|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 21, 2008, 9:51 PM
Post #176 of 213
(6643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
jt512 wrote: 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
I was actually trying to say that I think in moderate to easy climbing, 5.10 and below, that it doesnt really matter how tall you are, if you're a bit overweight, if you're 4'9, ect, because i dont think climbs at that level force you in to the kinds of metaphorical corners where any variable other than movement repertoire makes a difference. And i've climbed my share of 510 and below sport, trad, v0 bouldering, on sandstone, limestone, granite, conglomerate, the gunks, indian creek, ect.
As the climbs get harder, the variables (height, hand size, limit of flexibility) start to make more and more of a difference on *specific* climbs, and, at that, i still dont think the same things matter (as in, you're not going to run up against the genetic limit of much of anything) climbing 5.11 and 5.12. and i've climbed those grades on all of the above type rocks and styles, too.
I think that as you get into harder and harder climbing, 5.13+, you DO start to run up against individiual genetic limits. Hieight, or upper body strength or a bad knee or poor tendons. and i think that .13+ is the only place where the the things we're discussing in this thread end up mattering, which concerns a fairly small number of climbers overall, and i'd dare to say an extremely small number of those opinionating in this thread.
diclaimer: of course those cutoffs arent going to fall at 10d, 12d and 13a for everyone. but i think that the general ranges i outlined are true.
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
Jan 21, 2008, 11:09 PM
Post #177 of 213
(6619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
camhead wrote: what's interesting is that cracks- offwidth or otherwise- are often the great equalizer of tall and short people, so long as there are not long moves between jams, or something like that. For example, Belly Full of Bad Berries is a consistently widening 45 degree overhung offwidth. No matter a person's height or handsize, the crux is the same for all: invert and get your foot over your head off of fist-jams. The only difference is WHERE the crux takes place. Kind of cool... |
|
|
|
|
tallndorky
Jan 23, 2008, 4:38 AM
Post #178 of 213
(6529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2008
Posts: 22
|
I have found that my height (6'4" 190 lbs) is great for vert climbing, but the advantage is lost with any change of angle.
Part of it is weight, my friend is only an inch shorter but 30 lbs lighter and can walk up hard slab with no problem, we have the same shoes but I slip on what he considers good. On the steep stuff I can't climb for shit if I can't keep my feet on, if they cut I'm off.
I think with normal genetics, and good fitness (which I do not have) tall people have an advantage, on most climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
miavzero
Jan 23, 2008, 5:41 AM
Post #179 of 213
(6510 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Posts: 624
|
Why does everyone care so much about what they cannot control?
Are we negotiating a handicap system for 8a.nu?
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 23, 2008, 4:34 PM
Post #181 of 213
(6475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
supersonick wrote: [ 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..
SS, Clausti and JT have all suggested variations on this theme: That taller climbers get to use all the holds, while short climbers get to use only the ones they can reach with their teeny little arms. But this is not actually correct, unless perhaps we are speaking purely of campusing. All you need to do is to think of the geometry of stems, twist-locks and drop knees to realize that hold configurations on plastic can and are set to particular geometries. A drop-knee that is effective for someone 5'2" will probably be entirely unusable for someone 6'2."
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 23, 2008, 4:37 PM
Post #182 of 213
(6472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
retardo_montelbahn wrote: 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.
We've known for a long time that this is true in the areas most easy to measure. If you have any doubts, simply go look at the results of Olympic weightlifting where lifters are divided by weight class. The lightest lifters always outlift-- in terms of lift:bodyweight --the heavier classes. I no of no reason to imagine that the same effect would not also apply to the forces applied in rock climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 23, 2008, 4:44 PM
Post #183 of 213
(6469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
clausti wrote: Short people run into moves that are physically impossible. not very often outside, more in the gym
That's also true for tall folks, it's just not as obvious. It is very easy for a route setter to place footholds in a position that makes them virtually unusable for a taller climber. This can be true outside as well. Think of that big dyno on Es Pontas. If you watch Sharma on it, one of the most obvious conclusions is that there is no way a significantly shorter person could make that span. But look again at where he places his feet--almost right at his underclings. I would bet money that someone my height-- 6'3"--such as Willenberg or maybe even Loskot--would also be unable to repeat that move, regardless of how much he or she worked.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 23, 2008, 4:58 PM
Post #184 of 213
(6466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
clausti wrote: I was actually trying to say that I think in moderate to easy climbing, 5.10 and below, that it doesnt really matter how tall you are, if you're a bit overweight, if you're 4'9, ect, because i dont think climbs at that level force you in to the kinds of metaphorical corners where any variable other than movement repertoire makes a difference. And i've climbed my share of 510 and below sport, trad, v0 bouldering, on sandstone, limestone, granite, conglomerate, the gunks, indian creek, ect. As the climbs get harder, the variables (height, hand size, limit of flexibility) start to make more and more of a difference on *specific* climbs, and, at that, i still dont think the same things matter (as in, you're not going to run up against the genetic limit of much of anything) climbing 5.11 and 5.12. and i've climbed those grades on all of the above type rocks and styles, too. I think that as you get into harder and harder climbing, 5.13+, you DO start to run up against individiual genetic limits. Hieight, or upper body strength or a bad knee or poor tendons. and i think that .13+ is the only place where the the things we're discussing in this thread end up mattering, which concerns a fairly small number of climbers overall, and i'd dare to say an extremely small number of those opinionating in this thread. diclaimer: of course those cutoffs arent going to fall at 10d, 12d and 13a for everyone. but i think that the general ranges i outlined are true.
