|
davidorchard
Jul 25, 2005, 3:00 AM
Post #1 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
I am only accepting female stats from this point on.(come on ladies). Thanks for you responses so far.
Averages
# of Females in data: 24
age: 26.5 yr
height: 5' 4.4"
weight: 125lbs
hardest sport: 5.10d
hardest trad: 5.8
hardest boulder: V2/3
ape index: 0.3"
# of Males in data: 78 (including me)
age: 27.5 yr
height: 5' 10.8"
weight: 163lbs
hardest sport: 5.11b/c
hardest trad: 5.9+
hardest boulder: V4/5
ape index: 1.6"
PS. I apologize for omitting ice climbing, I will try to include it for the next time I do this (next year maybe). Thank you also for the other categories that I can add (like 'years climbed', that would have been a nice one).
|
|
|
|
|
abe_ascends
Jul 25, 2005, 3:16 AM
Post #2 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2005
Posts: 367
|
gender: M
age: 23
height: 6'1''
weight: 155lbs
hardest sport: 5.11
hardest trad: 5.9
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: Orangutan :P
|
|
|
|
|
areuinclimber
Jul 25, 2005, 3:19 AM
Post #3 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2004
Posts: 436
|
gender:M
age:19
height:5'11"
weight:150 (maybe a bit heavier)
hardest sport:5.7
hardest trad:5.5
hardest boulder:V0-
ape index: dont know how to measure it.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 25, 2005, 3:27 AM
Post #4 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
gender: male
age: 27
height: 5' 10"
weight: 165
hardest sport: .11a
hardest trad: .10d
hardest boulder: V2/3
ape index: 0"
(for those who don't know- your ape index is the difference between your arm span and your height.)
|
|
|
|
|
eyecannon
Jul 25, 2005, 3:32 AM
Post #5 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2004
Posts: 517
|
gender: M
age: 25
height: 5'7"
weight: 140
hardest sport: 5.10b
hardest trad: 5.8
hardest boulder: V2
ape index: +5"
|
|
|
|
|
grk10vq
Jul 25, 2005, 3:48 AM
Post #6 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2004
Posts: 527
|
gender: M
age: 28
height: 6'4"
weight: 176
hardest sport: 11D
hardest trad: 10B
hardest boulder: V5
ape index: 2"
|
|
|
|
|
millie4690
Jul 25, 2005, 3:51 AM
Post #7 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2002
Posts: 23
|
gender: F
age: 23
height: 5'3"
weight: 130
hardest sport: .11c
hardest trad: .9+
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: 0
|
|
|
|
|
travelman
Jul 25, 2005, 4:04 AM
Post #8 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2005
Posts: 6
|
gender: M
age: 25
height: 6'4"
weight: 200
hardest sport: 10c
hardest trad:
hardest boulder: V2
ape index: +1"
|
|
|
|
|
tnchief
Jul 25, 2005, 4:32 AM
Post #9 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 100
|
Male
5'11"
30y.o.
190lbs
hardest sport:12a(recent) 13c(10 years ago)
bouldering: V6/7
ape: +1"
|
|
|
|
|
jacobbelsher
Jul 25, 2005, 4:39 AM
Post #10 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 147
|
g:M
A:23
H:5'11
W:155
sport:5.11d
trad:5.10a
boulder:V4
ape:plus3
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 25, 2005, 4:52 AM
Post #11 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
gender: M
age: 32
height: 5'11"
weight: 175
hardest sport: 12a
hardest trad: 11a
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: +3
(damn imperial... I don't wanna use my brain today!)
What about adding:
miles/km to nearest crag
days climbing per week inside/outside
years climbing
dogs owned
shoe size
etc.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jul 25, 2005, 4:56 AM
Post #12 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
gender: F
age: 20
height: 5'3"
weight: 105
hardest sport: 12a
hardest trad: 5.9
hardest boulder: V5
ape index: +2
|
|
|
|
|
okclimbermatt
Jul 25, 2005, 5:04 AM
Post #13 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2004
Posts: 52
|
gender: M
age: 23
height: 6'0
weight: 185
hardest sport: 5.10c
hardest trad: 5.9
hardest boulder: V1
ape index: 0
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 25, 2005, 5:15 AM
Post #14 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: This might be fun. I want to take everyone's numbers and crunch them to see what the average climber looks like. Here are the categories (with my numbers): gender: M age: 31 height: 5'10" weight: 175 hardest sport: 12a hardest trad: 10 hardest boulder: V4 ape index: +5 You can post or PM with your numbers, and I will try to update the averages at least daily. PS. If this has been done, please direct me, for I have searched. Averages # of Males 7 (including me) age: 25.4 height: 5' 11.9" weight: 166lbs hardest sport: 5.10b
hardest trad: 5.8+ hardest boulder: V3 ape index: 2.6" # of Females 1 age: 23 height: 5' 3" weight: 130 hardest sport: 11c
hardest trad: 9+ hardest boulder: V3 ape index: 0
Looks like (so far) the average gal climbs harder than the average guy. :lol:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 25, 2005, 5:21 AM
Post #15 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
OK, I'll bite, I mean why pass up a pefectly good opportunity to spray?
gender: M
age: 49
height: 5'11"
weight: 160
hardest sport: I'm not gay
hardest trad: 5.12
hardest boulder: V10
ape index: +3
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 25, 2005, 5:26 AM
Post #16 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: OK, I'll bite, I mean why pass up a pefectly good opportunity to spray? gender: M age: 49 height: 5'11" weight: 160 hardest sport: I'm not gay hardest trad: 5.12 hardest boulder: V10 ape index: +3 Curt
gender: F
age: 24
height: 5'3
weight: 100
hardest sport: 11b
hardest trad: I'm not fat
hardest boulder: V2
ape index: negative 2
|
|
|
|
|
woodse
Jul 25, 2005, 5:32 AM
Post #17 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2001
Posts: 625
|
gender: M
age: 25
height: 6'0
weight: 178
hardest sport: 11D
hardest trad: 10b
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 25, 2005, 5:41 AM
Post #18 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: OK, I'll bite, I mean why pass up a pefectly good opportunity to spray? gender: M age: 49 height: 5'11" weight: 160 hardest sport: I'm not gay hardest trad: 5.12 hardest boulder: V10 ape index: +3 Curt well, in the spirit of things... gender: F age: 24 height: 5'3 weight: 100 hardest sport: 11b hardest trad: I'm not fat hardest boulder: V2 ape index: negative 2
If you think packing on some extra pounds will make you a better trad climber, I'd say "go for it." Plus, you may actually develop cleavage. 8^)
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
wasabi_joe
Jul 25, 2005, 5:42 AM
Post #19 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 3
|
gender: M
age: 38
height: 6'2
weight: 180
hardest sport: 12a
hardest trad: 9
hardest boulder: v5
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
gamehendge
Jul 25, 2005, 5:46 AM
Post #20 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 398
|
gender: M
age: 30
height: 5'7
weight: 130
hardest sport: .11d
hardest trad: I don't like ham, but anyways.. .10a :wink:
hardest boulder: V5
ape index:+4
years climbing:2
virgo
walks on the beach and moon lit dinners
|
|
|
|
|
dirtbag101
Jul 25, 2005, 5:48 AM
Post #21 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2005
Posts: 55
|
gender: male
age: 21
height: 5' 6"
weight: 140
hardest sport: 12a
hardest trad: 11a
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: +3
|
|
|
|
|
taizzz
Jul 25, 2005, 6:02 AM
Post #22 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Posts: 4
|
gender: M
age: 22
height: 5'5"
weight: 180
hardest sport: ....
hardest trad: .10ish
hardest boulder: .....
ape index: ....
