UKC

...something which has been puzzling me for some time now (and has come to a head with my reading of the Steve McLure article in On The Dog this month). He is about 5'6", and weighs about 9 ¼ st. Most other "top" climbers I can think of (Moffat, Moon etc.) have similar profiles. before anyone says it yes I know there are exceptions (tall Pete Oxley for example) and, er, slightly less than thin John Dunne, but you've got to admit, in general the point is fair.

Is there some biomechanical reason why this should be the case? And how come I am only 9% taller than Steve (6'0") but about 35% heavier (and anyone who says I'm fat I'll see later!). Is it something to do with weight to finger strength ratio? Centre of gravity? Any physiology experts out there who can answer?

Nic

Short legs = high ape index. Short, but with a disproportionately looooong reach. Makes me sick.

Ben and Jerry will be surprised to hear that they have both shrunk by about six inches

Never seen the stats, but Ben looks about 5'10" and Jerry an inch or so shorter.

Steve McLure has an ape index of zero, which kind of rules out the short legs theory. I think that short climbers have to resort to technique when a long reach is involved. I am a short climber (5'7", ape index zero) but I can link holds that are further apart than many of my taller friends can. As short climbers are forced to learn good technique earlier to progress it stands to reason that a few short climbers will go on to excel. Another example of a short climber with amazing technique is Johnny Dawes. He is tiny.

ben moon has an ape index of +2 if thats of any help

Monk, I think you're right, look at Lynn Hill and Katie Brown, about 5'1" apiece. And because short people are not necessarily weaker-muscled than tall ones, they may have a better power to weight ratio as well.

If your 9% taller then I'm guessing you're also about nine percent broader as well. Side to side and front to back. So if you're nine percent broader in every direction then your volume is larger by about 30% which isn't too far off 35%.

Good analysis - hadn't thought of that. I think you've also proved I'm about 5% fatter (which I would concede!)

Nic

I have an ape index of +3.5, and I'm crap. Mind you, I do have a very shallow, sloping forehead, non-opposable thumbs and am very good in trees.

its the same with surfing - i met tom curren once then the world champ, i nearly squashed him and i was only 14 -

the reason is that lower centre of gravity means you have better balance, and makes it easier to move your centre of gravity around, when youre tall its much easier to get your equilibrium messed about by your gangly limbs

i love being short its ace

paul

What about Martin Boysen then, he wasn't exactly small when he was at cutting edge. He may be gangly on the ground but on rock he was langerous and flowed up the routes, smooooth man.

Just imagine what would happen if a really tall gangly beanpole got strong and bold and learnt excellent technique! I await the results (wish I was that person....)

Hoopy floopy,

Greg

Why would a tall person having a higher centre of gravity matter? Surely it is all relative?

I think I agree that as short people have to learn better technique, then they can climb harder than most of us tall people.

How come most of the hard boulder problems have been done by the big lads then.

cuz they've got technique and ability to reach the few holds that there are...

ever thought that beacuse the person is smaller, the holds relative to the person are bigger... therefore easier to hold so we can dyno easier to reach the next hold which is just a reach with small holds for a tall person.

is that how you 'climbed' that E7 then or was that due to your 'big' belayer hauling you up it cos you 'small'?

Paul
(in a bad mood becasue ive got to work today)

The best thing about being tall is women,what woman in her right mind would wany to be seen with a 5-6" 8 stone weakling.

erm my girlfriend i think

paul

Here's a different perspective.

What if it's because a majority of *climbers* are short?

Further more a top piece of scientific reseach* from the 70's suggests that '..most climbers climb to prove their manhood and cope with an inferiority complex.'

Perhaps they are suffering from Napoleon Syndrome ('I am a repressed dwarf with a need to prove myslef by trying to achieve world domination through violent struggle/climbing hard in a dark cellar').

Hmmm.

(*Ref: 'The Eiger Sanction')

not a weakling, no, but if he can climb well and knows how to belay who cares how tall he is?!!

Pete Livesey was pretty tall. QED.

That's a crock. It all depends on the area. I lived by Smith Rock for four years. All the good climbers there are tall (except for Franklin & lynn hill. It was frustrating being too short to reach the chipped pockets with your feet on the chipped edges...

