|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 20, 2008, 12:32 AM
Post #151 of 213
(7662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
{quote "jt512"]But even if 5'1" climbers were putting up all the high-end routes, taller climbers would not be disadvantaged as a consequence of hold spacing. In fact, the hold spacing would generally still favor the taller climber; the moves won't be as reachy for him, and he may even have more holds to choose from. Thus, overall, difficulty is naturally an increasing function of hold spacing.
Jay
I agree that this is almost always the case.
However, a while back my girlfriend, who is 5'2", set a route in the gym that was, believe it or not, a short person reach problem. The spacing of the hand and footholds, many of which were sidepull slopers that you could not hold if your feet cut, was such that you had to keep your feet on, and you could only keep your feet on if you were a) very flexible, or b)short.
edit for me to say PTFTW!!!111
(This post was edited by camhead on Jan 20, 2008, 12:33 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 20, 2008, 12:38 AM
Post #152 of 213
(7658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
Lisa Rands makes an cogent point.
Even if you accept the premise that there are more moves that are harder for tall people--
Short people run into moves that are physically impossible. not very often outside, more in the gym, but, for example:
I'm 5'2 with about a +2 ape index. the limit of my reach, tip toes to half a pad, is just shy of 7 feet. And there are certainly moves where one is supposed to reach at your max, and if thats more than 7 feet, i can't. if the holds are more than 5'4 apart, i cant. there is no working around this, sometimes. other times, i use feet at my chest, or i hand foot match, or i use an intermediate. but theres no getting around that the fact that a guy that's 6'2 has the same max reach as me-- on his knees.
That being said, i still think that in the very vast majority of routes, it evens out. and, jay, if you take girls and guys of the same height and compare averages, you're still going to run head on into the fact that guys tend to stay in the sport longer, and on average, guys and girls of the same height, the guys will have been climbing longer. and then theres the starting strength point bias, where bulky guys get to 5.10 really quickly, but then never go past it and their girl space friends start at 5.6 but go on to lead 5.11.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 20, 2008, 1:24 AM
Post #153 of 213
(7648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
jt512 wrote: reno wrote: Empirical evidence trumps supposition every day: I'm 6'5". I suck at climbing, and have fallen on 2nd class approach hikes. (n=1, p<0.01) There. Settled once and for all. I don't think I can give you credit for calculating that p-value unless you can show your work.
It's a secret formula, and involves dividing by zero. Wish I could tell you more, but I'm sworn to secrecy.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 20, 2008, 2:31 AM
Post #154 of 213
(7634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
reno wrote: jt512 wrote: reno wrote: Empirical evidence trumps supposition every day: I'm 6'5". I suck at climbing, and have fallen on 2nd class approach hikes. (n=1, p<0.01) There. Settled once and for all. I don't think I can give you credit for calculating that p-value unless you can show your work. It's a secret formula, and involves dividing by zero. Wish I could tell you more, but I'm sworn to secrecy.
If n=1 it indeed involves dividing by zero, which is why I wanted to see your work.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 20, 2008, 3:59 AM
Post #155 of 213
(7614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
jt512 wrote: reno wrote: jt512 wrote: reno wrote: Empirical evidence trumps supposition every day: I'm 6'5". I suck at climbing, and have fallen on 2nd class approach hikes. (n=1, p<0.01) There. Settled once and for all. I don't think I can give you credit for calculating that p-value unless you can show your work. It's a secret formula, and involves dividing by zero. Wish I could tell you more, but I'm sworn to secrecy. If n=1 it indeed involves dividing by zero, which is why I wanted to see your work. Jay
*wooosh*
That's the sound of a joke going right over your head, JT.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 20, 2008, 4:23 AM
Post #156 of 213
(7609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
reno wrote: jt512 wrote: reno wrote: jt512 wrote: reno wrote: Empirical evidence trumps supposition every day: I'm 6'5". I suck at climbing, and have fallen on 2nd class approach hikes. (n=1, p<0.01) There. Settled once and for all. I don't think I can give you credit for calculating that p-value unless you can show your work. It's a secret formula, and involves dividing by zero. Wish I could tell you more, but I'm sworn to secrecy. If n=1 it indeed involves dividing by zero, which is why I wanted to see your work. Jay *wooosh* That's the sound of a joke going right over your head, JT.
i thought it was funny.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 20, 2008, 4:36 AM
Post #157 of 213
(7600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
jt512 wrote: reno wrote: jt512 wrote: reno wrote: Empirical evidence trumps supposition every day: I'm 6'5". I suck at climbing, and have fallen on 2nd class approach hikes. (n=1, p<0.01) There. Settled once and for all. I don't think I can give you credit for calculating that p-value unless you can show your work. It's a secret formula, and involves dividing by zero. Wish I could tell you more, but I'm sworn to secrecy. If n=1 it indeed involves dividing by zero, which is why I wanted to see your work. Jay
sounds like you guys need to bring in Dr. Science!
