|
healyje
Sep 6, 2012, 6:57 AM
Post #51 of 75
(9529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Similar mythical tales were told about Layton Kor bitd.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 6, 2012, 8:00 AM
Post #52 of 75
(9523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
chadnsc wrote: You're either: a.) obtuse b.) delusional c.) a & b
Or
d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Sep 6, 2012, 11:59 AM
Post #53 of 75
(9507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: You're either: a.) obtuse b.) delusional c.) a & b Or d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape.
I think you have too narrow a definition of what being in shape is. Check out :http://espn.go.com/...s-want-espn-magazine
Yes, there are plenty of people who are tall and light, but what about Danelle Leyva at 5'7" and 165lbs, Rob Gronkowski at 6'6" and 265lbs, Brad Richards at 6'0" and 195lbs or Walter Dix at 5'10" and 195lbs!
Different body types, different sports, all in way better shape that you could ever dream to be. No, the OP doesn't have a good body type to become a great climber, but that goes for most of us though, doesn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 6, 2012, 6:37 PM
Post #54 of 75
(9451 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
granite_grrl wrote: healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: You're either: a.) obtuse b.) delusional c.) a & b Or d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape. I think you have too narrow a definition of what being in shape is. Check out : http://espn.go.com/...s-want-espn-magazine Yes, there are plenty of people who are tall and light, but what about Danelle Leyva at 5'7" and 165lbs, Rob Gronkowski at 6'6" and 265lbs, Brad Richards at 6'0" and 195lbs or Walter Dix at 5'10" and 195lbs! Different body types, different sports, all in way better shape that you could ever dream to be. No, the OP doesn't have a good body type to become a great climber, but that goes for most of us though, doesn't it.
Well made point, and WOW, what a fantastic set of images. It does a great job capturing the (perfect) human body in many shapes and sizes. Nice link! Those shots of Anna Tunnicliffe I think are my favorite. Awesome!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Sep 6, 2012, 7:28 PM
Post #55 of 75
(9436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: You're either: a.) obtuse b.) delusional c.) a & b Or d.) Actually been in decent shape and so no longer able to practice the sort of self-delusion and denial necessary for someone 6'0" @ 185+ to think they are somehow in styling shape.
You're an obtuse, egotistical fool.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 6, 2012, 8:34 PM
Post #56 of 75
(9410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
granite_grrl wrote: I think you have too narrow a definition of what being in shape is. Check out : http://espn.go.com/...s-want-espn-magazine Yes, there are plenty of people who are tall and light, but what about Danelle Leyva at 5'7" and 165lbs, Rob Gronkowski at 6'6" and 265lbs, Brad Richards at 6'0" and 195lbs or Walter Dix at 5'10" and 195lbs! Different body types, different sports, all in way better shape that you could ever dream to be. No, the OP doesn't have a good body type to become a great climber, but that goes for most of us though, doesn't it.
Except we're not talking other sports - we're talking climbing. We're talking gravity. And in a world where gravity rules - height-to-weight ratio will always be key when it comes to operating at a high level of performance.
This guy took the gold in super-heavy weight lifting at the Olympics and is in great shape for that sport at 6'6" @ 364 - but don't look for him to be floating 5.14 anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 6, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #57 of 75
(9404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
chadnsc wrote: You're an obtuse, egotistical fool.
Climbing has become more 'inclusive' after thirty years of bolting and gyms. But the truth remains as harsh as ever when it comes to what is required of an individual who wishes to perform at the higher echelons of the sport. A lot of people don't want to hear that and / or are in denial about it. C'est la vie...
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Sep 6, 2012, 9:10 PM
Post #58 of 75
(9394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
I agree that being lighter and tall is very beneficial in the climbing world.
I don't agree with this:
healyje wrote: And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.
healyje wrote: If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.
You're not talking about climbing in those statements. Your reading comprehension and understanding of human physiology when it comes to body composition is horrendous.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 6, 2012, 11:58 PM
Post #59 of 75
(9375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
chadnsc wrote: I agree that being lighter and tall is very beneficial in the climbing world. I don't agree with this: healyje wrote: If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape. You're not talking about climbing in those statements.
I'm definitely talking about climbing in all these comments, that's because we're on climbing site, if I were talking about something else I'd be on some other forum
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Sep 7, 2012, 12:27 PM
Post #60 of 75
(9332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: I agree that being lighter and tall is very beneficial in the climbing world. I don't agree with this: healyje wrote: If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape. You're not talking about climbing in those statements. I'm definitely talking about climbing in all these comments, that's because we're on climbing site, if I were talking about something else I'd be on some other forum
Valid point and I agree with it to a point.