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 25, 2005, 6:05 AM
Post #23 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
Male
5'10"
143
age 23
sport: 11b
trad: 10a
boulder: V5
ape: +2
|
|
|
|
|
rqf4
Jul 25, 2005, 6:09 AM
Post #24 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 16
|
gender: M
age: 22
height: 5'7"
weight: 145ish
hardest sport: .12c
hardest trad: .11a
hardest boulder: V8
ape index: Plus a couple, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jul 25, 2005, 6:14 AM
Post #25 of 174
(14845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Not sure what this will show but just so there's another woman represented . . .
gender: F
age: 25
height: 5'6"
weight: 150
hardest sport: 11a
hardest trad: 10+
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: +4
|
|
|
|
|
olympicmtnboy
Jul 25, 2005, 6:15 AM
Post #26 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2003
Posts: 270
|
eh, why not.
gender: M
age: 25
height: 5'8"
weight: 165
hardest sport: 11b
hardest trad: 10b
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: +2.5
|
|
|
|
|
crossmyheart
Jul 25, 2005, 6:16 AM
Post #27 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Posts: 5
|
height: 5"6
weight: 100 lbs
hardest sport: 7a french
hardest trad: have not tried trad
hardest boulder:?
ape index:?
|
|
|
|
|
johngchrist
Jul 25, 2005, 6:18 AM
Post #28 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2005
Posts: 43
|
gender: M
age: 22
height: 5,6.5
weight: 125
hardest sport: 11
hardest trad: 10
hardest boulder: v3
ape index: 0
single
|
|
|
|
|
spoon
Jul 25, 2005, 6:25 AM
Post #29 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 312
|
age: 20
height: 5' 10"
weight: 150lbs
hardest sport: 5.11b/c
hardest trad: 5.6 (i was scarred for life)
hardest boulder: V5
ape index: -1"
|
|
|
|
|
off_center
Jul 25, 2005, 6:31 AM
Post #30 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2004
Posts: 100
|
age: 22
height: 5'9''
weight: 160 lbs
hardest sport: 5.10c
hardest trad: 5.7
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: +1'' or +2''
|
|
|
|
|
theishofoz
Jul 25, 2005, 6:56 AM
Post #31 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2004
Posts: 217
|
gender: M
age: 16
height: 5' 10
weight: 136
hardest sport:13--
hardest trad: 11
hardest boulder: v7
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
shanz
Jul 25, 2005, 7:49 AM
Post #32 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 702
|
gender: M
age: 32
height: 5' 10"
weight: 210
hardest sport: .11d
hardest trad: .10
hardest boulder: ?
ape index: ?
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Jul 25, 2005, 11:49 AM
Post #33 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
gender: F
age: 24
height: 5' 8"
weight: 155
hardest sport: .10d
hardest trad: .9
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: +3
|
|
|
|
|
mig
Jul 25, 2005, 11:58 AM
Post #34 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 15
|
gender: M
age: 29
height: 5'12''
weight: 154lbs
hardest sport: 5.12b
hardest trad: 5.11c
hardest boulder: ?
ape index: ?
|
|
|
|
|
flipnfall
Jul 25, 2005, 12:03 PM
Post #35 of 174
(13947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 717
|
gender: M
age: 33
height: 6'2"
weight: 160
hardest sport: 13a (redpoint)
hardest trad: 13a (redpoint)
hardest boulder: n/a
ape index: (don't know what this is)
|
|
|
|
|
jammer
Jul 25, 2005, 12:28 PM
Post #36 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
gender: M
age: 52
height: 5'10"
weight: 155
hardest sport: 10c
hardest trad: 9+
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: +2
My age ought to throw a curve into the statistics!
|
|
|
|
|
pembe_panter
Jul 25, 2005, 2:02 PM
Post #37 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 5
|
gender:M
age:27
height:5'10"
weight:155
hardest sport:5.9
hardest trad:5.10a
hardest boulder:
ape index:
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Jul 25, 2005, 2:03 PM
Post #38 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
gender: male
age: 27
height: 6'-2"
weight: 225
hardest sport: 5.10c
hardest trad: 5.6
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: +3
|
|
|
|
|
rmiller
Jul 25, 2005, 2:05 PM
Post #39 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 251
|
gender: M
age: 34
height: 5'8"
weight: 150
hardest sport: 5.13b
hardest trad: 5.12
hardest boulder: V7
ape index: +2
|
|
|
|
|
nsintros
Jul 25, 2005, 2:41 PM
Post #40 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 59
|
gender: M
age: 23
height: 6'1"
weight: 180
hardest sport: 9
hardest trad: 7
hardest boulder: i don't boulder
ape index: +4
|
|
|
|
|
neuroshock
Jul 25, 2005, 2:55 PM
Post #41 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 680
|
all the cool kids are sharing, so why not?
gender: M
age: 26 (for a few more days, anyway)
height: 6'0"
weight: 165 lbs
hardest sport: 5.12b
hardest trad: 5.10a
hardest boulder: V7
ape index: 0"
In reply to: What about adding: miles/km to nearest crag (190-200 mi) days climbing per week inside/outside (varies during seasons from 1 day inside, to 4 days inside, to 2 days in and 2 days out) years climbing (since early 2000) dogs owned (0) shoe size (43.5) etc.
preferred shoes: Sportiva Venom & FiveTen Anasazi Laceup
|
|
|
|
|
statusfreejoy
Jul 25, 2005, 3:03 PM
Post #42 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 48
|
gender: M
age: 24
height: 6'1"
weight: 162 lbs.
hardest sport: 5.11b
hardest trad: 5.9+
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: 0"
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jul 25, 2005, 3:19 PM
Post #43 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
gender: M
age: 26
height: 5'9"
weight: 135 lbs.
hardest sport: I got bi curious once, I onsighted 11d. Just once doesn't make me gay does it?
hardest trad: 5.12b
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: 0"
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Jul 25, 2005, 3:30 PM
Post #44 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
gender: M
age: 26
height: 6'
weight: 185
hardest sport: 13a
hardest trad: 11d
hardest boulder: v8
ape index: +2
|
|
|
|
|
skateman
Jul 25, 2005, 3:33 PM
Post #45 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 186
|
gender: M
age: 44
height: 5'5"
weight: 174 lbs.
hardest sport: 5.something
hardest trad: 5.9
hardest boulder: The boulder was very hard
ape index:
I don't really boulder or do sport because it's just not very exciting for me, plus I'm phat. On average, it looks like I am one of the oldest, heaviest and shortest :-)
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
ciayfields
Jul 25, 2005, 4:03 PM
Post #46 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Posts: 11
|
gender: M
age: 24
height: 5'10"
weight: 142
hardest sport: 11a
hardest trad: 10
hardest boulder: (not sure)
ape index: (not sure)
|
|
|
|
|
roambb1
Jul 25, 2005, 4:07 PM
Post #47 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Posts: 74
|
Gender: M
Age: 28
Height: 5'10"
Weight: 160
Hardest Sport: 5.10b (onsight)
Hardest Trad: 5.10a
Hardest Boulder: V-4
Ape Index:???
