|
JAB wrote: I think the major finding of this "study" has been totally overlooked both in this thread as well as by the researchers themselves. It is something that is stressed by almost all climbing coaches all the time: to improve at x you need to train x (and not y even though it might be a bit similar to x). These women trained pull-ups by doing all kinds of shit - but never actually doing pull-ups. No wonder the results were poor. If they really wanted them to perform better on pullups, assisted pullups would probably have had meant far better results in far less time. Conclusion: if you want to be a better climber, climb more! Training pullups in order to improve at climbing will probably be just as productive as those women's training plan.
Well said.
I am 5ft 4 and around 100lbs or just under.
Put me in a gym and tell me to do some pullups and I absolutely won't be able to do them. Give me a gym rope and I will fly up it. Give me rings or parallel bars and I will easily pull my legs over the top of my body into a handstand.
In climbing I don't think I have ever done a pull up but I have been left dangling on my arms whilst I re-adjusted my legs/feet and I have had to use core strength to get my legs level with my shoulders or above.
I have never once used a hang board but many a time I have had one finger keeping me on the rock. Its amazing what adrenalin and aggression does when you are faced with some proper exposure. I just can't raise that kind of adrenalin and aggression in a gym but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Nov 4, 2012, 8:22 PM
Post #40 of 58
(10132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
lena_chita wrote: I was stunned this summer by the following exchange with my niece: As a background, she is almost 12yo, and was very active as a younger girl, participating in gymnastics, swimming, etc. During the previous year, when I spent a week with her, she really enjoyed monkey bars at the playground. She absolutely loved climbing when I took her, and was actually good at it, too. Imagine how STUNNED I was to hear from this girl, only a year after I watched her happily swinging on the monkey bars and cartwheeling around the yard, that "girls don't do pushups like that (normal pushups on your toes and hands)". But yes, she is now in a new school, she is surrounded by new friends, she is much more "lady-like", and she, honestly and truthfully, believes that she CANNOT do a normal pushup. She showed me the pushups that "girls" do-- on her knees, or against the wall. And No pullups for girls! When I tried talking her into trying to do a regular pushup or pullup -- by pointing out that only a year ago i saw her do handstands and monkey bars, and that probably means that he CAN manage a pushup and a pullup-- she got slightly upset, and said that she didn't want to, because she is not a little kid anymore.
Sad. Why didn't you show her by doing a few yourself? Just curious. Maybe it would have shown her that it's not "kids" who do regular push-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Nov 4, 2012, 10:54 PM
Post #41 of 58
(10117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: lena_chita wrote: I was stunned this summer by the following exchange with my niece: As a background, she is almost 12yo, and was very active as a younger girl, participating in gymnastics, swimming, etc. During the previous year, when I spent a week with her, she really enjoyed monkey bars at the playground. She absolutely loved climbing when I took her, and was actually good at it, too. Imagine how STUNNED I was to hear from this girl, only a year after I watched her happily swinging on the monkey bars and cartwheeling around the yard, that "girls don't do pushups like that (normal pushups on your toes and hands)". But yes, she is now in a new school, she is surrounded by new friends, she is much more "lady-like", and she, honestly and truthfully, believes that she CANNOT do a normal pushup. She showed me the pushups that "girls" do-- on her knees, or against the wall. And No pullups for girls! When I tried talking her into trying to do a regular pushup or pullup -- by pointing out that only a year ago i saw her do handstands and monkey bars, and that probably means that he CAN manage a pushup and a pullup-- she got slightly upset, and said that she didn't want to, because she is not a little kid anymore. Sad. Why didn't you show her by doing a few yourself? Just curious. Maybe it would have shown her that it's not "kids" who do regular push-ups.
Actually, I did. And so did my daughter. But whether it had any impression on the girl, I don't know. At one point I thought she almost wanted to join-- but didn't. She sees me couple times a year. She sees her friends every day.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Nov 5, 2012, 6:09 AM
Post #42 of 58
(10095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
Here's my 2c.
Jimmy webb is very short. His 8a scorecard says 157cm.
Ethan is tall, I climbed with him for a week in font last fall. I'd say 6 1. I'm 5 11.5 and he was a bit taller than me. I would guess high 160's for weight.
In general, when you see climbers in video vs irl, they look taller and heavier than they are.
I lost 23lbs in 4 months and also went from v9 to v12 in the same 4months.
I believe that being lighter gives the largest advantage. In general, it's easier to be lighter is your shorter. You can only lose so much weight.
Adam Ondra and David Graham are around 6 1 however they have a unique body type. They have very small frames for their height, they are very light. Dave Graham is 135lbs. Ondra looks very similar to me although I haven't climbed with him. I have with Dave. Dave is tiny IRL! I would be very surprised if Adam is over 140. He will fill out as he gets older I'm sure. My brother who climbed with him in madagascar said he was very thin and frail looking.
I'm 5 11.5 and at 148 lbs, I was 5% body fat but I felt like I was losing energy and have been hovering around 154. It's impossible for me to be as light as Dave.
I agree shorter is better, however, I don't think even many of the best climbers are close enough to the limit yet that it's clear to ev-eryone. In the future it will be. Shorter is lighter most importantly but also as you venture into the v13+ territory the % of climbing that revolves around small edges goes up dramatically. Shorter folks have shorter fingers and therefore, small edges are larger for them. Think the difference between a .7 and .5 in edge, it's a big difference at the limit of human possibility! Also, the skin factor. As climbers progress and climb on smaller and smaller holds, naturally, this chews up your skin. If you weight 170 versus 130, it makes a big difference. If you consider the cumalative effect of of this it's big. If climber a weighing 170 can try his v14 project 3 times before he runs out of skin and climber b weighing 130 can try it 4 or 5 times, which climber is more likely to send? Which climber is more likely to continue to get stronger over the course of years?