Clausti-- As certain types of climbs become harder-- especially big dynos, mandatory reaches, or finger cracks--the individual geometries of the climbers clearly do matter a lot more. A quick glance at the top climbers on 8a.nu or , more tellingly, the top World Cup competitors from the last decade, suggest overwhelmingly that there are very, very few top sport and comp climbers over 6' tall. On the other hand, there are a lot who stand around 5'. (i.e., Angela Eiter who, despite coming from Germany where folks on average are taller than in the US, stands about 5' even.)
But the key factor is not so much the grade of the climb-- Raboutou and Hill absolutely crushed 5.14 at a time when that was the gold standard-- but the type of climbing.
Especially in the US, the vogue right now is huge dynos and mandatory reaches with big swings. But that's a matter of fashion. (Jay seems to think it represents the final pinnacle of climbing evolution, but I am skeptical.) US comps are notorious for featuring big moves, in contrast to European gyms/comps that emphasize power/endurance. On the big move routes, and especially on the shorter ones, there are real advantages in reach as well as having smaller fingers and low body mass. All other things equal, a 5'6" climber with a +4 ape index is at an advantage, unless some twisted setter throws in a mantel. It wouldn't surprise me if the setters at your gym create routes (unconsciously to be sure) as an expression of man-love for Chris Sharma. In that setting, or in a world in which the "coolest" 5.14s are of a similar style, I don't doubt that you and SS and other folks who are below, say, 5'6" or so, are getting shafted.
Outside, all bets are off. And since climbing fashions tend to go in cycles, "slabs" are already returning-- we're already seeing it with the new routes on El Cap and the attention given to the solo of The Fish.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 23, 2008, 5:02 PM
Post #185 of 213
(6465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
k.l.k wrote: SS, Clausti and JT have all suggested variations on this theme: That taller climbers get to use all the holds, while short climbers get to use only the ones they can reach with their teeny little arms. But this is not actually correct, unless perhaps we are speaking purely of campusing.
Something I've found is that longer reaches or higher steps can get me "out of sorts" on routes where a precise sequence is needed. I've a tendency to skip smaller holds because I can, and that often leads to my feet or hands being out of position later in the route.
Probably only a real issue at harder grades, which I don't do very often (if ever,) but I have noticed it at 5.11 and below.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jan 23, 2008, 5:59 PM
Post #186 of 213
(6437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
k.l.k wrote: All other things equal, a 5'6" climber with a +4 ape index is at an advantage, unless some twisted setter throws in a mantel.
Can you explain this? How would this climber be at a disadvantage when doing a mantel? If anything, his higher strength to weight ratio would mean greater relative pushing power.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 23, 2008, 6:02 PM
Post #187 of 213
(6435 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
mturner wrote: k.l.k wrote: All other things equal, a 5'6" climber with a +4 ape index is at an advantage, unless some twisted setter throws in a mantel. Can you explain this? How would this climber be at a disadvantage when doing a mantel? If anything, his higher strength to weight ratio would mean greater relative pushing power.
Getting 6'5" of body onto a small mantle requires pushing your ass hips further out from the wall, thus putting your center of gravity a bit farther away. Tends to make one fall off such moves.
And not all tall climbers have a higher strength-weight ratio. I find it difficult to lift more than 12 ounces of beer at once sometimes. 