BB
|
|
|
|
|
kinosoo
Jul 25, 2005, 4:12 PM
Post #48 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 117
|
Gender: M
Age: 19
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 180
Hardest Sport: 5.10+
Hardest Trad: 5.9
Hardest Boulder: n/a
Ape Index: 2
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Jul 25, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #49 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
male, 55, 5'11", 148, 10b, 8, n/a, chimp
|
|
|
|
|
renohandjams
Jul 25, 2005, 4:17 PM
Post #50 of 174
(13945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2005
Posts: 616
|
age: 22.5 yr
height: 5' 9"
weight: 175lbs
hardest sport: 5.10
hardest trad: 5.9+
hardest boulder: V3/4
ape index: 0" -I'm normal
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Jul 25, 2005, 4:21 PM
Post #51 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
my wife:
43, 145, 5'8", 10b (TR - come on - give to her!), mook lead on TR, n/a, chimpette
|
|
|
|
|
kdchampion
Jul 25, 2005, 4:30 PM
Post #52 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 96
|
gender: M
age: 22
height: 5'10"
weight: 140
hardest sport: 5.12d
hardest trad: 5.9
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: +1"
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 25, 2005, 4:41 PM
Post #53 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: my wife: 43, 145, 5'8", 10b (TR - come on - give to her!), mook lead on TR, n/a, chimpette
beautiful. i will count it.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Jul 25, 2005, 4:45 PM
Post #54 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
gender: M
age: 28
height: 5'9"
weight: 165
hardest sport: 5.11c
hardest trad: 5.11a (i'm not fat either)
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: +0.5"
|
|
|
|
|
d.ben
Deleted
Jul 25, 2005, 5:24 PM
Post #55 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
gender: M
age: 25
height: 5'6"
weight: 115
hardest sport: 11b
hardest trad: 9
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Jul 25, 2005, 5:26 PM
Post #56 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
So, what's the opposite of spray? On a good day I can do better, but since we're talking averages here.... :( Pity me.
gender: M
age: 43
height: 5'11"
weight: 185
hardest sport: 5.10
hardest trad: 5.8
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
bodyboarder
Jul 25, 2005, 5:44 PM
Post #57 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2005
Posts: 298
|
gender: M
age: 21
height: 6'
weight: 160
hardest sport: 5.10b
hardest trad:
hardest boulder: V1
ape index:
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 25, 2005, 5:55 PM
Post #58 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
my wife (when not pregnant)
gender: female
age: 32
height: 5' 4"
weight: 125
hardest sport: .10
hardest trad: .9
hardest boulder: V0
ape index: 0"
|
|
|
|
|
kel_e
Jul 25, 2005, 6:16 PM
Post #59 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Posts: 47
|
gender: F
age: 26
height: 5'9"
weight: 155
hardest sport: 5.9
hardest trad: 5.8 (seconding, 5.5 on the sharp end!)
hardest boulder: V1
ape index: I think it's zero or very close
|
|
|
|
|
socialist1
Jul 25, 2005, 6:29 PM
Post #60 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 58
|
gender: M
age: 24
height: 6'1"
weight: 170
hardest sport: 5.11d
hardest trad: 5.10b
hardest boulder: V5
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
floridaputz
Jul 25, 2005, 7:07 PM
Post #61 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2002
Posts: 136
|
My wife
Gender: F
Age: 49
Height: 5'2
weight: 100 lbs
hardest sport: 10d
Hardest Trad: 9
Boulder: V1
Ape Index (what are you kidding !)
Me
Gender: M
Age: 46
Height: 6'
Weight: 195
Hardest sport: 11b
Hardest Trad: 10d
Boulder: V1
Ape Index: (sounds like me)
|
|
|
|
|
symbiosissol
Jul 25, 2005, 7:35 PM
Post #62 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2004
Posts: 39
|
G:M
A:24
H:5'11
W:145
sport: only boulder...
trad: only boulder....
boulder: V7 (hardest)
ape: -1.0 (if my friend measured correctly)
|
|
|
|
|
justsaynototake
Jul 25, 2005, 8:30 PM
Post #63 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2005
Posts: 33
|
gender: M
age: 24
height: 6'1"
weight: 160
hardest sport: 5.12
hardest trad: NA
hardest boulder: V5
ape index: +5ish
--Eric
|
|
|
|
|
duckwalk
Jul 25, 2005, 8:40 PM
Post #64 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2003
Posts: 86
|
gender: M
age: 21
height: 6'2"
weight: 175
hardest sport: 11a
hardest trad: 10c
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: +4 (wingspan minus height)
|
|
|
|
|
adeptus
Jul 25, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #65 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 322
|
gender: M
age: 23
height: 5'10"
weight: 160
hardest sport: 11b
hardest trad: 11a
hardest boulder: ?
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
dbarandiaran
Jul 25, 2005, 9:02 PM
Post #66 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 113
|
gender: M
age: 28
height: 5'11"
weight: 145
best trad: 5.8+
best sport: 5.10c
best boulder: V6
ape index: +2"
|
|
|
|
|
atpeaceinbozeman
Jul 25, 2005, 9:06 PM
Post #67 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Posts: 478
|
gender: M
age: 22
height: 6'
weight: 155
best trad: 10-
best sport: 9
best boulder: V6
ape index: 0
|
|
|
|
|
crazyamy
Jul 25, 2005, 9:15 PM
Post #68 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 5
|
Gender: F
Age: 27
Height: 5'10
weight: 140 lbs
hardest sport: 11c
Hardest Trad: 10a
Boulder: bouldering outside is scary
Ape Index: 0
|
|
|
|
|
coclimber26
Jul 25, 2005, 9:56 PM
Post #69 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 928
|
gender: male
age:29
height: 6'2
weight: 185
hardest sport .11b
hardest trad .9
hardest bouldering v4
ape index +2
|
|
|
|
|
flowerpowerlover
Jul 25, 2005, 10:11 PM
Post #70 of 174
(13660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 49
|
gender: M
age: 22
height: 6'2"
weight: 145
hardest sport: 12a
hardest trad: ?
hardest boulder: V7
ape index: +4
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Jul 25, 2005, 10:51 PM
Post #71 of 174
(13661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
gender: M
age: 19
height: 5'10"
weight: 150
hardest sport: 13c ... for now
hardest trad: 5.11 ... for now
hardest boulder: V10 ... for now :twisted:
ape index: +4
|
|
|
|
|
illimaniman
Jul 25, 2005, 10:55 PM
Post #72 of 174
(13661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2002
Posts: 128
|
gender: M
age: 28
height: 6'1"
weight: 185
hardest sport: 5.10d
hardest trad: 5.8
hardest boulder: N/A
ape index: 0
|
|
|
|
|
iclimbtoo
Jul 25, 2005, 11:02 PM
Post #73 of 174
(13661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Posts: 645
|
In reply to: hardest sport: I'm not gay Curt
:lol: :lol: That is true humor right there. I read that like 10 minutes ago and I am still trying to recover I've been laughing so hard! :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonclimberboy
Jul 25, 2005, 11:03 PM
Post #74 of 174
(13661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2005
Posts: 6
|
gender: male
age: 15
height: 6'2''
weight: 160
hardest sport: 10c
hardest trad: 6
hardest boulder: v3
apex index: 0
|
|
|
|
|
jerseysundevil
Jul 25, 2005, 11:12 PM
Post #75 of 174
(13661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2005
Posts: 14
|
gender: M
age: 19
height: 6'
weight: 145
hardest sport: 10
hardest trad: ?