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 20, 2008, 4:54 AM
Post #158 of 213
(7594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
clausti wrote: reno wrote: *wooosh* That's the sound of a joke going right over your head, JT. i thought it was funny.
That's because you are a woman of the highest caliber and can appreciate dry wit.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 20, 2008, 4:57 AM
Post #159 of 213
(7591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
reno wrote: jt512 wrote: reno wrote: jt512 wrote: reno wrote: Empirical evidence trumps supposition every day: I'm 6'5". I suck at climbing, and have fallen on 2nd class approach hikes. (n=1, p<0.01) There. Settled once and for all. I don't think I can give you credit for calculating that p-value unless you can show your work. It's a secret formula, and involves dividing by zero. Wish I could tell you more, but I'm sworn to secrecy. If n=1 it indeed involves dividing by zero, which is why I wanted to see your work. Jay *wooosh* That's the sound of a joke going right over your head, JT.
If you say so. I think it might be the other way around, though.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 20, 2008, 5:47 AM
Post #160 of 213
(7578 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
supersonick wrote: This is because there are three ways to make a hard climb hard: 1. Make the holds small. 2. Make the climb steep. 3. Make the spans big.
Is this really the case in hard slab? Hard off width?
I find many people on here to be only contemplating this issue wrt bouldering and sport climbing...but without denoting the argument as such. And since when is the argument only applicable to these? It's certainly not stated in the thread title.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 20, 2008, 5:52 AM
Post #161 of 213
(7575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
aerili wrote: supersonick wrote: This is because there are three ways to make a hard climb hard: 1. Make the holds small. 2. Make the climb steep. 3. Make the spans big. Is this really the case in hard slab? Hard off width? I find many people on here to be only contemplating this issue wrt bouldering and sport climbing...but without denoting the argument as such. And since when is the argument only applicable to these? It's certainly not stated in the thread title.
No, but it is the 21st Century.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 20, 2008, 6:26 AM
Post #162 of 213
(7568 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
jt512 wrote: aerili wrote: supersonick wrote: This is because there are three ways to make a hard climb hard: 1. Make the holds small. 2. Make the climb steep. 3. Make the spans big. Is this really the case in hard slab? Hard off width? I find many people on here to be only contemplating this issue wrt bouldering and sport climbing...but without denoting the argument as such. And since when is the argument only applicable to these? It's certainly not stated in the thread title. No, but it is the 21st Century. Jay
I was just waiting for the smart alecky-ness to begin....
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 20, 2008, 6:50 AM
Post #163 of 213
(7563 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
supersonick wrote: k.l.k wrote: supersonick wrote: My point is that very high-end climbs favor people who are not little dwarfs like myself and many girls, because one of the three factors that makes a really hard climb really hard is the distance between the holds, and it's always going to be harder for a short person to span that distance. But that is an artifact of the size of the folks putting up the first ascent, not a natural phenomenon. If most of the folks putting up the hardest lines are all 5'7" to 5'10" with plus 2 or 3 ape index, and they are seeking out routes with maximum stretch dynos and lock-offs, on types of rock offering few intermediate features, then you will get (as we may currently have) a large cluster of routes that may indeed be out of the reach of folks who clock in at, say, 5'1." But that's simply an artifact of the necessarily tiny pool of top-end routes and ascentionists. If tallness were consistently advantageous, then we should (at least in sport climbing and bouldering) see a consistent bias towards climbers over 6 foot. Instead, we have to search really hard for top-end folks at that height. Loskot and Willenberg are the only ones I can name off the top of my head. I suppose one could argue that there is a critical height, say, 5'3," that is simply too short for someone to hope to compete as a first ascentionist. But that would require us to believe that God is, say, 5'9" and has selfishly arranged all the natural features of the world's rock so that it perfectly accommodates the reaches of folks close to His size. I don't think rocks are naturally arranged for the 5'9" climber. I just think a 5'9" climber will have an easier time climbing most rocks than a, say, 5'2" climber, even if the 5'2" climber is the first ascentionist. This is because there are three ways to make a hard climb hard: 1. Make the holds small. 2. Make the climb steep. 3. Make the spans big. Say a purely hypothetical 5'2" climber puts up a climb that has small holds on a steep wall with max extension spans (for him/her). It's going to be slightly easier for the 5'9" climber because: 1. Short/tall creates no advantage/disadvantage for small holds. 2. Short/tall creates no advantage/disadvantage for steepness. 3. The 5'2" first ascentionist's long spans will be easier for the 5'9" climber. I agree with you that the height vs. advantage function looks more like a bell curve than a straight line. Most of the phenoms I see are between 5'8" and 6'. You have a whole different set of problems if you are a total lurpus. All that aside, if you're short you're short and if you're tall you're tall. Gotta work with what you've got.