(This post was edited by reno on Jan 23, 2008, 6:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jan 23, 2008, 6:05 PM
Post #188 of 213
(6431 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
reno wrote: mturner wrote: k.l.k wrote: All other things equal, a 5'6" climber with a +4 ape index is at an advantage, unless some twisted setter throws in a mantel. Can you explain this? How would this climber be at a disadvantage when doing a mantel? If anything, his higher strength to weight ratio would mean greater relative pushing power. Getting 6'5" of body onto a small mantle requires pushing your ass hips further out from the wall, thus putting your center of gravity a bit farther away. Tends to make one fall off such moves. And not all tall climbers have a higher strength-weight ratio. I find it difficult to lift more than 12 ounces of beer at once sometimes.
Exactly. Reread the post reno, he says 5'6" not 6'5". That's what was puzzling me.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 23, 2008, 6:10 PM
Post #189 of 213
(6426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
mturner wrote: reno wrote: mturner wrote: k.l.k wrote: All other things equal, a 5'6" climber with a +4 ape index is at an advantage, unless some twisted setter throws in a mantel. Can you explain this? How would this climber be at a disadvantage when doing a mantel? If anything, his higher strength to weight ratio would mean greater relative pushing power. Getting 6'5" of body onto a small mantle requires pushing your ass hips further out from the wall, thus putting your center of gravity a bit farther away. Tends to make one fall off such moves. And not all tall climbers have a higher strength-weight ratio. I find it difficult to lift more than 12 ounces of beer at once sometimes. Exactly. Reread the post reno, he says 5'6" not 6'5". That's what was puzzling me.
Ah. Uh.... "oops"?
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 23, 2008, 7:08 PM
Post #190 of 213
(6407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
All other things being equal (which they never are), long arms are a disadvantage in pressing out a pure mantel. A positive ape index is a real advantage on most sport climbs, and especially on plastic, because you gain reach without adding too much in the way of additional body mass or finger size. Which is great for stretching to the next plastic blob. But not at all helpful for an actual press.
This has been clear in gymnastics for a long time-- long arms can be an advantage for the pommel horse as they give you more clearance for leg work. But they are a disadvantage on the still rings. Mantels, though, are really complicated, and no longer popular, and other factors, especially shoulder flexibility, probably matter at least as much as arm length.
We are probably nowhere near a point at which body type would outweigh other factors in a mantel competition, but if I were a course setter looking to negate the advantage of the competitors with massive wingspan, however short they might be, I might be tempted to throw in a mantel. Of course, then everyone would hate me.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 23, 2008, 9:29 PM
Post #191 of 213
(6385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
k.l.k wrote: clausti wrote: Short people run into moves that are physically impossible. not very often outside, more in the gym That's also true for tall folks, it's just not as obvious.
i have said this before and i will say it again- the impossible footholds "dilemma" is NOT A HEIGHT PROBLEM. it is a flexibility problem. you can work on your flexibility and your core tension. there is nothing i can do that will increase my wingspan (i'm done growing) or the distance between my toes and my tips.
some move "might" be harder for tall people, but i've yet to see something that was physically impossible. getting your feet up for an undercling is a skill, not a height issue. you just need to quit sucking and learn to get your feet up.
re: your example- sharma ain't short, dude. he's above average height for an american male, even if he's "only" 5'9, and i think hes taller than that. hint: hes a "taller" climber, and he gets his feet up just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 23, 2008, 10:35 PM
Post #192 of 213
(6364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
clausti wrote: i have said this before and i will say it again- the impossible footholds "dilemma" is NOT A HEIGHT PROBLEM. it is a flexibility problem. you can work on your flexibility and your core tension. there is nothing i can do that will increase my wingspan (i'm done growing) or the distance between my toes and my tips. some move "might" be harder for tall people, but i've yet to see something that was physically impossible. getting your feet up for an undercling is a skill, not a height issue. you just need to quit sucking and learn to get your feet up. re: your example- sharma ain't short, dude. he's above average height for an american male, even if he's "only" 5'9, and i think hes taller than that. hint: hes a "taller" climber, and he gets his feet up just fine.
The claim that anyone can use a foothold anywhere is just incorrect. Drop-knees and stems are pretty size dependent. It is not difficult-- let alone impossible--to set a drop-knee unusable by folks in a certain height range. You can place footholds so far apart that short folks can't reach them or you can place the holds so close together that tall folks can't get leverage. No amount of felexibilty will compensate if the body segment length is too long.