Shorter people (such as myself) tend to have better technique than those of lanky people. My climbing partner is taller than me and tends to be able to reach certain holds that i can't but the problem is that he uses his hands too much and not his feet. With small people we use our feet to obtain the next hold alot more than a tall person. Thats what i think neway, tall people look for the next hand hold that they can reach then go for it, whereas small people work themselves upto it by the use of there feet. Small people also tend to have a better sense of balance and therefore can get into certain positions that tall people can not. This better sense of balance is linked with the lower centre of gravity we have. Again i've seen this with my climbing partner where he can't do a certain move because his body won't let him, yet i find it very easy.

Dave

unless you are franklin or lynn hill, or beth rodden...

Er,
Going back to the original message,Moon, Moffatt, Dunne and Smith are all at least 5'11". But then alot of other awesome dudes are tiny. Maybe it's more to do with motivation, commitment and a good dose of tecnical ability (which may be learnt?)

yeh but the tehnique varies depending on your size, being small makes some moves easier, not having big legs that get in the way, but some move harder, so are there two different sports?

tall climbing and short climbing?
and does that mean there should be two grades?

SA(short arse) 1 to 10
LB(lanky bastard) 1 to 10

PAUL

Marginally geeky but: Weight increases with the cube of height, so for a nine percent height difference you should be 29% heavier. Body tension also suffers with height, the bending moment applied by your heavy arse requires much greater forces from your stomach and back to maintain a good position and stop your feet coming off. Most hard routes are viciously overhanging, so good body tension is required. It would appear that aboout 5'9" is about the ideal height in trading off strength, body tension, reach and human psyiology (sp?). Take away the steepness and all sorts happens, e.g. me being good at slabs (at 6'4").

how do you explain people who are 5 foot who weigh 15 stone, and 6foot tall folk who weigh 9 stone? that 'weight increases with cube of height' sounds like a load of s*&^*!

"Moon and Moffatt are at least 5` 11!" Err, then I must have grown a bit. I am just about 6` and messrs M and M were noticably shorter.

No it's correct. He is talking relative to the same person - if they were 9% taller then they would also be 29% heavier. That's the only way you can decide whether or not there is an optimum height ie. everything else is equal (muscle size, power, stamina, boldness, hair colour, personal life, etc.) apart from the height increase. Now all we need to do is find someone who we can do the experiment on.

Alan

Alan wrote:


Clearly, the optimum height is about 5 inches. Those lizards in Sella can crank all day on NO holds. Awesome.


See ya,

al

Exactly - I remember seeing Moffat at Frogatt about 5 years ago and thinking at first he was some 12 year old (...or maybe it was the squeaky voice...harsh but fair). He can't be any more than 5'9"?

Nic

OTE #84:<br>

bens statistics - <br>
Height: 178cm, 5' 11"<br>
Weight: 64kg, 10st<br>
Ape Index: +2<br>

There you all go, we believe OTE and they say he's 5' 11"...

sorry about the <br>'s

It's easier for a short person to get a good strength to weight ratio. I think the bones of of a tall person are thicker, stronger and heavier realtive to the body mass. Take an elephant. His legs are three times as long as mine (I'm 6'3"), but the bones are for sure more than three times the size and weight of mine.

Also, as someone mentioned, it has to do with the length of the limbs and upper body. It's simple mechanics. The force needed to support a weight two ft from your body is more than doubble the force needed one ft out.

So there´s only one way to go (if you're tall)- get big and strong, like Alex Huber. And keep them legs skinny...

Ludvig wrote:

>Take an elephant.

Excellent analogy. As you get heavier, your nose gets longer. Yes.


See ya,

al

>Going back to the original message,Moon, Moffatt, Dunne and Smith are all at least 5'11".
>But then alot of other awesome dudes are tiny

So some of the best climbers are really tall. And some are really short. And, presumably, some are average.

Well, you certain find some unexpected information on this board...

You're on the ball today, eh? Did you have a contribution to make to the discussion?

Maybe he was slouching. Or maybe it was an unsuspecting twelve year old out for a spot of bouldering who couldn't understand why you kept staring at him.

I am 6 foot tall and have an ape of +1" climb E6 on agood day fall off E1 on a bad day
Looking for 5 10" blond belayer to enjoy days out at the crag

Small people cant be better climbers!
Women are mostly small, and they cant climb for toffee!!!

that will get the replies flying in from the no tails

5'1; 6.5st,blonde,petite,female and livid!!!!!!,can't climb never tried!!!!but going straight out to take up the challenge!!!!!!!