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
nsintros
Jul 25, 2005, 11:28 PM
Post #76 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 59
|
there are a few people that seem to think that seconding or top roping mook trad should count. if that is the case up my trad and sport to 10d please.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 12:28 AM
Post #77 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Whatever you say, Fella.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 26, 2005, 12:35 AM
Post #78 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: there are a few people that seem to think that seconding or top roping mook trad should count. if that is the case up my trad and sport to 10d please.
that is fine with me. you have to live with it on your conscience.
i felt fine accepting it because it was a husband boasting about his lady, and i am totally hurting for female responses.
male resonses are easy to come by and changing yours won't really affect the average, but consider it done.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 12:40 AM
Post #79 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: there are a few people that seem to think that seconding or top roping mook trad should count. if that is the case up my trad and sport to 10d please.
Is this English?
I have cleanly seconded 11a trad. Am drawing a blank on the mook trad though...
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Jul 26, 2005, 12:49 AM
Post #80 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
gender: male
age: 27
height: 5' 8"
weight: 164
hardest sport: .11a redpoint .11b toprope (would claim 11c redpoint but my beta is "off")
hardest trad: .10a (toprope) i've only led one trad line .7
hardest boulder: V3 outdoor (v4 pulling plastic)
ape index: +3"
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 12:55 AM
Post #81 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
I figured the grades were for leading (redpoint).
It'd be interesting to note that if a persons trad grade was very close to their sport grade whether they would consider themselves more of a trad climber. For some the gap is quite large.
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Jul 26, 2005, 12:57 AM
Post #82 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
gender: female
age: 29 [30]
height: 5' 4"
weight: 121
hardest sport: .10a redpoint (.10d toprope)
hardest trad: .9 toprope
hardest boulder: V1 outdoor v2 gym
ape index: +2
this is my girlfriend -- hope these responses aren't too late. also i'm just doing the math on her ape index. i have a full hand on her reach-wise (wrist to fingertips longer in reach than her)
**also -- we were just in boulder at the boulder canyon sport park, where there are TONS of bolted cracks -- it's not trad, but she [onsighted] a .9 (bolted crack) and toproped some .10a's (bolted crack)
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
cgranite
Jul 26, 2005, 1:10 AM
Post #83 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2003
Posts: 366
|
Male
20
5'11"
145 LB.
.12c sport
.10b Trad
V9 boulder
0 ape index :(
|
|
|
|
|
raymondjeffrey
Jul 26, 2005, 2:13 AM
Post #84 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2004
Posts: 361
|
Male (straight)
5.8 (bare foot)
180 lbs.
Sport: 5.11b (redpoint)
Trad: 5.9
A.I.: +2 (I am taller by 2 inches than my finger tips are apart)
Boulder: V2 (on my best day)
When I took the GRE I was praying for an 'average' score and I earned it; I am now realizing that I am in the 'Average Climber' ranks. I may be short but I sure am chunky. I am an average guy who hates mean people.
|
|
|
|
|
summit07
Jul 26, 2005, 2:19 AM
Post #85 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2004
Posts: 27
|
gender: F
age: 16
height: 5'4"
weight: 145
hardest sport: 5.10
hardest trad: 5.8
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: 0"
|
|
|
|
|
michaelmay513
Jul 26, 2005, 2:22 AM
Post #86 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2002
Posts: 282
|
Gender- Male
Age- 34
Height- 6'6"
Weight- 210 lbs
Hardest Sport- 13a
Hardest Trad- 11d
Hardest Bouldering- V7
Ape Index- +5
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 26, 2005, 2:32 AM
Post #87 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
Mmmm... legit spray. Well, if it's for science!
Gender- Male
Age- 27
Height- 5'11"
Weight- 150 lbs
Hardest Sport- 12b
Hardest Trad- 11b
Hardest Bouldering- V5ish
Ape Index- 0"
DM
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Jul 26, 2005, 2:33 AM
Post #88 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
Wow those numbers are surprisingly high! The crag I climb at probably has a sport average of about 5.10 for males(redpoint).
gender: M
age: 24
height: 5'8"
weight: 140
hardest sport: 5.12a
hardest trad: 5.10
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: 0
|
|
|
|
|
iclimbtoo
Jul 26, 2005, 3:02 AM
Post #89 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Posts: 645
|
In reply to: Whatever you say, Fella. -Jay
ROTFLMAO!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jay wins. Hands down.
|
|
|
|
|
vawwyakr
Jul 26, 2005, 3:07 AM
Post #90 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 90
|
gender: M
age: 27
height: 5'5"
weight: 142
hardest sport: 11a
hardest trad: 5.10b
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: +3
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Jul 26, 2005, 3:09 AM
Post #91 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
gender: M
age: 22
height: 6'4"
weight: 245
hardest sport: 5.10a
hardest trad: 5.8
hardest boulder: V0
ape index: 2
I suck but at least I'm honest about it :) Three cheers to bringing down the average (an up the average weight) ;)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 26, 2005, 3:11 AM
Post #92 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
This is totally stupid. But just since Curt set the bar so high...
gender: male
age: 35
height: 5' 7"
weight: 150
hardest sport: .12b
hardest trad: .11a
hardest boulder: Sorry "dude", circle jerks aren't my thing.
ape index: +2"
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Jul 26, 2005, 3:17 AM
Post #93 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
In reply to: I figured the grades were for leading (redpoint). It'd be interesting to note that if a persons trad grade was very close to their sport grade whether they would consider themselves more of a trad climber. For some the gap is quite large.
i consider myself a sport climber because i don't own anything but a set of booty nuts that my roomie gave me when he moved in.
my gf owns 1 yellow 2.5 friend that she bootied out at erock.
i LOVE crack climbing. but there are relatively no cracks in austin.
so i guess it depends where you climb...
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 26, 2005, 3:18 AM
Post #94 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: hardest boulder: Sorry "dude", circle jerks aren't my thing.
apparently they are. you responded to this.
|
|
|
|
|
flowerchild
Jul 26, 2005, 3:34 AM
Post #95 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 21
|
gender: F
age: 21
height: 5'4"
weight: 110lbs
hardest sport: 11B Lead onsight
hardest trad: 0
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: Shorter than my height :o)
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 26, 2005, 3:43 AM
Post #96 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: ...booty nuts ...
:shock: ? :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 26, 2005, 3:44 AM
Post #97 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: hardest boulder: Sorry "dude", circle jerks aren't my thing. apparently they are. you responded to this.
Hahaha! Must've been Curt's influence.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
yetanotherdave
Jul 26, 2005, 3:58 AM
Post #98 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2005
Posts: 243
|
gender: M
age: 31
height: 6'
weight: 182
hardest sport onsight: 12a
hardest trad onsight: 5.11c
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: +1
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Jul 26, 2005, 3:59 AM
Post #99 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
In reply to: I am only accepting female stats from this point on.( come on ladies). Thanks for you responses so far. |
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Jul 26, 2005, 4:15 AM
Post #100 of 174
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...booty nuts ... :shock: ? :lol:
heheh
my roomie gave me his oldest smallest set of nuts when he moved in.
they were all bootied off of climbs, or found at the base of walls in yosemite.
booty nuts! (Curt don't go getting all excited --- lovely pic btw)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 4:19 AM
Post #101 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
WTF? This wasn't supposed to turn into a "Curt" thread....
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Jul 26, 2005, 4:25 AM
Post #102 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
hehe couldn't resist man... those tights are... asstounding
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 4:27 AM
Post #103 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: hardest sport: .12b
I thought it was clear that routes had to be led and redpointed.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 4:33 AM
Post #104 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: hardest sport: .12b I thought it was clear that routes had to be led and redpointed. -Jay
Yeah, cuz if TR and/or following counts, I'm upping my best trad route rating to 5.13 from 5.12. Who's in charge of the rules here, anyway?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 4:34 AM
Post #105 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula?