The Sharma example was meant to illustrate how reach/size specific certain kinds of moves can be, especially for the sort of routes that are most popular right now. As for "tall," yeah, it's a relative term, and that's one of the difficulties of this conversation. I started out using tall to refer to folks over 6 foot. You can accuse me of heightism, if you like. But this thread isn't about my using height as an excuse for not climbing 5.14. I like being tall (except when I have to fly), and long ago learned to prefer boulders and routes in which my height and weight either helped or at least didn't hurt that much. In longer routes and trad climbing, I don't believe that genetic limits are a big obstacle. In sport and comp climbing, and probably bouldering, we may be reaching that point, however. And the limiting factors are probably finger size and body mass-- taller climbers tend to be correspondingly heavier and have larger fingers and face difficulties in competing in strength:bodyweight.
We can make this pretty simple by simply extending your argument, which seems to be that taller climbers are always (or almost always) at an advantage over shorter climbers. The problem with that argument is that it leads us to predict, then, that taller climbers will dominate in competitions and top-end sport climbing. "Taller" here would mean, in the way you've formulated, the taller the better. But that's clearly not the case. Not only do we not see any elite-level climbers in the upper 6 foot range, we see surprisingly few World Cup folks even clocking in around 6 foot, even in countries in which folks tend to be really tall on average. Instead, even among the male athletes, we see most of them ranging from around 5 foot to maybe 5'10" or so. I haven't crunched all the numbers, and don't intend to, but it is striking that we have so few top comp climbers turning up over 6 foot, when your and Jay's hypothesis would predict a host of giants. (I would, on the other hand, expect that most of those top comp climberts have a positive ape index.)
So the burden is on you and other folks flogging the taller-climbers-are-always mechanically-advantaged argument to explain why your hypothesis doesn't generate empirical results. Saying "Sharma" doesn't help, because it wouldn't explain the lack of elite comp folks of, say, 6'6" or 6'8".
One response might be that athletic men over 6' get recruited into mainstream sports like football or basketball and so the pool is simply smaller for rock climbing. But that wouldn't explain tha apparent anomaly for Europe.
I don't doubt that in comps and most current sport climbs a positive ape index is a genuine advantage, and I am well aware that there are routes with mandatory reaches. And routes with big moves are especially popular right now, which makes the reach issue highly visible. But those aren't the only routes out there, and I doubt that they will be the only routes available in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 23, 2008, 10:51 PM
Post #193 of 213
(6354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
i'll be honest- i didnt read your post. because i got to the part where you seem to think that i said something about taller climbers "always" being disadvantaged?
despite the fact that i have ended well nigh every post in this thread with a repetition of the mantra that i think it pretty much all evens out, to the extent of being not worth discussing in the "general" realm, and is only relevant on specific climbs.
another way of looking at that is, wait, she thinks it all evens out despite the fact that she said she thinks smaller climbers some times run into impossiblities? does this mean she might concede that taller climbers are not at an advantage most of the time?
also, i will repeat something else again- most pro climbers are of average height, because most PEOPLE are of average height. have you seen a bell curve? hint: it's fatter in the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jan 23, 2008, 10:57 PM
Post #194 of 213
(6348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
clausti wrote: k.l.k wrote: clausti wrote: Short people run into moves that are physically impossible. not very often outside, more in the gym That's also true for tall folks, it's just not as obvious. i have said this before and i will say it again- the impossible footholds "dilemma" is NOT A HEIGHT PROBLEM. it is a flexibility problem. you can work on your flexibility and your core tension. there is nothing i can do that will increase my wingspan (i'm done growing) or the distance between my toes and my tips. some move "might" be harder for tall people, but i've yet to see something that was physically impossible. getting your feet up for an undercling is a skill, not a height issue. you just need to quit sucking and learn to get your feet up. re: your example- sharma ain't short, dude. he's above average height for an american male, even if he's "only" 5'9, and i think hes taller than that. hint: hes a "taller" climber, and he gets his feet up just fine.
Sharma is 6' and strong as an ox and that's just the thing - if you're tall, you have to have added strength. Imagine the greater amount of strength needed to make higher feet leverage-friendly for tall people, as k.l.k. said. Also, with your attitude on flexibility and "just quit sucking," maybe you should grow a pair and learn to dyno when you "physically can't span two holds."
I don't actually mean that but my point is that it is nearly impossible to sit here and tell someone else what moves are physically possible and which moves aren't and just because you can touch a hold/foot or can't shouldn't be an issue in a sport that has such a broad range of diverse and dynamic movement.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 23, 2008, 11:06 PM
Post #195 of 213
(6345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
I understood your post to say that once we hit a higher level of difficulty (5.13+) that height becomes an advantage. Jay was more expansive.
I don't believe that most of the best pro climbers on the comp circuit are of average height, at least not in Europe. Most of them appear to be shorter than the average height, some of them dramatically so. More strikingly, there appear to be almost no such climbers who are taller than average.