Your three point observation doesn't take into account that the taller climber will necessarily weigh more (everything else, like body fat % being equal) making the use of small holds more difficult for him or her. At best, I think this balances things out.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
supersonick
Jan 20, 2008, 3:42 PM
Post #164 of 213
(7547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 157
|
aerili wrote: supersonick wrote: This is because there are three ways to make a hard climb hard: 1. Make the holds small. 2. Make the climb steep. 3. Make the spans big. Is this really the case in hard slab? Hard off width? I find many people on here to be only contemplating this issue wrt bouldering and sport climbing...but without denoting the argument as such. And since when is the argument only applicable to these? It's certainly not stated in the thread title.
The only time I climb slabs are when I am trying to escape crazed Javalinas, but even with my limited experience it seems like my three dimensions would apply to that type of climbing as well. Small holds, big spans, and even slabs can have varying steepness, right?
As for hard off width, isn't that some sort of strange fetish like foot licking and macrophilia?
|
|
|
|
|
supersonick
Jan 20, 2008, 3:46 PM
Post #165 of 213
(7546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 157
|
curt wrote: Your three point observation doesn't take into account that the taller climber will necessarily weigh more (everything else, like body fat % being equal) making the use of small holds more difficult for him or her. At best, I think this balances things out. Curt
Shouldn't the taller climber have stronger muscles and connective tissue to carry their greater weight? I am way out of my area of expertise on this issue...
If the shorter climber has smaller hands that could create an advantage on some holds. Unfortunately my hands are the size of Wilt Chamberlain's.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 20, 2008, 9:16 PM
Post #166 of 213
(7523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
supersonick wrote: curt wrote: Your three point observation doesn't take into account that the taller climber will necessarily weigh more (everything else, like body fat % being equal) making the use of small holds more difficult for him or her. At best, I think this balances things out. Curt Shouldn't the taller climber have stronger muscles and connective tissue to carry their greater weight? I am way out of my area of expertise on this issue...
It's more an issue of contact strength becoming the limiting factor. As the holds get smaller, a lighter person is more likely than a heavier person to be able to pull hard enough on those small holds to make them useful.
Here's an example of what I mean by that:
Suppose we have two climbers, one is 120 lbs and he other 180 lbs. If the maximum force that can be applied to some small hold is 60 pounds before the hand slips, skin rips, etc--then the lighter climber can support half of his weight on that hold, whereas the heavier climber can only support one third of his weight on the same hold.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
supersonick
Jan 21, 2008, 12:19 AM
Post #167 of 213
(7509 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 157
|
curt wrote: Suppose we have two climbers, one is 120 lbs and he other 180 lbs. If the maximum force that can be applied to some small hold is 60 pounds before the hand slips, skin rips, etc--then the lighter climber can support half of his weight on that hold, whereas the heavier climber can only support one third of his weight on the same hold. Curt
Interesting, I'd never thought of it in that way.
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Jan 21, 2008, 9:41 AM
Post #168 of 213
(7479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
Yeah. Good reference. Simply, smaller people are relatively stronger than their larger counterparts. As a body grows larger, the added mass and weight of added tissue increases at a faster rate than the added strength of a larger muscle. So take your pick. More relative strength, or more height. Which is more advantageous? I'm 5' 5", but I'd gladly give up some relative strength for 3 or 4 more inches in altitude. Strength can always be increased through training. But as much as I've worked on increasing my height, I've yet to achieve much success.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 21, 2008, 4:30 PM
Post #169 of 213
(7451 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
supersonick wrote: The only time I climb slabs are when I am trying to escape crazed Javalinas, but even with my limited experience it seems like my three dimensions would apply to that type of climbing as well. Small holds, big spans, and even slabs can have varying steepness, right? As for hard off width, isn't that some sort of strange fetish like foot licking and macrophilia?
My experience is that as slabs get steeper, holds don't really exist anyway, and span doesn't necessarily appear to make footwork easier if you are straight up smearing most of your moves anyhow. In certain moves, like stemming over to a foot placement, height may help.