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 4:40 AM
Post #106 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula?
10a = 10.00
10b = 10.25
10c = 10.50
10d = 10.75
11a = 11.00
and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be)
|
|
|
|
|
nsintros
Jul 26, 2005, 4:44 AM
Post #107 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 59
|
In reply to: top roping mook trad? Is this English? I have cleanly seconded 11a trad. Am drawing a blank on the mook trad though...
wow you should be really proud of yourself for picking up on other people's typos and grammatical errors.
my point which was obviously missed by some is that if we are going to skew the ratings for the ladies because there are so few out there sharing we should do the same for the guys otherwise this whole thing isn't even close to being accurate, not that its really all that accurate either way.
|
|
|
|
|
nsintros
Jul 26, 2005, 4:45 AM
Post #108 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 59
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 4:46 AM
Post #109 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be)
Yeah, I understand.... but that means 5.9 to 5.10 is the same difference as 5.10 to 5.11 numerically..... when infact the difficulty isn't the same change.... if you know what I mean... :?
|
|
|
|
|
chanf
Jul 26, 2005, 4:48 AM
Post #110 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2004
Posts: 75
|
gender: F
age: 22
height: 5'6"
weight: 115
hardest sport: 11c
hardest trad: 7
hardest boulder: V2
ape index: +2
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 4:53 AM
Post #111 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula?
Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm.
Well, you asked.
Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 4:55 AM
Post #112 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
^^ I kinda sensed something like that coming ;)
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 5:00 AM
Post #113 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
...you lost me after "beware" LMAO!!! ...as long as someone has it under control....
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jul 26, 2005, 5:10 AM
Post #114 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm. Well, you asked. Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past. -Jay
This explanation definitely involves statistical viewpoint!
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 26, 2005, 5:21 AM
Post #115 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
I'm kinda glad I don't speak Nerdlish. No offense intended Jay.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 5:22 AM
Post #116 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm. Well, you asked. Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past. -Jay This explanation definitely involves statistical viewpoint!
Don't get me started:
In reply to: [T]he problem of producing any sort of objective difficulty scale for routes becomes a statistical one, requiring some sort of averaging of the opinions of a panel of climbers. Indeed, a method for producing such an objective difficulty scale has been developed, but surprisingly, has not yet seen universal acceptance. Form a post of mine on rec.climbing: In reply to: Good idea to use a logistic model of the odds of success, conditioned on the rating of the climb. Since the probability of success at a given rating depends on the climber's level of skill, incorporating terms for skill level and the interaction between skill level and rating generalizes the model. I suggest on-sight level be the skill variable, since redpointing doesn't translate well to trad climbing. Sticking with the logistic model, but standardizing the notation and adding the skill variable: Let: i = 1 to n index n climbers j = 0 to m index m YDS ratings Yij = 1 if the attempt by the ith climber on the jth rated route is a success, or 0 if it is a failure. X1i = the climber's on-sight level at the time of the attempt X2j = the route's rating, rescaled in some sensible way P(Yij) = probability of success of Yij logit(Yij) = log-odds of Y(ij) Then: P(Yij)/[1-P(Yij)] = exp(a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*Xli*X2j) logit(Y) = a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*X1i*X2j I'm pretty sure that this is the system that Randy Vogel plans to use in the new Josh guide. It should put a virtual end to arguments about grades. What we climbers will still have to talk about is beyond me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 5:26 AM
Post #118 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm. Well, you asked. Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past. -Jay This explanation definitely involves statistical viewpoint! Don't get me started: In reply to: [T]he problem of producing any sort of objective difficulty scale for routes becomes a statistical one, requiring some sort of averaging of the opinions of a panel of climbers. Indeed, a method for producing such an objective difficulty scale has been developed, but surprisingly, has not yet seen universal acceptance. Form a post of mine on rec.climbing: In reply to: Good idea to use a logistic model of the odds of success, conditioned on the rating of the climb. Since the probability of success at a given rating depends on the climber's level of skill, incorporating terms for skill level and the interaction between skill level and rating generalizes the model. I suggest on-sight level be the skill variable, since redpointing doesn't translate well to trad climbing. Sticking with the logistic model, but standardizing the notation and adding the skill variable: Let: i = 1 to n index n climbers j = 0 to m index m YDS ratings Yij = 1 if the attempt by the ith climber on the jth rated route is a success, or 0 if it is a failure. X1i = the climber's on-sight level at the time of the attempt X2j = the route's rating, rescaled in some sensible way P(Yij) = probability of success of Yij logit(Yij) = log-odds of Y(ij) Then: P(Yij)/[1-P(Yij)] = exp(a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*Xli*X2j) logit(Y) = a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*X1i*X2j I'm pretty sure that this is the system that Randy Vogel plans to use in the new Josh guide. It should put a virtual end to arguments about grades. What we climbers will still have to talk about is beyond me.
I'm pretty sure this is not a system Randy Vogel will use--he's a mere lawyer. :lol:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 26, 2005, 5:27 AM
Post #119 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
Good lord Jay, now I'm really glad I don't speak Nerdlish.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 5:28 AM
Post #120 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Good lord Jay, now I'm really glad I don't speak Nerdlish.
Nerdy? What are you people talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 26, 2005, 5:33 AM
Post #121 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be)
this is the method i am using. logarithms just aren't my bag, and i guess i just didn't give it as much thought as jt512 (not sure i even can).
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 5:36 AM
Post #122 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Oh my goodness, what have I started? :shock:
In reply to: For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). |
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 5:39 AM
Post #123 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: Good lord Jay, now I'm really glad I don't speak Nerdlish. Nerdy? What are you people talking about? |
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 5:40 AM
Post #124 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: and i guess i just didn't give it as much thought as jt512 (not sure i even can). |
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jul 26, 2005, 5:40 AM
Post #125 of 174
(13295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
gender: m
age: 45
height: 6'1"
weight: 165
hardest sport: 5.13b
hardest trad: big wall 5.11d, single pitch 5.12b
hardest boulder: thought this was a climbing poll?
ape index: +2.5
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 5:40 AM
Post #126 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be) this is the method i am using. logarithms just aren't my bag, and i guess i just didn't give it as much thought as jt512 (not sure i even can).
Good lord, another serious answer, but a much simpler one: The problem here is that, for instance, the "distance" in difficulty between, say between 5.8 and 5.9 cannot be expected to be equal to the distance between 5.10 and 5.11. For that matter, the distance between 5.10a and 5.10b is probably not the same as that between 5.11a and 5.11b. So, how can you compute an average (mean) difficulty rating for the sample of respondents. Well, you can't, unless you go through some complicated calibration process, like that which I outlined (which, obviously, is impractal). The practical solution (serious, now, I swear) is to compute the median rating, rather than the mean.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 26, 2005, 5:44 AM
Post #127 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be) this is the method i am using. logarithms just aren't my bag, and i guess i just didn't give it as much thought as jt512 (not sure i even can). Good lord, another serious answer, but a much simpler one: The problem here is that, for instance, the "distance" in difficulty between, say between 5.8 and 5.9 cannot be expected to be equal to the distance between 5.10 and 5.11. For that matter, the distance between 5.10a and 5.10b is probably not the same as that between 5.11a and 5.11b. So, how can you compute an average (mean) difficulty rating for the sample of respondents. Well, you can't, unless you go through some complicated calibration process, like that which I outlined (which, obviously, is impractal). The practical solution (serious, now, I swear) is to compute the median rating, rather than the mean. -Jay
My brain hurts now.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 5:45 AM
Post #128 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Oh my goodness, what have I started? :shock: In reply to: For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). Is this about right? I'm just so used to Aussie grades.... at least with them the stats would be fairly straight forward....
