|
jono13
Apr 28, 2002, 10:08 PM
Post #1 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 3286
|
hey all, just curious, what is the best build for maximum performance climbing? i myself think it would be someone whoes pretty lite, so they dont have alot of weight to pull, and have really bulked up arms, shoulders, and chest muscles. seems like the best climbers are built like that, but what if your not really like that? just curious, climb on
jono
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Apr 28, 2002, 10:18 PM
Post #2 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Wirery.
Light and strong. Bulk is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
clymber
Apr 28, 2002, 10:37 PM
Post #3 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2002
Posts: 1259
|
flexability is good also
|
|
|
|
|
arete2
Apr 29, 2002, 12:52 AM
Post #4 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2001
Posts: 145
|
I would say about 6' 165lbs, good upper body strength, good leg strength, and pretty good balance. Sounds a little like me
Arete
|
|
|
|
|
dustinap
Deleted
Apr 29, 2002, 2:06 AM
Post #5 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I think it differs. For crack climbing being a bigger guy might not always be bad, for crack climbing being a petite woman might not be bad.
For indoors I think about 5'8 with a +4 reach would be pretty good.
For outside, probably closer to 6 foot with a lean build. Especially sport climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
jono13
Apr 29, 2002, 2:16 AM
Post #6 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 3286
|
ya, i agree, i think it really depends on what kinda climbing u do. for bouldering and hard sport, i think a wirery guy with strong, but lean arms and chest is really good. but for alpine and so on, i think maybe a bit bigger build is better, more stamina, but i dunno.
|
|
|
|
|
shameless
Apr 29, 2002, 2:35 AM
Post #7 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2002
Posts: 11
|
back and bicepts are the most important muscle groups to have. chest and tricept are not nearly as important to most climbers.
Bouldering
big back and bicepts not too endurance toned. a short guy can do those dreaded sit starts alot easier than us tall guys but at the same time he has to throw to hold we can stsic to. kinda a catch 22
|
|
|
|
|
jono13
Apr 29, 2002, 3:18 AM
Post #8 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 3286
|
watever! triceps play alot bigger role in climbing than biceps
|
|
|
|
|
psych
Apr 29, 2002, 3:26 AM
Post #9 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
Totally...tricepts, forearms and shoulders/back are the biggest players for a climber. Chest, not really, bicepts not really. How often do you pull yourself up with your palm facing you? Hardly ever...
Common myth: bicepts are a larger muscle than tricepts. Incorrect. Bicepts just have a cult'ism to them almost, kinda strange really...
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
sonofspork
Apr 29, 2002, 4:40 AM
Post #10 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2001
Posts: 171
|
I don't think there is a "build". You have strong ass climbers such as Grahm who are skinny as hell. He ain't got no meat on him at all. Then you have climbers like Fred Nicole who are also strong as hell, but have a lot of muscle mass. You obviously don't want to be very overweight, but other than that, I don't believe that bulk of muscle or height has anything to do with how strong a climber can be.
-sONofSpORk
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Apr 29, 2002, 5:33 AM
Post #11 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
French, about 5'2", maybe 110 pounds soaking wet, all muscle, can roll up a frying pan like a newspaper with their grip, fingers like hooks, no body fat, constantly puffing on Gauloises when not leading 5.14+.
|
|
|
|
|
jono13
Apr 30, 2002, 10:24 PM
Post #12 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 3286
|
ya but dave graham, hes a completely scrawn, but hes got really long and strong muscles. he doesnt have huge ass arms or anything, but hes got strong arms and shoulders, but hes got no weight to pull. ahh, nm
jono
|
|
|
|
|
dustinap
Deleted
Apr 30, 2002, 10:40 PM
Post #13 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Back when I first started climbing, right before I broke my ankel I was 5'2 and 93 lbs.
|
|
|
|
|
joemor
May 1, 2002, 9:01 AM
Post #14 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2001
Posts: 609
|
at last my skinny chick detering figure will be good for somthing....... yay
joe
|
|
|
|
|
phil_nev
May 1, 2002, 1:18 PM
Post #15 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2001
Posts: 361
|
Light, but strong, u can see climbers weighing like 65-75kg but still be buiilt absolutly huge. Flexibilitly is a deffinite must.....
ohh and a nice arse....
|
|
|
|
|
climber_trev
May 3, 2002, 10:27 AM
Post #16 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2002
Posts: 57
|
Strength to weight ratio is paramount to the best climbers build, they are generally super skinny ... but super strong!
me i'm 6 foot 77kg and reasonably amount of muscle bulk
|
|
|
|
|
mountainrat
May 3, 2002, 10:49 AM
Post #17 of 17
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2001
Posts: 416
|
Don't forget to train opposing muscles- biceps need tricep development, lats need trapezius, etc. Avoids injury. Peace all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