There are a few exceptions, Sharma, Loskot, a couple more I'm sure. However when you look at Sharma's hardest boulder problems, they tend to be those that revolve around more moves/power endurance and slopers or big moves between decent holds. Witness the fitness is long for a boulder, so is the never ending story and dreamtime.
That being said it shouldn't discourage taller or larger climbers. I personally climb with two 6 1 guys who both climb v13. One weighs 160 the other 168.
Finally, if you look at the progress made in the last twenty years and you assume anything close to that in the next twenty, we have a long ways to go. We can all get better and if your larger and have a hard time on smaller holds you can always find things that fit your style until we really do creep up on our true potential. We have a long ways to go.
|
|
|
|
|
zxcvbnm
Nov 5, 2012, 6:40 AM
Post #43 of 58
(10091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2011
Posts: 16
|
I believe we were talking about a a different jimmy webb (this one is 6ft tall).
A lot of the heights you listed seem to be a bit off compared to what they say. dave graham's 8a says 178cm ( a little under 5'11 and adam ondra's says 183 cm ( 6'). Ethan pringle is listed as 5'10 or 5'11 in several other places.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Nov 5, 2012, 11:16 PM
Post #44 of 58
(10025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
Dave G could be 6 ft. I'm 5 11.5 and he was basically my height... seemed a bit taller. Ethan is definately 6 1! After climing with him server days I can say this for sure. However, he's had a scorecard on 8a for years.... he probably hasn't changed his height since he was younger.
I was talking about the Jimmy Webb who's top five on 8a.nu in bouldering.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Nov 5, 2012, 11:26 PM
Post #45 of 58
(10023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
flesh wrote: Dave G could be 6 ft. I'm 5 11.5 and he was basically my height... seemed a bit taller. Ethan is definately 6 1! After climing with him server days I can say this for sure. However, he's had a scorecard on 8a for years.... he probably hasn't changed his height since he was younger. I was talking about the Jimmy Webb who's top five on 8a.nu in bouldering.
Wait, you're really saying that Dave Graham is 6 feet? This is very incorrect. The first time I saw him, I was struck at how he was shorter than I expected (though it could have been bad posture).
His 8a.nu scorecard says 178 cm, which is about 5'8".
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Nov 5, 2012, 11:38 PM
Post #46 of 58
(10016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
camhead wrote: flesh wrote: Dave G could be 6 ft. I'm 5 11.5 and he was basically my height... seemed a bit taller. Ethan is definately 6 1! After climing with him server days I can say this for sure. However, he's had a scorecard on 8a for years.... he probably hasn't changed his height since he was younger. I was talking about the Jimmy Webb who's top five on 8a.nu in bouldering. Wait, you're really saying that Dave Graham is 6 feet? This is very incorrect. The first time I saw him, I was struck at how he was shorter than I expected (though it could have been bad posture). His 8a.nu scorecard says 178 cm, which is about 5'8".
I'm almost as tall as Dave Graham!!!!
WOOOOOOO!!!
Where's my 5.14 rack?
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Nov 5, 2012, 11:51 PM
Post #47 of 58
(10011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: camhead wrote: flesh wrote: Dave G could be 6 ft. I'm 5 11.5 and he was basically my height... seemed a bit taller. Ethan is definately 6 1! After climing with him server days I can say this for sure. However, he's had a scorecard on 8a for years.... he probably hasn't changed his height since he was younger. I was talking about the Jimmy Webb who's top five on 8a.nu in bouldering. Wait, you're really saying that Dave Graham is 6 feet? This is very incorrect. The first time I saw him, I was struck at how he was shorter than I expected (though it could have been bad posture). His 8a.nu scorecard says 178 cm, which is about 5'8". I'm almost as tall as Dave Graham!!!! WOOOOOOO!!! Where's my 5.14 rack?
... and 63 kg. Which is about 138 lbs. 
|
|
|
|
|
zxcvbnm
Nov 6, 2012, 3:03 AM
Post #48 of 58
(9988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2011
Posts: 16
|
Is that a normal 5'11.5, or 5'11.5 first thing in the morning standing as straight as you can, craning your neck and rounding up. All after vigorous stretching of course?
Doesn't 178cm come out to 5'10, Camhead? Assuming 2.54cm/inch.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Nov 6, 2012, 11:34 AM
Post #50 of 58
(9956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
camhead wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: camhead wrote: flesh wrote: Dave G could be 6 ft. I'm 5 11.5 and he was basically my height... seemed a bit taller. Ethan is definately 6 1! After climing with him server days I can say this for sure. However, he's had a scorecard on 8a for years.... he probably hasn't changed his height since he was younger. I was talking about the Jimmy Webb who's top five on 8a.nu in bouldering. Wait, you're really saying that Dave Graham is 6 feet? This is very incorrect. The first time I saw him, I was struck at how he was shorter than I expected (though it could have been bad posture). His 8a.nu scorecard says 178 cm, which is about 5'8". I'm almost as tall as Dave Graham!!!! WOOOOOOO!!! Where's my 5.14 rack? ... and 63 kg. Which is about 138 lbs.
mother f...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