Rachel are you looking for a good looking long haired blond with a good physique to climb with? There must be some gorgeous looking guy you can drag up some climbs. See, its not sexist,just in your mind.

As to how you're 9% taller and 35% heavier.....

I think I know the mathematical answer.

First- assume you're a sphere (don't take this personally)

Increase the radius of a circle and it's area increases by power of 2 (ie squared)

Increase the radius of a sphere and its volume will increase by power of 3 ( ie cubed)

You're weight is proportionate to your volume so.... I think that's it. That's why King Kong doesn't exist. he'd overheat and collapse under his own weight. Which is good news for whoever owns the Empire State Building.

Its also the reason why I climb lige a bag of spuds



Regards

The Goat

it seems that in a maelstrom of feminist pique i have set myself the challenge of learning to climb for 2001!!!!!!
HELP!!!!!! where exactly do i start??... i could be accused of getting off the original subject, but as i am very, very short, and therefore will soon turn into an ace climber, i think i'm justified in staying online!!!!!!!! anyway i'm interested to discover just how sexist and elitist you lot really are!!!!

I suggest as a start that you find someone competent (male or female!!)to take you to a climbing wall somewhere. Then you can start to see what you've let yerself in for!! Do some training on the wall for a few weeks and when the weather gets a bit better (it's best if it's actually warm enough to you can feel your fingers while you're climbing) it'll be time to do it for real - outside. Good luck!!
Sorry - not very sexist or elitist really....

Rachel - get in there and just get it done. I learnt to climb by climbing, and I think that that's the best way. As for anyone who's there watching you, well, they're not doing exactly what you're doing at that exact moment, so do what you have to do when it needs to be done (with regard to proper safety stuff, please, as I did - that's why I'm not dead yet.) You don't need me to tell you this. Sod body-shapes, as referred to in the title. Or not - the thing is, I would love a scientific explanation of why _my_ body shape is the best for climbing. Until that explanation is forthcoming, I will climb so as to give evidence toward that possible explanation. Get some product knocked out (as a namesake of mine said once)!

Happy climbing.

Greg

Boulderpete,did you just step out of the dark ages or something?Hello,I'm female and 5'1" and I can climb!I may not be all that but i've only just started properly.Also some woman are not always small.We may not have the macho strength of you guys,but at least we try.
Ohh and good luck to Rachel,you should really give it a go,
don't be put off by cave men like Boulderpete here.

I WAS QUITE AMUSED TO INEVITABLY OBSERVE THE LATER COMMENTS BEING REDUCED TO A QUADMIRE OF SEXUAL DEPRAVITY.IT WAS REMENISCENT OF DISTURBING OCCASIONS WHERE I HAVE FOUND MYSELF IN THE DARKEST DEPTHS OF N.WALES' CHARMING,QUAINT MARKET TOWNS (CAERNARFON&LLANGEFNI)ON A FRIDAY NIGHT.SCARY CONCEPT.

As you may or may not have guessed ^^^ that ^^^ boulderpete is not me cus the server is different, the email address aint there and he spelled my name wrong (its BoulderPete not Boulderpete), thank you very much mister name nicker...

P.S. Good luck to all the lady climbers mentioned, good on ya

It is so transparent.Statement of fact.I literally despise generalisations,but one must certainly admit a high proportion of"vertically challenged"people-whom some callous persons may interpret as short arsed fuckers,pocess a tangible need to prove and define themselves.I can deffinetly see similarities between such persons and annoying,yappy little dogs.The sort which it is disturbingly gratifying to discretly kick, whilst their doting patron is otherwise engaged.They are renond for their desire to make their prescense felt,this is undeniable.Other than ratty dogs and egocentric climbers,this amusing phenomoneom is readily observable in numerous,varied fields-don't even contemplate accusing me of being a femenist.The requirement of smaller persons to assert themselves is well documented through history.I feel my lap dog,flea magnet,similie quite apt and appropriate.I'm 19 and rapidly beccoming disillusioned with the climbing fraternity.Picturesque,yet profoundly issolated village,Snowdonia.Not so quaint in the winter, no snow?Ophelia@hotmail.com

When it comes to short climbers, I'm one of them. When I first started climbing I kept complaining that I was too short to reach anything (mainly indoors). I'm about 5" (I think... I'm Norwegian and don't really know the inches thing. 1.55cm anyway...). The people who taught me how to climb kept moaning, and said that it is no advantage to be tall either. After I'd climbed a while, I understood. You just have to develop more technique to start with when you are short. You can't always reach the handholds just by standing there... But the balance is normally better when you are short. There is something about this in "Performance Rock Climbing", the book. So short girls, don't give up. You've got the opportunity to be good climbers as well.