Honest answer? The simplicity of the scale is an illusion. You have no simple way of knowing whether the distance between two number grades at one end of the scale is equivalent to the distance between two number grades at the other end of the scale. Chances are that the scale is approximately exponential.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jul 26, 2005, 5:47 AM
Post #129 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm. Well, you asked. Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past. -Jay This explanation definitely involves statistical viewpoint! Don't get me started: In reply to: [T]he problem of producing any sort of objective difficulty scale for routes becomes a statistical one, requiring some sort of averaging of the opinions of a panel of climbers. Indeed, a method for producing such an objective difficulty scale has been developed, but surprisingly, has not yet seen universal acceptance. Form a post of mine on rec.climbing: In reply to: Good idea to use a logistic model of the odds of success, conditioned on the rating of the climb. Since the probability of success at a given rating depends on the climber's level of skill, incorporating terms for skill level and the interaction between skill level and rating generalizes the model. I suggest on-sight level be the skill variable, since redpointing doesn't translate well to trad climbing. Sticking with the logistic model, but standardizing the notation and adding the skill variable: Let: i = 1 to n index n climbers j = 0 to m index m YDS ratings Yij = 1 if the attempt by the ith climber on the jth rated route is a success, or 0 if it is a failure. X1i = the climber's on-sight level at the time of the attempt X2j = the route's rating, rescaled in some sensible way P(Yij) = probability of success of Yij logit(Yij) = log-odds of Y(ij) Then: P(Yij)/[1-P(Yij)] = exp(a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*Xli*X2j) logit(Y) = a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*X1i*X2j I'm pretty sure that this is the system that Randy Vogel plans to use in the new Josh guide. It should put a virtual end to arguments about grades. What we climbers will still have to talk about is beyond me.
It's like grading "on the curve" -- I refuse to accept it -- ratings/grades must reflect the reality! On a different note -- I really like your X2j parameter -- gives one some flexibility, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 26, 2005, 5:48 AM
Post #130 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
Part of the problem with Jay is that if I killfiled him to save my brain the pain of his technical posts, I would miss out on all the great burns he nails people with. Damn you!
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 5:53 AM
Post #131 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: Part of the problem with Jay is that if I killfiled him to save my brain the pain of his technical posts, I would miss out on all the great burns he nails people with. Damn you!
....never mind.... just assume that nothing is perfect and the universe exists in all places at once at the world is a geoid shape and that squirrels really do eat peanut butter... and your brain will adjust with time.... things just seem to fall into place... especially if you push them hard enough....
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 6:04 AM
Post #132 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: It's like grading "on the curve" -- I refuse to accept it -- ratings/grades must reflect the reality!
But making the ratings statistical, ie population based, is the only way to make them objective. How else could you possibly define a unit of difficulty, except by relating it to the proportion of climbers in a population who can succeed on routes given that rating. I mean, what makes a 5.15a a 5.15a rather than a 5.14d, other than fewer people can do the route. And, for a rating scale to make much sense at all there ought to be a common distance between points on the scale. That is, the differnce in difficulty between a 5.14c and a 5.14d should be the same as that between a 5.14d and a 5.15a; otherwise, the scale is pretty silly. So, how do you define that interval? It seems to me that the most sensible way is to make the rating proportional to some simple function of the proportion of climbers who can succeed at that rating. One such function, which happens to have nice properties for statistical analysis, is the log-odds (ie, logistic) function.
In reply to: On a different note -- I really like your X2j parameter -- gives one some flexibility, doesn't it?
You're the second person to make a comment like that. It's my fault -- I should have stated it better in the first place. All I meant was to trnsform the YDS rating to a real number scale, so it can be worked with algebraically; for instance, 5.11b --> 11.25, etc.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Jul 26, 2005, 6:19 AM
Post #133 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
sprayfest. cool.
age: 48
height: 6' 2"
weight: 165
hardest sport: 5.12d (never really tried -- hate sport)
hardest trad: 5.13c (luv cracks)
hardest bolder: v9 confirmed, unrepeated shit prolly harder, so you can all SUKIT
ape index: +2
of course, this was all back in the '70's and 80's, you fucking n00bs.
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jul 26, 2005, 6:27 AM
Post #134 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: It's like grading "on the curve" -- I refuse to accept it -- ratings/grades must reflect the reality! But making the ratings statistical, ie population based, is the only way to make them objective. How else could you possibly define a unit of difficulty, except by relating it to the proportion of climbers in a population who can succeed on routes given that rating. I mean, what makes a 5.15a a 5.15a rather than a 5.14d, other than fewer people can do the route. And, for a rating scale to make much sense at all there ought to be a common distance between points on the scale. That is, the differnce in difficulty between a 5.14c and a 5.14d should be the same as that between a 5.14d and a 5.15a; otherwise, the scale is pretty silly. So, how do you define that interval? It seems to me that the most sensible way is to make the rating proportional to some simple function of the proportion of climbers who can succeed at that rating. One such function, which happens to have nice properties for statistical analysis, is the log-odds (ie, logistic) function. -Jay
Well, since the formula includes the climbers' onsight level, one might hope that after enough samplig the consistency will be reached. In that respect your proposal is different from "the curve". Otherwise, the population based approach is meaningless -- e.g., next time I go to my home town, I can setup a 5.4 route that exceptionally small fraction of the local population will be able to climb -- ;). And I doubt that any of the LA 5.12 climbers will go there for climbing vacation to ensure adequate rating -- ;).
|
|
|
|
|
stzzo
Jul 26, 2005, 6:30 AM
Post #135 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2005
Posts: 143
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be) Yeah, I understand.... but that means 5.9 to 5.10 is the same difference as 5.10 to 5.11 numerically..... when infact the difficulty isn't the same change.... if you know what I mean... :?
For example, first apply this conversion to the grades:
5.9 => 9
10a => 10
10b => 11
10c => 12
10d => 13
11a => 14
11b => 15
.
.
.
5.15 => 30
Then, take the average, and apply the conversion in reverse. So an average of 14.5 would result in being midway between 11a and 11b. Maybe someone mentioned this already, but it would be cool to know the mode and standard deviation as well.
|
|
|
|
|
stzzo
Jul 26, 2005, 6:36 AM
Post #136 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2005
Posts: 143
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be) Yeah, I understand.... but that means 5.9 to 5.10 is the same difference as 5.10 to 5.11 numerically..... when infact the difficulty isn't the same change.... if you know what I mean... :?
For example, first apply this conversion to the grades:
5.9 => 9
10a => 10
10b => 11
10c => 12
10d => 13
11a => 14
11b => 15
.
.
.
5.15 => 30
Then, take the average, and apply the conversion in reverse. So an average of 14.5 would result in being midway between 11a and 11b. Maybe someone mentioned this already, but it would be cool to know the mode and standard deviation as well.
I'd give mine if you were still accepting guys' info.
|
|
|
|
|
iclimbtoo
Jul 26, 2005, 6:52 AM
Post #137 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Posts: 645
|
In reply to: Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. -Jay
I'd be curious to know exactly how many, and the accurate content of alcohol in your bloodstream seen through a mathamatical formula.