However it would make your posts much more coherent and you sound like less of an idiot if when the topic splits (in this case what's considered 'in shape' for climbing and non climbing) that you differentiate which topic your discussing.
I noticed that you omitted the quote of your original ignorant comment that split this discussion into two topics. Let me fix that for you . . . .
healyje wrote: And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.
(This post was edited by chadnsc on Sep 7, 2012, 12:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Sep 21, 2012, 12:11 AM
Post #61 of 75
(9122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
Toni Lamprecht is 6 3 175. Klem Loskot is 6 1 175.
They are the largest Pro climbers I can think of going way back . Sharma is 6 1 160. Sometimes he gets as low as 155 he told me.
I know a guy thats about 190 that boulders v10. He could easily cut 25 lbs and crush v13. But he would rather eat and his mustache is heavy.
Most of the guys you think are big and strong are skinny and ripped and light. Low body fat and no muscle except climbing muscle = super light.
|
|
|
|
|
david7896
Sep 22, 2012, 12:17 AM
Post #62 of 75
(9031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2010
Posts: 44
|
Fred Nicole.... i couldnt find any info about his weight and height, but he looks tall and bulky. i would say he has the same problem that we both share.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Sep 22, 2012, 6:12 AM
Post #63 of 75
(9011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
david7896 wrote: Fred Nicole.... i couldnt find any info about his weight and height, but he looks tall and bulky. i would say he has the same problem that we both share.
When I shook his hand in font he was at least 3 inches shorter than me... he around 5 9, his forearms are huge and the rest of him is not... I"m guessing 135lbs when hes fit... maybe 140.
Its time to get over it peeps, you have to be light to climb hard and yes, unless u have rare body type... if your 6% fat... you will be light even if your 6 2 assuming you only have the muscles you need for climbing.
I just found a fred nicole interview... he says hes 78 kg... but he's lying or quoting the heaviest he's been with Boots pants and a jacket on. No way in hell he's heavier than me.
(This post was edited by flesh on Sep 22, 2012, 6:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Sep 24, 2012, 6:00 PM
Post #64 of 75
(8969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
Jon Glassberg is 255 cm tall according to his 8a.nu profile. That is something like 8 foot 4 inches. He isn't really that tall. However, he is still probably at least 6'5" and he has done well in a number of comps.
http://www.8a.nu/...spx%3FUserId%3D10441
There are a few young climbers out there right now that are VERY tall for their age and have some potential to be very good. I wonder if that will be the next big progression in the sport? Very tall and light climbers?
I know I have seen a few of these very good young climbers standing next to their gigantic fathers and wondered if they will be that tall one day and will it help or hurt their climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Sep 24, 2012, 9:14 PM
Post #65 of 75
(8937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: There are a few young climbers out there right now that are VERY tall for their age and have some potential to be very good. I wonder if that will be the next big progression in the sport? Very tall and light climbers?
I think it will likely be that there are certain types of routes that only these tall climbers will be able to do, but on other routes, where super long reaches are not necessary, they will not be able to climb quite as hard because tall climbers will always be at a strength/weight disadvantage.
To it more concretely:
huge reaches necessary: tall climber will win
tiny crimps that do not require huge reach and cannot be reached around: short climber will be better.
It will therefore be impossible to say that any person is the "best"--it will just depend on the type of route.
|
|
|
|
|
zxcvbnm
Sep 24, 2012, 10:22 PM
Post #66 of 75
(8920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2011
Posts: 16
|
Tall climbers also have the disadvantages of bigger fingers, worse arm leverage, and more torque bringing them off the wall and making it harder to hold onto the holds on overhanging terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Sep 26, 2012, 3:33 AM
Post #67 of 75
(8857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
Generally speaking, being above 6 ft is worse. The point I'd like to make is not that your screwed if your taller simply that you fooling yourself if your taller and you think you're going to be the rare exception that will climb hard and weight 180 plus. The rule is, you need to be as light as possible. This means you need to cut all fat possible, probably more than you even believe you can, combined with losing any unneccesary muscle. Stack the odds in your favor. Hope is better than nothing but it's not a good action plan.
After asking many elite climbers myself what they weigh I've found that for some unknown reason, they generally like to say they are heavier than they actually are, for men that is. This is based on a large enough sampling that I believe it to be true at this point. You can speculate as to why.
I climb pretty hard myself and I've spent plenty of time climbing with top climbers so this is based on experience over 15 years. If you want to get better at climbing more than you want to be a BIG guy, cut it.