That may change as route tastes change and as more folks enter the sport. Right now there stacks-- and I mean frickin STACKS-- of sub-five foot tall grommets in Austria, Germany, Italy and France cranking 5.13+ and harder routes. Maybe as some of them hit a growth spurt, they'll change the comp circuit by continuing to crank as hard as their peers. Or maybe, on plastic and some sport climbs, we've begun to see what we saw in gymnastics around mid-century, that a highly specialized sport has begun to produce athletes of a particular body type, and the ones who suddenly get tall will also get pressed into other corners of the sport if they want to compete at an elite level. That has been, traditionally, the way in which sports have developed as they professionalize.
Meanwhile, I do feel your pain on the dynos and big reaches.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 24, 2008, 12:55 AM
Post #196 of 213
(6317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
k.l.k wrote: I understood your post to say that once we hit a higher level of difficulty (5.13+) that height becomes an advantage. Jay was more expansive.
the you didnt read my post closely. i said as climbs get harder *individual* climbs favor differing *specific* things. one climb favors a hand that can get a hand jam, one climb favors short climbers because its a damn 60 deg overhanging roof, another favors fall people cause its a slab with three holds in 40 feet.
as climbs get harder, variables matter. which variables depends entirely on the climb.
and as far as the gromet go, i LOVE climbing in gyms for one occasion- right after they have junior climbing comps. they set hard ass shit that is neutral, or favors shorties.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 24, 2008, 2:39 AM
Post #197 of 213
(6285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
Clausti-- Then I misread you. I took your comments about the advantage taller climbers have in usable holds as meaning that you had drifted toward supersonic's argument or jay's elegant if unlikely formula.
sorry your gym setters suck. take your next vacation in europe. seriously, i sure wouldn't describe austria as a feminist state, but it's a lot easier to find gender-neutral gym routes when the weather goes south.
|
|
|
|
|
edl
Jan 24, 2008, 9:03 AM
Post #198 of 213
(6229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 134
|
K.I.K. - Thanks for bringing up the point about body geometries, I think that is a very relevant one. Whether or not a given move is easier or harder for you depends not only on your height, but the shape/proportioning of your body. In order to shed a little more light on the subject, imagine if your knees were half way down your shins instead of their normal place. Imagine how that would effect where feet were comfortable for you when climbing, and how it would make many feet (and sequences for that matter) that everyone else uses quite easily very uncomfortable or even unusable for you. Now imagine if your knees were halfway up your thighs. An extreme example, I know, but you get the idea. I also wanted to make one point of my own.
After reading this thread, it appears to me as if bigger climbers are at a huge disadvantage. If taller/bigger climbers have so many more disadvantages to overcome, how can people like Loskot, Nichole, Potter, etc. exist? Are they just literally superhuman? If so, why are there no short people with the same gifts that just crank the shit out of everything in sight? Do these gifts only present themselves to big people? My answer to my question is that things like genetic limits factor in to how hard you can climb, but that there are MANY other factors as well. Until we can distill climbing potential to be nothing more than a matter of genetic potential (hopefully we never can) all this talk of who is the most advantaged genetically is fairly pointless. I’m not arguing that genetics don’t play a role, even a substantial role. I am just saying that they are one of many factors that determine your potential and they can be outweighed by other factors. Just look at guys like Loskot, Dunne, etc. Or climbers like Lynn Hill. Obviously elite climbers come in all shapes and sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jan 24, 2008, 4:18 PM
Post #199 of 213
(6190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
I think there is a consensus that genetics, at least so far as height is concerned, is not a key limiting factor in the sport overall, except perhaps for the Yao Mings of the world. But it probably has become a limiting factor in some highly-specialized areas such as comp climbing on plastic where virtually all of the top competitors appear to be notably below average height when measured against averages for their country of origin.
Nicole (5'11") is basically average height--or just a bit below, not statistically significant--for a Swiss male. SHarma at 6' is slightly taller than the average US male, and Loskot at 6'3" is probably slightly taller than the average German male. The two tallest climbers anyone can currently name, Dean Potter (about 6'5") and Thomas Willenberg (6'4") are the only real outliers. And it may not be an accident that all of those folks have made their careers well outside the gym, notably in bouldering or trad climbing in the case of Potter, where height can often work to advantage due to the popularity of big span and dynamic moves these days.
The debate here turns mostly upon the question of mechanical advantage/disadvantage for climbers in elite-level competitive climbing, although I suspect that we would also find that the elite cohort of high-altitude folks also measure in well below average heights.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jan 24, 2008, 4:55 PM
Post #200 of 213
(6174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Wait for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