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 26, 2005, 12:46 PM
Post #138 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: ...it would be cool to know the mode and standard deviation as well. I'd give mine if you were still accepting guys' info.
i was going to do the mode and standard deviation, but it got late. I will try to get those down later.
go ahead and post your stats if you want, i am still putting them in the spread sheet, but they don't really change the numbers anymore except on the female side.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 4:12 PM
Post #139 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...it would be cool to know the mode and standard deviation as well. I'd give mine if you were still accepting guys' info. i was going to do the mode and standard deviation, but it got late. I will try to get those down later. go ahead and post your stats if you want, i am still putting them in the spread sheet, but they don't really change the numbers anymore except on the female side.
If you put them on a spread sheet, would you be willing to email me a copy. I'd like to look at the relationships between height, weight, ape index, and climbing levels.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
gandolf
Jul 26, 2005, 4:27 PM
Post #140 of 174
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 119
|
gender: M
age: 44
height: 6'0"
weight: 195
hardest sport: 11
hardest trad: 10D
hardest boulder: V1
ape index: 3"
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 4:33 PM
Post #141 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: If each letter grade represents one unit in difficulty, wouldn't it be more accurate to give the grades new numbers that are one unit apart (convert to an integer scale), take the average, then reverse the conversion?
No. It wouldn't matter if you called the distance between two letter grades 1.0 or .25. Either way, you have the same two problems. First, how does the difference in difficulty between number grades below 5.10 relate to the difference in difficulty between two letter grades at or above 5.10a. Second, what makes you think that the difference in difficulty between two letter grades, say 5.10a and 5.10b, is the same as the difference in difficulty between, say 5.12a and 5.12b? How do you objectively define a unit of difficulty anyway? I contend that the only way to do so is to use the percentage of the climbing population (or a function thereof) who can climb the route.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
schveety
Jul 26, 2005, 4:40 PM
Post #142 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 98
|
Sex: Female
Age: 23
Height: 5'5''
Weight: 120
Average trad: Follow up to 5.10, lead up to 5.8
Average sport: Don't climb sport
Bouldering: V3
Ape Index: -3"
I don't know who has an arm span longer than their height, you freaks.
|
|
|
|
|
mischief8
Jul 26, 2005, 4:56 PM
Post #143 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2004
Posts: 416
|
Sex: F
Height: 5' 4"
Weight: 125 lbs
Trad: 5.10something
Sport: 5.11 c/d
Boulder: Don't know
Ape Index: -4"
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 5:02 PM
Post #144 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: It's like grading "on the curve" -- I refuse to accept it -- ratings/grades must reflect the reality! But making the ratings statistical, ie population based, is the only way to make them objective. How else could you possibly define a unit of difficulty, except by relating it to the proportion of climbers in a population who can succeed on routes given that rating. I mean, what makes a 5.15a a 5.15a rather than a 5.14d, other than fewer people can do the route. And, for a rating scale to make much sense at all there ought to be a common distance between points on the scale. That is, the differnce in difficulty between a 5.14c and a 5.14d should be the same as that between a 5.14d and a 5.15a; otherwise, the scale is pretty silly. So, how do you define that interval? It seems to me that the most sensible way is to make the rating proportional to some simple function of the proportion of climbers who can succeed at that rating. One such function, which happens to have nice properties for statistical analysis, is the log-odds (ie, logistic) function. -Jay Well, since the formula includes the climbers' onsight level, one might hope that after enough samplig the consistency will be reached. In that respect your proposal is different from "the curve". Otherwise, the population based approach is meaningless -- e.g., next time I go to my home town, I can setup a 5.4 route that exceptionally small fraction of the local population will be able to climb -- ;). And I doubt that any of the LA 5.12 climbers will go there for climbing vacation to ensure adequate rating -- ;).
For a population-based method to be valid, the sample (of climbers) has to be a representative sample of the population. If your local climbers suck (compared to the general population), then using them as the sample would lead to misleading results.
Terms for the climber's skill level and the interaction between skill level and route rating are only needed if you want a model that can be used to make valid prediction's about a climber's probability of success on a route of a particular rating; clearly, that is a function of both his skill level and the rating. But if all you want to do is to relate YDS ratings to objective, understandable difficulty levels, a simpler model should suffice. A simple logistic model logit(Yij) = a + bXi, where Xi is the rating of the ith route, and Yij = 1 if the jth climber was successful on the ith route, or 0 otherwise, would probably fit such data well.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Jul 26, 2005, 5:14 PM
Post #145 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
In reply to: I am only accepting female stats from this point on.( come on ladies). Thanks for you responses so far. Averages # of Females in data: 17 age: 27.4 yr height: 5' 4.9" weight: 126lbs hardest sport: 5.10d hardest trad: 5.8+ hardest boulder: V2 ape index: 0.7" # of Males in data: 72 (including me) age: 27 yr height: 5' 10.8" weight: 164lbs hardest sport: 5.11b hardest trad: 5.9+ hardest boulder: V5 ape index: 1.5" PS. I apologize for omitting ice climbing, I will try to include it for the next time I do this (next year maybe). Thank you also for the other categories that I can add (like 'years climbed', that would have been a nice one).
As I suspected, the average female climber is totally hot, and can climb too!
Hello ladies. :D
Skinny
|
|
|
|
|
renohandjams
Jul 26, 2005, 5:26 PM
Post #146 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2005
Posts: 616
|
I just realized that your data entry process sucks. Why didn't you just make a poll with all of the variables you wanted and then have the poll add it up for you? I just realized that someone has had to go through every page and add in each new variable, very inefficient and time consuming. Work smarter not harder.
|
|
|
|
|
stonefoxgirl
Jul 26, 2005, 5:38 PM
Post #147 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 595
|
gender: female
age: 28
height: 5'8"
weight: 135
hardest sport: 5.10d
hardest trad: 5.7
hardest boulder: V4
ape index: 0.0"
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Jul 26, 2005, 5:41 PM
Post #148 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I think Jay brings ups some interesting concerns regarding difficulty. I think it would be a right tailed distribution and concur that you'd need to use some form of conversion (although not necessarily logistic).
Also, I know this is self-report data so you're going to have desirable response bias. For instance, everyone wants to have a high ape index whether they have one or not. I was involved in a statistics test where we looked at ape index and found that, on average, it doesn't exist. From that experience I'm really suspicious of people self reporting their measurements as opposed to having someone else measure. For instance, 8a.nu did a site poll and found that their members "claim" to have something like an average 6 inch ape index - BS!!! At least the results provided here are much more conservative. I guess I'm just urging people to look at the results with a grain of salt. For example, do all the "real" people you climb with actually climb V5 or just the internet climbers?
|
|
|
|
|
screamer
Jul 26, 2005, 6:06 PM
Post #149 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2001
Posts: 214
|
I agree with renohandjams. Make some multifaceted poll.....What is the average climber? Once a month, weekend warrior, etc...Are we talking people who think climbing is a hobby or a lifestyle? Am i average if i climb on the weekends an occasional midweek half day or full day, some week or longer road trips thrown in to mix things up, obsess about it when i'm not climbing..Get emotional about sending/not sending..Oh yeah drinking lots of beer...
