UKC

The recent thread about the route ' Kayak ' got me thinking.

I don't know if anyone's ever thought about this statistic before, but there's been a couple of times when I've found a bodylength reach to be quite useful whilst climbing. I'm talking about ' absolute reach ' ie. from finger tip to toe. A popular example would be the route ' Wings of Unreason '. Another time I thought about it was whilst stretched out under the roof of ' Charlie's Overhang '.

Everybody goes on about ' Ape Index ', but really, its more about absolute span when you're stretching horizontally between holds. The ratio of span to height is of no consequence. Similarly, there are moves out there where an ' Apex Index ' is similarly important. Since I've invented the concept, it won't invole a ratio to height, as the length of someone's neck ( ie. part of their height measurement ) is meaningless.

Okay, get the tape measures out. I'll start the ball rolling. Remember, stand on your toes ( but tips aren't allowed, for all you ballerinas out there ! ) and reach as high as possible. Twisting the torso IS allowed if it increases your reach. For argument's sake, measure from the floor to the tip of your longest ( hopefully the middle ) finger.

My ' Apex Index ' is...............

101"

HD. :-0)

In reply to hugedyno: 88" - told you I was a shortarse...

In reply to hugedyno: And there was me thinking this was going to be about everyones favourite hole in the ground

In reply to willhunt:

which hole is that then?

mines the one at the junction between sefton park road and ulet road you can get a snmall child in it if you stand on their head.

In reply to hugedyno:
105" for me.

In reply to hugedyno:
Theres no such thing as strength problems - only reach problems...

In reply to hugedyno:

I thought ape index was the difference between your height and your reach, for example my ape index is about +1 inches.

J

In reply to Ropeboy:

Yeah, true. But your height effectively means ' dick-all ' when it comes to spanning between 2 holds. What matters is your actual reach. eg Someone 5' 2" could have a +6 Ape Index and therefore span 5' 8". Someone 5' 10" could have a -1 Ape Index and therefore span 5' 9". So its a useless ratio IMHO.

This ' Apex Index ' is to do with what you can reach static, whilst standing with your toes on a small foothold and reaching as high as possible.

Its just a bit of fun, but might add fuel to the odd ' easier for the tall ' argument concerning some routes.

HD.

In reply to octopus:

I think you've got that quote the WRONG WAY ROUND !

lol!
HD.

PS. What's your Apex Index ?

In reply to hugedyno:

I thought Ape index was how long your arms are in proportion to your body (so a high ape index results in you looking like an ape), but maybe i just imagined that up. If so, you would have less mass to lug up and more arm muscle

In reply to Andy Cantrell:

Unless you've got really fat short legs, a fat ar5e and gut and thin arms lol !

Or you could have very wide shoulders, short arms and a ridiculously short torso...... and medium legs !

The combinations are endless.....

HD.

In reply to hugedyno:

Disagree. You're saying it as if every move is straight up. What about undercuts, sidepulls, etc? If your ape index is small but you're tall it's not going to help slapping sideways to an arete.

Think about the difference of someone who's 6 foot with -8" ape index, and someone who's 5'8" with +8. You say they're both the same because the 5'8" man can reach straight up the same distance, but he has a big advantage on all the other moves too, and will be able to do rockovers easier. Plus he'll actually weigh less because his 'actual reach' comes from his arms, whereas the tall mans comes from his body.

In reply to squeek:

For argumen't sake, I've made the ApeX Index a static measurement from tip to toe. You can have major holds under a roof where this would apply as in the ability to hold a static stretch, rather than cutting loose.


Yeah, but a neutral Ape index for a 6'er is still greater than the 5' 4" + 6" er. So what I meant was that Ape index can sometimes be a bit misleading.


Let me clarify. This ' Apex Index '( which I invented, and now wish I'd named differently to avoid comparisons ) is purely to do with full stretch. In this framework, both your above examples would be equal. Other ( eg. ' Span ' measurements ) are outside the scope of it.

My problem with the Ape Index, is that your ' height ' is made up of the following:

Head/Neck
Torso
Legs

all of which can vary in ratio. You could be identical to someone in every other aspect APART FROM having a 2" shorter head/neck, which would give you a +2" larger ' Ape Index ' and absolutely no anatomical advantage for climbing.

Cheers,
HD.

In reply to hugedyno:

<<hangs head in shame>>

81"

I am *such* a shortarse.

In reply to rockclimbingtigger: 87-88" in bare feet!

In reply to hugedyno: im 5'10.5 and my ape index is 6'2

In reply to hugedyno:

Apex index 91" and I'm 5'8"

In reply to Gybebunny: Ah, a +23 Apex index! Mine's +22

In reply to hugedyno: I'm about 102".

In reply to hugedyno:

101" definately relevant, if ya can't reach the hold yer stuffed

oh and i've an ape index of +5

i've heard there are routes which are easier for the short folk
but i'm glad i have the reach

In reply to yeti: Hmm, looking at people's profile pages (for hardest climb achieved) there doesn't appear to be much (if any) correlation between Apex Index and climbing level.

In reply to Marc C:

Ape index +1 though.

I'm really getting into this measurement lark now.

In reply to Marc C:

aye i'll hold my hand up to muppetry and punterdom

and not updating me profile

though i havn't done anything impressive

still lookin at that hvs, and i know a few good climers so
it should be easy to go do it