OW seems to depend more on technique to me and body size may affect how hard or easy things are if it's a squeeze chimney or super wide chimney, but pure height maybe doesn't matter too much otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 21, 2008, 5:19 PM
Post #170 of 213
(7443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
retardo_montelbahn wrote: Yeah. Good reference. Simply, smaller people are relatively stronger than their larger counterparts. As a body grows larger, the added mass and weight of added tissue increases at a faster rate than the added strength of a larger muscle. So take your pick. More relative strength, or more height. Which is more advantageous? I'm 5' 5", but I'd gladly give up some relative strength for 3 or 4 more inches in altitude. Strength can always be increased through training. But as much as I've worked on increasing my height, I've yet to achieve much success.
I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm actually going to play the Lynn Hill card. Some of the best female climbers have been really short -- Lynn Hill, Robyn Erbesfield, Mia Axon -- all about 5'1". If height (and strength) are so important, then how can this be?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 21, 2008, 5:30 PM
Post #171 of 213
(7439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
jt512 wrote: retardo_montelbahn wrote: Yeah. Good reference. Simply, smaller people are relatively stronger than their larger counterparts. As a body grows larger, the added mass and weight of added tissue increases at a faster rate than the added strength of a larger muscle. So take your pick. More relative strength, or more height. Which is more advantageous? I'm 5' 5", but I'd gladly give up some relative strength for 3 or 4 more inches in altitude. Strength can always be increased through training. But as much as I've worked on increasing my height, I've yet to achieve much success. I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm actually going to play the Lynn Hill card. Some of the best female climbers have been really short -- Lynn Hill, Robyn Erbesfield, Mia Axon -- all about 5'1". If height (and strength) are so important, then how can this be? Jay
again, i think that it matters if you're talking about what matters for tommy caldwell and lynn hill, or if you are talking about what matters for joe and jane 5.12, or even if you are talking about Bobby Weekend 5.10.
For Bobby Weekend 5.10, i dont think much of anything matters. above that, who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 21, 2008, 5:41 PM
Post #172 of 213
(7434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
clausti wrote: jt512 wrote: retardo_montelbahn wrote: Yeah. Good reference. Simply, smaller people are relatively stronger than their larger counterparts. As a body grows larger, the added mass and weight of added tissue increases at a faster rate than the added strength of a larger muscle. So take your pick. More relative strength, or more height. Which is more advantageous? I'm 5' 5", but I'd gladly give up some relative strength for 3 or 4 more inches in altitude. Strength can always be increased through training. But as much as I've worked on increasing my height, I've yet to achieve much success. I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm actually going to play the Lynn Hill card. Some of the best female climbers have been really short -- Lynn Hill, Robyn Erbesfield, Mia Axon -- all about 5'1". If height (and strength) are so important, then how can this be? Jay again, i think that it matters if you're talking about what matters for tommy caldwell and lynn hill, or if you are talking about what matters for joe and jane 5.12, or even if you are talking about Bobby Weekend 5.10. For Bobby Weekend 5.10, i dont think much of anything matters. above that, who knows?
I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you're implying that at the intermediate difficulties, height is an advantage, but at the highest and lowest levels it isn't. Beware the hypothesized non-monotonic relationship, I always say.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Jan 21, 2008, 5:59 PM
Post #173 of 213
(7425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
supersonick wrote: aerili wrote: supersonick wrote: This is because there are three ways to make a hard climb hard: 1. Make the holds small. 2. Make the climb steep. 3. Make the spans big. Is this really the case in hard slab? Hard off width? I find many people on here to be only contemplating this issue wrt bouldering and sport climbing...but without denoting the argument as such. And since when is the argument only applicable to these? It's certainly not stated in the thread title. The only time I climb slabs are when I am trying to escape crazed Javalinas, but even with my limited experience it seems like my three dimensions would apply to that type of climbing as well. Small holds, big spans, and even slabs can have varying steepness, right? As for hard off width, isn't that some sort of strange fetish like foot licking and macrophilia?
|
|
|
|
|
Rice
Jan 21, 2008, 6:29 PM
Post #175 of 213
(7412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 8
|
k so im around 5'7 5'8 i dont consider myself anywhere near tall, but i feel this is a very good height, because i do have longer arms for longer reaches but i can also get my legs up higher towards my chest in some situations, some of my climbing buddies who are around 5'11 or so cant even imagine getting into some of the positions i can but i also body weight w/o muscle is also part of this, do to the fact that i weigh around 115 and can easily throw my body weight around with my arms, this not being so easy for my friends...
|
|
|
|
|
|