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Jul 26, 2005, 6:10 PM
Post #150 of 174
(13378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
In reply to: do all the "real" people you climb with actually climb V5 or just the internet climbers? |
|
|
|
|
asandh
Jul 26, 2005, 6:21 PM
Post #151 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
jw11733
Jul 26, 2005, 6:31 PM
Post #152 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 65
|
In reply to: How do you objectively define a unit of difficulty anyway? I contend that the only way to do so is to use the percentage of the climbing population (or a function thereof) who can climb the route. -Jay
Interesting.
On the first try, or redpoint? If we look at the fraction that can climb the route onsight, then your definition comes down firmly on the side that the "hardest single move" is not all that matters in the grade. For example, take a 60 foot route on which half of all 5.12 climbers fail. Now make it 120 feet with moves of about the same difficulty, at least some of those 50% who made it will fall on the top half, so the route will be graded harder by definition, even though no individual move is harder.
|
|
|
|
|
tavs
Jul 26, 2005, 7:10 PM
Post #153 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2002
Posts: 303
|
Ok, I'll bite. I'm female.
age: 26.5
height: 5' 4.5" (I'm damn proud of that half inch, so don't try to take it away!)
weight: 130
hardest sport: 5.12a
hardest trad: 5.10
hardest boulder: V6
ape index: +1"
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Jul 26, 2005, 8:15 PM
Post #154 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
gender: M
age: 10
height: 4.83 feet
weight: 80 lbs
hardest sport: 10a
hardest trad: 5.6
hardest boulder: ?
ape index: -0.083
gender: F
age: 8
height: 4.5
weight: 69 lbs
hardest sport: 10a
hardest trad: 5.6
hardest boulder: ?
ape index: +0.06
gender: F
age: 34
height: 5.9
weight: 158
hardest sport: 5.9
hardest trad: 5.6
hardest boulder: none to claim
ape index: -0.06
|
|
|
|
|
pglorie
Jul 26, 2005, 8:30 PM
Post #155 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2005
Posts: 14
|
In reply to: gender: F age: 8 height: 4.5 weight: 69 lbs hardest sport: 10a hardest trad: 5.6 hardest boulder: ? ape index: +0.06
For real?? Thats awesome :-)
gender: M
age: 22
height: 185cm
weight: 71kg
hardest sport: 10d
hardest trad: 5.9
hardest boulder: V2
ape index: +7.5cm
|
|
|
|
|
bler
Jul 26, 2005, 8:52 PM
Post #157 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 302
|
gender: M
age: 24
height: 5'11"
weight: 145
hardest sport: 5.11c
hardest trad: n/a
hardest boulder: v4
ape index: +2
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 27, 2005, 2:34 AM
Post #158 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: If you put them on a spread sheet, would you be willing to email me a copy.
Not a problem. it isn't pretty, but i will answer any questions you have.
In reply to: I just realized that your data entry process sucks. Why didn't you just make a poll with all of the variables you wanted and then have the poll add it up for you? I just realized that someone has had to go through every page and add in each new variable, very inefficient and time consuming. Work smarter not harder.
I wanted to be able to play with the numbers and get stuff like standard deviation and what not. Speed sheets aren't too bad, and yesterday was laundry day, so i had some time.
In reply to: I know this is self-report data so you're going to have desirable response bias.
I was thinking it would be off too, but i couldn't think of a better way to get data. I may actually be guilty of skewing my ape index by an eighth inch to get that even 5".
In reply to: ....What is the average climber? Once a month, weekend warrior, etc...Are we talking people who think climbing is a hobby or a lifestyle? Am i average if i climb on the weekends an occasional midweek half day or full day,...
this reminds me that i want to add some categories next time, but i didn't want to make it too long so that no one would reply.
i was thinking maybe: years climbing, and possibly adding categories for hardest onsites, max # of chin-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
felixthecat
Jul 27, 2005, 3:29 AM
Post #159 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2002
Posts: 59
|
gender: f
age: 24
height: 5'2
weight: 124
hardest sport: 5.11
hardest trad: 10a/b
hardest boulder problem: v6
ape index: 2+
|
|
|
|
|
tattooed_climber
Jul 27, 2005, 4:22 AM
Post #160 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
age: 20 yr
height: 6'2"
weight: 170lbs
hardest sport:
hardest trad: 5.10a (lead)
hardest boulder: v5
ape index: 1+
|
|
|
|
|
erbolache
Jul 27, 2005, 5:10 AM
Post #161 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 65
|
gender: M
age: 29.2 yr
height: 1.72 m
weight: 57 kg
hardest sport: 6c+
hardest trad: 6c
hardest boulder: V4/5
ape index: mmm, dont know what this means
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 27, 2005, 6:19 AM
Post #163 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: # of Males in data: 78 (including me) age: 27.5 yr height: 5' 10.8" weight: 163lbs hardest sport: 5.11b/c hardest trad: 5.9+ hardest boulder: V4/5 ape index: 1.6"
Jesus, average appears to be pretty piss-poor around here. :lol:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 27, 2005, 6:21 AM
Post #164 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: # of Males in data: 78 (including me) age: 27.5 yr height: 5' 10.8" weight: 163lbs hardest sport: 5.11b/c hardest trad: 5.9+ hardest boulder: V4/5 ape index: 1.6" Jesus, average appears to be pretty piss-poor around here. :lol: Curt |
|
|
|
|
iclimbtoo
Jul 27, 2005, 6:26 AM
Post #165 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Posts: 645
|
We need more people pushing some trad!
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 27, 2005, 6:32 AM
Post #166 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: do all the "real" people you climb with actually climb V5 or just the internet climbers? actually, almost all of the "real" people i climb with climb well over V5, I'd say between V6 and V14, averaging around V8. this is of course omitting the odd RC.commer that I've run into. :angel: |
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Jul 27, 2005, 6:46 AM
Post #167 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
In reply to: Shut it, pierced nipple boy ;) |
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 27, 2005, 6:49 AM
Post #168 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: Shut it, pierced nipple boy ;) weren't you the one that got upset because my piercings didn't show up well enough in the pics you took of me climbing that thing that was well over V5? :wink: |
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 27, 2005, 6:49 AM
Post #169 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Not to change the subject, but ikefromnewpaltz, how are things going on the east coast for you?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
deschamps1000
Jul 27, 2005, 12:03 PM
Post #170 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
gender: M
age: 25
height: 5'11"
weight: 175
hardest sport: 5.11d
hardest trad: 5.11a
hardest boulder: V7
ape index: never measured
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 27, 2005, 12:27 PM
Post #171 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
gender: Male
age: 45 yr
height: 6' 2.5"
weight: 198lbs
hardest sport: 5.11b/c
hardest trad: 5.10+
hardest boulder: V3
ape index: ?
|
|
|
|
|
screamer
Jul 27, 2005, 2:07 PM
Post #172 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2001
Posts: 214
|
gender: Male
age: 33 yr
height: 5' 11"
weight: 168lbs
hardest sport: 5.13a
hardest trad:
hardest boulder: V6/7
ape index: ~+1
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Jul 12, 2006, 8:38 PM
Post #173 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
I would guess that 40% inflated their #s by 20%
A little honest humiliation here :?
44yrs old
5.10ft. tall
190lbs :shock:
lead grades.
10b sport.
10b trad. (if the gear is good)
Grade 5 water ice.
Boulder. 5.10 (what you need them gay V grades for anyways)
|
|
|
|
|
climberterp
Jul 14, 2006, 12:21 AM
Post #174 of 174
(13889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 386
|
huh, well, not sure why I never responded last year, but better late than never, I guess! :P
gender:female
age: 31 yrs
height: 5'3"
weight: 105
sport: 12a
trad: 8
boulder: v6
ape: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
