UKC

What's the point of Ape Index's?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Frank4short 08 Sep 2007
Seriously i've been hearing a lot of talk about ape index's both here & in the general online climbing communities for well basically, ever. Now as those that know me are familiar with the fact that i'm quite lanky. So if i have an ape index of say -10cm it still means i have a big reach as i'm tall. Anyway the point is if i was say a short arse with simian tendancies & an ape index of say +20cm then i'd still have not a whole hell of a lot of reach to say a taller person.

So my point is i see no logical reason for this constant reference to a figure that as far as i can tell is irrelevant between people of different heights (or basically everybody). Why not just have a reach index of toes to fingertips at full extension? Surely this is a more sensible reference for comparison.

So with all of the aforementioned in mind can anyone give me a good technical reason for the use of ape index's when refering to one's self of anyone else in climbing comparisons?
hugedyno 08 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short:

You're way behind, sonney, I say you're WAY behind....

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=212286

HD.

OP Frank4short 09 Sep 2007
In reply to hugedyno: Yeah but it still doesn't answer my question. It's a different question in it's own right.
 Smitz 09 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short: Well you see it's top trumps for climbers! Except there's no trading if you win
 Smitz 09 Sep 2007
In reply to Smitz: Actually I did a serious scientific study while I lived at the orange house, where I was able to plot people's ape index versus their best onsite flash. Absolutely no correlation whatsoever between APE index and climbing ability.
 kingholmesy 09 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short: I suppose the idea is that it's good to have long arms so you can reach distant holds. However, while in some instances it is good to have long legs also (again to maximize reach to help reach distant holds), sometimes it is a disadvantage to have long legs, e.g. those arkward foot-to-hand type moves and other hunched up stuff that as a lanky bastard I'm always whingening about. Therefore if you have long arms but short legs, and hence a large ape index, you maximize your reach while avoiding the disadvanges of not being able to get your foot into difficult tucked up positions. That my guess anyway ...
OP Frank4short 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short: Anyone able to give me a serious answer on this?
 Smitz 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short: In reply to Smitz:
> (In reply to Smitz) Actually I did a serious scientific study while I lived at the orange house, where I was able to plot people's ape index versus their best onsite flash. Absolutely no correlation whatsoever between APE index and climbing ability.

sir do you doubt the seriousness of my study or the veracity of my account? It vexes me that you besmirch my name and you will taste my glove shortly if an apology is not forthcoming.
hugedyno 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short:
> (In reply to Frank4short) Anyone able to give me a serious answer on this?

Yeah, its all a load of bollox. For example:

Someone with extreeeeeeeeeemly wide shoulders, short arms, short legs and virtually no neck could be in 'positive-ape'. It's just TOTAL height/TOTAL width ratio, after all.

HD.

 ayuplass 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short:
> (In reply to Frank4short) Anyone able to give me a serious answer on this?

this is the best i can do. One of my climbing mates has an ape index of +2 inch, mine is -0.5, we are about the same heigh (im taller if anything) but theres a route at the walll that i cant do cos i cant reach a certain crucial hold while he can easily reach it. thats all i have to add
 kingholmesy 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short: My answer amy very well not have been particularly convincing (it was merely a guess based on no evidence and all of about thirty seconds thought), but I can assure you that I intended to post a "serious" answer ...

 Flash 10 Sep 2007
Would a sensible measure not be total height (at full stretch) so the distance from the floor to the tips of your fingers when your arms are straight above your head?
Wingman 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short:


caveat - I am totally guessing here...........

1)It might be something to do with biometrics. Height of head above the ground correlates with centre of gravity correlates with balance - therefore a low height of head above the ground (well actually C of G would be around the torso, but that's not the point) with a long reach is better.

2) Weight is important in climbing. I'd rather have reach through (relatively speaking) lightweight arms, rather than a heavier long torso.

Just a couple of ideas to put into the pot........

TimS 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short: Ape index is only really useful when combined with height. It gives a good excuse for why someone a similar size to you made a reach that you couldn't: obviously they have a larger ape index rather than locking furhter, moving dynamically, etc...
hugedyno 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Flash:
> Would a sensible measure not be total height (at full stretch) so the distance from the floor to the tips of your fingers when your arms are straight above your head?

.....old news.....

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=212286

HD.

Sam M 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Smitz:

I thought we had decided that was why Rich was so good!

You had an invite to my do on Facebook!!!

Sam x
karl walton 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short:
So people with long arms can feel superior, I'll settle for any reason.
loulou 10 Sep 2007
In reply to Frank4short: wikipedia states its a load of cobblers acording to some recent medical studies whch are quoted.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...