(This post was edited by flesh on Sep 26, 2012, 3:36 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Sep 26, 2012, 6:52 PM
Post #68 of 75
(8810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
According to Adam Ondra’s 8a.nu profile he is 6 feet tall and 139 pounds. That is pretty tall for as good as he is.
http://http%3A/...aspx%3FUserId%3D1476
However, I wonder if there is more to it than absolute height? For instance some people like Adam Ondra have an extremely long neck and a short torso. This makes them have a taller height and a longer wingspan but still maintain an unreasonably low body weight because having your height in your neck weighs a lot less than having it in your torso.
The drawback to having height in your neck is that when you measure your vertical reach it will be much shorter than someone who has a more proportional body. This is due to the fact that even if you have a plus zero wingspan your shoulders are farther away from the top of your head than a normal person.
When someone with this body type measures their wingspan they are measuring the length of their arms and the width of their chest. It will usually measure a normal value. However, when you measure their vertical reach it will measure much lower than their height would suggest because their shoulder height is not in proportion to their overall height.
I don’t by any means intend to suggest that Ondra’s long neck is what makes him such a good climber. However, having a long neck and long arms will allow you to be very tall and still very light.
I have this condition but to an extreme(6’4” and as low as 152 pounds at that height). I wonder if someday a climber(Not me) with a very long wingspan and this condition to an extreme could do things that we never imagined were possible?
|
|
|
|
|
climb9708
Dec 26, 2012, 6:51 PM
Post #69 of 75
(8492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 26, 2012
Posts: 1
|
Dude im 15 almost 6ft 2 ,and like 180, im climbing for around 8 monthes and am working on my first 5.12. I know how you feel i was looking at all these stickmen climbers in the gym and in climbing magazines and i was discouraged as i thought i had to look like that, but the fact of the matter is i can never be that light my build just wont allow me so i have to work with the body i was given and just fucking train hard to get the goals in climbing that i want, btw Im not toned like no six pack and my torso is chubby but i have a really small torso with really long legs which have no fat on them |
|
|
|
|
juststrange
Dec 29, 2012, 5:38 AM
Post #70 of 75
(8420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 31, 2004
Posts: 80
|
Jimmy Webb is 6' and ~180 IIRC. Nalle looks pretty big too, but that could be perspective. Rob DAnistaio is pretty tall but probably light - Steve Jeffries is build like a brick house and crushed for a good while. You might have more luck looking to bouldering for strong heavy dudes - at 5'7"ish and 160-165 my BMI is overweight, but my bodyfat is low and I can hold my own we;; enough.
|
|
|
|
|
juststrange
Dec 29, 2012, 2:38 PM
Post #72 of 75
(8390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 31, 2004
Posts: 80
|
I got that off of here: http://www.seclimbers.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=507
Other sources seem to put Jimmy's height at 6+, and the dude sure isn't a beanpole. Or were you thinking Defensive Tackle Jimmy Webb....?
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Dec 29, 2012, 4:22 PM
Post #73 of 75
(8376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
juststrange wrote: I got that off of here: http://www.seclimbers.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=507 Other sources seem to put Jimmy's height at 6+, and the dude sure isn't a beanpole. Or were you thinking Defensive Tackle Jimmy Webb....?
I was going off of his 8a.nu profile, which puts his height at 157 cm. Though, that seems really short.
|
|
|
|
|
shotwell
Dec 29, 2012, 5:08 PM
Post #74 of 75
(8371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2009
Posts: 366
|
camhead wrote: juststrange wrote: I got that off of here: http://www.seclimbers.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=507 Other sources seem to put Jimmy's height at 6+, and the dude sure isn't a beanpole. Or were you thinking Defensive Tackle Jimmy Webb....? I was going off of his 8a.nu profile, which puts his height at 157 cm. Though, that seems really short.
His 8a profile is way off as every time he is quoted in feet it is 6+. It is not uncommon for US climbers to mess up the metric conversion though.
|
|
|
|
|
namoclimber
Dec 29, 2012, 8:14 PM
Post #75 of 75
(8357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 118
|
Just thought I would way in here.
My stats 5 11 ish 150lbs I'm 32.
I climb around v10 v11
All the people I climb with that climb at this level or harder are all younger then me(around 17 and all around 5 8ish) and very lean sub 125pounds.
I've climbed some 5.14s too but lack the endurance now because of family and kids just no time. It takes serious training to get to these levels.
If you dedicated you can climb hard.
That being said I remember reading an article on climbing and physics and the larger and taller you are the more leverage is apply to your fingers and the more core strength is required to pull in to maintain tension. It simply put it, if your bigger you had to be quite a bit stronger in relation meaning stronger then the smaller person pound per pound. Just harder to keep the tension. But there will always be exceptions just be one of them.
And the person having the most fun is the best climber.
sorry for the run on sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