Are you one of the Borrowers then?(aparrently that they are excellent climbers!!) or do you mean 5' and 1.55m

Are you one of the Borrowers then?(aparrently that they are excellent climbers!!) or do you mean 5' and 1.55m

I always remember the responce to an interview that the then Director of PyB gave,in which he recalled how he used to take the 'cartering staff' at the Brenin climbing in his spare time. The response to his comments from a member of the staff, printed in the same magazine in its next issue: castigated this:'short legged'fat arsed 'bastard.

I cannot think why I wrote that - anyway, he is not one of 'the best climbers' and apparently, he is - short!

Happy New Year to all...
Dennis...

Sharma is at least 6 feet and Klem Loskot is also 6 feet, Fred nicole is 5 11 and Jim Holloway stands 6 4 I believe. Maybe you tall ones should
just boulder.

Well, I could be one of the borrowers, but I think I just wrote it wrong... I'm 1.55m that's right. Short am I anyway, and I keep wearing out my climbing boots. I have to smear up the wall quite often. You kinda get used to that when you're short... Hmmm. if I was one of the borrowers, I could have a tiny climbing wall in the house, that would have been nice

Your point about having a tiny climbing wall is well made and perhaps should be noted by the climbing wall routesetters - merely making the holds further apart to increase the difficulty is not a clever option for short people. I've noticed this phenomenen alot recently esp. at Brookes Amersham and Birmingham. How about it? more imagination and less of the spreading out of holds should work a treat.

Spreading out holds is a pain sometimes. There are climbs I don't even bother to try, because I know I won't make them. Like C-climbs is impossible. Can't do them. Have to stick to a and b. I have noticed the spreading out in Birmingham a bit. I go climbing at the Rockface every week, so I know the place quite good. But I shouldn't compain, because there are a lot of routes which are really good as well. It's just a pain when you try the same route week after week, and can't do it. And you watch people who aren't as good as you climbing, and they can do it just because they are that little bit taller.

I climb with Cecilie, the one you have quite amusingly nicknamed a "borrower".

I'm a bit the opposite, at 6'5" I can reach all the holds she can't, and I can get my foot that little bit higher... BUT I can not do bum starts to save my life, and there are several climbing moves which are very difficult to taller people, who tend to get bunched up and require more strength to get through.

There's also a weight issue. I'm quite slim but can never realistically be below 12 stone (80Kg?) because of my height, so that's what my arms and legs have to cope with when they are hauling me up a route.

The fact is there are pros and cons to being tall or short, each to their own.

Russ.

Pros and cons yes but not being able to do a 'bum' start is no great handicap - when on real rock do you do a bum start anyway and so what? at Birmingham you still have the rest of the 14m of route that you can do. If the holds are just too spread out 'cos the route setter has no imagination then you're just stuffed.

I'm not really bothered about the bum-start thing, 99% of the time I climb for the enjoyment of climbing and that doesn't include getting my arse wet just to prove my worth on a boulder problem when I'm enjoying a day at the Roaches. Just a bit annoying when the majority of competitions around seem to be bouldering comps and they all include a heck of a lot of tricky-for-lanky-people bum starts!

I have only ever done one competition but was put off, seemed like a nice idea at the time but not my cup of tea, especially after the bum-start fiasco.

I'm sure there are some lanky competitors out there whom this affects?

Russ.

Birmingham have also been known to set bum starts where you had to be well over 6ft to even touch the first hold One where lanky bods have an advantage, but, wrt the "spreading-out" thing they seem to do rather a lot, not very good route-setting IMHO.

I guess I am a Borrower then... You probably saw me on tv.. Climbing all those furnitures. Well, well... I'll stick to climbing walls and on rock I think.

and iam 5.10

So rachel - How's the climbing going.......?

i am 5.11!

and I'm 5.12a/b so there !

But that ain't as good as 5.11!

But who's got the biggest pecker?

Has this got the record for the longest running topic yet??

you're up late!!!

Yep! It is the longest running topic. The closest that I could find was Mutinity Crack with 59 replies a few pages back... Seems like more and more people are using this board.

I live in Hong Kong, so in fact its the opposite, i'm in the office too bloody early

95 replies to Jerry and his pof.